# Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts



## erionm

Found this posted on the member website:


> *Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts*
> 
> To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, reducing Vacation Point requirements for Friday and Saturday nights.
> 
> In addition to better reflecting the changes in Members' vacationing patterns, the adjusted charts make accommodations more affordable during many popular Walt Disney World® events, such as Mickey's Very Merry Christmas Party and ESPN The Weekend.
> 
> To make this change possible, Vacation Point requirements for some instances of Sunday-Thursday stays are now higher. However, a full week's stay will essentially cost the same amount of Vacation Points as before.
> 
> To view the adjusted Vacation Points charts, click on the "View Vacation Points Charts" link in the "Plan My Vacation" section of this Web site (located on the right side of the page).


----------



## jekjones1558

Thanks for posting this.  Off to the member website to check it out.


----------



## mybabesuz

not sure if this is good or bad... 

Well the trip I just booked for Dec2009 would be 28 points less...
But, the trip I was planning for Dec 2010 will be 2 points more...
It will be 215 points for a 2BR AKV Standard instead of 213 
and I will only have 214 points... 1 point short ! Thanks DVC !

Thanks for posting...


----------



## jekjones1558

I am surprised that the changes are as extensive as they are.  The adjustments are also larger than I would have expected.  This doesn't affect us because we generally have stayed for 7 days.  But I can see that it might encourage some folks who have stayed non-DVC or cash on weekends to just use points for the sake of simplicity.


----------



## BillPA

Just one more reason to sell. The new management team needs to be replace.

Good bye folks.


----------



## erionm

mybabesuz said:


> not sure if this is good or bad...
> 
> Thanks for posting...


It's better for us.  Currently we stay mostly Thurday to Sunday.  For our September stay at AKV in a 1BR Savanna View, the number of points needed dropped from 113 to 102.


----------



## Mattsmommy

I don't like the change. We added on at HHI to stay a week every summer in a one bedroom s-thur


----------



## erionm

.


----------



## PrincessDuck

Mattsmommy said:


> I don't like the change.



They have to adjust these points if they are lowering the weekend points.  It all has to equal out in the end for the total chart.  So, if they take some away they have to pop back in somewhere.

ETA..you changed your post while I was posting..


----------



## brandip22

Personally, I like the change. But, we like to go starting on a Friday for a week but then also the next fri and sat to get extra days in. It'll save me about 20 points, which is nice. Might can fit in another day with that. But, we don't do the cash for weekends thing or just Sun-Thursday as we are not able to go down more than once a year. For us, it'll make it a little cheaper on points.


----------



## Mattsmommy

PrincessDuck said:


> ETA..you changed your post while I was posting..



Sorry... I read the opening post again and did not want to repeat the same info.


----------



## dd08

Don't really see a big change at AKV.

Was going to stay for 6 nights in a 2 bedroom in '10.  Originally was going to cost 240 points, now going to be 238, not a big difference that i see.

What am I missing that has *some* people nervous and upset?


----------



## Deb & Bill

How much longer until we see this message:

In order to make vacation reservations easier for our members, DVC will be changing to 7 day vacations only.  Booking will begin on Saturday and extend to the following Saturday.  On the four day of your stay, you will have your towels refreshed, trash emptied and toiletries renewed.  We feel this will make planning and scheduling your vacations much easier.  These changes will allow housekeeping to schedule all full cleaning on Saturdays once guests have checked out and prior to newly scheduled arrivals.  In addition to making this easier for our members, we expect to have some cost savings from the changes in housekeeping. 

To assist with scheduling your vacations, MS will be open longer hours on Thursday and Fridays.  However, they will be closed Monday through Wednesday.


----------



## aurorafan

I'm not sure how this will play out for us.  Right now we're Sat.-Fri. kind of people, but as my oldest DS gets into Middle School I'm looking at trying to finagle long weekends (generally Thurs.-Mon.), so it might help out there a bit .  

It will be interesting to see how it plays out and what people's reactions are.  Between that and the new booking policy it seems like a lot of changes in the last year...

Thanks for posting this as I'm just starting tonight to plan our 2010 vacation!


----------



## bookwormde

I cannot say I am surprised, especially since BLT had a different weekday/weekend ratio. As a weekday only person it will cost me more points for the same stay, guess I will have to go to the member site and see how bad it is.

bookwormde


----------



## Maelstrom_

What's with the 2010 point charts?  All of the Sun-Thu points per night have been increased!  They lowered the Fri-Sat points per night, but to make up for it, they increased Sun-Thu.

I don't think that's fair!  When I bought my membership I bought an amount of points that would give me a certain number of Sun-Thu vacations every year!  Now I don't have enough.  My guide swore to me that the points per night rates were locked.  I am really upset over this.


----------



## tubtruck

One word "HIDEOUS"


----------



## bobbiwoz

Wow, really?  Well, the total number of points for a resort can't change.  Is what you're saying across the board?  All resorts?  We take lots of weekend trips because DH has "lost" some vacation days..cutbacks.  I could be happy with this.

Bobbi


----------



## Leanne1977

This is not great for us. Coming from the UK we tend to have holidays of 3 weeks or more. So we simply don't have enough points at the moment to stay on property at the weekends. So this is going to cost us more points for our Sun-Fri stays. But it certainly won't force me to stay onsite for the weekends, its still far too costly points wise for us.


----------



## bethy

Since we have school to contend with we always stay 2 weekend nights.  Also we do not like to switch rooms or resort while on vacation.  So for us this is probably good news.


----------



## bobbiwoz

By 2010, DH may be retired, and so, we're a bit too late to enjoy the benefits.  For now, DH has fewer vacation days, so we go long weekends.  I'm going to the web site now.

Bobbi

PS.  It gives us a break for Marathon weekend 2010!  But it does a job on our VB trip in June, hopefully in a beach cottage.  Good and bad, about what we all can expect, I guess.


----------



## JCW

From the member website:

"Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, reducing Vacation Point requirements for Friday and Saturday nights.

In addition to better reflecting the changes in Members' vacationing patterns, the adjusted charts make accommodations more affordable during many popular Walt Disney World® events, such as Mickey's Very Merry Christmas Party and ESPN The Weekend.

To make this change possible, Vacation Point requirements for some instances of Sunday-Thursday stays are now higher. However, a full week's stay will essentially cost the same amount of Vacation Points as before."

For us, this doesn't really make a difference as our stays are usually a full week or longer anyway.


----------



## Chuck S

I'm happily surprised to see that it really has little impact on our normal vacation habits.  Our currently booked June 2009 studio reservation of 8 nights will be 6 points less in 2010, and our recently completed December 2008 1 bedroom stay of 10 nights (we're not going until January 2010), will be 7 points more.  Overall a one point increase per year. 

More work for Bill and his vacation planner program, though.


----------



## twebber55

can you provide a link because i cant find it anywhere..would be curious as well because this could really hurt me


----------



## dis-happy

Wow, I am not a happy camper.  We always made good use of the Sun-Thurs. points, do 3-4 trips a year, and stretch those points out.

Our annual trip at BCV in May/early June goes up 4 pts. per night for a 1 b/r or 5 pts. per night for a 2 b/r.....that translates to 25 more points for the 2 b/r!  170 pts. vs. 195 pts.  With a 210 pt. contract at BCV that makes a big dent.

Makes me glad we didn't add on at BLT.  DVC is starting to lose some if its luster imo.

Now off to see how messed up my standard view rooms at BWV has become....


----------



## erionm

twebber55 said:


> can you provide a link because i cant find it anywhere..would be curious as well because this could really hurt me


The 2009 and 2010 Point Charts are posted on the member website.


----------



## Cindaddy

Maelstrom_ said:


> What's with the 2010 point charts?  All of the Sun-Thu points per night have been increased!  They lowered the Fri-Sat points per night, but to make up for it, they increased Sun-Thu.
> 
> I don't think that's fair!  When I bought my membership I bought an amount of points that would give me a certain number of Sun-Thu vacations every year!  Now I don't have enough.  My guide swore to me that the points per night rates were locked.  I am really upset over this.



Agreed.  This may keep me from signing that contract.


----------



## DebbieB

I suspect that they are having difficultly with open rooms on weekends. 

I usually book Saturday to Friday.  For my AKV 6/14-20 stay this year in a savannah view studio it was 105 points, next year 110.   BWV 12/5-11 in a 1 bedroom bw view is 155, next year 158.


----------



## JCW

twebber55 said:


> can you provide a link because i cant find it anywhere..would be curious as well because this could really hurt me



From the member site home page, click on News(at the top), then What's New.  Scroll down the page and it's one of the links of the newest announcements (I think it's the third or fourth news item in the list).


----------



## Lynne M

Maelstrom_ said:


> What's with the 2010 point charts?  All of the Sun-Thu points per night have been increased!  They lowered the Fri-Sat points per night, but to make up for it, they increased Sun-Thu.
> 
> I don't think that's fair!  When I bought my membership I bought an amount of points that would give me a certain number of Sun-Thu vacations every year!  Now I don't have enough.  My guide swore to me that the points per night rates were locked.  I am really upset over this.



It may or may not seem fair, but it's allowable under the contract.  Your guide may have not have explained it clearly, but the TOTAL NUMBER of points for a resort is fixed.  Per-night points are not.  In other words, if they decrease the point requirements for certain days, dates, villa types, etc, they must increase point requirements for some other day, date, or villa type, so that it balances out - so that the total number of points remains the same.

But, regardless of what your guide said, it's explained in the contract.

For some people, this will be a bad thing. For others (like me), it's great.  It means I can do more Fri-Sat stays, which means I can use fewer vacation days.   Sorry that it didn't work out well for you.


----------



## AUTigerFan

I am disappointed.  We are Sun-Thurs people, and only have 150 points.  I know that this was a possibility and allowable, but I am still disappointed.  I'm sure we will adjust our habits, like not inviting family to go with us and making due with one bedrooms and studios.


I do look forward to some of the more dramatic posters take on this.


----------



## Chuck S

Lynne M said:


> It may or may not seem fair, but it's allowable under the contract.  Your guide may have not have explained it clearly, but the TOTAL NUMBER of points for a resort is fixed.  Per-night points are not.  In other words, if they decrease the point requirements for certain days, dates, villa types, etc, they must increase point requirements for some other day, date, or villa type, so that it balances out - so that the total number of points remains the same.
> 
> But, regardless of what your guide said, it's explained in the contract.
> 
> For some people, this will be a bad thing. For others (like me), it's great.  It means I can do more Fri-Sat stays, which means I can use fewer vacation days.   Sorry that it didn't work out well for you.



To expand on this...somewhere in your Public Offering/Contract info there should be a maximum possible adjustment showing the points per night if the charts were re-allocated so all seasons/nights were equal.


----------



## twebber55

to put it nicely the sunday through thursday crowd (ie me) just got thrown under the bus...i realize its legal just doesnt seem fair


----------



## bobbiwoz

Chuck S said:


> ..
> More work for Bill and his vacation planner program, though.




That was one of the first things that I thought of, more work for Caskbill!!


----------



## jlewisinsyr

I don't think its a big deal in the big scheme of things, but I think the total weekly points is a problem.

We bought the number of points to stay one week in a one bedroom savannah view.  Now, looking at the charts, the point requirement is one higher.

Although I realize they can do this, the fact that they say a "To make this change possible, Vacation Point requirements for some instances of Sunday-Thursday stays are now higher. However, a full week's stay will essentially cost the same amount of Vacation Points as before" is incorrect, because one point is one point.  You cannot add on one point to adjust for this.

Also, this change effects AKV Kidani, which anyone who purchased, hasn't even stayed at yet, and already are seeing a fairly major adjustment.

When Disney does these things, they need to consider the impact of those decision in terms of people needing more points.  One point is one point, there isn't an option to buy one point.

I plan to call my guide and member services about this to see what can be done.  I also find it somewhat interesting that this is after they just raised the point requirements at some resorts in addition to the price increases.


----------



## square pond

I have to say..I think it stinks too! The only way it stays the same is if you go for seven days. If you only go for a weekend it is good but what if you want to go 8,9 or 10 days? You now have to use more points for those extra nights!!


----------



## twebber55

its a big problem for people who stay sunday - thursday my stay at HHI will o up 25 points which i dont have...this could lead me to sell my points which i dont want to do


----------



## dtheboys

I trusted my guide ( he told me points will never change), and I  did not read  the contract word for word....
I personally did not think the points per night could ever change...
Oh well, live and learn, but not happy w/ DVC playing w/ the points system.


----------



## dizzneebabe

Wow--now I'm really upset!   I figured the overall weekly points would stay the same, just adjusting for weekday vs. weekend.  We JUST added on 25 AKV pts so that we could go every DEC (1st week) in a 1bdrm Sav. view.  It WAS 205 pts., which is what we have.  Now in 2010 the same week will be 206!!!!!!  One pt short????  

Perfect...a magic stay in BLT 1bdrm LV is now 1 pt LESS than what we have.  So now to travel when we want, I will no longer be able to make a one week stay at AKV...I'll only be able to reserve 6 days and then WAIT 4 months for my ONE EXTRA BLT point to become available so I can HOPEFULLY reserve day 7!!!!!

Sorry for the caps, but I'm ready to throw up now.


----------



## DebbieB

square pond said:


> I have to say..I think it stinks too! The only way it stays the same is if you go for seven days. If you only go for a weekend it is good but what if you want to go 8,9 or 10 days? You now have to use more points for those extra nights!!



Some of the weekly totals have changed also.   I'm just glad they did not reallocate the seasons, I like early December.


----------



## december14disney

Im kinda upset too. We could get SOOOO much out of our 160 points doing Sun-Thurs stays. Since the weekly point values are the same---this doesnt help me at all. Thank god we didnt buy a small 60 point contract thinking we could do Sun-Thurs stay almost any time of year. Id be SO mad if that happened. ......


----------



## bookwormde

Wow this is a lot more than just a weekday /weekend realignment, they have realigned the rooms sizes increasing the 2br and reducing the 1br and realigned the seasons raising the dream season and lowering adventure and choice.

Of course most of my reservations are 2br weekday dream season. Looks like about 40 more points per vacation.

For BW owners it looks like a part of the standard discount is gone for weekdays.
 For some grand villas the weekday/weekend ratio actually went the other way.

Looks like some standard/savanna allocation shifts also

Anyone remember where the list of how many of each type of unit is in each resort.
I have an spread sheet I did for BLT which calculates the total points for each resort, I would like to check and make sure none of the total points in any resort changed.

bookwormde


----------



## dianeschlicht

Poor Bill!  I just had a nice meet with him, his wife and brother, and we were discussing how each change means a LOT of extra work for him.  

I guess I don't see this as a huge difference, since it will mostly mean that folks will "reallocate" how they vaction to catch up to new point charts.  If weekends are now less and some week night are now more, folks will start arriving and departing differently to take advantage.  Well, except for those of us who book by the week and look at it by the week....Things wont change as much for us.  I'm speaking blindly though, since we are currently at Disney, and I haven't been able to compare the point charts from '09-'10.


----------



## Cindaddy

Since I haven't joined, yet, would someone be able to post the 2010 points for BLT (adventure season, MK view for studio and 1 bedroom)?  I can't find them anywhere and, obviously, don't have member access yet.  It would be greatly appreciated.  My potential contract was based on exact point counts that, I'm sure, are now incorrect. Thanks.


----------



## goofygal1975

I was also wondering if someone could post the new points. We just bought at BLT today and I figured out points off a chart I found online. Now I'm wondering if we bought enough for the trips we will be taking. (we haven't signed the contract yet)

Thanks!


----------



## tubtruck

Caskbill will have to get busy  


Personally not happy at all.


----------



## JimMIA

All of this stuff they've been doing the last 2-3 years has *zero *to do with improving the membership experience.  *It is 100% about maximizing DVC profits and Jim Lewis' bonus.*

In the long term, I think all these changes are a bad idea, because they make DVC a very unstable and unreliable vacation choice.  These decisions are a classic example of something that is good for an organization short-term, but bad in a strategic sense. 

I would *not* recommend that anyone buy DVC today, because who knows what it will be tomorrow.


----------



## jlewisinsyr

Just sent the following to DVC:


			
				My Letter said:
			
		

> Dear Sir/Madam,
> 
> This is in regards to the 2010 points adjustments made.
> 
> Upon reading a non Disney owned web forum, I was alarmed that there was a note that the 2010 point charts were released and that there were major changes at all of the resorts.
> 
> I was alarmed for two reasons, one I did not receive notification of this change and two, this change has a significant impact on my travels.
> 
> When I purchased my ownership interest in Animal Kingdom Villas (Kidani) in September, we walked through the purchase needs to ensure we were able to stay in Value Season (our preferred travel season) for one week in a Savannah view room.  Our guide walked us through the point requirements, advising that we would need 205 points to satisfy our requirement.
> 
> Although our home resort was not yet finished, we decided to purchase our interest and closed in the end of September.  As we start 2009, our first allotment of points were credited to our account but could not use prior to the opening of Kidani Village.
> 
> Based on my review of the announcement made on the website, DVC has stated “To make this change possible, Vacation Point requirements for some instances of Sunday-Thursday stays are now higher. However, a full week's stay will essentially cost the same amount of Vacation Points as before.”  This statement is misleading, because it is not true in our case.  For one week, in value season, in a one bedroom Savannah view room, our point requirements are now 206.  Although on paper it doesn’t seem significant, it represents a huge problem in the fact that we are now one point short of our required number of points to stay one week every year.
> 
> I am writing this ahead of having the opportunity to speak to member services, my guide and an official letter to DVC, so please understand this is a large disappointment.  Disney has recently made some major changes to the DVC offering, including changing their contract from II to RCI, increasing the minimum add-on point requirements and increasing the prices of AKV.
> 
> I understand the need to react to member interests, but in this case, it appears ALL member interests were not taken into consideration, and the impact of those utilizing full week stays and purchasing the number of points to achieve this.
> 
> I am hoping an fair and equitable option to help members adjust to this situation is being considering, including offering options to add smaller than the normal minimum number of points to adjust to this change.
> 
> As a new member, I have been excited and both disheartened by the recent changes, often seeing that although DVC states it is Disney’s “Best kept secret” that this best kept secret is not always the good secret everyone wants to hear, rather it is the one everyone is afraid to find out about.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Joseph Lewis
> Animal Kingdom Kidani Member



I recommend if you are unhappy with the change, communicate with DVC, your guide, etc.  This doesn't mean yell at your guide, they didn't make the change, but they are somewhat the ears of DVC, and if they are getting complaints, DVC will hear about them.


----------



## disneynutz

"To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, reducing Vacation Point requirements for Friday and Saturday nights".

Hog wash. Why not be honest, do they think that we are idiots?

What they really should have said:

We want more members to stay on Fridays and Saturdays so we are lowering the required points.


----------



## december14disney

If you look in 2010 vs 2009 AKV all the savannah view weekly points went up by at least 2. I know its only 2 points but still. What if this happens like every other year. Im in this thing for like 50 years right? Pretty soon my desired savannah view will be out of reach! I know value rooms went down---because no one wants to stay in value! I may be over-reacting but I am calling my guide tomorrow. If they raised savannah view in one season they should have at least brought it down in the other seasons or something comparable....

Also...say I wanted to do a Sun-the FOLLOWING Wednesday...like a 10 day trip. While people used to do this to take advantage of lower weekday points...this really impacts our plans for that...


----------



## tvwalsh

I bought 30 points at BLT before the small add ons were eliminated, in order to stay two nights every other January in a one bedroom lake view villa.  I was going to buy exactly 27 points (the price on the 2009 chart), but I have been a member long enough, (since'92) to have seen point rearrangements before, and was afraid this might happen.  I bought the thirty points just in case. 

I feel very sorry for people who will find themselves a point or two short because of these changes.

Most of my points are at OKW and the increase from 22 to 26 point for a two bedroom villa in January, will make my five day stays 20 points more expensive.  On the other hand, I will no longer be as afraid to schedule or  extend my stays to include weekend days.

You win some.  You lose some.


----------



## twebber55

thanks Joseph..again just because its legal doesnt make it right...definitely disappointed in DVC...should i call my guide?


----------



## dizzneebabe

dianeschlicht said:


> I guess I don't see this as a huge difference, since it will mostly mean that folks will "reallocate" how they vaction to catch up to new point charts.  If weekends are now less and some week night are now more, folks will start arriving and departing differently to take advantage.  Well, except for those of us who book by the week and look at it by the week.....


That's what I figured--until I looked.   It throws off everything for us by 1 pt on each vacation.  We're short one point for Adventure season and we have an extra point for BLT in magic.  
It will require us to call MS at least 2x for each vacation during those times, and maybe having to be waitlisted all because we based our purchase price on a "weekly" number of points.  We figured weekly, we were safe.


----------



## december14disney

is that letter true about 205 now being 206 points. Id be so mad. Id make my guide let me spend the 104 dollars or whatever and get that extra point so my year vacations werent messed up.


----------



## bookwormde

Yea I am beginning to feel like I bought into Wyndham Fairfield not DVC. Makes me wonder what is coming, can’t imagine this is going to help resale prices, Uncertainty always hurts a market

bookwormde


----------



## eyeheartgoofy

Wow!  This really stinks!  I just booked my AKV stay for 2009 and _STRATEGICALLY_ left 96 points at VWL for the 2010 UY.  I was planning to stay Sun-Fri at VWL during Spring Break in 2010 for a total of 95 points ... the same stay is now going to cost 105 points and I can't do it!  Of course, the total number of points for the entire week has gone down 5 points for a studio, but it doesn't help us much with our 100 point contract. 

So much for Disney's sales presentation where they help you decide how many points to purchase by looking at the points chart. 

Boo Hiss, Disney!!!

At the very least, I feel like they could have warned us before members were able to start borrowing from 2010 use years.  I borrowed the points 4 days ago ... I could have easily shortened our stay to 6 nights or picked a different room type for the first night _if_ I knew I wouldn't be left with enough 2010 points to cover our planned stay.  When you have very few points, you plan each one CAREFULLY!


----------



## dtheboys

I second that thought!!!


----------



## BeccaG

I must be blind. . I cant find it on the member site, under news or the point chart. . .


----------



## bobbiwoz

BeccaG said:


> I must be blind. . I cant find it on the member site, under news or the point chart. . .



Go to the point chart page, and you see that there are charts for 2009 and 2010.  Then compare.
Bobbi


----------



## beacher

Did anyone save the pdf and can post the new point charts?  Must be heavy traffic trying to view them and the site keeps looping back to the log-in screen.

Thanks in advance,


----------



## dis-happy

JimMIA said:


> All of this stuff they've been doing the last 2-3 years has *zero *to do with improving the membership experience.  *It is 100% about maximizing DVC profits and Jim Lewis' bonus.*
> 
> In the long term, I think all these changes are a bad idea, because they make DVC a very unstable and unreliable vacation choice.  These decisions are a classic example of something that is good for an organization short-term, but bad in a strategic sense.
> 
> I would *not* recommend that anyone buy DVC today, because who knows what it will be tomorrow.




I'd say less about profits and more with cutting expenses.  I'm sure that this will spread out housekeeping costs (and probably reduce some of the complaints about some people not getting into their rooms by 4 pm, thereby making the member satisfaction people look better).  Probably less room turnover too (those who might check out just for the weekend then check back in), which also cuts costs.

Not to say I like it or anything......


----------



## bobbiwoz

goofygal1975 said:


> I was also wondering if someone could post the new points. We just bought at BLT today and I figured out points off a chart I found online. Now I'm wondering if we bought enough for the trips we will be taking. (we haven't signed the contract yet)
> 
> Thanks!




Post #5 gives you links.
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=29820323#post29820323


----------



## toocherie

I got to the page showing the 2009 and 2010 lists, but every time I click on a link to see an actual points chart it takes me to an advertisement page for DVC.  (And yes, I had logged in.)

Edited to add:  It only does this on the 2010 links--the 2009 links work just fine.


----------



## twinklebug

december14disney said:


> If you look in 2010 vs 2009 AKV all the savannah view weekly points went up by at least 2. I know its only 2 points but still. *What if this happens like every other year. Im in this thing for like 50 years right? Pretty soon my desired savannah view will be out of reach! *I know value rooms went down---because no one wants to stay in value! I may be over-reacting but I am calling my guide tomorrow. If they raised savannah view in one season they should have at least brought it down in the other seasons or something comparable....



Point allocation is NOT inflation when one day goes up by a point, another must drop down. There are a fixed number of points sold. DVC doesn't create more out of thin air. Please read Lynne M's quote:



Lynne M said:


> It may or may not seem fair, but it's allowable under the contract.  Your guide may have not have explained it clearly, but the *TOTAL NUMBER of points for a resort is fixed.  Per-night points are not.  In other words, if they decrease the point requirements for certain days, dates, villa types, etc, they must increase point requirements for some other day, date, or villa type, so that it balances out - so that the total number of points remains the same.*
> 
> But, regardless of what your guide said, it's explained in the contract.
> 
> For some people, this will be a bad thing. For others (like me), it's great.  It means I can do more Fri-Sat stays, which means I can use fewer vacation days.   Sorry that it didn't work out well for you.



... and I agree that it's a good thing. I want to stay over the weekend. I have kids in school and it's the only way it makes sense for us.

ETA: My guide clearly explained the shifting of points to me - I'm sure they've all been trained on how to present it, but some folk are better than others at explaining. I will agree that when determining how many points to initially buy DVC has told their reps to have us  pick the vacation we'd like to have every year and buy enough points to civer that... and they do push full weeks. This approach may make those who buy just enough to cover S-Th stays feel like they've been duped. Not so. It's just when figuring your points required for your stay, you forgot to take into account that they may shift up or down.


----------



## jlewisinsyr

The point charts and link just came down!


----------



## lovemyblt

The points charts are all messed up over there, you can't pull them up. 
I really think this stinks.....  I book  Sunday through the  follwowing Wednesday  as  well  and this will throw a wrench in the works. Not to mention my husband is gonna  have a fit- they lead you to believe the points  don't change and they do.  Wow - disappointed


----------



## Chuck S

As tvwalsh mentioned, this is not the first re-allocation of points to happen.  Although previous re-allocations did not affect every resort.  In 1996 at OKW, studio points in Adventure season went from 69 to 80 points per week, which really had an effect on us at the time.  

Also, points were re-allocated at BWV (before very many points were sold) to create the multiple booking categories we see there today.

I know it comes as a shock to newer members, but we "oldsters" have been through this, and know it is possible at anytime.  It _is_ part of your contract.  If your guide mis-informed you that points can never change, you need to speak with that guide.  Even in 1992, when we purchased, our guide informed us of this possibility...and there was only one DVC resort at the time.  The Disney Vacation Club Resort, since renamed OKW.  It is still "The Disney Vacation Club Resort" in legal documents.

There is really never any pre-announcement of point re-allocations, they "just happen"


----------



## starbox

Because we live close enough to make three-night weekend trips attractive - this could have potentially been an okay switch - IF they had equalized points across the 7 nights.  Weekends are still almost double weekdays - which does not make them any more attractive.

Why DVC would take away the low Sun-Thurs stays and negate the choice for members to use points "economically" - especially during tough economic times - makes no sense. 

Lets see - CRO guests get buy 4 get three nights free, a 200 gift card, free dining - and DVC members get their only "bargain" option erased.  Yuck.

This will end up resulting in less nights per trip for us - as we always did 12 nights in a row - taking advantage of only paying one weekend.  Makes buying the AP and adding extra trips less attractive as well.


----------



## Cindaddy

bobbiwoz said:


> Post #5 gives you links.
> http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=29820323#post29820323



She (and I) don't have access to the member site since we haven't signed our contracts, yet. Those links don't work for us.


----------



## december14disney

twinklebug said:


> Point allocation is NOT inflation when one day goes up by a point, *another must drop down.* There are a fixed number of points sold. DVC doesn't create more out of thin air. Please read Lynne M's quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and I agree that it's a good thing. I want to stay over the weekend. I have kids in school and it's the only way it makes sense for us.



I know. I said the values went down. But no one wants to stay in a value they want to stay Savanna  view! Im just saying. This doesnt help the following people: those we stay one week, because the point values are the same for the week total (and in some cases went up for the popular views), those who stay weekdays, and those who do 10 day or so vacations because the weekdays went up. This only helps those who do like Thurs-Sun.


----------



## Batistuta

None of the links on the DVC site work anymore. Not to the news story or the 2010 points charts.  Hmmmmm.


----------



## icsinc

My Product Understanding Checklist given to me at purchase closing reads: "The total number of Vacation Points required to use all Vacation Homes during each calender year through January 31, 2042 can never increase.  The can never increase is even in bold print.  The first resort/room type I checked violates this with the reallocation.  For example, 2009 OKW 2 BR total weekly pts for the year are 1414.  2010 OKW 2 BR total weekly pts for the year are 1415. I know its only 1 pt and f I am wrong please correct me but if not what's next?


----------



## Starr W.

Batistuta said:


> None of the links on the DVC site work anymore. Not to the news story or the 2010 points charts.  Hmmmmm.



The point charts quit working around 8pm ish. DH found it and it was the first thing out of his mouth when I got home from the Kempo/Costco run. He already had VB premier week point total down(up 3 for week). We figured the DIS'ers crashed the site. 

He said the info was posted on another DVC mb a few days ago.


----------



## jekjones1558

> For example, 2009 OKW 2 BR total weekly pts for the year are 1414. 2010 OKW 2 BR total weekly pts for the year are 1415. I know its only 1 pt and f I am wrong please correct me but if not what's next?



I believe that you would need to add ALL size units for a resort for a year and the total point costs for using every room for the whole year at a given resort cannot change.  I have not done the math to see if the new allocations follow the rule of not.


----------



## bobbiwoz

We book different sorts of stays, and for us, things do even out.  I'm unhappy with some, like the BC weekdays that went up, but our Marathon weekend 2010 went down.  If DVC units were not used on weekends that isn't good for members.  I think you need close to 100% occupancy for everyone to be able to use their points.

Bobbi


----------



## eyeheartgoofy

Chuck S said:


> It _is_ part of your contract.



Yes, I understand that it _IS_ part of the contract.  Still, it stinks that they don't give any notice for planning purposes.  

I think it is just a ploy to get owners with smaller contracts (planning to take advantage of the Sun-Thur points) to purchase additional points.  I don't care what type of spin they try to place on it ... people purchased knowing that weekends cost more and, therefore, either planned to pay for weekends with points or planned to avoid weekends because of the points.  Disney did not make these changes to benefit members ... like everything else, Disney did this to increase profit.


----------



## jbrowna

Batistuta said:


> None of the links on the DVC site work anymore. Not to the news story or the 2010 points charts.  Hmmmmm.



That's what I'm finding right now.  The links don't seem to work.  I have to say that this move would/will tick me off as well, since we scrupulously avoid using weekend points.  That being said, I have thought that the point differential between the weekends and weekdays was often extreme -- especially at OKW.  But I dealt with it the way it was, and bought in on that basis as well.


----------



## LVSWL

Well, I'm just going to go ahead and say it. It ticks me off. Yes, lots of times we booked the Sun-Thurs vacation, but that did not mean that Disney lost out. We usually booked a room on member cash or a moderate resort or even a deluxe for Fri. and Sat before and after so they were getting theirs, sometimes on both ends. ESPECIALLY now that they charge more for the retail weekends! So my DH and I are joking that now we will just book DVC F-TU or something and then do retail Wed and Thurs. Shoot, that might be cheaper!


----------



## Tricia1972

Links aren't working for me either.


----------



## BeccaG

So I read someones post that they saved or printed the PDF of the new point chart. . .you want to scan them in for us all? 
Pretty Please!!!!
-Becca


----------



## Batistuta

Starr W. said:


> The point charts quit working around 8pm ish. DH found it and it was the first thing out of his mouth when I got home from the Kempo/Costco run. He already had VB premier week point total down(up 3 for week). We figured the DIS'ers crashed the site.
> 
> He said the info was posted on another DVC mb a few days ago.



The site's not crashed, it appears these have been taken down on purpose. Everything else on the site works. The news headline (Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts) is still there, just can't click it.


----------



## icsinc

Thanks Jean!!  You are probably right.  Unfortunatley, I cannot access the new pt schedule or the MS message to verify.  If you look under the What's New section of News the article title is there but you cannot click on it.  Once I can access the 2010 pts again I will confirm.


----------



## Disney MAINEiac

I can't find the 2010 points chart at the member site, has it been taken down or am I not in the right place?


----------



## toocherie

Batistuta said:


> The site's not crashed, it appears these have been taken down on purpose. Everything else on the site works. The news headline (Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts) is still there, just can't click it.



speculation?

DVC made a mistake and those weren't the right charts . . . .

DVC started getting tons of irate calls and emails and decided to lay low . . . .

??????


----------



## lovemyblt

Disney MAINEiac said:


> I can't find the 2010 points chart at the member site, has it been taken down or am I not in the right place?



they are gone.... for now.....


----------



## bobbiwoz

Cindaddy said:


> She (and I) don't have access to the member site since we haven't signed our contracts, yet. Those links don't work for us.



See, originally the links just took you to the chart, not to loggin in.  Something changed.  Maybe DVC changed their mind! 

I wondered why I didn't get an e-mail...they send e-mails about everything else...this is important stuff!!!

Bobbi


----------



## Dean

A reallocation was inevitable and likely long over due.  Don't be surprised if there are other changes in the next few years that won't necessarily fit well with the members of this board including possibly a minimum stay.


----------



## lovemyblt

toocherie said:


> speculation?
> 
> DVC made a mistake and those weren't the right charts . . . .
> 
> DVC started getting tons of irate calls and emails and decided to lay low . . . .
> 
> ??????




I hope they were  a mistake....
LOL  the conspiracy theorist in me  thinks "maybe they wanted to gauge our reaction"  LOL


----------



## GILL-WDW

If DVC lowers the points can they ever raise them back up or higher?


----------



## pouncingpluto

If they aren't getting high enough occupancy on the weekends, and there's too much demand for weekdays, the balance is off.  It makes sense that they need to periodically adjust for this.


----------



## lovemyblt

Dean said:


> A reallocation was inevitable and likely long over due.  Don't be surprised if there are other changes in the next few years that won't necessarily fit well with the members of this board including possibly a minimum stay.



see now for a newbie this is a scary thought that makes me regret my purchase


----------



## Granny

dis-happy said:


> Wow, I am not a happy camper.  We always made good use of the Sun-Thurs. points, do 3-4 trips a year, and stretch those points out.





DebbieB said:


> I suspect that they are having difficultly with open rooms on weekends.





AUTigerFan said:


> We are Sun-Thurs people





disneynutz said:


> "To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, reducing Vacation Point requirements for Friday and Saturday nights".
> 
> Hog wash. Why not be honest, do they think that we are idiots?
> 
> What they really should have said:
> 
> We want more members to stay on Fridays and Saturdays so we are lowering the required points.



My guess, and it is purely that, is that the Sun-Thurs scheduling of vacations has gotten availability out of whack on the weekends.  I can't remember how many times I've seen on these boards that availability for a requested trip was only open for the weekend dates.

Remember...the reason for the unbalanced point schedule is to try to maximize occupancy every day of the week and throughout the year.  This could be Disney just trying to even the occupancy load as they are supposed to do.

I don't know if this will help us or hurt us.  If weekends become less "expensive" and more attractive this could throw the pendulum too far the other way and long weekend trips tie up weekend nights.

I do agree that if this is an occupancy balancing move, then Disney should have just said that instead of their usual transparent "spin" they try to put on everything.


----------



## simzac

eyeheartgoofy said:


> Yes, I understand that it _IS_ part of the contract.  Still, it stinks that they don't give any notice for planning purposes.



But they did give you notice for planning purposes. No one can book more than 11 months out at any resort, and 2010 as of today is more than 11 months out. Doesn't help anyones situation I know, but they did give everyone enough notice IMO.


----------



## Deb & Bill

GILL-WDW said:


> If DVC lowers the points can they ever raise them back up or higher?



Sure, as long as they raise or lower elsewhere at the resort during the year.  Add up all the studios, one, two and three bedroom villas at the resort and that should give you the number of points available at the resort.  As long as they don't exceed or use fewer points than the total, they can do anything they like.  They could double Christmas week and take a few points here and there to make up the difference.


----------



## december14disney

Dean said:


> A reallocation was inevitable and likely long over due.  Don't be surprised if there are other changes in the next few years that won't necessarily fit well with the members of this board including possibly a minimum stay.



Dean how could they put a min stay if the whole "sell" of DVC is you can use your points anyway you want for any length of stay?   just wondering..


----------



## DebbieB

dizzneebabe said:


> Wow--now I'm really upset!   I figured the overall weekly points would stay the same, just adjusting for weekday vs. weekend.  We JUST added on 25 AKV pts so that we could go every DEC (1st week) in a 1bdrm Sav. view.  It WAS 205 pts., which is what we have.  Now in 2010 the same week will be 206!!!!!!  One pt short????
> 
> Perfect...a magic stay in BLT 1bdrm LV is now 1 pt LESS than what we have.  So now to travel when we want, I will no longer be able to make a one week stay at AKV...I'll only be able to reserve 6 days and then WAIT 4 months for my ONE EXTRA BLT point to become available so I can HOPEFULLY reserve day 7!!!!!
> 
> Sorry for the caps, but I'm ready to throw up now.



Don't throw up, just borrow 1 point each year!   You'll only end up short in the last year of your contract.

I usually stay Saturday to Friday.  I really noticed at OKW that the parking lot by our unit was always close to empty on Saturday, Sunday it would be more crowded.   I would occasionally look at the parking passes when I walked by, almost everyone checked out Friday.   That left rooms empty Friday and Saturday nights that they probably had difficulty filling with cash rooms, especially without a big discount.


----------



## dvc_john

simzac said:


> But they did give you notice for planning purposes. No one can book more than 11 months out at any resort, and 2010 as of today is more than 11 months out. Doesn't help anyones situation I know, but they did give everyone enough notice IMO.



Gave enough notice!!! I think NOT!!!

If you book a 7 day reservation 11 months in advance of check-in date, you can book Jan 1 2010 in 5 days. How many people plan their point usage less than 5 days in advance of calling MS??? 

I had my point usage for all of 2010 planned out. But now that will have to be re-done. And in short order at that.

Once again, MAJOR changes with very little notice!!!!  This is getting old!


----------



## CarolAnnC

Dean said:


> A reallocation was inevitable and likely long over due.  Don't be surprised if there are other changes in the next few years that won't necessarily fit well with the members of this board including possibly a minimum stay.



I agree, it has been quite a while since there has been a shuffling of the points per night.  I can see them heading to a minimum stay - or perhaps for certain units and/or views.  The increase in minimum point add on may be pointing toward this too...


----------



## december14disney

All, I have the AKV chart saved as a PDF on my computer. If any of you want it and cant get to it now because of the site please email me at katie.siloac@gmail.com


----------



## twebber55

its easy for people who already go on weekend to somewhat shrugg this off but for us sunday-thursday families this really is a blow...i realize this is legal but again because its legal doesnt make it right...Disney is losing a day from me on tickets and food...not trying to to be mean towards anybody just am really frustrated


----------



## kiingor

bobbiwoz said:


> Wow, really?  Well, the total number of points for a resort can't change.  Is what you're saying across the board?  All resorts?  We take lots of weekend trips because DH has "lost" some vacation days..cutbacks.  I could be happy with this.
> 
> Bobbi



Is that really true- that the total # of points for a resort never changes-even 10 yrs from now ?   I was under the assumption that they go up maybe 1 pt every few years or something.


----------



## december14disney

All, I have the AKV chart saved as a PDF on my computer. If any of you want it and cant get to it now because of the site please email me at katie.siloac@gmail.com


----------



## pouncingpluto

twebber55 said:


> its easy for people who already go on weekend to somewhat shrugg this off but for us sunday-thursday families this really is a blow...i realize this is legal but again because its legal doesnt make it right...Disney is losing a day from me on tickets and food...not trying to to be mean towards anybody just am really frustrated



I understand being disappointed/upset, but I don't understand thinking that you have actually been wronged in some way.


----------



## Nikisha421

beacher said:


> Did anyone save the pdf and can post the new point charts?  Must be heavy traffic trying to view them and the site keeps looping back to the log-in screen.
> 
> Thanks in advance,



its 2hrs later and i was going to post the same question! the site is still looping.


----------



## eyeheartgoofy

simzac said:


> But they did give you notice for planning purposes. No one can book more than 11 months out at any resort, and 2010 as of today is more than 11 months out. Doesn't help anyones situation I know, but they did give everyone enough notice IMO.



Well, I was able to borrow from my 2010 vacation points.  As I wrote earlier, I specifically planned the borrowing to leave me with enough vacation points at my home resort (VWL) to book a 5 night Sun-Thur stay during Spring Break of 2010.  Now, I don't have enough 2010 points to book the stay.


----------



## twebber55

its quite simple my trip to HH is now 25 points more for 2010 than 2009....and with a spouse who just lost her job we cannot add on at this point.....didnt say i think its unethical or illegal just wrong.....if you are a sunday - thursday person youwould feel the same way....maybe i sound bitter but thats one day every year for for the next 33 years that we have lost because of this...i certainly understand the rules i have to live by with DVC that doesnt mean i think things are laways done right


----------



## pouncingpluto

But wrong in what sense, if not legally or ethically?


----------



## bookwormde

If they are going to change the chart for 2010 they need to have them up by 1/25/09 9 am EST since that is when 1/1/2010 can first be booked.

bookwormde


----------



## msmayor

I don't know...if folks are so outraged by this change (as I've read "being legal doesn't make it right", or words to that effect) then where was the outrage when folks read their contracts?

If you think it's a bad clause, then why did you buy?


----------



## tvwalsh

Clear thinking, bookwormde!


----------



## twebber55

msmayor said:


> I don't know...if folks are so outraged by this change (as I've read "being legal doesn't make it right", or words to that effect) then where was the outrage when folks read their contracts?
> 
> If you think it's a bad clause, then why did you buy?



you dont have to agree with everything within DVC to love it...if i followed this principle my wife would have left me along time ago


----------



## bobbiwoz

kiingor said:


> Is that really true- that the total # of points for a resort never changes-even 10 yrs from now ?   I was under the assumption that they go up maybe 1 pt every few years or something.



They can never change.  It's the number of points at the resort that are declared.  That number is set in stone. OK...that's my understanding.
Bobbi


----------



## dizzneebabe

DebbieB said:


> Don't throw up, just borrow 1 point each year!   You'll only end up short in the last year of your contract.



You're right, I could do that.  The idea was that we had exactly enough to vacation how we wanted to (AKV every year at Christmas or Labor Day) and BLT 2x in 3 years during magic).  It throws things off.  And I feel like I'm lucky--I do have that extra point, it's just at another property.  Some folks sound like they will indeed be short and possibly lose a day (on points anyway) because of it.

Strange...when I first posted on this thread I printed out 2010 AKV and BLT point charts.  I dont' want to cause more uproar in posting them, but if anyone wants them, PM or email me at: rhonda_foss@comshark.com


----------



## HookdonWDW

I listed VWL and BCV on seperate threads on this board. 

HTH...


----------



## Starr W.

tvwalsh said:


> Clear thinking, bookwormde!



Clear thinking and DVC don't often go together.


----------



## eyeheartgoofy

msmayor said:


> I don't know...if folks are so outraged by this change (as I've read "being legal doesn't make it right", or words to that effect) then where was the outrage when folks read their contracts?
> 
> If you think it's a bad clause, then why did you buy?



Look, I purchased 2 years ago.  Prior to the purchase, I inquired about that clause.  My investigations uncovered that the clause really didn't mean much ...there was a "minor" change in points allocations at OKW.  And, I've since learned, that BWV had some adjustments prior to the sales being completed. Other than that, there really weren't any changes.

Say you purchased 350 points at VWL and planned to use those points to stay in a one bedroom for one week every year during the Premiere Season.  Then, the Premiere Season was changed to 450 points for the week.  Naturally, Magic season was reduced by 70 points and Dream season was reduced by 30 points in order to make it legal under the contract.  Wouldn't that upset you in the least if you specifically planned to vacation in Premiere season?


----------



## jekjones1558

> Don't throw up, just borrow 1 point each year! You'll only end up short in the last year of your contract.



Actually you would need to borrow 1 point the first year, 2 points the next year, 3 points the next year, 4 points the next year, etc., if my math is right at this hour of the evening.


----------



## pouncingpluto

eyeheartgoofy said:


> Look, I purchased 2 years ago.  Prior to the purchase, I inquired about that clause.  My investigations uncovered that the clause really didn't mean much ...there was a "minor" change in points allocations at OKW.  And, I've since learned, that BWV had some adjustments prior to the sales being completed. Other than that, there really weren't any changes.
> 
> Say you purchased 350 points at VWL and planned to use those points to stay in a one bedroom for one week every year during the Premiere Season.  Then, the Premiere Season was changed to 450 points for the week.  Naturally, Magic season was reduced by 70 points and Dream season was reduced by 30 points in order to make it legal under the contract.  Wouldn't that upset you in the least if you specifically planned to vacation in Premiere season?[/QUOTE
> 
> Absolutely, but there's a difference between being upset about the change and claiming that you have been wronged by DVC.


----------



## jgus

I think this is more than a minor adjustment.  Add the change from II to RCI, and I think it's more $$ driven than for the benifit of the members.


----------



## MICKEYFAN28

I'm very disappointed with this if it holds true. I do find it odd that it has already been pulled from the site. I am leaving sun for an 12 day trip and will be visiting my guide for sure!!! Hopefully he will have some answers.


----------



## Plutofan

lovemyblt said:


> they are gone.... for now.....



They left up the Vero point charts


----------



## DebbieB

jekjones1558 said:


> Actually you would need to borrow 1 point the first year, 2 points the next year, 3 points the next year, 4 points the next year, etc., if my math is right at this hour of the evening.



You're right.   Assuming, they don't change them again.   It will still take a long time to where you run out and will have to skip a year.

2009:  205
2010:  205 + 1 2011
2011:  204 + 2 2012
2012:  203 + 3 2013


----------



## dizzneebabe

The only thing I see for 2010 is DCL points.


----------



## Plutofan

Just on a side note I was booking a cash reservation through member services and just realized that when I do a cash reservation and there is no discount available I am paying the same price as everyone else (non DVC people) BUT they get maid service.  I spend all this money and non members get more service in this situation than members. DVC members really get burnt... Just thought I would add some bad policies that DVC has to the fire....


----------



## kikiq

twinklebug said:


> ETA: My guide clearly explained the shifting of points to me - I'm sure they've all been trained on how to present it, but some folk are better than others at explaining. I will agree that when determining how many points to initially buy DVC has told their reps to have us  pick the vacation we'd like to have every year and buy enough points to civer that... and they do push full weeks. This approach may make those who buy just enough to cover S-Th stays feel like they've been duped. Not so. It's just when figuring your points required for your stay, you forgot to take into account that they may shift up or down.



YES, YES, YES...I was beginning to think that my guide was the only guide who explained how the point system work (until my eyes crossed).  I think she repeated herself several times and did different scenarios for my DH's benefit, because I was clear that the TOTAL resort points didn't change BUT the season/day points may change at ANY time.  The phrase I remember was "IF the points decrease for this weekend night THEN they have to go up some other night."  We went through several different ways to use points and ended up buying a tad more to take in account a change in the way we may want to vacation.


----------



## starbox

pouncingpluto said:


> But wrong in what sense, if not legally or ethically?



Things can be wrong without being unethical or illegal.  For example, I think it was "wrong" for Disney to get rid of the Mickey-shaped butter at CRT and the glow-in-the dark Sci Fi Diner mugs.   Legal - sure, Ethical - sure - but I still think they were wrong decisions.  

My motto:  Don't ruin the magic.


----------



## dizzneebabe

DebbieB said:


> You're right.   Assuming, they don't change them again.   It will still take a long time to where you run out and will have to skip a year.
> 
> 2009:  205
> 2010:  205 + 1 2011
> 2011:  204 + 2 2012
> 2012:  203 + 3 2013



Yep, you're right.  That's even WORSE!  If I have a banked 2009 BLT point from this year, will I be able to use it to book at 11 months for AKV ?


----------



## twebber55

pouncingpluto said:


> eyeheartgoofy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I purchased 2 years ago.  Prior to the purchase, I inquired about that clause.  My investigations uncovered that the clause really didn't mean much ...there was a "minor" change in points allocations at OKW.  And, I've since learned, that BWV had some adjustments prior to the sales being completed. Other than that, there really weren't any changes.
> 
> Say you purchased 350 points at VWL and planned to use those points to stay in a one bedroom for one week every year during the Premiere Season.  Then, the Premiere Season was changed to 450 points for the week.  Naturally, Magic season was reduced by 70 points and Dream season was reduced by 30 points in order to make it legal under the contract.  Wouldn't that upset you in the least if you specifically planned to vacation in Premiere season?[/QUOTE
> 
> Absolutely, but there's a difference between being upset about the change and claiming that you have been wronged by DVC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Puncing are you a mich fan iused to live in ypsi and love the big Blue....i do not think ive been wronged i just dont like it...it certainly is legal i m on the wrong side of the fence this time..just my choosing of the word wrong..nothing here done illegally just i dont think it is the right thing to do
Click to expand...


----------



## mykidslovesdisney

I have logged into mbr page but when I click on 2010 point charts it reopens the home page for DVC.  It does not do this if I click on 2009 point charts.  Any assistance would the greatly appreciated.  I am nervous bc we pay cash on wkends and worry we will not have enough points now for the week.  We usually stay 8 nights. 

thanks in advance


----------



## Chuck S

Plutofan said:


> Just on a side note I was booking a cash reservation through member services and just realized that when I do a cash reservation and there is no discount available I am paying the same price as everyone else (non DVC people) BUT they get maid service.  I spend all this money and non members get more service in this situation than members. DVC members really get burnt... Just thought I would add some bad policies that DVC has to the fire....



Well, it's true you won't get made service, but there is a good possibility with the CRO reservation that you would need to move.  Booking through DVC gives you a continuous stay.  For one night, for me, the convenience of not moving would trump the maid service.  For several nights, I'd probably opt for the CRO reservation.


----------



## jgus

Go Blue!

And I agree it's not a "good decision"


----------



## Chuck S

mykidslovesdisney said:


> I have logged into mbr page but when I click on 2010 point charts it reopens the home page for DVC.  It does not do this if I click on 2009 point charts.  Any assistance would the greatly appreciated.  I am nervous bc we pay cash on wkends and worry we will not have enough points now for the week.  We usually stay 8 nights.
> 
> thanks in advance




The 2010 charts and the notice (the headline is still there) have been taken offline, at least temporarily.


----------



## mykidslovesdisney

thanks for letting me know.  I am worried we will not have enough pts to stay as long as we do.  guess I will have to sit and wait


----------



## jekjones1558

> If I have a banked 2009 BLT point from this year, will I be able to use it to book at 11 months for AKV ?



No--you could only use that point at 7 months if it is from a different resort.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

Having gone thru this once before, I must say I'm disappointed and surprised.

I have been saying for years that while the points _can be reallocated_ that has happened only once, at OKW in 1996, and that I don't expect any change in the near future. DVC has had opportunity to modify the point charts to reflect usage each time a new resort has opened and SSR and AKV did have different point charts than any of the prior resorts.

I'm really surprised to see that even AKV has changed. I was able to look at OKW and HH before DVC removed the new charts from the member site  and was very surprised at the changes. They will affect us a little bit - especially since we just sold a contract - but we will survive and modify our future plans accordingly.

We all need to be aware of the provisions in the POS and truly do NOT listen to any rhetoric from the DVC guides about points not changing. They have now changed twice in the past 13 years. The change for 1996 was announced in the fall of 1994 - we have traditonally received the new point charts about 15 months in advance - but this time we still have nothing in print and DVC has now even taken down the electronic notice from the member's site. We are within 5 days of being able to  reserve for 2010 and nothing "official" has been sent out or even been made available on the member site.

Stay Tuned!


----------



## Donald is #1

Very interesting, in my case I think that it will basically balance out.  My stays tend to be 7-10 days so I think that I will be ok.


----------



## ABCanada

I have not seen the new charts but my two cents based on the comments.

If this change decreases unit turnover, people no longer moving to lower cost accommodation for the weekend, hopefully it will decrease housekeeping and front desk costs and therefore soften the increases in our maintenance fee. For a 12 day DVC stay where you move to either a lower cost DVC unit or resort room you have two more check ins and one more full cleaning than the same stay staying put.  I would not want to limit stays to weekly basis but I think we should have a point system that encourages people to minimize the turnover and maximize the total occupancy.

Hopefully this increases the total occupancy of the units which should benefit everyone.

Also the ratio of points between studio, one and two bedroom units did seem a bit off and was different from the cash rate ratio.  While a one bedroom is generally twice the size of a studio, given they sleep the same number, I doubt the housekeeping etc is twice the cost.  It is hard to understand why a one bedroom was more than twice a studio but a two bedroom which sleeps twice as many as a one bedroom and has 50% more space only requires 30% more points.  They maybe realigning the points to improve total occupancy.


----------



## Starr W.

december14disney said:


> Dean how could they put a min stay if the whole "sell" of DVC is you can use your points anyway you want for any length of stay?   just wondering..



Wyndham during busy seasons requires 3-4 night stays to check in or check out on Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

Or DVC could make you wait until the 7 month mark to make any reservation less than a week.


----------



## Weluvdisny

Anyone have BWV points saved?  I'm renting points for January 8-10, 2010 and I need to know how many points to ask for.


----------



## PutnamDS

BeccaG said:


> I must be blind. . I cant find it on the member site, under news or the point chart. . .



I can't find it either - and it is not under the 2010 section - at least on my computer!

deb


----------



## huey578

Did they take off the 2010 points chart for AKV?  It's not coming up


----------



## Starr W.

kikiq said:


> YES, YES, YES...I was beginning to think that my guide was the only guide who explained how the point system work (until my eyes crossed).  I think she repeated herself several times and did different scenarios for my DH's benefit, because I was clear that the TOTAL resort points didn't change BUT the season/day points may change at ANY time.  The phrase I remember was "IF the points decrease for this weekend night THEN they have to go up some other night."  We went through several different ways to use points and ended up buying a tad more to take in account a change in the way we may want to vacation.



Our guide also explained it to us also. If he's reading this(he's a casual lurker and knows my screen name) .


----------



## jlewisinsyr

Trying to avoid a what-if scenario, but Disney needs to be aware of how their agents sell the contracts.  Although they do clearly state they can change, the guides sell the points based on the points charts, this could be presented as an issue legally in terms of DVC changing points in the future.  

The guides are Disney employees, and anything the guides say is representative of Disney and the methodology they use to sell points is contradictory to the contract itself.  In most forms of contracts, selling is part of the total package and misrepresentation of the product, regardless of the contract can lead to lawsuits.


----------



## maminnie

I too am very disappointed.  We purchased our initial contract and our add-on contract (two different resorts) with particular seasons and length of stays in mind.  Reservations using both contracts are now effected by these changes.

Once again, what can we do as voicing our concerns and disappointment will likely yield nothing as with past issues with DVC changes and modifications or should I say "MEMBER ENHANCEMENTS"!!!!!

maminnie


----------



## Dean

lovemyblt said:


> see now for a newbie this is a scary thought that makes me regret my purchase


DVC has the OBLIGATION and legal requirement to keep demand and usage within a relatively narrow range.  The main tool they have to do this is by adjusting the points from weekends/weekdays and one season to another.  The overall points won't change.  The only people who should be truly adversely affected will be those that tried to cut it close with a partial week, off season choice or smaller unit (or combo).  That's one of the reasons I've always recommended buying a cushion of points for those looking at specific unit choices.  Nothing scary about it unless one made the mistake of assuming points can't change but not understanding the product they were buying.



december14disney said:


> Dean how could they put a min stay if the whole "sell" of DVC is you can use your points anyway you want for any length of stay?   just wondering..


simple, the POS says they can, up to 5 days.  People have to learn the difference between legal options and hype.  Verbal representations and past hx mean little if not protected in the paperwork.  Whether they'll do, we'll see, my point was to expect further changes over the years and this was a good example I knew would get people's attention.


----------



## Chuck S

Starr W. said:


> Our guide also explained it to us also. If he's reading this(he's a casual lurker and knows my screen name) .




My guide explained this very well to us in 1992, too.  I think, though, that _some_ of the problem for newer members who may _now_ not have enough points could also be that in 1992, 230 points was the minimum buy-in.  I think the 150 point minimum, which was in effect for several years, didn't really allow for additional points in case of a re-allocation.  It really was a disservice to many buyers to have that low of a minimum buy-in.

And, it also would probably be good if Disney had not allowed small resale contracts to pass ROFR, except to people who are already members.  Really, if someone only owns 25 points total through resale, a re-allocation can make their interest almost unusable.


----------



## logan115

Well -

I'm on the fence about buying into DVC, and was originally looking at 75 pt resale contracts that would cover a Sun-Thurs stay in a 1br every other year and part of a studio on the weekend.

Now it's looking like I go up to a 100 pt contract or skip it all together.

Suppose the Sun-Thurs thing was too good to last forever, but tacking on another 4-6 pts/night is a bit harsh.  As I'm not a member I can't see the new charts (if they're even up anymore), but how does the math work that it's  benefit to owners to pay 4-6 pts more 5 nights/week to save even 7-8 on the other 2  

Geez - I've done my own "Disney math" when even trying to justify the viability of buying in, but realistically another 20-30 pts for a 5 night stay is a bit steep.

Chris


----------



## Doug7856

In my opinion, DVC should seek member feedback and should give a minimum of 2 years notice for such a significant change so that members can plan accordingly.  Many of us have made plans for several years out and this is disruptive to our plans based on realistic expectations.  

*DVC is destroying a lot of good will with this move.*  It is shocking for a company that has to survive by repeat business to implement such a controversial change.  This move is very bad for their business model.  I will not be earning any referral bonuses because I cannot in good conscience recommend DVC.  Mr. Iger should be remember that it is very difficult to regain trust once it has been lost. 

Just my opinion, yours may differ.


----------



## erionm

huey578 said:


> Did they take off the 2010 points chart for AKV?  It's not coming up


They have been taken off the member website.


----------



## Mamiamjo

Yes the charts are down. 

looking at what was posted for BCV, if you stay for 7 nights the points are "mostly" the same. Although the week we were planning on going in 2010 the weekly points went UP 2 points. We had exactly the number we needed so now we'll have to borrow 2 points or only stay 6 days 

It seems that if you stay for less than 7 days, including no weekend days (or even one weekend day) you'll end up using more points which will negatively affect a lot of DVCers that stay Sun -Thur. 
It really only seems to help people that will stay less than a week but include both week end days.


----------



## iloveokw

Please don't flame me.   When we bought DVC 13 yrs ago the reason for having higher points on the weekends was so that the members living in Florida or nearby couldn't book up weekends making it difficult for members like us to book a full week or more vacation.  We bought enough points so that we can book and not stay somewhere else on the weekends.  I have already emailed my concerns to MS about not being able to get a weekend when booking because of this change.


----------



## toocherie

jlewisinsyr said:


> Trying to avoid a what-if scenario, but Disney needs to be aware of how their agents sell the contracts.  Although they do clearly state they can change, the guides sell the points based on the points charts, this could be presented as an issue legally in terms of DVC changing points in the future.
> 
> The guides are Disney employees, and anything the guides say is representative of Disney and the methodology they use to sell points is contradictory to the contract itself.  In most forms of contracts, selling is part of the total package and misrepresentation of the product, regardless of the contract can lead to lawsuits.



actually, I suspect somewhere in that contract is a pretty standard clause in real estate transactions that unless it's written in the contract, any verbal or other representation or idea made by an employee (i.e. Guide) cannot be relied upon.


----------



## logan115

What's next - WDW giving away free food to attract people at off-peak times, oh, wait a second........... 

Chris


----------



## WebmasterDoc

jlewisinsyr said:


> Trying to avoid a what-if scenario, but Disney needs to be aware of how their agents sell the contracts.  Although they do clearly state they can change, the guides sell the points based on the points charts, this could be presented as an issue legally in terms of DVC changing points in the future.
> 
> The guides are Disney employees, and anything the guides say is representative of Disney and the methodology they use to sell points is contradictory to the contract itself.  In most forms of contracts, selling is part of the total package and misrepresentation of the product, regardless of the contract can lead to lawsuits.



The contract you must sign has a disclaimer stating that the printed document takes precedent over any verbal communications. While the guides may be misleading at times, their comments do not override the terms spelled out in the POS you will (or have already) signed to close.

In this case, the point charts will not change until 2010, so any comments a guide might make about reservations is still true thru the end of 2009. The written contract still reflects the legal description of the program and is the final word in what was agreed to at closing.

This is the second time such a change has occurred - the last being 1996 at OKW (that change was announced in the fall of 1994).


----------



## jlewisinsyr

WebmasterDoc said:


> The contract you must sign has a disclaimer stating that the printed document takes precedent over any verbal communications. While the guides may be misleading at times, their comments do not override the terms spelled out in the POS you will (or have already) signed to close.



Those same terms and conditions are in many contracts, including insurance and investments, and let me tell you, more then one case has entered class status because of how a product was sold.


----------



## Chuck S

logan115 said:


> As I'm not a member I can't see the new charts (if they're even up anymore), but how does the math work that it's  benefit to owners to pay 4-6 pts more 5 nights/week to save even 7-8 on the other 2




I suppose _in theory_, it could lower resort operating costs by evening out demand for housekeepers and front desk personal, rather than have an overload on Fridays and Sundays, and may lead to getting members into their rooms more quickly.  But, often theory and what really happens, are entirely different.


----------



## pouncingpluto

starbox said:


> Things can be wrong without being unethical or illegal.  For example, I think it was "wrong" for Disney to get rid of the Mickey-shaped butter at CRT and the glow-in-the dark Sci Fi Diner mugs.   Legal - sure, Ethical - sure - but I still think they were wrong decisions.
> 
> My motto:  Don't ruin the magic.



I agree... it wasn't an either, or question... those were the two that had already been eliminated, so I was asking in what OTHER sense.


----------



## logan115

toocherie said:


> speculation?
> 
> DVC made a mistake and those weren't the right charts . . . .
> 
> DVC started getting tons of irate calls and emails and decided to lay low . . . .
> 
> ??????




Ever wonder if the folks at DVC put something on the member site for kicks, then check DIS an hour later and see what the reaction is..........


----------



## pouncingpluto

twebber55 said:


> pouncingpluto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Puncing are you a mich fan iused to live in ypsi and love the big Blue....i do not think ive been wronged i just dont like it...it certainly is legal i m on the wrong side of the fence this time..just my choosing of the word wrong..nothing here done illegally just i dont think it is the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am!  I'm in the law school at Michigan, and my husband is a double Michigan alum himself.
Click to expand...


----------



## vicki_c

iloveokw said:


> When we bought DVC 13 yrs ago the reason for having higher points on the weekends was so that the members living in Florida or nearby couldn't book up weekends making it difficult for members like us to book a full week or more vacation.



Where does it say that's why there's higher points on weekends?  I don't think that's in your membership info.

I assumed it was higher points on weekends because the price for staying on weekends on cash is higher as well (although that wasn't always true).  Or I at least assume that it's about supply and demand - they charge more on weekends because they're in higher demand, even if it seems that most members only stay Sun-Thurs.

I'm not flaming you at all - everyone's entitled to their opinion about the changes, but you say it like that was DVC's statement about the points -- was it?


----------



## huey578

Looking at the new point charts, we will have an extra 2 points. We usually stay a  week (Saturday thru Saturday) in October     I feel for you guys that have to fork up extra points


----------



## Starr W.

logan115 said:


> Ever wonder if the folks at DVC put something on the member site for kicks, then check DIS an hour later and see what the reaction is..........



 Actually there was a big DVC party tonight and after a few drinks, they decide lets see how we can get the Dis crowd wound up. Grab an IT guy and laptop, ta da new point charts and waitlist rule. 

They may have had a pool on how many pages this thread would be by 11pm.


----------



## DVCSAMNH

Wow! I have to say that as a Sun-Thurs traveller I am very unhappy about this one. My husband and I along with our adult kids manage to squeeze about 30 nights/year out of our 350 points.

With even just a 2 pt per night increase that is a 60 point per year loss! That is a loss of a trip per year or sucking it up and purchasing a 60 plus point add-on! That is true for how many of us?? I own a small number of points. What about the big point owners who travel the same way. I can tell you that after this addonitis is cured. I don't trust them to not do this again.

I understand the POS, which I believe a lot of us do, I just don't think any one us ever thought changes would be this extreme. There just isn't enough benefit on the weekend end to make up the difference. The weekend points are still too high.

DVC is making a lot of changes lately and not one of them is making the members stand up and say "Yay!!"


----------



## Chuck S

vicki_c said:


> Where does it say that's why there's higher points on weekends?  I don't think that's in your membership info.
> 
> I assumed it was higher points on weekends because the price for staying on weekends on cash is higher as well (although that wasn't always true).  Or I at least assume that it's about supply and demand - they charge more on weekends because they're in higher demand, even if it seems that most members only stay Sun-Thurs.
> 
> I'm not flaming you at all - everyone's entitled to their opinion about the changes, but you say it like that DVC's statement about the points -- was it?




iloveokw is correct that that was the reason stated by DVC to the early purchasers.  As to whether or not that was the true reason is unknown.  At the time, though, it seemed reasonable, as many timeshares allowed local owners to use the facilities (pools, weightrooms, etc) as "day visitors,"  many still do.  And well, being Disney, many local owners probably would reserve weekends if the points were the same for weeknights and weekends.  But, it may be that there has been too many empty weekend rooms, or too many members moving on weekends the last few years, so they are trying to equalize usage.


----------



## toocherie

our local news (L.A.) just announced that Disney has offered buy-outs to 600 theme park executives because of the drop in attendance, etc.  Not clear if that was just West Coast employees but I'm assuming (hoping?) it's nation-wide and not just out here and there won't be an additional cut on the East Coast.

so you can look forward to less "magic" in the parks . . . . .


----------



## toocherie

Starr W. said:


> Actually there was a big DVC party tonight and after a few drinks, they decide lets see how we can get the Dis crowd wound up. Grab an IT guy and laptop, ta da new point charts and waitlist rule.
> 
> They may have had a pool on how many pages this thread would be by 11pm.



East Coast or West Coast time?


----------



## Starr W.

toocherie said:


> East Coast or West Coast time?



I would guess east coast since they are in FL and they have to go to work on Thursday.


----------



## logan115

Starr W. said:


> Actually there was a big DVC party tonight and after a few drinks, they decide lets see how we can get the Dis crowd wound up. Grab an IT guy and laptop, ta da new point charts and waitlist rule.
> 
> They may have had a pool on how many pages this thread would be by 11pm.




Wait until they announce that the points used for a SV at AKV will increase by 1 pt for every animal you see...........


----------



## Starr W.

logan115 said:


> Wait until they announce that the points used for a SV at AKV will increase by 1 pt for every animal you see...........



Do you have Jim Lewis's office bugged?


----------



## jlewisinsyr

toocherie said:


> our local news (L.A.) just announced that Disney has offered buy-outs to 600 theme park executives because of the drop in attendance, etc.  Not clear if that was just West Coast employees but I'm assuming (hoping?) it's nation-wide and not just out here and there won't be an additional cut on the East Coast.
> 
> so you can look forward to less "magic" in the parks . . . . .



http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2149402820090121?rpc=11


----------



## logan115

Starr W. said:


> Do you have Jim Lewis's office bugged?



No - but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night (would've been at DVC but they just raised the Sun-Thurs rates  ).

Ok - I'm done ..............for now............


----------



## bethy

It just so happens I still have some of the 2010 point charts windows up from before they were taken down.  I have AKV, BCV, SSR and OKW.  If anyone wants some points quotes from those please let me know.  Of course they could change - that might even be why there were taken down . . .


----------



## WebmasterDoc

jlewisinsyr said:


> Those same terms and conditions are in many contracts, including insurance and investments, and let me tell you, more then one case has entered class status because of how a product was sold.




DVC is neither insurance nor an investment. It is a real estate purchase and the "verbal" clause is pretty standard in that type of contract ... and EVERY member has agreed to that provision - either as the original buyer or as the resale purchaser who (tacitly) agrees to the documents already agreed to by the seller.

A (very) few have had their personal legal representative review the documents before signing and that is one provision usually pointed out during that review. Most have not bothered to have that review, but that does not release them from any disappointment later after signing the agreement. If it's something important to a buyer, it would be best to have it included, in writing, in the contract you will sign.


----------



## permavac

WebmasterDoc said:


> ...They have now changed twice in the past 13 years. The change for 1996 was announced in the fall of 1994 - we have traditonally received the new point charts about 15 months in advance - *but this time we still have nothing in print and DVC has now even taken down the electronic notice from the member's site.* *We are within 5 days of being able to  reserve for 2010 and nothing "official" has been sent out or even been made available on the member site*...



Here is an indisputable fact.  While I don't have strong enough feelings at this point about how any point changes will affect me (too few points right now to do much with anyway ), I will say that I knew the possibility was there that the points could move up or down.  What is surprising to me is that there hasn't been any notice given here at the 11th hour.  With all the talk of 11-month bookings and planning ahead, it stands to reason that plenty of DVCers plan a good year or so in advance of their vacations - which means point allocations are being calculated and accounted for.  I know the changes are perfectly legal and I will accept them when they come out, but the lack of notice is... inconsiderate... to say the least.

Terri


----------



## Chuck S

bethy said:


> It just so happens I still have some of the 2010 point charts windows up from before they were taken down.  I have AKV, BCV, SSR and OKW.  If anyone wants some points quotes from those please let me know.  Of course they could change - that might even be why there were taken down . . .



If you are in adobe reader, try saving a copy.  I closed the OKW chart before I saved it.


----------



## ashbradnmom

Doc while i agree with you on almost everything I have to disagree DVC is not an investment. You can chose to invest in real estate or the stock market, but it is still an investment. If you keep it long enough you can make money on it. But i plan on keeping mine for my kids(and myself a big kid).


----------



## jlewisinsyr

WebmasterDoc said:


> DVC is neither insurance nor an investment. It is a real estate purchase and the "verbal" clause is pretty standard in that type of contract ... and EVERY member has agreed to that provision - either as the original buyer or as the resale purchaser who (tacitly) agrees to the documents already agreed to by the seller.
> 
> A (very) few have had their personal legal representative review the documents before signing and that is one provision usually pointed out during that review. Most have not bothered to have that review, but that does not release them from any disappointment later after signing the agreement. If it's something important to a buyer, it would be best to have it included, in writing, in the contract you will sign.



Real Estate or not, many of the same governing policies apply.  Let me clarify, I have no interest in bringing class, or anything on that line, just trying to make a point that sales tactics can be an issue.

Understand, their contract is not bulletproof, someone with the will, want and reason could break it apart, regardless of what is says.


----------



## dvc at last !

Thanks for this info.


----------



## Bunkobeth

I'm new here but with the numbers that were posted for SSR earlier in the thread, I've been adding and all sorts of stuff with the new and old charts.  The points are WAY OFF.  Knowing that the points can't change overall for the charts, I went through and added things up.  The points overall are less for the entire SSR chart but in each category they don't add up correctly.  If you add up each point the 2009 chart  it equals 2056 pts. and in 2010 it will be 2023 pts.
Now, if you look at the weekly rate it gets even more "interesting"

For example:  the 2009 studio points vs the 2010 studio weekly stay
adventure: 95 vs 96
choice: 97 vs 105
dream: 112 vs 112
magic: 123 vs 123
premier: 163 vs 161
overall net change is +7

For the other room sizes the net change for a 1 bedroom is -4, the 2 bedroom is -1, and the grand villa is -44.

I may not be looking at it correctly - but this really upsets me.  If I was to take the same trip I'm taking in 2010 as 2009 it would cost me 28 more points!  Could someone else grab a calculator and see if the points are the same for their resort charts.
I remember the CM telling us that they can reallocate points but the overall value would never change.  My math says the seasons aren't balanced and the entire chart is out of whack.  Therefore, the overall value has changed.
Am I looking at this correctly?


----------



## WebmasterDoc

ashbradnmom said:


> Doc while i agree with you on almost everything I have to disagree DVC is not an investment. You can chose to invest in real estate or the stock market, but it is still an investment. If you keep it long enough you can make money on it. But i plan on keeping mine for my kids(and myself a big kid).



The POS pretty clearly states that DVC is not an investment. IMO, no timeshare is an investment and should not be purchased as such. I have purchased a number of timeshares for pennies on the dollar based on their original selling price and have sold timeshares for no profit at all - and also just sold a DVC contact for $21/point more than I paid for it 10 years ago. At this time you can purchase timeshares in Hawaii for literally a penny and some expire with no bids at that price. Don't purchase any timeshare expecting to make a profit - it is not considered an investment.



			
				jlewisinsyr said:
			
		

> Understand, their contract is not bulletproof, someone with the will, want and reason could break it apart, regardless of what is says.



I wish that "someone" well with their lawsuit - class or otherwise.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

Bunkobeth said:


> I'm new here but with the numbers that were posted for SSR earlier in the thread, I've been adding and all sorts of stuff with the new and old charts.  The points are WAY OFF.  Knowing that the points can't change overall for the charts, I went through and added things up.  The points overall are less for the entire SSR chart but in each category they don't add up correctly.  If you add up each point the 2009 chart  it equals 2056 pts. and in 2010 it will be 2023 pts.
> Now, if you look at the weekly rate it gets even more "interesting"
> 
> For example:  the 2009 studio points vs the 2010 studio weekly stay
> adventure: 95 vs 96
> choice: 97 vs 105
> dream: 112 vs 112
> magic: 123 vs 123
> premier: 163 vs 161
> overall net change is +7
> 
> For the other room sizes the net change for a 1 bedroom is -4, the 2 bedroom is -1, and the grand villa is -44.
> 
> I may not be looking at it correctly - but this really upsets me.  If I was to take the same trip I'm taking in 2010 as 2009 it would cost me 28 more points!  Could someone else grab a calculator and see if the points are the same for their resort charts.
> I remember the CM telling us that they can reallocate points but the overall value would never change.  My math says the seasons aren't balanced and the entire chart is out of whack.  Therefore, the overall value has changed.
> Am I looking at this correctly?



Don't forget that as of June, 2009 SSR will have an additional 60 villas. Be sure to include the points for 60 THVs in your computations.


----------



## Bunkobeth

If I add the THV, that would add 505 points to the chart.  So the new 2010 chart would be 2528. Adding them into the 2009, the points would be 2561.
 So the chart would change again.  According to the 2009 chart points the THV are the same as the 2 BR points.

It still doesn't add up - now the ultimate question - what can we do about it??


----------



## marynvince

WebmasterDoc said:


> Don't forget that as of June, 2009 SSR will have an additional 60 villas. Be sure to include the points for 60 THVs in your computations.



Has anything to do with balancing, whether it's 60THVs or 600. And if the points for THVs are the same as 2 bedrooms as they are in 2009 then they don't matter at all.


----------



## TreesyB

Anyone else still can't find the point charts?


----------



## tjkraz

Bunkobeth said:


> If I add the THV, that would add 505 points to the chart.  So the new 2010 chart would be 2528. Adding them into the 2009, the points would be 2561.
> So the chart would change again.  According to the 2009 chart points the THV are the same as the 2 BR points.
> 
> It still doesn't add up - now the ultimate question - what can we do about it??



Even without a reallocation the total points will vary from year-to-year.  There are years when February has 29 days.  There are years when Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Eve and New Years day all fall on a high-priced weekend and other years when they are weekdays.  There are years when July has 5 weekends and years where it has just 4 weekends.  

I don't know the exact methodology used to determine the starting basis for the point calcuations.  Could be a multi-year average or some other baseline.


----------



## Cindaddy

I'm dying to see the chart for BLT.  I hope they put them back up soon.


----------



## Plutofan

Every other year we do a Beach cottage in June for a Sunday - Friday.  Now with the point change it will now cost us 50 extra points - a 19% percent increase.  Also we bought enough AKV points so we could book a Grand Villa for 5 nights.  So much for that... It is interesting that the Sunday - Friday DVC members will have to buy more points.  Can you get the small amount of points by resale - well it will be expensive with commission and fees and probably hard to find.  Mmmm.  I guess I will have to call my guide to do a small add on.  Thanks Disney.


----------



## ems_mom

I haven't read all the posts but my here's my two cents...

I just bought a BLT add on for just enough points to allow me a 5 day 1 bedroom stay every third year, with banking and borrowing. I realize within the life of a contract, DVC has a right to reallocate points.

*But I just bought a week ago and the resort isn't even open yet!* My guide should have given me a heads up or they should allow me to buy 5 more points. 

Seriously, isn't this called bait and switch?


----------



## Plutofan

TreesyB said:


> Anyone else still can't find the point charts?



I wonder if Disney monitors the boards.  I posted on  aboard about 1 1/2 hours ago that all the 2010 point charts were missing except Vero.  That chart was still up.  Well now that chart is now missing.  Be sure to post your comments since they do read the boards....in between updating point charts and doing other things for our benefit.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

Bunkobeth said:
			
		

> If I add the THV, that would add 505 points to the chart. So the new 2010 chart would be 2528. Adding them into the 2009, the points would be 2561.
> So the chart would change again. According to the 2009 chart points the THV are the same as the 2 BR points.
> 
> It still doesn't add up - now the ultimate question - what can we do about it??



You  have to look at the TOTAL number of points for the whole resort - based on each season and each villa type and each view for the entire year. The addition of 60 more 2BR viilas (THVs) does certainly change the total for the year and it's quite a few points - although as of right now - no THVs have been declared into the 2009 inventory as far as I know.

Adding 60 THVs is far more than 505 points for the whole year (or even 7 months).

At this time DVD still owns ALL of the THV points and until some of those units are declared into DVC inventory, nothing changes regarding the total points available at that resort.

To figure out the totals for SSR, take the total points needed to reserve a Studio, 1BR, 2BR and GV for every night of the year and multiply that by the number of Studios, 1BRs, 2BRs and GVs at the resort - then add the points at the declared THVs to get the total number of points at the resort. That will equal the points that cannot be changed for the resort. DVC can reallocate those points as they wish over the year as long as the total needed for reservations equals the total available. There is also some annual variation based on when the holidays fall and the number of days in February, etc.

You cannot look at one type of villa or one season - you need to total all villas and all seasons. You may also need to subtract the number of points owned by DVD (2-4%) to figure the actual total used to compute the charts.


----------



## AnnaS

Subscribing.


----------



## tjkraz

Random thought:  Don't know if anyone else brought this up but it ought to be interesting to see what this does to the rental market.  Some are already lamenting the fact that points "only" rent for $10-11 each.  Now renters could be facing a 10-15% increase in the number of points needed for each weeknight.  

The gap between rental prices and CRO rates just got that much smaller.  

As for the change, intellectually I know it was the right thing to do.  There is no way weekend nights should have been double weekday costs.  The purpose of the charts is to balance demand and it just wasn't working in that regard.  

The foundation of DVC is for the resorts to be near 100% occupancy year-round.  If the weekends are priced that much higher and occupancy falls-off dramatically, we're all in trouble.  As the old saying goes, you can't put 10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound box.  DVC version:  We can't have 80% of members trying to use their points for weekdays when the point charts only have 50-60% of the points spread over Sun - Thurs.  

Selfishly I think it stinks since we have rarely used points for weekends.  It will definitely cost us more per stay.  But I doubt it is reason enough to sell.


----------



## lisareniff

Plutofan said:


> Every other year we do a Beach cottage in June for a Sunday - Friday.  Now with the point change it will now cost us 50 extra points - a 19% percent increase.



Plutofan, we do the same thing in Feb (Magic Season).  Do you have the point chart for VB?  On the 2009 Point chart a BC is 60/150 (weekday/weekend) for that time.  Would I expect a 72/120 chart for 2010?  

I'm bummin'.


----------



## TreesyB

Plutofan said:


> I wonder if Disney monitors the boards.  I posted on  aboard about 1 1/2 hours ago that all the 2010 point charts were missing except Vero.  That chart was still up.  Well now that chart is now missing.  Be sure to post your comments since they do read the boards....in between updating point charts and doing other things for our benefit.



Yeah, I was looking for the THV points, but the link is not underlined, and when I click on the vacation points, it just takes me to DVC advertising.  Wonder what they're doing...


----------



## tjkraz

ems_mom said:


> I haven't read all the posts but my here's my two cents...
> 
> I just bought a BLT add on for just enough points to allow me a 5 day 1 bedroom stay every third year, with banking and borrowing. I realize within the life of a contract, DVC has a right to reallocate points.
> 
> *But I just bought a week ago and the resort isn't even open yet!* My guide should have given me a heads up or they should allow me to buy 5 more points.



If you did just buy 7 days ago, you should be within your recission period under which the contract can be cancelled.  Call your Guide in the morning and have him/her tear up the old contract and write a new one.  Or just cancel altogether.  



> Seriously, isn't this called bait and switch?



No, because the POS states that it is a possibility.


----------



## Bunkobeth

Thanks Doc for the explanation...that's a little more math than this tired brain can handle right now...maybe in the morning!

)


----------



## DisneyWalker44

bookwormde said:


> If they are going to change the chart for 2010 they need to have them up by 1/25/09 9 am EST since that is when 1/1/2010 can first be booked.


 For what it's worth, there have been many times when Disney hadn't had point charts ready when booking windows open. Happens just about every year for the Disney Collection IIRC.


----------



## jas2n0

I just signed and sent my paperwork back today for 189 points at BLT. At that level based on the point chart that DVC gave me 2 weeks ago I would be able to get a 1 bed room lake view Sun-Fri in choice season every year. Now I am 6 points shy. You can't tell me that the sales reps did not know that these charts were going to be changed for 2010. 

I agree with the previous poster that this is bait and switch. It is making me consider using the 10-day period to rescind my purchase. Is this what I can expect from DVC going forward.....


----------



## Sheribo

We drive a long way to Florida every spring for one week.  We always spend one night off site to save points.  The points are currently double for a weekend night.  I would love to be able to afford to add an extra day to our visit so it might work out for us.  We have always been a Sun - Thurs DVCers.  Until the charts are available again, I'm going to be anxiously biting my nails.


----------



## tjkraz

jas2n0 said:


> You can't tell me that the sales reps did not know that these charts were going to be changed for 2010.



I sincerely doubt that the Guides were aware of it.  DVC rarely informs the sales staff of this sort of change to prevent the info from leaking out before it's officially released.  At best there may have been a meeting toward the end of the day today. At worst many will probably get blindsided by customers in the morning.


----------



## drusba

It is about midnight eastern time. Don't know what is going on but announcement and all the 2010 point charts on the site are now gone.


----------



## toocherie

tjkraz said:


> I sincerely doubt that the Guides were aware of it.  DVC rarely informs the sales staff of this sort of change to prevent the info from leaking out before it's officially released.  At best there may have been a meeting toward the end of the day today. At worst many will probably get blindsided by customers in the morning.



just like my Guide didn't know that letters had been sent out to Grand Californian founding members advising that sales for them would start January 25.  I had to pdf a copy of the letter to him.


----------



## glennbo123

Someone just posted JPEG files of the point charts on this thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216


----------



## ems_mom

> If you did just buy 7 days ago, you should be within your recission period under which the contract can be cancelled. Call your Guide in the morning and have him/her tear up the old contract and write a new one. Or just cancel altogether.



I am and I would, but I bought when the minimun add on was less than 100 points and I can't "write a new one" that would exactly fit my needs. 

I am going to keep my BLT points because I love the location and models so much. I do wish people would not be so "black and white" about DVC. I love WDW and my DVC ownership, but that said, I believe we all have a right to express complaints without lectures.


----------



## bwvBound

glennbo123 said:


> Someone just posted JPEG files of the point charts on this thread:
> 
> http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216


Thanks for the link.  The changes, if they stick, would be helpful to us.  We tend to book 7-12 consecutive nights; our present stay is 10 nights: 6 weekday nights, 4 weekend nights.  If we book the very same stay next year ... we'll save 16 points using the new chart.  (Of course, I have an open search running through RCI for part of next year's stay ... hoping to conserve even _more_ points if it comes through.)


----------



## Lynne M

jas2n0 said:


> I just signed and sent my paperwork back today for 189 points at BLT. At that level based on the point chart that DVC gave me 2 weeks ago I would be able to get a 1 bed room lake view Sun-Fri in choice season every year. Now I am 6 points shy. You can't tell me that the sales reps did not know that these charts were going to be changed for 2010.
> 
> I agree with the previous poster that this is bait and switch. It is making me consider using the 10-day period to rescind my purchase. Is this what I can expect from DVC going forward.....



"Bait and switch" implies illegality.  The possibility of this occurring is explained in the contract.  It's entirely permissible under the contract.  Nowhere in the contract does it say that the point charts are set in stone.  If your guide specifically told you that the points required for your stays would never, ever change, then you have a legitimate complaint.

And yes, I certainly do believe that the sales reps didn't know this was coming.  They don't get told this stuff ahead of time.


----------



## Marshay

bwvBound said:


> Thanks for the link.  The changes, if they stick, would be helpful to us.  We tend to book 7-12 consecutive nights;



We do the same -- I can't imaging moving just for 2 nights and coming back -- at least not with small children, so this makes the way we travel even more reasonable.

I also imagine it will save DVC money since Member Services can just make one ressie instead of two separate ones, Front Desk just deals with folks one time, only one key to be issued, maids have less "turn-over" cleaning to do, etc, etc, etc.

Although my parents are not happy since they are strict Sun - Thurs, checkout Friday, check back in Sunday type of folks.


----------



## HookdonWDW

Just for comparison sake:

We've booked rooms for February vacation this year.  The trip will be a full week.  We booked a 2 BR at BCV for us  and a 1 BR at SSR for db and family (he didn't decide that he wanted to go until well after the 7-month mark).

According to the "vanishing point charts", if we booked for the same week next year, we would save 41 points on our 2 BR at BCV, and it would cost us 1 extra point for the 1 BR at SSR...


----------



## tjkraz

ems_mom said:


> I do wish people would not be so "black and white" about DVC. I love WDW and my DVC ownership, but that said, I believe we all have a right to express complaints without lectures.



To quote another poster:  "'Bait and switch' implies illegality."  I was simply pointing out that what DVC has done appears to be perfectly legal.  

Elsewhere in this thread I voiced my own personal displeasure with the move and never said that you shouldn't feel similarly.


----------



## tjkraz

toocherie said:


> just like my Guide didn't know that letters had been sent out to Grand Californian founding members advising that sales for them would start January 25.  I had to pdf a copy of the letter to him.



Bingo.


----------



## casper

Well, this just doesn't make my day. I'm a guy who stays 8 nights in a studio arriving Thursday and check out Friday of the following week. My vacation habits will now cost me 14 more points for the year. 14 points I don't have btw. 

  Maybe it will be time to stay only 7 nights. Not a happy camper. Or should I say, Not a happy DVC'r.


----------



## dis-happy

Two guesses:

the points charts are down because someone realized that the road of change hasn't been properly paved yet.  Who expects to find a new email from DVC in their inbox tomorrow morning?  Bet the PR Dept. is working on it right now!


Also, there's a been an edict from corporate: all departments must cut x% from their operating budget for 2009.  This is DVC's solution (cut housekeeping, Sunday overtime costs and turnover costs).


----------



## lugnut33

ems_mom said:


> I haven't read all the posts but my here's my two cents...
> 
> I just bought a BLT add on for just enough points to allow me a 5 day 1 bedroom stay every third year, with banking and borrowing. I realize within the life of a contract, DVC has a right to reallocate points.
> 
> *But I just bought a week ago and the resort isn't even open yet!* My guide should have given me a heads up or they should allow me to buy 5 more points.
> 
> Seriously, isn't this called bait and switch?



A lawyer might contend that this person has not been wronged, but my sympathy goes out to the buyer in this case.  Not very nice of Disney to do this.


----------



## BeccaG

Dean said:


> simple, the POS says they can, up to 5 days.  People have to learn the difference between legal options and hype.



Dean your memory for the details of the POS amaze me. . I read it pretty carefully and was aware that points  for particular nights could and would be adjusted as needed, but for some reason the clause about the minimum stay slipped my attention and or memory (Of course that was several years ago and its not like I flip through it regularly at bedtime!  Although, now that I am thinking about it, it might be a good idea!)  To be honest, a minimum stay would be a bigger disappointment to me than the "new" disappearing point charts.

I think I echo a lot of people's sentiments when I say that the whole thing is just disappointing.  Its not illegal or immoral, it just feels unfair.  Most of us probably purchased DVC because ultimately we believe in the Disney magic. Things like this change that are radical shifts from what we are use to, and seem to come without warning, challenge that magical aura.


----------



## lugnut33

OK, we are doing a late August trip in a SSR 2 bedroom this year for a bunch of family members and staying sun-fri.  That same trip in 2010 would cost 25 more points.  

I am sooo sooo sooo glad I bought a little contract on the resale market, that way I won't feel too bad if things don't work out between us and DVC.  Also lucky that the main purpose for buying the contract was to take a week long trip every other year and stay in a one bedroom and that point requirement hasn't changed.  Plus I have a 16 point cushion so they can mess with it a bit.


----------



## tidefan

Boy, I was more on target than I thought!  I posted this back in June 08 on the mega-thread about the change in the reservation windows:



> *Re: New policy for reservations based on check IN date*
> 
> 06-25-2008
> Post #944
> 
> The more I read through this thread, the more that I think that a point reallocation may be the best solution. If so many members want to go over Christmas and New Years that there is a very skewed demand for the rooms, then simple economics dictates that they may need to rearrange point levels to get the demand evened back out over the year.
> 
> Additionally, if the speculation on this board is true that more members go Sun-Thurs instead of over weekends and DVC sees that increasing trend, then the obvious solution to that would be to decrease weekend points somewhat and increase weekday points.
> 
> I don't know that this is what some members would want, but in creating the apparent mass demand for certain times/certain places, membership may very well be driving a change like this.



The problem is that if there are too many members only booking Sun-Thurs stays and not booking weekend stays, then members face the real possibility of being shut out on reservations.  I'm not saying that I don't understand some members frustration over this, but I understand the move.  We bought based upon what we would need for a week long stay, give or take a few points, so we are OK with this.  I have a bigger problem with 100 point minimum add-ons...


----------



## kristenrice

We have a 100 point contract.  We need(ed) 205 points to take our kids and parents to AKV in a 2BR standard for spring break 2010.  This was planned since we bought into DVC back in September.  It was going to be our first trip home.  DH and I then realized that instead of banking 2009 points, we could take a trip on 95 of those, bank 5, then use ALL of 2010 and ALL of 2011 to take the spring break trip.

Well, now that we have a 95-point trip planned for June 2009, with non-refundable airfare, DVC takes our plans and flushes them down the toilet!   We will not have enough points to take my parents along in 2010 since it will now cost 230 points.  The ONLY way this can happen is IF we are able to get a studio in June (there are waitlists for some already) instead of our 1BR.  

I know that DVC didn't do anything illegal, but for something that once made me so excited to think about, it now makes me want to vomit.  All those plans, the look on my dad's face when we told him we were taking him to Disney World.... all those things that make DVC ownership so special...all reduced to a big pile of poo in a blink of an eye.

I would have been much less upset if they had decided to announce the change now, but not implement it until 2011.  That way, I could have banked my points instead of using them.  Now, I have to pray that a studio will be available for June or I am out about $700 in non-refundable airfare because I am not telling my parents that we can no longer afford to take them.


----------



## eyeheartgoofy

kristenrice said:


> I would have been much less upset if they had decided to announce the change now, but not implement it until 2011.



Yep, that is what I'm thinking as well. Less than a week ago, I borrowed 4 points from my 2010 UY in order to book August 09 at AKV.  Guess what?  I no longer have enough points to spend 5 nights in a studio at VWL during Spring Break 2010 b/c Sun-Thur nights went up 2 points per night ... and I thought I managed my points so well.


----------



## GILL-WDW

Did anyone happen to grab the VWL point charts before they took them down.  Sorry...  I have not read all 210 post!!!

If you did would you please PM me.

Thanks


----------



## AnnaS

If the point chart stays, I am sure sooner or later it will most likely affect many people since I don't think (it's possible) one will vacation exactly the same way year after year (for those that have a lot of points or usually bank, no biggie).

When we bought, we more or less calculated a week in a 1 BDR at OKW (have added a few times since then) Dream Season which was 196 - we like to round everything off and have a small cushion.  We bought 200 - exactly what would be needed now.  (We would have rounded off even if it came out to 192, 187, etc.).

We always felft that anyone buying and definitely more so for anyone buying in the future, to always give themself a cushion - more because our plans will most likely change - but now DVC has just changed it for all of us (which we knew could happen).

Wether or not we (us) like it, our vacation pattern, # of people, is never the same so we will work with our points, time and as finances allow us as usual.  Our add-ons are also just an even number and not an exact for so many nights.

If the chart does go into effect - I feel and understand what everyone is saying who will be a few points short.

Waiting to see how all this pans out since the chart seems to be gone.


----------



## bookwormde

Still looking for a link to the thread that had how many of each size and type (with a different point count) of room is at each resort so I can check the total point before and after.

I know there was one report that just before the links were taken down that the dates within some of the seasons were changed (Presidents week was added to Premier) did anyone else see this or print this out or get a PDF

One the issue of guides not providing accurate information on sales; while the contractual language protects the integrity of the contract it does not insulate the salesperson or DVC from legal charges of deceptive sales practices if a pattern can be established. All the laws in this area have disallowed the “It is in the fine print” defense since it was abused so badly.

Is anyone else getting tired of the PR spin DVC is put on announcements which to anyone who is informed are clearly not the truth. Of course that goes along with the free ticket promotion that only a small percentage are using since it had little value and instead are using the gift card (promote for 1 thing and make the rules such that only something else is the reasonable value)

bookwormde


----------



## appleorchard

This is a positive thing for us, since it's hard for me to take vacation days during the week and the high weekend points have been such a detriment to staying on a weekend day. We've been splitting time between SOG and DVC, with weekends at SOG, which brings its own set of problems.
I've been hoping they'd even out the points for a long time, but I understand how it impacts people who are able to do Sun-Thursday trips. I can't wait to be one of them, but it won't happen until I can retire, since I jobshare and my partner rarely takes any time off.
Since the charts are gone, maybe they've had second thoughts, anyway...


----------



## JMLBrats

Now that I think about it, I seem to remember our guide saying that the points needed for a week stay would never change, but that it was possible for the points within that week stay to change should Disney ever decide to do so. Oh well, I guess we'll see what comes of this.


----------



## lisareniff

tidefan said:


> Boy, I was more on target than I thought!  I posted this back in June 08 on the mega-thread about the change in the reservation windows:
> 
> The problem is that if there are too many members only booking Sun-Thurs stays and not booking weekend stays, then members face the real possibility of being shut out on reservations.  I'm not saying that I don't understand some members frustration over this, but I understand the move.  We bought based upon what we would need for a week long stay, give or take a few points, so we are OK with this.  I have a bigger problem with 100 point minimum add-ons...



WHat a call Tidefan!!  I think you got it right.

I am surprised that more people seem to be upset about this then the waitlist change.  To me that seems just as huge.


----------



## alldiz

Well this is a lose/lose situation for me and Disney.....for my family.

I utilized the Sun-thurs Stays....it allowed me to go to WDW MORE.....and spend more money.

Now I will have to cut back my trips.....which will mean less money for Disney in the long run.
Also that second add-on.....dosen't sound so magical anymore.

Very unhappy here....
Kerri


----------



## jas2n0

My frustration is that you are provided information to help you make an informed decision, and a week after making that decision based on the material provided, everything changes. I do understand that DVC has the right to make these changes and they are not illegal, however I am sure that decisions on these types of changes don't happen overnight. If DVC was considering redistributing the points for all resorts, these changes should have been taken into account in the original BLT point charts so it would not have impacted people deciding on add-ons and new contracts. 

If this change happened a few years after BLT opened then I would not be complaining, it is always a possibility and you need to consider that when becoming a member. However is this case, it seems too much of a coincidence that the change is announced only days after they complete a big push with incentives, to increase sales for AKV and BLT.


----------



## photobob

The 2010 points charts are still down. I'd really like to get a look at them.


----------



## DebbieB

photobob said:


> The 2010 points charts are still down. I'd really like to get a look at them.



http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216


----------



## AnnaS

I don't know how to do the link thingy but someone has them on another thread in the misc. board.  I think they are also here - a few pages back. 

Jpg something - sorry not much help.


----------



## AnnaS

DebbieB said:


> http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216





Thanks Debbie


----------



## tvwalsh

Does the quick pulling of the point charts remind anyone else of the disappearing early pictures of the BLT DVC?


----------



## cinderella97

This is really bad news for us.  With the kids in school we can only go at Easter or Christmas.  We have 200 points at BCV and purposely bought that many so we could stay 5 nights  S-TH  it would cost us 200 points - that same stay is now 230 points!  OUCH!!!!!  Now I don't know what to do,


----------



## Starr W.

bookwormde said:


> Still looking for a link to the thread that had how many of each size and type (with a different point count) of room is at each resort so I can check the total point before and after.
> 
> I know there was one report that just before the links were taken down that the dates within some of the seasons were changed (Presidents week was added to Premier) did anyone else see this or print this out or get a PDF
> 
> One the issue of guides not providing accurate information on sales; while the contractual language protects the integrity of the contract it does not insulate the salesperson or DVC from legal charges of deceptive sales practices if a pattern can be established. All the laws in this area have disallowed the It is in the fine print defense since it was abused so badly.
> 
> Is anyone else getting tired of the PR spin DVC is put on announcements which to anyone who is informed are clearly not the truth. Of course that goes along with the free ticket promotion that only a small percentage are using since it had little value and instead are using the gift card (promote for 1 thing and make the rules such that only something else is the reasonable value)
> 
> bookwormde




The only things DH and I  memorized before the point charts went poof, was VB 2br Premier season. It went from 447 to 450. SSR Friday b4 Thanksgiving-Black Friday 2br points stayed the same.

 Our MLK trip Thurs-Mon BWV/BCV/VWL 2br went down from 180 to high 160's.

Didn't get a chance to see what they did to HHI, because those Saturday night points there were  .


----------



## WolfpackFan

I am really disappointed in this change. This really hurts people who have a finite number of points and purchased those points thinking they would stay 5-6 nights at specific resorts during specific times. For example we have enough points to stay 5 nights the first week of June at HHI in a 1BR alternating every other year in a Studio. Well all of a sudden beginning in 2010 we no longer have enough points to do this. We had similar scenarios setup for our other two contracts and they are no longer doable either. Thank you DVC for nothing.

You know what is behind this - DVC sees there are a number of folks in similar situations like us and they thought well if we make these changes this will force those people to do additional add-ons. Well I can tell you now DVC will not be getting anymore of money in add-ons. We'll just reduce are stays, those costing WDW more money that we won't spend in meals, tickets, souvenirs, etc. In fact, I may even just sell my contracts and purchase a Marriott timeshare. 

This really makes me very upset .


----------



## Inkmahm

tvwalsh said:


> Does the quick pulling of the point charts remind anyone else of the disappearing early pictures of the BLT DVC?



Exactly!   Someone jumped the gun on the announcement.

As I posted in the jpg thread with the charts, it is to our favor to have the points charts changed only because we stay Friday and Saturday nights when we travel to WDW.  I calculated our 2008, 2009 and 2010 vacations using the new charts.  Compared to the old charts, we save 10, 14 and 12 points, respectively.   So for us, an average of 12 points saved per year while using our 530 points is a good thing.  

I can see where those that didn't stay on weekends would be less pleased.  And the early December rates don't seem to be quite the bargain that they were before, either.


----------



## glennbo123

I just noticed that with the 2010 point charts there is even more of a disparity between weekday and weekend points in a Grand Villa, at AKV at least.  They reduced the weekdays and increased the weekends.  This is completely opposite from what they're doing for the other sized villas.


----------



## Inkmahm

Starr W. said:


> The only things DH and I  memorized before the point charts went poof, was VB 2br Premier season. It went from 447 to 450. SSR Friday b4 Thanksgiving-Black Friday 2br points stayed the same.
> 
> Our MLK trip Thurs-Mon BWV/BCV/VWL 2br went down from 180 to high 160's.
> 
> Didn't get a chance to see what they did to HHI, because those Saturday night points there were  .


Charts are still here!http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216


----------



## eyeheartgoofy

ems_mom said:


> I love WDW and my DVC ownership, but that said, *I believe we all have a right to express complaints without lectures*.



Ha!  Don't you know that any complaints about DVC will warrant at least one lecture?

*Was your room not cleaned properly, or did you have a broken piece of equipment in your room?*  Your fault for not personally making camp in the lobby for 3 hours waiting for a manager to come and fix the problem.

*Were you disappointed in your room location?*  Your fault.  Every member understands that requests are just requests ... no disappointment allowed.

*Did you have a question about DVC financing?* Fool.  Everyone knows if you don't pay cash for DVC, then you can't afford it and need to go back to the HoJo.

*Did a family member back out of a DVC vacation and your stuck with points in holding? * Your fault.  Everyone knows you don't invite family or friends to use your DVC points.

*And, of course now, ... not enough points to book the same stay you have been booking for the past 5 years?  Just close on a contract that is a few points shy of meeting your needs?*  Your fault b/c you should have purchased a point cushion.

*Can't get into your home resort 9 months out?*  Your fault.  Everyone knows you have to book at 9:00am exactly 11 months out.  

*Hurricane put a damper on your plans at DVC?*  Your fault.  Everyone knows you don't book during hurricane season, or hurricane shoulder seasons.


----------



## Starr W.

Inkmahm said:


> Charts are still here!http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216



Thanks, I missed that someone was quick on the draw and saved the charts.


----------



## dzorn

erionm said:


> The 2009 and 2010 Point Charts are posted on the member website.



Don't feel bad I cannot find it either. I was even lookin' for the 2010 before I went to the Dis. I go clear my cookies and see if that helps because the only thing I pull up is 2009.

Denise in MI


----------



## december14disney

WolfpackFan said:


> I am really disappointed in this change. This really hurts people who have a finite number of points and purchased those points thinking they would stay 5-6 nights at specific resorts during specific times. For example we have enough points to stay 5 nights the first week of June at HHI in a 1BR alternating every other year in a Studio. Well all of a sudden beginning in 2010 we no longer have enough points to do this. We had similar scenarios setup for our other two contracts and they are no longer doable either. Thank you DVC for nothing.
> 
> You know what is behind this - DVC sees there are a number of folks in similar situations like us and they thought well if we make these changes this will force those people to do additional add-ons. Well I can tell you now DVC will not be getting anymore of money in add-ons. We'll just reduce are stays, those costing WDW more money that we won't spend in meals, tickets, souvenirs, etc. In fact, I may even just sell my contracts and purchase a Marriott timeshare.
> 
> This really makes me very upset .



I agree with this 100%. Disney saw the flooding of smaller resales contracts on the market and needed o do something about it. And this is what they did. Fiance and I planned to do 3 trips a year with our points. Flower and Garden, MNSSHP and MVMCP. Cant now. Per week is too expensive.

Also---dont tell me raising ALL savanna view room points and then telling me "well the values went down in points" is fair. Apples to oranges is what that is.


----------



## logan115

Given the additional points that some people will now need, I wonder if DVC will make any kind of exceptions for allowing additional point transfers or banking/borrowing for the next year or two ?   Haven't bought DVC yet (not as sure that I will now either), and certainly don't know the ins and outs as well as others here, but would think that DVC would have to allow people that have already the points they THOUGHT they needed already a chance to transfer in additional points based on a hgher amount of points needed now. 

Also feels a bit like a game of chicken that DVC is playing as well.  The amount of resales on the market now seem to be much higher than normal (good for me as I'd buy in thru resale if at all), and DVC has two choices : let the resales keep going at lower prices (supply and demand), or buy them back via ROFR (cash out of their pocket).  Maybe they're also betting that current owners will snap up some of the resale contracts, increasing prices, and closing the spread between resale and buying direct thru DVC ?

Only time will tell.

Chris


----------



## glennbo123

glennbo123 said:


> I just noticed that with the 2010 point charts there is even more of a disparity between weekday and weekend points in a Grand Villa, at AKV at least.  They reduced the weekdays and increased the weekends.  This is completely opposite from what they're doing for the other sized villas.



Pardon me for responding to my own post!

On the AKV point charts, it looks like all of the weekday points are about 66-67% of the weekend point requirements, including a Grand Villa.  So, that's the direction the Grand Villa change had to go in order to make it consistent.


----------



## erionm

dzorn said:


> Don't feel bad I cannot find it either. I was even lookin' for the 2010 before I went to the Dis. I go clear my cookies and see if that helps because the only thing I pull up is 2009.
> 
> Denise in MI



The 2010 Point Charts were pulled down around 8pm last night.


----------



## dis-happy

kristenrice said:


> We have a 100 point contract.  We need(ed) 205 points to take our kids and parents to AKV in a 2BR standard for spring break 2010.  This was planned since we bought into DVC back in September.  It was going to be our first trip home.  DH and I then realized that instead of banking 2009 points, we could take a trip on 95 of those, bank 5, then use ALL of 2010 and ALL of 2011 to take the spring break trip.
> 
> Well, now that we have a 95-point trip planned for June 2009, with non-refundable airfare, DVC takes our plans and flushes them down the toilet!   We will not have enough points to take my parents along in 2010 since it will now cost 230 points.  The ONLY way this can happen is IF we are able to get a studio in June (there are waitlists for some already) instead of our 1BR.
> 
> I know that DVC didn't do anything illegal, but for something that once made me so excited to think about, it now makes me want to vomit.  All those plans, the look on my dad's face when we told him we were taking him to Disney World.... all those things that make DVC ownership so special...all reduced to a big pile of poo in a blink of an eye.
> 
> I would have been much less upset if they had decided to announce the change now, but not implement it until 2011.  That way, I could have banked my points instead of using them.  Now, I have to pray that a studio will be available for June or I am out about $700 in non-refundable airfare because I am not telling my parents that we can no longer afford to take them.




You can spend closer to $300., rent 30 points from someone, and have them transferred into your account for that one time.  I've done that to complete a reservation on our small contract during a high demand time.


----------



## dis-happy

Someone posted the plus/minus points differences for AKV and one thing that stuck out to me:

nearly 100% of the time, it's the 1 b/r reservation that will pay more in points, whether by the weekday, the week, or the season.  Wonder if they are planning to add more sleeper chairs in the 1 b/r's, making them all easier to sleep 5, and now are punishing us for that ability.


----------



## Inkmahm

december14disney said:


> I agree with this 100%. Disney saw the flooding of smaller resales contracts on the market and needed o do something about it. And this is what they did. Fiance and I planned to do 3 trips a year with our points. Flower and Garden, MNSSHP and MVMCP. Cant now. Per week is too expensive.
> 
> Also---dont tell me raising ALL savanna view room points and then telling me "well the values went down in points" is fair. Apples to oranges is what that is.



We do those exact 3 trips each year and will be saving an average of 12 points per year with the new charts.  We stay weekends though and not full weeks.


----------



## Inkmahm

dis-happy said:


> You can spend closer to $300., rent 30 points from someone, and have them transferred into your account for that one time.  I've done that to complete a reservation on our small contract during a high demand time.



Me, too. To have enough points for a big family gathering I had 120 points transferred to me a couple years ago.  Transfers work great for the times when you need extra points for a single year but don't need them for future years (where an add on would make more sense.)


----------



## aurorafan

Well, it will work out better for us if we take the Jan. 2010 trip we just started talking about last night.  The kids have 2 teacher workdays at the end of the month, so we were thinking about going down Thurs. afternoon and leaving Tues. morning.  The trip with the 2010 charts is 108 for a value 1-bdrm. AKV, or 154/1 bdrm. SV (the kids really want SV ).  With the 2009 charts it would have been 112/1 bdrm. value or 159 1 bdrm. SV.

However our Dec. Sun.-Thurs. trip we just took was 80 pts. 1 bdrm. value and would be 90 pts. under the 2010 charts, so I see why people are upset.  I guess it's fortunate that DH and I never sat down and decided on a specific unit at a specific resort at a specific time of year.  We bought what we could afford at the time (160 AKV) and planned to add on in round numbers thereafter.  We quickly discovered that we probably aren't going to take a specific vacation at a specific time, so this change isn't all bad for us.  In fact, personally I wasn't looking forward to having to take our week long vacation in the summer--I prefer trying to work in long weekends when it's cooler and less crowded.  But those were not as practical for us given our small number of points--now they will be more within our reach .

I do feel for those who bought with the specifics in mind though, and now find themselves with not enough points.  Hopefully they won't up the minimum add-on anywhere else besides BLT!


----------



## Doctor P

OK.  I'm not sure how I feel about this (proposed?) change overall.  I can tell you, however, how the reservation I made this week and the reservation I plan to make next week would have been different if all of it were to be under the new system:

2 Studios at BCV for Saturday December 19, 2009: 46 (old); 40 (new)
1 Studio, 1 2BR at OKW for Dec. 20-26:  320 (old); 327 (new)
Ultimate intended: 1 Studio, 1 2BR at OKW Dec. 19-26:  397 (old); 389 (new)

HH: 2BR December 26-January 4:  235 (old); 231(new) 

However, if the chart changes for 2010, because of the way the dates fall for New Years Day, I could benefit a little for my NY reservation.

Under the old system, my HH reservation would cost 235 points.  In this transition year, the reservation would only cost 226 points due to the lower cost of the weekend dates in January.

So, on balance since we normally check in on Saturdays and stay a week or so, the changes will generally be very minimal for us.  This, I know, will not be true for a lot of other people.


----------



## december14disney

Inkmahm said:


> We do those exact 3 trips each year and will be saving an average of 12 points per year with the new charts.  We stay weekends though and not full weeks.



We check in on Sun and leave Fri. I guess we will have to change how we do things. I guess im just selfish and feel like..I just spent 16k I shouldnt have to change.


----------



## photobob

I don't know what the average contract is. I have 180 points. I won't be able to stay as many days as I have in the past. If I don't stay as long I won't be spending as much money there.


----------



## dis-happy

You know what else is totally snarky?  The timing....

Last day to do a smaller add-on at BLT:  Jan. 14th

Add in the 7 day rescinsion period: brings you to Jan 21st.

Date the new points charts are released: after close of business on the 21st.  

No way to cancel (or change you points number) now if you don't like the new chart.



I am SO GLAD we didn't do that BLT add-on.  We should have fit the profile of people who purchased, I had the cash, but for whatever reason decided to hold back.


This debacle is going to hurt Grand CA sales too.  People who are thinking of buying DVC are going to do an internet search, find the DIS, and get scared away.  I know I wouldn't have purchased initially without the information gained here.


----------



## cpdwiz

Ok...So i printed some of the new 2010 point charts, and compared them to the 2009 dvc program.....

Our trip in May is as follows:

Wed:  AK Studio Savanna
Thurs-Sat: BWV, Studio Standard...

Total for our May trip NOW is 76 points...Under the new 2010 chart, it would be 70 points, saving us 6 points......

Our next family trip is May 2010....That would cost us 225 points as of 2009 chart...Under the 2010 chart, its 224, saving us 1 point.....

So it seems to benefit us??  I guess if you are staying a week it works out...If you are a Thurs-Sun person, then it might hurt some?


----------



## Cindaddy

dis-happy said:


> You know what else is totally snarky?  The timing....
> 
> *Last day to do a smaller add-on at BLT:  Jan. 14th*
> 
> Add in the 7 day recission period: brings you to Jan 21st.
> 
> Date the new points charts are released: after close of business on the 21st.
> 
> No way to cancel (or change you points number) now if you don't like the new chart.
> 
> 
> 
> I am SO GLAD we didn't do that BLT add-on.  We should have fit the profile of people who purchased, I had the cash, but for whatever reason decided to hold back.
> 
> 
> This debacle is going to hurt Grand CA sales too.  People who are thinking of buying DVC are going to do an internet search, find the DIS, and get scared away.  I know I wouldn't have purchased initially without the information gained here.



I'm confused about this.  I've seen the date of January 15th for requiring 200 points, but I got offered 160 at BLT on January 19th.  Not sure what's going on there.  We settled on 190 which leaves me enough for a 10 day studio with a MK view every year (even with the new points).  Not sure how I was able to come in under the minimum points.


----------



## dis-happy

PS. Hi Mike!  Haven't seen you around in a long time....  Glad to hear that some people are saving points at least.


----------



## dzorn

bookwormde said:


> If they are going to change the chart for 2010 they need to have them up by 1/25/09 9 am EST since that is when 1/1/2010 can first be booked.
> 
> bookwormde



I don't agree with that because people could borrow some of their 2010 points to 2009 leaving what they thought was the amount needed in 2010 and now find they will be short. 

Denise in MI


----------



## Towncrier

I missed the initial announcement. Does anyone still have access to the numbers. I am curious because we always do 12 night stays to minimize the impact of expensive weekends. It seems to me that we'll be one of those that is negatively impacted by the change, but until I see the point charts I won't know for certain.


----------



## snappy

casper said:


> Well, this just doesn't make my day. I'm a guy who stays 8 nights in a studio arriving Thursday and check out Friday of the following week. My vacation habits will now cost me 14 more points for the year. 14 points I don't have btw.
> 
> Maybe it will be time to stay only 7 nights. Not a happy camper. Or should I say, Not a happy DVC'r.



I will be doing the same, shave a day off and stay elsewhere. . . likely offsite and spending time at Universal and elsewhere.


----------



## Laurabearz

WolfpackFan said:


> I am really disappointed in this change. This really hurts people who have a finite number of points and purchased those points thinking they would stay 5-6 nights at specific resorts during specific times. For example we have enough points to stay 5 nights the first week of June at HHI in a 1BR alternating every other year in a Studio. Well all of a sudden beginning in 2010 we no longer have enough points to do this. We had similar scenarios setup for our other two contracts and they are no longer doable either. Thank you DVC for nothing.
> 
> You know what is behind this - DVC sees there are a number of folks in similar situations like us and they thought well if we make these changes this will force those people to do additional add-ons. Well I can tell you now DVC will not be getting anymore of money in add-ons. We'll just reduce are stays, those costing WDW more money that we won't spend in meals, tickets, souvenirs, etc. In fact, I may even just sell my contracts and purchase a Marriott timeshare.
> 
> This really makes me very upset .



Our Hilton Head trips are messed up too. They went from 231 points to 255 :-( If we stayed the whole week the points went from 330 to 336... So no savings anyway you look at it for us.



dis-happy said:


> You know what else is totally snarky?  The timing....
> 
> Last day to do a smaller add-on at BLT:  Jan. 14th
> 
> Add in the 7 day recission period: brings you to Jan 21st.
> 
> Date the new points charts are released: after close of business on the 21st.
> 
> No way to cancel (or change you points number) now if you don't like the new chart.
> 
> 
> 
> I am SO GLAD we didn't do that BLT add-on.  We should have fit the profile of people who purchased, I had the cash, but for whatever reason decided to hold back.
> 
> 
> This debacle is going to hurt Grand CA sales too.  People who are thinking of buying DVC are going to do an internet search, find the DIS, and get scared away.  I know I wouldn't have purchased initially without the information gained here.



I also thnk DVC should have told us this year for a 2011 change.


----------



## dis-happy

Cindaddy said:


> I'm confused about this.  I've seen the date of January 15th for requiring 200 points, but I got offered 160 at BLT on January 19th.  Not sure what's going on there.  We settled on 190 which leaves me enough for a 10 day studio with a MK view every year (even with the new points).  Not sure how I was able to come in under the minimum points.



Smaller add-on in my other post refers to existing members who could buy an add-on for 25 points or more.  The new minimum add-on (since Jan. 15th) is 100 points for BLT and AKV.


----------



## Maribel

If the change is going to stay they have to announce it NOW before the January 1st window opens on Feb 1st, although I guess with the new reservations policy you can start reserving those dates starting on the 25th (with check in date Dec 25 2009), am I right?

For us this is great news. We live in FL and like to take long weekends breaks into the world, it used to be to expensive to do so (points wise), so it looks like now we are going to be able to do it more frequently now or at least with less points, if it is that the change stays, as it looks that they pull off the point charts for 2010 of the site.

I understand those folks that really plan their stay to be the same every single year, it has to be frustrating for you to have your vacations plans changed all of the sudden, but in all honesty, for me, the one thing that attracted me to DVC is the flexibility of being able to stay at different dates in different resorts so that every vacation is kind of different. 
I didn't buy my points so that it matched a specific time or resort, knowing that some years I could bank or borrow points to match my needs that year. 
It has worked so far.
In any case, if their looking at a trend were they have waitlists for the su-th period and then vacancies during the weekend, they should then adjust the points charts accordingly as it is specified in the contract.


----------



## twebber55

photobob said:


> I don't know what the average contract is. I have 180 points. I won't be able to stay as many days as I have in the past. If I don't stay as long I won't be spending as much money there.



thats what i find so interesting/frustrating.......disney will lose days from me...  which means one less day per trip so one less day for buying tickets or being on DDP or anything else i would have bought


----------



## KLR-wlv

Unbelievable! I just cancelled my 145 point BLT add on. I had bought enough points at VB for a beach cottage every other year in summer or Thanksgiving - I no longer have enough points to do that. I had enough points at BLT for a GV for every 3rd year - no longer have enough points for that. I know it says that in the contract - but it hasn't been done since I've owned in 2001 and I thought basically it gave them ability to change points around for holiday seasons. I am not spending $16000 on an addon for specific accomodations if that can be changed so drastically. I can buy 2-3 marriott resales for that amount and be guaranteed of 7 days in a 2 br.


----------



## Cindaddy

dis-happy said:


> Smaller add-on in my other post refers to existing members who could buy an add-on for 25 points or more.  The new minimum add-on (since Jan. 15th) is 100 points for BLT and AKV.



Right. That's understood, but I don't understand how I was offered a smaller buy-in after the date that the minimum points changed to 200.  It just made me think of that.


----------



## mom2rb

I actually am happy about this change. I tend to book 10-12 day stays and make sure that I only book one week-end. That means DH uses more vacation days and the kids miss more of their activities. Now I will book my stay using two week-ends. It will use a few more points but will be worth it to save DH's vacation days.


----------



## Towncrier

I recall the last time they adjusted the points at Old Key West. As I recall it was a minor adjustment and Disney took a lot of heat for it. I also recall them saying at one of the annual meetings that they would think twice before doing that again. Apparently they thought twice.

I did a google search and found that someone had posted jpegs of the point charts on photobucket before they were taken down and I managed to snag them. It looks like our 12 night strategy for summer vacations will have to turn into an 11 night stragegy unless we want to buy 36 more points. Swell.


----------



## epcotwanderer

This is SO much better for me. I usually get pretty beat up on point values for only staying a long weekend!!! 

YAY DVC! Thank you! I believe that this is more fair and equitable.


----------



## tjkraz

twebber55 said:


> thats what i find so interesting/frustrating.......disney will lose days from me...  which means one less day per trip so one less day for buying tickets or being on DDP or anything else i would have bought



Your spending may change but, as an aggregate, this may only help things for Disney.

The number of guest rooms isn't changing and that's what is important.  Even if you have to shorten your trips by one day per year, someone else will fill that room on the night you have lost and spend their own money.  

The problem this move is trying to address is that weekend occupancy falls off sharply under the current charts.  Since the timeshare resorts are SUPPOSED to be near 100% occupancy all the time, low weekend levels means people are letting points expire unused, banking them into the future or perhaps being forced to trade out of DVC as an alternative to losing the points.  

Ideally weekday occupancy will still remain close to 100% as it has been.  Meanwhile weekend occupancy will rise due to the lower costs.  

Many members (myself included) will undoubtedly get less value for their points.  But with the number of points in circulation remaining the same and the number of rooms unchanged, I don't see Disney losing any ancillary revenue from this.


----------



## Cindaddy

Towncrier said:


> I recall the last time they adjusted the points at Old Key West. As I recall it was a minor adjustment and Disney took a lot of heat for it. I also recall them saying at one of the annual meetings that they would think twice before doing that again. Apparently they thought twice.
> 
> I did a google search and found that someone had posted jpegs of the point charts on photobucket before they were taken down and I managed to snag them. It looks like our 12 night strategy for summer vacations will have to turn into an 11 night stragegy unless we want to buy 36 more points. Swell.



Exactly.  The new points seem to punish anyone who wants to stay longer than a week.  People who stay 8-12 days with only one weekend will pay more.


----------



## december14disney

Apprently dvcnews.com took down all 2010 point charts as well...


----------



## cogero

It probably won't effect us we bought 270 points to be able to stay a full week and are looking to add on at another resort for home resort booking so I am not worried. and booking those weekends really hurt for our NOvember 09 trip.

I feel bad for those it really hurts though.


----------



## jlewisinsyr

Its not just the charts that are gone, but the notification of the change, even the words about it are gone.


----------



## wildernessDad

A growing member interest in weekend stays, eh?  I'm not buying that one.

Perhaps the actuality is that there is a growing interest in stays period, and weekends stays are part of that growing interest.  So, if that is the case, then they are correct - in a manner of speaking.


----------



## stopher1

A 1 br SV at AKV went up 1 point in our preferred season.  For us it's okay in theory since we have a few extra points over what was needed for that, but the reality is we don't always vacation at the same times each year, and like to mix it up when we can.  We aren't "locked in" to a school calendar since our kids are home educated, so the flexibility of the DVC system was really cool for us in that regard.  We use our points in varying manners between WDW and DL, at different times of the year.

I haven't seen all of the various charts yet, only AKV and I really only looked at a few of the pieces of information that would apply to our scenarios, but from what I've been reading, I agree with many that I don't think I like it.  But what can we do? If they reserve the right to make these changes we're kind of stuck, aren't we?  Obviously if someone were unhappy enough they could put their points up for sale and leave the system, or make adjustments to how they do Disney.  I know that's not what many people want to do having bought in with something particular in mind, but isn't making adjustments sometimes just part of life?  We certainly haven't been in the DVC system as long as many of you have, but didn't I read somewhere in this thread or another one that the points were adjusted at least once before?  How long ago was the last adjustment, and for those of you who experienced it, was it as "drastic" as this one appears to be from some of the comments that have been made?


----------



## JasonDVC

What happened?

They took it off the website!!


----------



## dallastxcpa

Has anyone been able to talk to their guide or member services yet?


----------



## BrADmatt

Here are the charts as posted by squidmo

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216


----------



## december14disney

dallastxcpa said:


> Has anyone been able to talk to their guide or member services yet?



I left a message for mine, Rob Shapiro, and he hasnt called...


----------



## Shadeaux

Cindaddy said:


> Exactly.  The new points seem to punish anyone who wants to stay longer than a week.  People who stay 8-12 days with only one weekend will pay more.



This is exactly what I told my husband when I saw the new charts. We've been members at OKW since '94. All our trips are between 10-12 nights and include one weekend so this is going to cost us more points every trip. We've not been happy with a lot of the recent changes to DVC, but this has pushed us to the point of seriously considering selling our contract.


----------



## danjulia

I left a voicemail for my guide about 1/2 hour ago. I have an add-on that has not been finalized yet (calculated for short stays at AKV every couple years). Points don't work any longer.


----------



## lovesparkdisney

No answer or call back yet.


----------



## dis-happy

OOH, LIGHTBULB MOMENT!!!!


You know how people have posted intermittantly that their points totals on the member website were messed up?  I was one of those people.  A few months ago a stay I had taken (2 b/r, BCV, early June) went from showing as 170 points used to 195 points used.  It went back to normal the next day, but I called Member Accouning and asked if they were messing with the website (and was told no).  Since the error was corrected, I didn't think too much more about it.

But now it hits me: that 195 points is the NEW points total for the new charts.  The IT people must have been testing it (and there must have been a screw up for the testing process to make it on the website).  

This change has obviously been in the works for MONTHS!!!  Absolutely no excuse whatsoever to spring it like this.


----------



## december14disney

dis-happy said:


> OOH, LIGHTBULB MOMENT!!!!
> 
> 
> You know how people have posted intermittantly that their points totals on the member website were messed up?  I was one of those people.  A few months ago a stay I had taken (2 b/r, BCV, early June) went from showing as 170 points used to 195 points used.  It went back to normal the next day, but I called Member Accouning and asked if they were messing with the website (and was told no).  Since the error was corrected, I didn't think too much more about it.
> 
> But now it hits me: that 195 points is the NEW points total for the new charts.  The IT people must have been testing it (and there must have been a screw up for the testing process to make it on the website).
> 
> This change has obviously been in the works for MONTHS!!!  Absolutely no excuse whatsoever to spring it like this.




I wish that it wasnt going to go live until 2011...so we would have more time to plan...maybe bank, borrow...


----------



## kristenrice

december14disney said:


> I wish that it wasnt going to go live until 2011...so we would have more time to plan...maybe bank, borrow...



AMEN!!!!!

By doing this now, they've completely messed up banking plans for people who may have needed to bank their 2009 points to take a 2010 trip.  If they'd put it into effect in 2011, nobody's banking plans would be effected yet.  Nobody has points currently usable for 2011 until Feb 1, 2009. 


Since it has been completely removed from the website, I am REALLY hoping that it was some sort of colossal, cosmic joke.


----------



## DebbieB

wildernessDad said:


> A growing member interest in weekend stays, eh?  I'm not buying that one.
> 
> Perhaps the actuality is that there is a growing interest in stays period, and weekends stays are part of that growing interest.  So, if that is the case, then they are correct - in a manner of speaking.



I think the problem was with the current chart is that too many people just wanted weekdays and not enough weekends.  Many people book just Sunday to Thursday nights and then go elsewhere to avoid the higher weekends.   They are trying to steer people into the weekend nights where they have more availability.


----------



## tjkraz

wildernessDad said:


> A growing member interest in weekend stays, eh?  I'm not buying that one.



I think that's just poor PR spin.  

The sad reality is that DVC has an obligation to reallocate the charts if they no longer correspond to member demand.  I know Disney likes to soft-sell negative changes but perhaps when the info returns they will use a more up-front manner to communicate the rationale.


----------



## Cindaddy

Here's my question.  Obviously, this has been in the works for some time.  Why wasn't the point chart for BLT set up like this to begin with?  How can you open the resort with a point chart for 4 months and then make significant changes?  Frustrating to say the least.


----------



## epcotwanderer

Can they re-neg on the posted changes? I am assuming that they are in the booklets were are about to receive in the mail.

I know a bunch of people are mad because they book Sun-Fri to avoid the weekend. My inlaws do it all the time. I think this is a fairer way for all members. The system is more equitable for any member no matter when you vacation. I go long weekends because I have limited vacation time. It's nice that DVC is thinking about the equality for everyone. 

I hope they don't go back. The 2010 values are so much fairer for everyone.


----------



## WolfpackFan

Looking at the big picture, this move may help DVC but is going to hurt WDW itself. Instead of us taking 2-3 trips a year, we will only do 1-2 trips and stay the entire week instead of staying 5 nights (plus usually a night or two at a Value or Moderate before our DVC stay). That is a lot less nights staying at WDW which means less ticket sales (no more AP's), less meals, etc. But I'm sure the powers to be know what they are doing . I just feel like my DVC contracts have lost a lot of value by this one announcement. We were just looking at HHI and it really messes us up there big time. It was taking 110 points to stay in a 1BR the first part of June for 5 nights. Now it takes 125. We're either going to have to augment our HHI points with our other contracts and take a chance of not getting a 7 month ressie or stay in a Studio instead (which is a real disappointment).

I know one thing - I've watched DVC make a lot of changes over the last few years and never really gotten bothered too much by them. But this time they have made a change that really directly effects our DVC experience and I'm very bothered by the change.


----------



## KLR-wlv

The same VB thanksgiving reservation I have for 09 would cost 44 more points in 10. A 20% increase. When people have purchased specific amounts of points for specific accomodations at specific times of years, this is a huge problem. I cancelled the BLT add on since I had purchased enough points to reserve a GV every 3 years at high time. I no longer could do that with the 145 points. Sure if you have 600 points, and could drop 200 points for a Sat night stay in a GV this is great news - but for those of us who are fine with sun-thursday stays - and purchased points with 5 day stays in mind - this is a 20% decrease in our point values. So the solution is to purchase 25 more points at VB so I can have the same accomodations I've reserved for the past 6 years? And that's until they decide to just even out the points and have every day be the same? Then I can add on some more. I can't help but feel swindled. I don't mind maintenance fee increases - but this has made many future plans with family and friends go up in smoke - unless I give DVC more money for more points.


----------



## fers31

I do Software Quality Assurance for a living and I can pretty much tell you what happened.  I'm sure somebody accidentally committed the code with the new point charts that everyone is seeing.  They made a code release after hours yesterday for something, and accidentally included the point chart.  They've now realized the mistake, and backed out the code.  This was not a prank or a way to guage people's feelings on this, it was accidental and WILL happen shortly (whenever the planned release was supposed to be.)  I'm also surpised that people seem so shocked by this news.  There were tons of people who took advantage of the Sun-Fri stay due to the points and never used the weekends.  If anything, people won't be able to take as many weekdays and you might even get some better availability now.


----------



## dzorn

I am very disappointed in the way DVC handles major changes like this. 

Yes it was explained to us that the points may change over time just not the total points. If it goes up somewhere it will go down somewhere else yadyadayada.... We were also told about OKW change in 1996. It had been open how long ??? and they were just needed to adjust it. It is very disappointing that Kadini is not even open yet and they are already adjusting it. This was not a spur of the moment decision for DVC. BLT and AKV should have been adjusted before they even went on sale. How can they even state low weekend occupancy as an issue when kadini is not even open yet. This is poor management planning even if it is legal. How much of our dues go toward bad decisions that DVC makes. 

Given our current habits I do not think this will change much for us (still have to figure it out). But I think members should have been given minimum of 1 year notice. After all the 2010 point were available to borrow for 2009 and I am sure some members will have borrowed and now be short when they thought they were safe and managed their points well.

At the very minimum it should have been in the last Disney news thing they mail in the fall.  It should have also been in every members e-mail box before it was posted to the site.  

Looking over the chart so far I not to happy.

Denise in MI


----------



## erionm

dzorn said:


> It is very disappointing that Kadini is not even open yet and they are already adjusting it. This was not a spur of the moment decision for DVC. BLT and AKV should have been adjusted before they even went on sale. How can they even state low weekend occupancy as an issue when kadini is not even open yet. This is poor management planning even if it is legal. How much of our dues go toward bad decisions that DVC makes.



AKV has been open since July 2007 with the converted units in Jambo House.


----------



## epcotwanderer

fers31 said:


> I do Software Quality Assurance for a living and I can pretty much tell you what happened.  I'm sure somebody accidentally committed the code with the new point charts that everyone is seeing.  They made a code release after hours yesterday for something, and accidentally included the point chart.  They've now realized the mistake, and backed out the code.  This was not a prank or a way to guage people's feelings on this, it was accidental and WILL happen shortly (whenever the planned release was supposed to be.)



That makes me feel better. I hope they keep the changes. It's nice to see that the weekenders finally aren't getting porked for our stays.


----------



## dis-happy

WolfpackFan said:


> Looking at the big picture, this move may help DVC but is going to hurt WDW itself. Instead of us taking 2-3 trips a year, we will only do 1-2 trips and stay the entire week instead of staying 5 nights (plus usually a night or two at a Value or Moderate before our DVC stay). That is a lot less nights staying at WDW which means less ticket sales (no more AP's), less meals, etc. But I'm sure the powers to be know what they are doing . I just feel like my DVC contracts have lost a lot of value by this one announcement. We were just looking at HHI and it really messes us up there big time. It was taking 110 points to stay in a 1BR the first part of June for 5 nights. Now it takes 125. We're either going to have to augment our HHI points with our other contracts and take a chance of not getting a 7 month ressie or stay in a Studio instead (which is a real disappointment).
> 
> 
> 
> I know one thing - I've watched DVC make a lot of changes over the last few years and never really gotten bothered too much by them. But this time they have made a change that really directly effects our DVC experience and I'm very bothered by the change.





Our scenario is similar to yours, and may be similar to others who are less than a day's drive to WDW.  

The AP's only made sense for us due to taking 3-4 trips a year.  And sometimes we would add on an extra fun trip (like a long weekend last Aug. staying at the Marriott on points) simply because we had the AP.  The DDE card looks less attractive too.  

Like you, I'm not typically one to complain about change, but the more I see how this affects our family's DVC experience, the less happy I become.


----------



## chalee94

epcotwanderer said:


> The 2010 values are so much fairer for everyone.



eh, the 2010 numbers work better for some and worse for others.  it's not a question of "more fair" or "less fair."

on one hand, it was probably overdue and necessary to equalize demand.  DVC contracts are now more desirable for locals and weekenders, but they are less desirable for those who bought intending to stay on the cheaper weeknights.

it strikes me as a little risky for DVC to make such a drastic change in the current economic environment.  most DVCers (including me, most likely) will just suck it up and adapt, but if there is a significant number of disappointed owners who add their contracts to the resale pile, it'll be interesting to see if it starts to put ROFR under pressure.


----------



## Starr W.

tjkraz said:


> I know Disney likes to soft-sell negative changes but perhaps when the info returns they will use a more up-front manner to communicate the rationale.



 .


----------



## Doctor P

My biggest concern is that if they have a new point structure, it really needs to be in place for reservations beginning this Sunday since the booking window for January 1 technically begins on January 25 under the new +7 system.  Otherwise, they are really going to have a huge mess on their hands.


----------



## dizzneebabe

cogero said:


> It probably won't effect us we bought 270 points to be able to stay a full week and are looking to add on at another resort for home resort booking so I am not worried. and booking those weekends really hurt for our NOvember 09 trip.
> 
> I feel bad for those it really hurts though.



I thought the same thing.  We are not a Sun-Thurs vacationers and we NOW own 404 points (between 2 resorts) and it puts a small kink in our plans that we have made for the next 4 or 5 years--if the 2010 points stay in place.  I will have to borrow every year or drop a night every few years.

You would think that for almost 40K  plus MF's, we could vacation without a problem!


----------



## Disneycouple99

fers31 said:


> I do Software Quality Assurance for a living and I can pretty much tell you what happened.  I'm sure somebody accidentally committed the code with the new point charts that everyone is seeing.  They made a code release after hours yesterday for something, and accidentally included the point chart.  They've now realized the mistake, and backed out the code.  This was not a prank or a way to guage people's feelings on this, it was accidental and WILL happen shortly (whenever the planned release was supposed to be.)  I'm also surpised that people seem so shocked by this news.  There were tons of people who took advantage of the Sun-Fri stay due to the points and never used the weekends.  If anything, people won't be able to take as many weekdays and you might even get some better availability now.



Somebody is in troubleeeee.


----------



## tjkraz

WolfpackFan said:


> Looking at the big picture, this move may help DVC but is going to hurt WDW itself. Instead of us taking 2-3 trips a year, we will only do 1-2 trips and stay the entire week instead of staying 5 nights (plus usually a night or two at a Value or Moderate before our DVC stay). That is a lot less nights staying at WDW which means less ticket sales (no more AP's), less meals, etc.



But for every night that you are forfeiting, someone else will be staying in the room.  The overall goal is more balanced occupancy closer to the 98% year-round level that we SHOULD see.  



> I know one thing - I've watched DVC make a lot of changes over the last few years and never really gotten bothered too much by them. But this time they have made a change that really directly effects our DVC experience and I'm very bothered by the change.



Good way of putting it.  I feel the same way.  My brain still knows this could and should happen, but it's the first time any DVC change has really left me a bit unsettled.


----------



## dd08

fers31 said:


> I do Software Quality Assurance for a living and I can pretty much tell you what happened.  I'm sure somebody accidentally committed the code with the new point charts that everyone is seeing.  They made a code release after hours yesterday for something, and accidentally included the point chart.  They've now realized the mistake, and backed out the code.  This was not a prank or a way to guage people's feelings on this, it was accidental and WILL happen shortly (whenever the planned release was supposed to be.)



It could be that it was a mistake as you describe, but keep in mind that they also released a link in the "news" section describing the "reason" for the realllocation of points. Which they pulled at the same time they pulled the '10 charts.

If the mistake you described is what happened, then it was also for the news link.  It would seem odd that they were "committing a code" for a news link but that's just me


My thought is that somewhere there was the "ok" to give the announcement regarding the change in the waitlist and this was misunderstood as to roll out the announcement for the point changes along with it.


----------



## dd08

dzorn said:


> How can they even state low weekend occupancy as an issue when kadini is not even open yet.



Not going to defend how they announced the changes, but if every other resort, including Jambo at AKV, had lower occupancy on weekends, it really wasn't a stretch to assume Kadini and BLT would as well


----------



## deedeetoo

Well it seems to me in addition to reallocating between weekend and weekdays they have also reallocated between seasons.

We always go for 1 week during Magic Season.  The cost for 1 week has gone up 2 points for both 1 bedroom and 2 bedrooms.  Its not going to break us or affect our immediate plans, but since we bank and borrow between years it is going to eventually result in one less night for us in a villa.


----------



## alldiz

dis-happy said:


> OOH, LIGHTBULB MOMENT!!!!
> 
> 
> You know how people have posted intermittantly that their points totals on the member website were messed up?  I was one of those people.  A few months ago a stay I had taken (2 b/r, BCV, early June) went from showing as 170 points used to 195 points used.  It went back to normal the next day, but I called Member Accouning and asked if they were messing with the website (and was told no).  Since the error was corrected, I didn't think too much more about it.
> 
> But now it hits me: that 195 points is the NEW points total for the new charts.  The IT people must have been testing it (and there must have been a screw up for the testing process to make it on the website).
> 
> This change has obviously been in the works for MONTHS!!!  Absolutely no excuse whatsoever to spring it like this.



This really stinks.....I just realized how it seems all resorts went down in Value.....except WLV...it went up.
Less than BCV, SSR.....same as savannah view.....I'm pissed.
Kerri


----------



## KLR-wlv

I don't think sun-thurs folks were "taking advantage" of anything - that is the system disney sold and we purchased. I bought 8 years ago added on once - have spent $20000 on points and now I can't even take a 5 night vacation during spring break without borrowing? They have a point chart out for blt which people made purchases based on - and change it within 4 months? I just made a WL reservation for 2 weekend nights before our VB trip in nov. thinking I'd have enough points for a 5 night stay in a 2 bedroom at christmas in 2010 - and now I'm 35 points short for that and it makes that trip impossible. I don't see how that is more "fair and equitable".


----------



## epcotwanderer

KLR-wlv said:


> I don't think sun-thurs folks were "taking advantage" of anything - that is the system disney sold and we purchased. I bought 8 years ago added on once - have spent $20000 on points and now I can't even take a 5 night vacation during spring break without borrowing? They have a point chart out for blt which people made purchases based on - and change it within 4 months? I just made a WL reservation for 2 weekend nights before our VB trip in nov. thinking I'd have enough points for a 5 night stay in a 2 bedroom at christmas in 2010 - and now I'm 35 points short for that and it makes that trip impossible. I don't see how that is more "fair and equitable".



I don't think the Sun-Thurs were taking advantage...they were just making the system work for them. This is now causing a breakdown in the system that is now being recalibrated and fixed.


----------



## CaptHomer

Really weak on DVC's part.  The have now lowered the weekends so the locals can now stay on weekends only at a lower cost and make it harder for us that have to travel to get a full week because we have to stay a week to justify the airfares.


----------



## Inkmahm

Another advantage to Disney will be fewer change overs in rooms, I think, so fewer housekeeping costs.  All those people staying Sun to Thurs, leaving for Fri andSat and then coming back for Sun again... now maybe they'll stay straight through.  One less villa to be cleaned for "new" people on the weekend.  Same for short stays at Pop, etc.

Just in general, I think longer stays are looked on favorably by Disney to save housekeeping. Now we'll see if the weekend point drop is enough to get locals to come for just a weekend at a time.  That would offset a bit of the housekeeping savings I think.


----------



## jamstew

The changes hurt me for my weeknight solo trips in May & December.What has been 60 & 65 points will now be 65 & 70 points, a net increase of 10 points. 

For my kids/grandkids trips in a 1BR for a week in Dream season, there is a 2 point increase. In Magic season, BCV stays the same & VWL goes up 2. 

For 7-night family trips in a 2BR in Dream season, BCV went down by 3 and VWL went down by 1. 

This is not dealbreaker, but I'm not happy about the extra 10 points a year for my solo trips. I still won't be staying on weekends. Actually, I've already booked an RCI exchange (with my traditional timeshare, not my DVC) for the first week in May of 2010 with a Sunday check-in. and I'll be moving to BCV for five weeknights at the end.


----------



## hakepb

Any points based timeshare only works if the points usage is balanced.  We do pay DVC to run a balanced system.

If weekend use was too low, then they, unfortunately, owed us a re-balancing of the system. 

It could be worse, if members all borrowed points without banking, DVC would have to put a (at least temporary) stop to all borrowing activities, that would affect members much much more.

And yes, I'm not happy about this rebalancing.  I own closer to the minimum buy in and realize the worst thing they could do to me is making all nights the same points (because there would then be no "value" points periods that gave me longer trips)


----------



## zackiedawg

I'd have to say that the changes work in my favor, if indeed they go through...so no complaints on my end.  I have always, since I bought, had weekends included in my stays.  I go 5-6 times a year, and each time includes at least one, and usually both, weekend point days.  I've always had to deal with the mystefying phenomenon of trying to book a 5 night stay on a Friday through Tuesday, and having lots of trouble getting a 2-bedroom availability in my preferred resort because all days were available except Monday night or Tuesday night (at the time, I never realized that there were folks who go on weekdays to avoid the higher weekend points...I generally HAVE to go on weekends as I'm taking days off at work for my many trips up there, and I can maximize vacation day usage if I append them to weekends).

So for folks like me who live locally, and go up 4, 5, or 6 times a year for 4-night or 5-night stays on extended weekends, this should reduce overall points per stay and possibly make weekday and weekend availability be a little more equal.


----------



## jlewisinsyr

Inkmahm said:


> Another advantage to Disney will be fewer change overs in rooms, I think, so fewer housekeeping costs.  All those people staying Sun to Thurs, leaving for Fri andSat and then coming back for Sun again... now maybe they'll stay straight through.  One less villa to be cleaned for "new" people on the weekend.  Same for short stays at Pop, etc.
> 
> Just in general, I think longer stays are looked on favorably by Disney to save housekeeping. Now we'll see if the weekend point drop is enough to get locals to come for just a weekend at a time.  That would offset a bit of the housekeeping savings I think.



I am sure this was some of their intent, but then they should have left the full week totals alone and just adjusted the weekday/weekend amounts to balance (it can be done) to the original week.

In this case they did two major changes, adjusted the week totals in addition to the reallocation between weekdays and weeknights.


----------



## dis-happy

Inkmahm said:


> Another advantage to Disney will be fewer change overs in rooms, I think, so fewer housekeeping costs.  All those people staying Sun to Thurs, leaving for Fri andSat and then coming back for Sun again... now maybe they'll stay straight through.  One less villa to be cleaned for "new" people on the weekend.  Same for short stays at Pop, etc.
> 
> Just in general, I think longer stays are looked on favorably by Disney to save housekeeping. Now we'll see if the weekend point drop is enough to get locals to come for just a weekend at a time.  That would offset a bit of the housekeeping savings I think.




Do you really think weekenders will flock in now?  The points are still quite a bit proportionally higher for weekends (if they went to a straight point across the week it would be a different story).  Honestly, all they've really done is punish the S-Th night crowd; use up more points and there are less floating around out there being banked, etc.  It may put a dent in the private vs. CRO rental spread though.


----------



## dizney4us

I am unable to see what the news points are for 2010.  On the member website I can only find 2009?  Am I missing something? 
Also, is this only for 2010 or from now on?


----------



## wildernessDad

It's odd that the AKV GV required points were changed in the opposite direction.  Weekday stays in 2010 will use less points than in 2009.  Weekend stays will use more.


----------



## chalee94

dizney4us said:


> I am unable to see what the news points are for 2010.  On the member website I can only find 2009?  Am I missing something?
> Also, is this only for 2010 or from now on?



starts in 2010, but will continue (unless mgmt decides to make another big change on short notice.)

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216


----------



## PEANUT1

Count me into the "bummed out" group. 

We do mostly sun-fri trips so we can maximize our points. We are planning to do the treehouses for 6 nights days next may. Our point total went from 220 with the old points chart to 233.


----------



## logan115

Do you think that this will increase, decrease, or have no effect on the amount of resales on the market ?

1) Increase - from people that are now "short" points and decide to sell DVC.
2) Decrease - from people that are now "short" points and decide to BUY more to maintain their existing vacation plans.
3) No effect - will basically have the same amount of people selling as buying.

Chris


----------



## BWV Dreamin

logan115 said:


> Do you think that this will increase, decrease, or have no effect on the amount of resales on the market ?
> 
> 1) Increase - from people that are now "short" points and decide to sell DVC.
> 2) Decrease - from people that are now "short" points and decide to BUY more to maintain their existing vacation plans.
> 3) No effect - will basically have the same amount of people selling as buying.
> 
> Chris


Well, I think my 30 pt. BLT contract just appreciated 100%!


----------



## CaptHomer

Inkmahm said:


> Another advantage to Disney will be fewer change overs in rooms, I think, so fewer housekeeping costs.
> 
> Just in general, I think longer stays are looked on favorably by Disney to save housekeeping. Now we'll see if the weekend point drop is enough to get locals to come for just a weekend at a time.  That would offset a bit of the housekeeping savings I think.



I don't think they care about housekeeping costs.  If they can just push the cost onto us through higher annual dues then they don't care.  Although they are probably profiting on the housekeeping portion of the dues.


----------



## Debbie Jean

dizney4us said:


> I am unable to see what the news points are for 2010.  On the member website I can only find 2009?  Am I missing something?
> Also, is this only for 2010 or from now on?



Me, too!  

All I see are 2010 points for the Cruise line... did they take the 2010 DVC resorts down???  

Edited to add: Oops, just saw that they had taken it down... that's what I get for not reading the whole thread!


----------



## dzorn

erionm said:


> AKV has been open since July 2007 with the converted units in Jambo House.



Yes I do realize that I think with all the DVC occupancy trends data from other resorts, less than two year you should not have to be readjusting the chart already. How many years was OKW open before they made any adjustment?

Long term I am not sure how this will work for us, but at the very least I am disappointed that the initial point charts for BLT and AKV were poorly planned. I do not think occupancy trends have changed tremendously since they were created and should have been better to begin with. DVC should be planning better for the long term. 

I would love to see a chart with the occupancy trends. I really doubt that many units sat empty during Premier season, yet those points went down for the weeks. 

If is necessary then so be it, but give members adequate notice. If this was a 2011 adjustment I would be less concerned than I am now.  

Denise in MI


----------



## december14disney




----------



## dzorn

dd08 said:


> Not going to defend how they announced the changes, but if every other resort, including Jambo at AKV, had lower occupancy on weekends, it really wasn't a stretch to assume Kadini and BLT would as well



Yes but they should have taken this in account when the charts were developed in the first place.

Denise in MI


----------



## spiceycat

Debbie Jean said:


> Me, too!
> 
> All I see are 2010 points for the Cruise line... did they take the 2010 DVC resorts down???



think they are reconsidering.

especially BLT - the points are higher PERIOD. at least for what I have seem.

true some weekend points are lower - but all weekday points are higher.

BLT has not even OPENED. so they knew this last month and still allowed us to buy at BLT - knowing that the point costs would be going up.

pretty sure that BLT owners have a case against Disney.

Especially since there are more weekdays in a year than weekends.

anyway need to work - will get back later.


----------



## Splash Mountain Fan

This is not good news for us either. We have just enough points to take 2 five-day trips a year. Back to the drawing board.


----------



## Sammie

I know they are within the POS to do this and at this point until the point charts settle and we experience booking with the changes first hand; I am not sure whether I will be against this greatly or it will be ok.

What I am "*SICK and TIRED*" off is them making major changes to things with the same old message of, due to member requests. Who are these members making these requests. 

I feel that when a  major change is made there really needs to be a survey of the total membership made, not just complaints made to the Member Satisfaction Team. What about the members who were happy with the way it was.  but felt no need to let them know. Does their want not count.  

How hard would it be to use an email survey or post an announcement on the member site with a link to survey members. 

I am really tried of feeling like they truly do not care anymore and are just going to run rough shod over us.


----------



## PMDR59

Good for some bad for others!!!

Doesnt really affect us one way or the other. We recently bought in Aug for AKV.  Based the decison on the points we bought (230) on several different things.   waht we could afford being number 1. Then we looked at ALL the resorts point charts for 1br  for the times we  usually travel.  AKV SV of course being the highest. And took into account that we would sometimes be  banking or borrowing depending on when we actually go. In 09 we are going 2x and it is not our normal vacation times. We are booked at SSR in August for a 1br using 229 of our 230 developer points. And the week after Thanksgiving  in AKV 1br SV. Being that it fell into UY 09 and UY 10 (our UY is Dec) we used 96 pts banked 134 into UY10 and used 114  of the banked points for the Dec dates of our stay. Leaving us with UY 10 of 230 + the 20 left over that we banked. 

While I understand some people are very set in their ways on how & when they use their points, there is never ANY guarantee that what you want is going to be available when you want it.


----------



## PMDR59

Good for some bad for others!!!

Doesnt really affect us one way or the other. We recently bought in Aug for AKV.  Based the decison on the points we bought (230) on several different things.   waht we could afford being number 1. Then we looked at ALL the resorts point charts for 1br  for the times we  usually travel.  AKV SV of course being the highest. And took into account that we would sometimes be  banking or borrowing depending on when we actually go. In 09 we are going 2x and it is not our normal vacation times. We are booked at SSR in August for a 1br using 229 of our 230 developer points. And the week after Thanksgiving  in AKV 1br SV. Being that it fell into UY 09 and UY 10 (our UY is Dec) we used 96 pts banked 134 into UY10 and used 114  of the banked points for the Dec dates of our stay. Leaving us with UY 10 of 230 + the 20 left over that we banked. 

While I understand some people are very set in their ways on how & when they use their points, there is never ANY guarantee that what you want is going to be available when you want it.


----------



## logan115

BWV Dreamin said:


> Well, I think my 30 pt. BLT contract just appreciated 100%!




That's what I was thinking too - smaller resale contracts are going to cost more.  Which messes me up because I don't even anywhere yet  

Granted I was looking at buying in with a 50-75 pt contract (we expect to go every other year or 2 out of 3 years if we're lucky), but now it looks like it only would make sense if I buy a 100 pt contract or bigger.

Oh well, will just have to wait and see what happens next.


----------



## DiznyDi

This doesn't seem to have a significant impact on us. We almost always stay 1 weekend, sometimes moving from a smaller into a larger room to save points. For our planned 2009 trips, those same trips in 2010 would actually save us 8 points; 7 points on one trip and 1 point on the other.

 to the Sunday-Friday travelers. It looks like you will be the ones most significantly affected.


----------



## dzorn

Sammie said:


> I know they are within the POS to do this and at this point until the point charts settle and we experience booking with the changes first hand; I am not sure whether I will be against this greatly or it will be ok.
> 
> What I am "*SICK and TIRED*" off is them making major changes to things with the same old message of, due to member requests. Who are these members making these requests.
> 
> I feel that when a  major change is made there really needs to be a survey of the total membership made, not just complaints made to the Member Satisfaction Team. What about the members who were happy with the way it was.  but felt no need to let them know. Does their want not count.
> 
> How hard would it be to use an email survey or post an announcement on the member site with a link to survey members.
> 
> I am really tried of feeling like they truly do not care anymore and are just going to run rough shod over us.



I agree I am more upset with the way thing are planned then poorly executed. 

Denise in MI


----------



## dnoyes

I just checked the point chart December14dis posted (hey, that's my birthday by the way) and the same trip we have booked for Nov 2009 will cost a total of 6 more points in 2010. I have a two bedroom and a studio for 9 nights each. The 2br went up 5 and the studio 1.  it is what it is I guess.

To be fair, my guide DID tell me this could and likely would happen at some point.


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> Well, I think my 30 pt. BLT contract just appreciated 100%!



I don't know about that.  The interested market would appear to be only existing BLT owners who have a need for a small number of points at their Home resort.  Among those who are not BLT owners (both current and non-DVC owners) the demand for a small contract is now lower because those points don't go nearly as far as they have in the past.  

Ultimately I don't see there being a rash of small add-ons because of this move.  I think people will use the borrowing privileges to meet their immediate needs and save the add-ons for larger quantities.  I can tell you this--if I had known about this 10 months ago it would have changed my outlook on the 40-pt BWV add-on we bought.


----------



## AnnaS

Could these surveys have been done when members call MS to inquire/make a reservation and they ask you if you will take a survey at the end of the call?  

Just a thought.  I know the few times I did call and heard that, I always forgot at the end of the call and hung up.

Or maybe it's all just b.s. about considering us members


----------



## Mahusky

Where did the points charts go?  ON DVCMember right now and they have disappeared! 

Did they take them down?


----------



## erionm

Mahusky said:


> Where did the points charts go?  ON DVCMember right now and they have disappeared!
> 
> Did they take them down?


They were pulled down last night.  This thread has them as jpgs.  JPGs of Pulled 2010 Point Charts


----------



## Deemarch

I just tried, too...They are gone!  Just 2009 listed.


----------



## DisFlan

Mahusky said:


> Where did the points charts go?  ON DVCMember right now and they have disappeared!
> 
> Did they take them down?



Yup, they took them down.  With something like this, you'd think they'd want to be REAL sure, definite etc about what they're doing.  My guess is that it's going to happen, but they're uber-bumbling the implementation.  (Not an altogether rare occurrence for DVC.)  I imagine they're getting a LOT of email right now.

DisFlan


----------



## FredS

I for one think that these may be good changes to the point charts.  If you ONLY travel for 5-day trips then it probably won't be beneficial, but for those of us who would love to stay weekend nights, but won't due to the ridiculously higher points, this is an improvement.   I also think that it will help level out demand throughout the year, making it easier overall to visit, as there won't be such dramatically cheaper dates that everyone tries to get, or crazy expensive weekend nights for which no one will use points.  

Sorry for those who expected points to always stay the same, but I know we were certainly notified verbally and in writing that they could be adjusted.  And I think that this is plenty of notice.  

DVC is so much more flexible than most timeshares.  I think their willingness to make changes to improve things is great.


----------



## Bob Price

erionm said:


> Found this posted on the member website:


 "To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, reducing Vacation Point requirements for Friday and Saturday nights."


Overwhelming member demand.  Sounds familiar.


----------



## Plutofan

dis-happy said:


> Do you really think weekenders will flock in now?  The points are still quite a bit proportionally higher for weekends (if they went to a straight point across the week it would be a different story).  Honestly, all they've really done is punish the S-Th night crowd; use up more points and there are less floating around out there being banked, etc.  It may put a dent in the private vs. CRO rental spread though.



Personally I think that Disney needs to keep the point costs high on Friday and Saturday to keep a demand for cash reservation.  I believe that cash reservations represent a pretty good income stream to Disney especially since breakage income is capped in the budget.  What should concern any potential buyers of DVC who are just planning on purchasing enough points for a Sunday - Friday stay is that Disney can do this reallocation again at any point in time in the future and your vacation plans will go out the window unless you do an add on.  No matter what happens Disney has done some damage to their reputation since anyone buying points for a Sunday - Friday should not rely on any charts or guidance since Disney is allowed to make changes at anytime.


----------



## kristenrice

dzorn said:


> If is necessary then so be it, but give members adequate notice. If this was a 2011 adjustment I would be less concerned than I am now.
> 
> Denise in MI



Same here.  My vacation planned for 2009 would have been different because I would have needed to bank the points instead of use them.  Now, they are committed (because of the non-refundable airfare) and I am now going to be forced to try and acquire 25 more points.  I was already planning on borrowing 2011 points and now I don't have enough 2009 points left to bank.  I think that is what has got me so upset. I understand the change, just not the timing.


----------



## pink7420

I saved the exact number of points I needed for my 2010 trip with family, and now I'm off by 1 point!!!!!!!  Where the heck am I going to be able to rent 1 point?!


----------



## Bob Price

Chuck S said:


> I'm happily surprised to see that it really has little impact on our normal vacation habits.  Our currently booked June 2009 studio reservation of 8 nights will be 6 points less in 2010, and our recently completed December 2008 1 bedroom stay of 10 nights (we're not going until January 2010), will be 7 points more.  Overall a one point increase per year.
> 
> More work for Bill and his vacation planner program, though.



Bill are you back yet?  Are you going to be putting in for some OT?  

BLT, THV, GCV, now this....


----------



## dzorn

I did also think of the work Bill will have. 

Bill I hope you know how much we appreciate you!! 

Denise in MI


----------



## Cindaddy

December inspired me.  Here are the point differences for BLT:


----------



## december14disney

Just talked with my guide Rob Shapiro. He said and I quote "now these charts arent official yet" and then went into a whole thing about how it was a great change. I said to him "If they arent official...why did they go Live and why are you defending it and then I said to REALLY benefit us...lower the points for the cruises!"

Hes nice he sounded just as confused as we all are.


----------



## dzorn

Yea but if they did not know about them shouldn't the response be "What reallocation?

Denise in MI


----------



## Sheribo

It's going to cost me an extra 15 points for our annual spring break week at SSR.  I'm not impressed.  15 points gets me a studio night in the fall at most resorts.  We usually do 5 nights at spring break in a one bedroom and then 5 nights in a studio in the fall.  I'm heartbroken that we'll have to buy more or stay less.


----------



## december14disney

dzorn said:


> Yea but if they did not know about them shouldn't the response be "What reallocation?
> 
> Denise in MI



I agree! By the way---where in MI? Im from Sterling Heights!


----------



## casper

You have to hand it to those bean counters, they have found a way to increase the cost of our DVC stays without doing anything illegal by the POS. Isn't it interesting that for most of us our vacations habits are going to cost more in points? I bought DVC as a hedge against inflation. But now I will have to pay more. I'm getting less nights for an ever increasing dues. I guess DVC was too good to be true.


----------



## kenny

Ok what am I missing?  When I go to the members website and click on view vacation point charts, I see them for 2009.

For 2010 I only see the Cruise Line.

Where are the 2010 DVC resort charts?  Am I looking in the wrong spot?


----------



## dzorn

december14disney said:


> I agree! By the way---where in MI? Im from Sterling Heights!



Taylor


----------



## december14disney

kenny said:


> Ok what am I missing?  When I go to the members website and click on view vacation point charts, I see them for 2009.
> 
> For 2010 I only see the Cruise Line.
> 
> Where are the 2010 DVC resort charts?  Am I looking in the wrong spot?



They took them down and we dont know why


----------



## erionm

kenny said:


> Ok what am I missing?  When I go to the members website and click on view vacation point charts, I see them for 2009.
> 
> For 2010 I only see the Cruise Line.
> 
> Where are the 2010 DVC resort charts?  Am I looking in the wrong spot?


They were pulled down last night.  Go here to jpg scans: JPGs of Pulled 2010 Point Charts


----------



## Inkmahm

casper said:


> You have to hand it to those bean counters, they have found a way to increase the cost of our DVC stays without doing anything illegal by the POS. Isn't it interesting that for most of us our vacations habits are going to cost more in points? I bought DVC as a hedge against inflation. But now I will have to pay more. I'm getting less nights for an ever increasing dues. I guess DVC was too good to be true.



I don't think that is true for "most of us."  Certainly not me.  I will save about 12 points per year on my normal vacation schedule.

Remember, the points reallocation is neutral overall. Where some people "lose" others will "win".  The net effect is zero overall.


----------



## dzorn

erionm said:


> They were pulled down last night.  This thread has them as jpgs.  JPGs of Pulled 2010 Point Charts



For those that missed it.

Denise in MI


----------



## bookwormde

I just added a day to my vacation (really nice and knowledgeable MS person) and when I got done I wished her luck after the 25th, she knew what I was talking about.

bookwormde


----------



## SamiL

This whole thing just messes with my obsessive planning. 

Grrrrrrrrrrrr.


----------



## bwvBound

casper said:


> Isn't it interesting that for most of us our vacations habits are going to cost more in points?


Looks like our typical stays will be *reduced* 16 points.


----------



## Cindaddy

Inkmahm said:


> I don't think that is true for "most of us."  Certainly not me.  I will save about 12 points per year on my normal vacation schedule.
> 
> Remember, the points reallocation is neutral overall. Where some people "lose" others will "win".  The net effect is zero overall.



That's only true from a total point count perspective.  Unless you do weekends only or do multiple weekends in a single stay, you are losing. Sun-Thu folks are losing and 8-12 day stays (1 weekend) are losing.  I wouldn't call that neutral.  It's a negative change because weekends are cheaper, but still considerably more than weekdays.


----------



## toocherie

ok--I may be dense, but I haven't really compared how this would affect me.  I don't have a "typical" stay per se.  But if some people's points are increased and some are decreased, how does this end up making money for Disney???  I understand why a lot of people are upset because their expectations are changed, but why would Disney do this?  How does it benefit them?


----------



## bobbiwoz

SamiL said:


> This whole thing just messes with my obsessive planning.
> 
> Grrrrrrrrrrrr.



 I think this is the best response so far!
Bobbi


----------



## robandkelly13

When I go to the DVC webpage I can only pull up the 2009 charts. Under 2010 only the cruises are listed. Anyone else having the same problem?


----------



## Plutofan

I just got off the phone with my guide who has been with DVC for a very long time.  He told me that Disney pulled the point charts because they were not the final version.  He told me to post that you should not rely on those charts.  He said that they are still working on the charts and they should be out in the next couple of weeks.  He expects some changes but was told by higher up that the published charts were not the final version.  Stay tuned.....


----------



## SamiL

toocherie said:


> ok--I may be dense, but I haven't really compared how this would affect me.  I don't have a "typical" stay per se.  But if some people's points are increased and some are decreased, how does this end up making money for Disney???  I understand why a lot of people are upset because their expectations are changed, but why would Disney do this?  How does it benefit them?



Maybe I'm not thinking this through well enough, but might it mean less money for Disney as far as the parks are concerned? It seems plausible that people might shorten their stays (especially those who normally stay over a week with only one weekend) and therefore be in the parks fewer days--spending less money on food and merchandise.

Am I way off or missing something obvious?


----------



## Alisha&Jay

I'm not happy either.  They sure could of given more notice for one thing. i took a look at my Nov '09 trip which I'm going to book on March 1 at BLT in stnd view 1 bdrm, we are driving down from CT so will arrive on a saturday night but stay off property, then check in on sunday Nov 22nd and check out on friday Nov 27th, it comes to 142 points.  Same trip in 2010 would be 149. The AKV difference is even greater, when comparing Feb '09 Presidents week Sun-Thur.  In a SV 1 bdrm the points increase by 14.  I don't know how they can justify the short notice?


----------



## logan115

Plutofan said:


> I just got off the phone with my guide who has been with DVC for a very long time.  He told me that Disney pulled the point charts because they were not the final version.  He told me to post that you should not rely on those charts.  He said that they are still working on the charts and they should be out in the next couple of weeks.  He expects some changes but was told by higher up that the published charts were not the final version.  Stay tuned.....




 Praying that by some miracle the Sun-Thurs nights ultimately end up with smaller increases than shown on the charts


----------



## glennbo123

Cindaddy said:


> That's only true from a total point count perspective.  Unless you do weekends only or do multiple weekends in a single stay, you are losing. Sun-Thu folks are losing and 8-12 day stays (1 weekend) are losing.  I wouldn't call that neutral.  It's a negative change because weekends are cheaper, but still considerably more than weekdays.



That's exactly my line of thinking.  I expect the only people who'll benefit from this are those who only do weekend or long-weekend stays.


----------



## dnoyes

Cindaddy said:


> That's only true from a total point count perspective.  Unless you do weekends only or do multiple weekends in a single stay, you are losing. Sun-Thu folks are losing and 8-12 day stays (1 weekend) are losing.  I wouldn't call that neutral.  It's a negative change because weekends are cheaper, but still considerably more than weekdays.



That would be me you are talking about. We're 3000 miles away so we always stay for 10-12 nights. I lose big time in this deal.


----------



## dd08

SamiL said:


> Maybe I'm not thinking this through well enough, but might it mean less money for Disney as far as the parks are concerned? It seems plausible that people might shorten their stays (especially those who normally stay over a week with only one weekend) and therefore be in the parks fewer days--spending less money on food and merchandise.
> 
> Am I way off or missing something obvious?



Again, not trying to say what's right or wrong, what's fair or unfair, but while some people (sun-thurs DVC'ers or 8to10 night people) may/will decrease their stays, others who have to or like to use weekends for their trips may increase their stays.

Their goal is to have ~100% occupancy 365/7.  They obviously aren't receiving that now, the weekends being the glaring example, hence the reallocation.


----------



## tjkraz

toocherie said:


> ok--I may be dense, but I haven't really compared how this would affect me.  I don't have a "typical" stay per se.  But if some people's points are increased and some are decreased, how does this end up making money for Disney???  I understand why a lot of people are upset because their expectations are changed, but why would Disney do this?  How does it benefit them?



Disney may or may not benefit, but that shouldn't even matter.  The purpose of the points charts is to balance demand.  These changes suggest that the weekend points have been disproportionately high and that the Concierge category at AKV was priced too low (comments here suggest that concierge went up across the board but I haven't actually looked myself. )

As a whole members may not like it...but you can't always go by majority rule.  Heck, if we polled members I bet we could get a majority vote to LOWER the weekday costs further than they were.  

Disney may not even like these changes.  Clearly they are going to have a harder time marketing to budget-seekers and there will be a lot of upset members in general.  

But DVCMC has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the Condo Association(s) as a whole.  You can't use surveys and member feedback to judge whether this reallocation was necessary.  If weekend occupancy is a shadow of that during weekdays, something has to change.  And unfortunately the only way to lower weekend costs is to raise weekdays.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

logan115 said:


> Praying that by some miracle the Sun-Thurs nights ultimately end up with smaller increases than shown on the charts


Don't bet your life on it. These are a done deal....as was previously posted, it seems a "technical" error was made and these were released prematurely.


----------



## dzorn

erionm said:


> They were pulled down last night.  This thread has them as jpgs.  JPGs of Pulled 2010 Point Charts





Plutofan said:


> I just got off the phone with my guide who has been with DVC for a very long time.  He told me that Disney pulled the point charts because they were not the final version.  He told me to post that you should not rely on those charts.  He said that they are still working on the charts and they should be out in the next couple of weeks.  He expects some changes but was told by higher up that the published charts were not the final version.  Stay tuned.....



Yet people are allowed to book into 2010 with the +7 day rule in just a few days. So is MS not going to allow booking 2010 dates yet. 

Denise in MI


----------



## erionm

Plutofan said:


> I just got off the phone with my guide who has been with DVC for a very long time.  He told me that Disney pulled the point charts because they were not the final version.  He told me to post that you should not rely on those charts.  He said that they are still working on the charts and they should be out in the next couple of weeks.  He expects some changes but was told by higher up that the published charts were not the final version.  Stay tuned.....



Unless they delay these changes, they have to be in place by 9pm eastern on 1/26.  On that date a member will be able to reserve 12/26/09 to 1/2/10 at their home resort.


----------



## kristenrice

Plutofan said:


> I just got off the phone with my guide who has been with DVC for a very long time.  He told me that Disney pulled the point charts because they were not the final version.  He told me to post that you should not rely on those charts.  He said that they are still working on the charts and they should be out in the next couple of weeks.  He expects some changes but was told by higher up that the published charts were not the final version.  Stay tuned.....



Question?  Since the 11-month winddow for January 2010 opens in 10 days, wouldn't the points charts have to be finalized and "official" by then?  Can they change the point requirements after booking has begun for that year?  If that is the case, I am going to try and make it through the next 10 days before I make any downgrades to my 2009 trip.


----------



## glennbo123

logan115 said:


> Praying that by some miracle the Sun-Thurs nights ultimately end up with smaller increases than shown on the charts



Agree, but I doubt it.  If it got that far -- that some IT person posted it on the website, even temporarily -- they're pretty close to being final.  And besides, time is running out before 2010 reservations can be made.


----------



## keishashadow

Plutofan said:


> I just got off the phone with my guide who has been with DVC for a very long time. He told me that Disney pulled the point charts because they were not the final version. He told me to post that you should not rely on those charts. He said that they are still working on the charts and they should be out in the next couple of weeks. He expects some changes but was told by higher up that the published charts were not the final version. Stay tuned.....


 
isn't 11 month window for Jan in 10 days or so really may mess some folks up w/marathon plans etc. late to scramble for points...

thinly disguised effort to beef up addons imo , must be lots of ROFRd points layiing about or perhaps recent buyers just walking away due to economic downturn 

as for me, will result in:

* pony'ing up some $ for yet another small addon 

* not stressing so much about arriving on a Saturday , adjusting travel dates/split stays either on or off site

or (gasp)

paring down to 1 trip a year or less


----------



## erionm

kristenrice said:


> Question?  Since the 11-month winddow for January 2010 opens in 10 days, wouldn't the points charts have to be finalized and "official" by then?  Can they change the point requirements after booking has begun for that year?  If that is the case, I am going to try and make it through the next 10 days before I make any downgrades to my 2009 trip.


The night of 1/1/2010 could be included on a reservation made on 1/26 as the last night of a 12/26/09 to 1/2/10 stay.


----------



## DebbieB

BWV Dreamin said:


> Don't bet your life on it. These are a done deal....as was previously posted, it seems a "technical" error was made and these were released prematurely.



Why is it that a huge company like Disney is always having some kind of "technical problem"?    The first BLT points chart had a glaring error on it - lake view was more than MK view for some dates.

I think if they were making these changes for 2010, it should have been announced no later than last summer, not less than a week before 2010 reservations start.


----------



## dzorn

tjkraz said:


> Disney may or may not benefit, but that shouldn't even matter.  The purpose of the points charts is to balance demand.  These changes suggest that the weekend points have been disproportionately high and that the Concierge category at AKV was priced too low (comments here suggest that concierge went up across the board but I haven't actually looked myself. )
> 
> As a whole members may not like it...but you can't always go by majority rule.  Heck, if we polled members I bet we could get a majority vote to LOWER the weekday costs further than they were.
> 
> Disney may not even like these changes.  Clearly they are going to have a harder time marketing to budget-seekers and there will be a lot of upset members in general.
> 
> But DVCMC has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the Condo Association(s) as a whole.  You can't use surveys and member feedback to judge whether this reallocation was necessary.  If weekend occupancy is a shadow of that during weekdays, something has to change.  And unfortunately the only way to lower weekend costs is to raise weekdays.



On a weekly basis concierge stayed mostly the same.

Studios all seasons same or lower
One bed One season +2 another -3
Two Bed 2 seasons +1 one season -3

The week day is higher but over all weekly not much difference. I do wonder how many concierge rooms are usually empty on the weekend.

Denise in MI


----------



## ldo

OK--I was a points saver and bought for sun-thur stays---so I am bummed-messes up my Spring 2010--we will have to stay a day less.  I, personally, thoguht that the the SUn-THur. WAS the "best kept secret."

But, 2X the points for weekends was ridiculous.  Look at WDW hotels, they implemented a weekend surcharge last year, but it is $10-$20 more for Friday SAt, not double the price.
I agree that more warning should have been given, but I don't see any sinister rationale behind the re-allocation.  The only savings that DVC makes is lessening turnover and in maid fees--which, We as members pay in our dues anyway.  They don't "make" any $ from higher weekday points---the points are the same--just allocated differently--and some (like me) will lose, and others (weekenders) will win and many (who vacation for a full week) will be unaffected.  
IMHO, it is really the duty of DVC to reallocate--if more people are choosing to NOT stay on weekends (b/c of higher points), then they have lower demand and need to readjust points to match demand--and they can't lower weekend and keep weekdays the same. Just my 2 cents. Elaine


----------



## Inkmahm

Cindaddy said:


> That's only true from a total point count perspective.  Unless you do weekends only or do multiple weekends in a single stay, you are losing. Sun-Thu folks are losing and 8-12 day stays (1 weekend) are losing.  I wouldn't call that neutral.  It's a negative change because weekends are cheaper, but still considerably more than weekdays.


And those staying 5 or 6 days including a weekend are gaining.  Points are less for our trips.  And yes, on a total point count it is neutral.  On an individual level, I can't see  it being heavily weighted towards good or bad for individual members, either.


----------



## jlewisinsyr

ldo said:


> They don't "make" any $ from higher weekday points---the points are the same--just allocated differently--and some (like me) will lose, and others (weekenders) will win and many (who vacation for a full week) will be unaffected.



Actually even many of the weekly stays saw some adjusments, plus or minus.  When Disney sells based how many days you want to stay in what season and in how big of a room, making changes like this are really poor customer service, something Disney is suppose to be great at.


----------



## Cindaddy

ldo said:


> OK--I was a points saver and bought for sun-thur stays---so I am bummed-messes up my Spring 2010--we will have to stay a day less.  I, personally, thoguht that the the SUn-THur. WAS the "best kept secret."
> 
> But, 2X the points for weekends was ridiculous.  Look at WDW hotels, they implemented a weekend surcharge last year, but it is $10-$20 more for Friday SAt, not double the price.
> I agree that more warning should have been given, but I don't see any sinister rationale behind the re-allocation.  The only savings that DVC makes is lessening turnover and in maid fees--which, We as members pay in our dues anyway.  They don't "make" any $ from higher weekday points---the points are the same--just allocated differently--and some (like me) will lose, and others (weekenders) will win and many (who vacation for a full week) will be unaffected.
> IMHO, it is really the duty of DVC to reallocate--if more people are choosing to NOT stay on weekends (b/c of higher points), then they have lower demand and need to readjust points to match demand--and they can't lower weekend and keep weekdays the same. Just my 2 cents. Elaine



Maybe.  I would argue that, in my case, selling me a number of points based on a point chart that they know is going to change 4 months after the resort opens is, at least, unethical.  Many people bought points based on a point chart over the years.  If that chart is going to be changed at anytime, that is an improper sales method and the Guide should use another method of calculating points or recommend a cushion to the buyer. My guide told me that the point chart wouldn't change (I knew better thanks to the folks here).


----------



## bethy

DebbieB said:


> Why is it that a huge company like Disney is always having some kind of "technical problem"?    The first BLT points chart had a glaring error on it - lake view was more than MK view for some dates.
> 
> I think if they were making these changes for 2010, it should have been announced no later than last summer, not less than a week before 2010 reservations start.



In my personal experience, the larger the organization, the higher the risk for glitches and oversights like these.  I say this with experience being on the receiving end AND with experience dishing it out.


----------



## epcotwanderer

bwvBound said:


> Looks like our typical stays will be *reduced* 16 points.



Same for us. The only stay that will go up is our annual May trip and it's only by 1. I'll take that +1 for the -16 during our other stay.


----------



## SamiL

Okay, this is going to sound really alarmist (and it is). I was thinking, why didn't they bring this change in gradually, to let people get use to it. 

Then I (well, the alarmist in me) thought: What if they are bringing in a change gradually and we're going to see more adjustment in the future. There really is a huge difference in the point cost for weekend stays and weekday stays and as a previous poster pointed out, you don't see a difference that big reflected in traditional hotel rooms. Whose to say this isn't the start of a long-range plan to even things out even more.


----------



## pouncingpluto

This is good for us, too.  We tend to do either full week stays (which are about the same) or long weekends.  If we ever stay longer than a week, it includes two weekends and probably no more weekdays (like a nine-night stay... a week plus the second weekend tacked on).


----------



## alldiz

toocherie said:


> ok--I may be dense, but I haven't really compared how this would affect me.  I don't have a "typical" stay per se.  But if some people's points are increased and some are decreased, how does this end up making money for Disney???  I understand why a lot of people are upset because their expectations are changed, but why would Disney do this?  How does it benefit them?


I think they just figured out what was hardest to book....and they lowered those points...and raised them for easier booking times...ie....more booked rooms for disney.


dd08 said:


> Again, not trying to say what's right or wrong, what's fair or unfair, but while some people (sun-thurs DVC'ers or 8to10 night people) may/will decrease their stays, others who have to or like to use weekends for their trips may increase their stays.
> 
> Their goal is to have ~100% occupancy 365/7.  *They obviously aren't receiving that now, the weekends being the glaring example, hence the reallocation.*



Seems that the 1BR people are being punished....the weekend point "reallocation" dosen't seem obvious at all....It's the 1BR increase....that is apparent to me.
Funny....I thought 2BR's were more popular 
Kerri


----------



## Megsmachine

I am not trying to be a  or get people riled up, but really this was an excellent business decision on Disney's part.   

You aren't a DVC member because you like to go to Disney occasionally, you are a DVC member because you are a HUGE Disney fan, or an addict.  It's not like you are going to say "thats it!!  Iam done with Disney!!"  They have you in the palm of their hand. 

They are counting on members buying more points so they can continue coming to Disney.  Heck they probably even know most people were going to be angry about it, but all the while they knew you'd  have to get over it and find another way to make it work for you.

SO they upped the points, AND are making more money off of DVC'ers because you are going to have to buy more points.  How are you going to find 1-25 points to buy??  Well you're (most likely) not!  You are going to have to buy bigger add ons.  SO now Disney is really putting more money in their pockets.

Oh I am sure they realize a few will try to re-sell their points, but all in all, currents DVC'ers that try to sell are not going to make any money off of that or even break even.  And really, there are tons of new people lined up to buy
points that have no idea this happened, as it in no way affects them.  Or at least they don't know what "used to be".

So you (DVC'ers) are caught between a rock and a hard place.  DO you buy more to add on or do you sell for a loss?  Or do you keep them and just go for fewer days?


----------



## LisaS

Megsmachine said:


> Or do you keep them and just go for fewer days?


Fewer trips overall since each trip now requires more points. There is no way I'm buying any more points from Disney. We'll just go less often or have shorter stays. And maybe sell one of our contracts and cut back by one trip per year. Probably eat more meals in the room to make up for the higher cost of the trip.


----------



## keishashadow

ldo said:


> OK--I was a points saver and bought for sun-thur stays---so I am bummed-messes up my Spring 2010--we will have to stay a day less. I, personally, thoguht that the the SUn-THur. WAS the "best kept secret."
> 
> *But, 2X the points for weekends was ridiculous. *Look at WDW hotels, they implemented a weekend surcharge last year, but it is $10-$20 more for Friday SAt, not double the price.
> I agree that more warning should have been given, but I don't see any sinister rationale behind the re-allocation. The only savings that DVC makes is lessening turnover and in maid fees--which, We as members pay in our dues anyway. They don't "make" any $ from higher weekday points---the points are the same--just allocated differently--and some (like me) will lose, and others (weekenders) will win and many (who vacation for a full week) will be unaffected.
> IMHO, it is really the duty of DVC to reallocate--*if more people are* *choosing to NOT stay on weekends (b/c of higher points),* then they have lower demand and need to readjust points to match demand--and they can't lower weekend and keep weekdays the same. Just my 2 cents. Elaine


 
hmmm ...when i asked why the weekends were so much higher when i originally bought in, i was told it was to protect the interests the non-locals...otherwise, the weekends would be impossible to book as many Floridians (and others able to make short trips) would buy in specifically to book numerous long weekends as opposed to a weekly stay

guess we'll find out if those who feel confident in their ability to book a standard week (assuming they rn't booking @ 11 months, 10 days out, etc) start posting they've been shut out with any regularity


----------



## WolfpackFan

PMDR59 said:


> While I understand some people are very set in their ways on how & when they use their points, there is never ANY guarantee that what you want is going to be available when you want it.



I really take exception to this comment. It has absolutely nothing to do with being "set in our ways". It has to do with we have a finite number of points and this change is making our points less valuable. We have to be very careful how we use our points and that means taking vacations on Sun-Thurs, with an occasional Friday thrown in. But now we're finding our points will not allow us to do that anymore.


----------



## kenny

Cindaddy said:


> That's only true from a total point count perspective.  Unless you do weekends only or do multiple weekends in a single stay, you are losing. Sun-Thu folks are losing and 8-12 day stays (1 weekend) are losing.  I wouldn't call that neutral.  It's a negative change because weekends are cheaper, but still considerably more than weekdays.



I have to disagree on this one. I think it would depend on your resort and time of year.

We typically go for 8-10 nights (9-11 days).  We own at both SSR and BLT and get a 1 bedroom.

*Adventure Season at SSR*
8 nights in 2009 = 223 pts
8 nights in 2010 = 212 pts
10 nights in 2009 = 263 pts
10 night in 2010 = 256pts

*Choice Season at SSR*
8 nights in 2009 = 236 pts
8 nights in 2010 = 228 pts
10 nights in 2009 = 280 pts
10 night in 2010 = 276pts

*Adventure Season at BLT MK View*
8 nights in 2009 = 325pts
8 nights in 2010 = 323pts
10 nights in 2009 = 389pts
10 night in 2010 = 391pts

*Choice Season at BLT*
8 nights in 2009 = 343 pts
8 nights in 2010 = 342pts
10 nights in 2009 = 413 pts
10 night in 2010 = 414pts

At SSR we make out both ways.  At BLT we make out at 8 days, it's at push at 9 days and it costs us 2 more pt at 10 days for Adventure Season, 1 more at Choice.

So it all depends on the season you travel and what resort.  It's just a blanket that only shorter stay DVCer's benefit.  Don't get me wrong, I am not happy about it costing a few more points at BLT but on the flip side I save at SSR.  

Guess we'll have to wait and see what the final chart looks like.


----------



## twebber55

Megsmachine said:


> I am not trying to be a  or get people riled up, but really this was an excellent business decision on Disney's part.
> 
> You aren't a DVC member because you like to go to Disney occasionally, you are a DVC member because you are a HUGE Disney fan, or an addict.  It's not like you are going to say "thats it!!  Iam done with Disney!!"  They have you in the palm of their hand.
> 
> They are counting on members buying more points so they can continue coming to Disney.  Heck they probably even know most people were going to be angry about it, but all the while they knew you'd  have to get over it and find another way to make it work for you.
> 
> SO they upped the points, AND are making more money off of DVC'ers because you are going to have to buy more points.  How are you going to find 1-25 points to buy??  Well you're (most likely) not!  You are going to have to buy bigger add ons.  SO now Disney is really putting more money in their pockets.
> 
> Oh I am sure they realize a few will try to re-sell their points, but all in all, currents DVC'ers that try to sell are not going to make any money off of that or even break even.  And really, there are tons of new people lined up to buy
> points that have no idea this happened, as it in no way affects them.  Or at least they don't know what "used to be".
> 
> So you (DVC'ers) are caught between a rock and a hard place.  DO you buy more to add on or do you sell for a loss?  Or do you keep them and just go for fewer days?



actually for my family we lose a day at disney and they lose my money for tickets and DDP ....understand your point but just disagree


----------



## jekjones1558

Disney's MAJOR mistake is that this change is being done with too little notice.  I agree with those who say that Disney has the fiduciary responsibility to have the DVC units filled 100% each night.  In so far as they do not do this, all of us will have a hard time getting reservations for the dates that we want because the demand is not even.  We all signed contracts stating that these changes are possible.  Many of us expected that Disney would be respectful enough of members to make necessary changes to the point structure with a fair warning, to allow members to adjust their plans.  My beef with Disney is not the changes, it is the short notice.  I do NOT think Disney stands to gain revenue from this.  DVC units CANNOT be empty on a regular basis on weekends.  If weekend rooms are empty, then there will more demand for weekdays than there are rooms to meet the demand.  IMPLEMENT THE NEW POINT STRUCTURE BEGINNING IN 2011, NOT 2010!


----------



## twebber55

SamiL said:


> Maybe I'm not thinking this through well enough, but might it mean less money for Disney as far as the parks are concerned? It seems plausible that people might shorten their stays (especially those who normally stay over a week with only one weekend) and therefore be in the parks fewer days--spending less money on food and merchandise.
> 
> Am I way off or missing something obvious?



SAmil this is exactly my thought i will be losing a day every trip to Disney.
one less day of the parks and one less day of DDP


----------



## Cindaddy

kenny said:


> I have to disagree on this one. I think it would depend on your resort and time of year.
> 
> We typically go for 8-10 nights (9-11 days).  We own at both SSR and BLT and get a 1 bedroom.
> 
> *Adventure Season at SSR*
> 8 nights in 2009 = 223 pts
> 8 nights in 2010 = 212 pts
> 10 nights in 2009 = 263 pts
> 10 night in 2010 = 256pts
> 
> *Choice Season at SSR*
> 8 nights in 2009 = 236 pts
> 8 nights in 2010 = 228 pts
> 10 nights in 2009 = 280 pts
> 10 night in 2010 = 276pts
> 
> *Adventure Season at BLT MK View*
> 8 nights in 2009 = 325pts
> 8 nights in 2010 = 323pts
> 10 nights in 2009 = 389pts
> 10 night in 2010 = 391pts
> 
> *Choice Season at BLT*
> 8 nights in 2009 = 343 pts
> 8 nights in 2010 = 342pts
> 10 nights in 2009 = 413 pts
> 10 night in 2010 = 414pts
> 
> At SSR we make out both ways.  At BLT we make out at 8 days, it's at push at 9 days and it costs us 2 more pt at 10 days for Adventure Season, 1 more at Choice.
> 
> So it all depends on the season you travel and what resort.  It's just a blanket that only shorter stay DVCer's benefit.  Don't get me wrong, I am not happy about it costing a few more points at BLT but on the flip side I save at SSR.
> 
> Guess we'll have to wait and see what the final chart looks like.



You're including an extra weekend night in those totals.  I said 8-12 days with only 1 weekend.  I agree that there can be a benefit when including more than two weekend days.  There's always going to be variations between resorts.  I was generalizing a bit.


----------



## toocherie

jekjones1558 said:


> Disney's MAJOR mistake is that this change is being done with too little notice.  I agree with those who say that Disney has the fiduciary responsibility to have the DVC units filled 100% each night.  In so far as they do not do this, all of us will have a hard time getting reservations for the dates that we want because the demand is not even.  We all signed contracts stating that these changes are possible.  Many of us expected that Disney would be respectful enough of members to make necessary changes to the point structure with a fair warning, to allow members to adjust their plans.  My beef with Disney is not the changes, it is the short notice.  I do NOT think Disney stands to gain revenue from this.  DVC units CANNOT be empty on a regular basis on weekends.  If weekend rooms are empty, then there will more demand for weekdays than there are rooms to meet the demand.  IMPLEMENT THE NEW POINT STRUCTURE BEGINNING IN 2011, NOT 2010!




Jean:  I totally agree with you.  I don't think overall this change is going to affect me that much (I hadn't even begun thinking about 2010 and didn't buy based on a calculation "to the point") but would think for those of you planning early 2010 vacations this was not a good thing for Disney to wait so long to give notice.


----------



## Laurabearz

Plutofan said:


> I just got off the phone with my guide who has been with DVC for a very long time.  He told me that Disney pulled the point charts because they were not the final version.  He told me to post that you should not rely on those charts.  He said that they are still working on the charts and they should be out in the next couple of weeks.  He expects some changes but was told by higher up that the published charts were not the final version.  Stay tuned.....



Couple of weeks?? 



erionm said:


> Unless they delay these changes, they have to be in place by 9pm eastern on 1/26.  On that date a member will be able to reserve 12/26/09 to 1/2/10 at their home resort.


What happens if you book at the old prices?



kristenrice said:


> Question?  Since the 11-month winddow for January 2010 opens in 10 days, wouldn't the points charts have to be finalized and "official" by then?  Can they change the point requirements after booking has begun for that year?  If that is the case, I am going to try and make it through the next 10 days before I make any downgrades to my 2009 trip.



Going to be an interesting couple of weeks






keishashadow said:


> hmmm ...when i asked why the weekends were so much higher when i originally bought in, i was told it was to protect the interests the non-locals...otherwise, the weekends would be impossible to book as many Floridians (and others able to make short trips) would buy in specifically to book numerous long weekends as opposed to a weekly stay
> 
> guess we'll find out if those who feel confident in their ability to book a standard week (assuming they rn't booking @ 11 months, 10 days out, etc) start posting they've been shut out with any regularity



I was told the same thing... weekends needed to be higher to keep the locals at bay and I thought that was really smart of DVC



jekjones1558 said:


> Disney's MAJOR mistake is that this change is being done with too little notice.  I agree with those who say that Disney has the fiduciary responsibility to have the DVC units filled 100% each night.  In so far as they do not do this, all of us will have a hard time getting reservations for the dates that we want because the demand is not even.  We all signed contracts stating that these changes are possible.  Many of us expected that Disney would be respectful enough of members to make necessary changes to the point structure with a fair warning, to allow members to adjust their plans.  My beef with Disney is not the changes, it is the short notice.  I do NOT think Disney stands to gain revenue from this.  DVC units CANNOT be empty on a regular basis on weekends.  If weekend rooms are empty, then there will more demand for weekdays than there are rooms to meet the demand.  *IMPLEMENT THE NEW POINT STRUCTURE BEGINNING IN 2011, NOT 2010*!



Bolding mine. I totally agree. At the very least give us time to bank/borrow our points.


----------



## kenny

Cindaddy said:


> You're including an extra weekend night in those totals.  I said 8-12 days with only 1 weekend.  I agree that there can be a benefit when including more than two weekend days.  There's always going to be variations between resorts.  I was generalizing a bit.



Understood. 

Even without the extra Sat SSR pts went down most seasons for 1 week.  Studio's went up.

So I guess it all depends on size of accomodations too.  I am sure some trips we will get screwed and some we will make out better.


----------



## kristenrice

jekjones1558 said:


> Disney's MAJOR mistake is that this change is being done with too little notice.  I agree with those who say that Disney has the fiduciary responsibility to have the DVC units filled 100% each night.  In so far as they do not do this, all of us will have a hard time getting reservations for the dates that we want because the demand is not even.  We all signed contracts stating that these changes are possible.  Many of us expected that Disney would be respectful enough of members to make necessary changes to the point structure with a fair warning, to allow members to adjust their plans.  My beef with Disney is not the changes, it is the short notice.  I do NOT think Disney stands to gain revenue from this.  DVC units CANNOT be empty on a regular basis on weekends.  If weekend rooms are empty, then there will more demand for weekdays than there are rooms to meet the demand.  IMPLEMENT THE NEW POINT STRUCTURE BEGINNING IN 2011, NOT 2010!



      
YES!!!  My sentiments exactly.  The change itself is a bit of a problem for us.  We'd planned on going 5 nights every other year in a 1BR for now, but expanding to a 2BR in a few years.  Now, a 2BR won't be possible because we will fall about 10 points short.  I am certainly not planning on an add-on just to account for 10 more points.  We'll have to stick to 1BR's I guess.  I had hoped to maybe do a studio one year and then a 1BR the next year, but annual trips are definitely not possible now.

I wonder if people will start to alter their 2009 plans in order to accommodate their plans for 2010.  The timing stinks because a lot of people (like myself) may have already booked airfare or rented out points for 2009 trips and now find themselves short points for 2010 plans. This was really crummy timing on Disney's part.

I also feel bad for the BLT owners.  Good heavens, they changed the chart before one single reservation was made with the original one!  AND, they changed it right after they upped the minimum add-on requirement and price.  That's just dirty.  So much for Disney having great customer service.


----------



## Sammie

> So you (DVC'ers) are caught between a rock and a hard place. DO you buy more to add on or do you sell for a loss? Or do you keep them and just go for fewer days?



I will rent them and start staying at Universal. DVC best never think they have us between a rock and hard place, it will be their loss. Or rent them and stay at Disney resorts using the great deals they are offering. 

Or stay fewer days, eat all my meals in my villa or off property, and not even go to Disney parks. 

At this point I will not buy any more points nor will I be the salesperson for them that I was for years. For many years DVC's best salesperson was a member. With the recent changes, to the banking policy, the $95 charge, the wait list changes, and now this, I really think they are biting the hands that feed them.

It would be one thing if their product was far and away better than anyone else, but lately with houskeeping and maintenance issues, there are alot of places to stay looking alot better.


----------



## hakepb

twebber55 said:


> actually for my family we lose a day at disney and they lose my money for tickets and DDP ....understand your point but just disagree



The deck is always stacked in the house's favor.  

While they loose a little of your money, they do that (one day reduction) to ,say, 7 families and they open up enough availability for an 8th family in the same period.


----------



## Val

We bought at BWV in 1998- so 11 years ago. We bought just enough points for a week in July- the only time we get vacation time. We now will be two points short for a weeks stay. 

Given the decline in quality at WDW, the cost of tranportation to/from WDW, and the decline in BWVs, we decided to rent our points this year and take a break. Once those obligations are fulfilled, I regret to say we will cut our losses and be done with it.

Our dues have increased significantly- by about 75% over 11 years, and we get less and less. We will now always be 2 points shy for a weeks stay each year. Where am I going to "buy" two points? Our work situation has been stablWe will always be 2 points short. We do NOT want the required 25 or 50 points....we bought what we needed 11 years ago. When we bought, we were promised that the week total would never change for a season- just the individual days. We were also given the line that the weekends were so high to protect us from sell-outs by locals. Yes, I know that they can legally make changes- but they also risk losing customers- and we will be included in that loss tally.

At some point, it just doesn't make sense....and so we will be cutting our loss. At least we got some cheaper vacations for a few years, and we can probably get more than our original $63/point that we originally paid. 

Yes, Disney is making a business decision, but it is also our business decision to go elsewhere. It seems risky in a down economy to be driving OLD established customers away and bet on attracting new ones. There is a saying that a bird in the hand......oh well, I guess the real world even penetrates WDW.


----------



## kerickson

It's very bad timing to publish changed points charts 1 week after the min add on increases from 25-100.  I'm more upset about that.  If I needed some extra points then I might add on 25, but not 100.  I think that new policy will hurt them, but I can see how small resales may have started hurting their new member sales..

I think they should have a policy where you can do small add ons to your existing resort, but if you want to add on at a different resort then there is a higher min...


----------



## starbox

While the chenges won't impact us very much (we do studios and typically do a weekend) - but it's not going to save anybody a bunch of points.  

And although I'll end up saving a very small handful of points - I can appreciate the very real strain that these changes put on larger families that have to get a 1-2 bedroom - the extra weekday points really add up fast.  

In the end, it seems like this will hurt more members than it helps.  And again, in tough economic times when cash guests are being given everything free under the sun to make their week-long vacations affordable - it just seems like the wrong time for TPTB to bite the DVC hand that feeds them.  Members are the ones actually paying tens of thousands of dollars plus MF for our hotel room PLUS cash for food and tickets.


----------



## mybabesuz

WolfpackFan said:


> I really take exception to this comment. It has absolutely nothing to do with being "set in our ways". It has to do with we have a finite number of points and this change is making our points less valuable. We have to be very careful how we use our points and that means taking vacations on Sun-Thurs, with an occasional Friday thrown in. But now we're finding our points will not allow us to do that anymore.



Example...
We just purchased a 180 point contract.  Sunday thru Friday stay at SSR 2BR was 180 pts.
If these new numbers hold true the same Sun-Fri trip would be 200 pts. 20 points more is quite a jump!
Anyone want to sell a 20 point contract...Probably not.


----------



## SCDizneyDawn

Just incase anyone missed this under it's own post, here is an update from DVCmember.com



> On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.


----------



## spiceycat

on the points chart now

On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

so who knows what the new charts will look like - but at least they are telling us first.


----------



## WolfpackFan

spiceycat said:


> On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted.



Very interesting. So maybe it won't be as bad as we thought. We can only hope .


----------



## Laurabearz

Sammie said:


> I will rent them and start staying at Universal. DVC best never think they have us between a rock and hard place, it will be their loss. Or rent them and stay at Disney resorts using the great deals they are offering.
> 
> Or stay fewer days, eat all my meals in my villa or off property, and not even go to Disney parks.
> 
> At this point I will not buy any more points nor will I be the salesperson for them that I was for years. For many years DVC's best salesperson was a member. With the recent changes, to the banking policy, the $95 charge, the wait list changes, and now this, I really think they are biting the hands that feed them.
> 
> It would be one thing if their product was far and away better than anyone else, but lately with houskeeping and maintenance issues, there are alot of places to stay looking alot better.



I agree



Val said:


> We bought at BWV in 1998- so 11 years ago. We bought just enough points for a week in July- the only time we get vacation time. We now will be two points short for a weeks stay.
> 
> Given the decline in quality at WDW, the cost of tranportation to/from WDW, and the decline in BWVs, we decided to rent our points this year and take a break. Once those obligations are fulfilled, I regret to say we will cut our losses and be done with it.
> 
> Our dues have increased significantly- by about 75% over 11 years, and we get less and less. We will now always be 2 points shy for a weeks stay each year. Where am I going to "buy" two points? Our work situation has been stablWe will always be 2 points short. We do NOT want the required 25 or 50 points....we bought what we needed 11 years ago. When we bought, we were promised that the week total would never change for a season- just the individual days. We were also given the line that the weekends were so high to protect us from sell-outs by locals. Yes, I know that they can legally make changes- but they also risk losing customers- and we will be included in that loss tally.
> 
> At some point, it just doesn't make sense....and so we will be cutting our loss. At least we got some cheaper vacations for a few years, and we can probably get more than our original $63/point that we originally paid.
> 
> Yes, Disney is making a business decision, but it is also our business decision to go elsewhere. It seems risky in a down economy to be driving OLD established customers away and bet on attracting new ones. There is a saying that a bird in the hand......oh well, I guess the real world even penetrates WDW.



((hugs))



spiceycat said:


> on the points chart now
> 
> On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
> 
> so who knows what the new charts will look like - but at least they are telling us first.



Now it says the charts were incorrectly posted but not that the charts were incorrect...


----------



## Plutofan

Plutofan said:


> I just got off the phone with my guide who has been with DVC for a very long time.  He told me that Disney pulled the point charts because they were not the final version.  He told me to post that you should not rely on those charts.  He said that they are still working on the charts and they should be out in the next couple of weeks.  He expects some changes but was told by higher up that the published charts were not the final version.  Stay tuned.....




I should have said with in a couple of weeks.  Most likely before the end of January due to bookings.


----------



## bookwormde

It does seem to be all “one way” If DVC was going to cause everyone’s point amounts to be “off” the least they could have done is to allow member to buy a few points each year from DVC (like other time share do) even if it was at a high point value like $15. Oh I forgot that would cause more points to be used and fewer points to expire thereby giving less rooms for DVC to transfer to CRO.

One thing to remeber is that jan 1 booking starts 1/25. I cant wait till they tell someone with a booked reservatin that they need more points to keep reservatin they allready have when they do not have any points available.

bookwormde


----------



## Cindaddy

WolfpackFan said:


> Very interesting. So maybe it won't be as bad as we thought. We can only hope .



Notice they didn't say an incorrect points chart.  Just that it was incorrectly (read:unintentionally) posted.  I doubt the new chart will be much different.  They wouldn't have written up the PR blurb that went with it, if it wasn't real.


----------



## dzorn

Cindaddy said:


> Notice they didn't say an incorrect points chart.  Just that it was incorrectly (read:unintentionally) posted.  I doubt the new chart will be much different.  They wouldn't have written up the PR blurb that went with it, if it wasn't real.



What was incorrect is that the did not schedule enough staff to handle all the complaints.

Denise in MI


----------



## bookwormde

I am actually expecting some date changes in the seasons like adding president’s week into premier

bookwormde


----------



## Laurabearz

dzorn said:


> What was incorrect is that the did not schedule enough staff to handle all the complaints.
> 
> Denise in MI


----------



## Sammie

> SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Walt Disney Co. (DISIS
> News , chart , profile , more
> Last:
> 
> Disney is offering buyout packages to about 600 executives at the company's domestic resorts and parks unit, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday on its Web site. Affected employees have until Feb. 6 to decide take the buyouts, according to the Journal.



I have a name I would like to add to that list.


----------



## mopee3

This reminds me of when the booking changes happened a few months back.  People running here and there, mostly with their fingers on their keyboards , shouting the "sky is falling the sky is falling".    You all need to get a grip! You would think you all are driving the bus.   But as you now know or suspected Disney is driving and we are along for the ride.  Yee Haw!!

I understand your pain especially if you have set you vacations according to how many points you bought, but really, things change!  

My biggest problem with DVC now is when is Bill   going to put out his new program.

Now where is that popcorn??  

Moe


----------



## chalee94

Megsmachine said:


> Oh I am sure they realize a few will try to re-sell their points, but all in all, currents DVC'ers that try to sell are not going to make any money off of that or even break even.  And really, there are tons of new people lined up to buy
> points that have no idea this happened, as it in no way affects them.  Or at least they don't know what "used to be".
> 
> So you (DVC'ers) are caught between a rock and a hard place.  DO you buy more to add on or do you sell for a loss?  Or do you keep them and just go for fewer days?



increasing uncertainty in an uncertain economy is a risky business plan. some will stay fewer days and feel betrayed (still resulting in negative word of mouth about DVC).  lots of folks will cut their losses.  (more supply of resales...and unless demand goes up a ton from the locals to match it, DVC may have a hard time maintaining ROFR).

in this economy, not sure that "tons" of new people will be lined up to buy.  those that express interest to a disgruntled owner (or former owner) on the DIS or elsewhere will quickly be advised to be wary of DVC and advised how BLT buyers were baited with one point chart and switched after they bought in...among other recent DVC changes that can be brought up.  

in a good economy, you might be right and this would be no big deal and easier to swallow.  not sure about doing it right now, though.


----------



## logan115

Laurabearz said:


> Now it says the charts were incorrectly posted but not that the charts were incorrect...




Nice catch - assuming you practice law when you're not DIS-ing !

 

And congrats on being smoke-free (love the sig)  .  Unfortunately I'm not quite at that point now (trying to cut back now and ultimately quit by April).  

The plan is quit smoking (a tall order I know), but if I do I'll take the money I'd spend on smokes and put it towards DVC.  Given that in the Chicago burbs (but still Crook - I mean Cook - County) that with tax it's about $7/pack I'm spending $2500/yr that could go to DVC, allowing me to finance a 100 pt contract and have it paid off in 3-4 years.

Given that the money I spend on smokes literally "goes up in smoke" the fact that DVC may not be the best "investment" is less of a deterrent for me.  The thought that I could make myself healthier *AND* wind up owning DVC in the process is really helping me cut down (but so is the fact that last week is what -20 outside.............).

Chris


----------



## Plutofan

Just posted on website:

On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.


----------



## dzorn

bookwormde said:


> I am actually expecting some date changes in the seasons like adding president’s week into premier
> 
> bookwormde



Oh I hope not because we like that week. I have always been surprised that Jan 1,2 are not apart of Christmas points increase. Many people around here have the week between christmas and NY off do not go back for few more days after NY. 

Not that I want them to.

Denise in MI


----------



## Sammie

> You would think you all are driving the bus.  But as you now know or suspected Disney is driving and we are along for the ride. Yee Haw!!



I have no problem with Disney driving the bus, in fact when I bought my ride on the bus, the bus driver  was friendly and always made me feel like a welcomed member on his ride, I got a Welcome Home   when I got on, the bus was shiny and well taken care of and always clean. 

Now the bus seems to be dirty many times, and the seats are torn and the springs are showing through, the bus driver is not friendly and instead of welcoming me as a member, he yells at me to get on the X$%@ bus and sit down and shut up, that my opinion is not wanted or needed. That they make the decisions and then post a little blurb saying how it was what "I" wanted. 

I don't want more than I paid for but I do want what I paid for and I am not sure this bus ride is it.


----------



## Laurabearz

logan115 said:


> Nice catch - assuming you practice law when you're not DIS-ing !
> 
> 
> 
> And congrats on being smoke-free (love the sig)  .  Unfortunately I'm not quite at that point now (trying to cut back now and ultimately quit by April).
> 
> The plan is quit smoking (a tall order I know), but if I do I'll take the money I'd spend on smokes and put it towards DVC.  Given that in the Chicago burbs (but still Crook - I mean Cook - County) that with tax it's about $7/pack I'm spending $2500/yr that could go to DVC, allowing me to finance a 100 pt contract and have it paid off in 3-4 years.
> 
> Given that the money I spend on smokes literally "goes up in smoke" the fact that DVC may not be the best "investment" is less of a deterrent for me.  The thought that I could make myself healthier *AND* wind up owning DVC in the process is really helping me cut down (but so is the fact that last week is what -20 outside.............).
> 
> Chris



No not a lawyer but I slept with one for years  

I also bought smokes in Crook haha. I used the money I saved to buy the family camping gear.


----------



## dzorn

Sammie said:


> I have a name I would like to add to that list.



Vanna can I get a J!

Denise in MI


----------



## KLR-wlv

My issue is - ok - fine - I buy the extra 55 freakin points to get the same reservation I have this year in a VB beach cottage in order to take that same vacation. Say I'm a sucker and pluck down the extra cash - what keeps dvc from further re-allocating points in 2011. And then in 2012 they just even out all the points. Nothing keeps them from doing that legally, I know. But the whole idea of "purchasing vacation now to prevent the cost from going up later" is out the window. This move makes me question the reliability of the product. Which in this economy is a bad move and makes me feel ripped off.


----------



## Sammie

dzorn said:


> Vanna can I get a J!
> 
> Denise in MI



I need to buy a vowel but DVC took all my money.


----------



## mrsswat

we have been using the sme vacation schedule for years - end of Aug, Sun - Thurs, using 1 one bedroom and 1 two bedroom at OKW - 235 points. That's 15 spare for us as we have 260. If the charts are correct, the same "rentals" will be 280!!! That's 45 more points, and 20 more than we own!! I only did this very quickly, somebody please tell me I did this wrong! If this is correct, put us on the list of not knowing if we're going to keep or sell and buy elsewhere.


----------



## CheapMom

On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.


----------



## Chuck S

Sammie said:


> I have a name I would like to add to that list.




Almost makes ya miss the Eisner Era.  Ah, the good ole days.


----------



## alldiz

KLR-wlv said:


> My issue is - ok - fine - I buy the extra 55 freakin points to get the same reservation I have this year in a VB beach cottage in order to take that same vacation. *Say I'm a sucker and pluck down the extra cash - what keeps dvc from further re-allocating points in 2011. And then in 2012 they just even out all the points. Nothing keeps them from doing that legally, I know. But the whole idea of "purchasing vacation now to prevent the cost from going up later" is out the window*. This move makes me question the reliability of the product. Which in this economy is a bad move and makes me feel ripped off.



Exactly.....this whole thing stinks.....

Since 2006 when I bought....DVC has....

Stopped smoking in all rooms.....No debate please....but a change since I purchased....
Taken mugs out of studios....put them back...
Changed the reservation system...
Now they are not allowing me to travel the same time because I dont' have enough points.
Rant over
Kerri+


----------



## AnnaS

SCDizneyDawn said:


> Just incase anyone missed this under it's own post, here is an update from DVCmember.com





I don't see it on the dvcmember website.


----------



## BillPA

Just saw this on the member's site:

On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.


----------



## Mattsmommy

AnnaS said:


> I don't see it on the dvcmember website.



When you click on points chart


----------



## AnnaS

Mattsmommy said:


> When you click on points chart



Thank you.  I thought it would be on their first page with DVC News.


----------



## ladycop67

They removed the 2010 point chart.  Here is what they have listed on website:
On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.


----------



## Inkmahm

keishashadow said:


> hmmm ...when i asked why the weekends were so much higher when i originally bought in, i was told it was to protect the interests the non-locals...otherwise, the weekends would be impossible to book as many Floridians (and others able to make short trips) would buy in specifically to book numerous long weekends as opposed to a weekly stay
> 
> guess we'll find out if those who feel confident in their ability to book a standard week (assuming they rn't booking @ 11 months, 10 days out, etc) start posting they've been shut out with any regularity



That's exactly the reason I was given, too.  The locals would come for multiple weekends during the year and then those of us who travel would have a hard time booking weekends, but could get weekdays fine.  Full weeks would be hard to book.


----------



## Inkmahm

twebber55 said:


> actually for my family we lose a day at disney and they lose my money for tickets and DDP ....understand your point but just disagree



And for my family, we gain about a day each year that we will spend extra at Disney spending more money.  It will even out in Disney's eyes as they don't care if they get my $ or your $, just so they get the $ from SOMEone.


----------



## Inkmahm

Val said:


> We bought at BWV in 1998- so 11 years ago. We bought just enough points for a week in July- the only time we get vacation time. We now will be two points short for a weeks stay.
> 
> Given the decline in quality at WDW, the cost of tranportation to/from WDW, and the decline in BWVs, we decided to rent our points this year and take a break. Once those obligations are fulfilled, I regret to say we will cut our losses and be done with it.
> 
> Our dues have increased significantly- by about 75% over 11 years, and we get less and less. We will now always be 2 points shy for a weeks stay each year. Where am I going to "buy" two points? Our work situation has been stablWe will always be 2 points short. We do NOT want the required 25 or 50 points....we bought what we needed 11 years ago. When we bought, we were promised that the week total would never change for a season- just the individual days. We were also given the line that the weekends were so high to protect us from sell-outs by locals. Yes, I know that they can legally make changes- but they also risk losing customers- and we will be included in that loss tally.
> 
> At some point, it just doesn't make sense....and so we will be cutting our loss. At least we got some cheaper vacations for a few years, and we can probably get more than our original $63/point that we originally paid.
> 
> Yes, Disney is making a business decision, but it is also our business decision to go elsewhere. It seems risky in a down economy to be driving OLD established customers away and bet on attracting new ones. There is a saying that a bird in the hand......oh well, I guess the real world even penetrates WDW.


Borrow the 2 points the first year, 4 points the second year, 6 points the third year, etc.  Until you have a year where you can transfer in a larger number of points in one shot. In the meantime, you can keep taking the same  one week you have been taking just by being a little creative.


----------



## dizzneebabe

Megsmachine said:


> So you (DVC'ers) are caught between a rock and a hard place.  DO you buy more to add on or do you sell for a loss?  Or do you keep them and just go for fewer days?



We now own 404 pts.  That's around 40K!!!! --how much more do I have to buy to allow us to vacation once a year in ADVENTURE and every other year in Magic (1 bdrm units mind you).  The reality is, we're one point short on one vacation and one point over on another, but at different resorts.  So now what should have been a no brainer for us has turned into a big PITA!!!


----------



## dizzneebabe

pouncingpluto said:


> This is good for us, too.  We tend to do either full week stays (which are about the same) or long weekends.  If we ever stay longer than a week, it includes two weekends and probably no more weekdays (like a nine-night stay... a week plus the second weekend tacked on).



I agree--we stay for at least a week at a time, too.  The weekend points are way out of whack.  HOWEVER...they should have been able to adjust the weekday/weekend points without touching the weekly totals, with the exception of the holiday weeks.  What has happened now is many are either stuck with an extra point or two here and there or are short a point or two.  Those points seem unusable now from both sides.  We can't rent (either as the renter or seller), buy (resale or Disney) or transfer that little number of points, realistically anyway.

I feel sorry for anyone who has banked/borrowed planned for a 2010 trip assuming 2009 charts.  Those folks have much more at stake.


----------



## Maelstrom_

They posted this on the DVC site above the points chart listing:

On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.


----------



## tubtruck

Perhaps these points charts are actually only potential ways forward and not finalised, as nothing has actually been announced at present everything is speculation. 
They may have a heap of other variations in points charts and use them to discuss possible scenarios of implementing each and everyone of them.

Maybe nothing will actually be changed in the end.


----------



## dizzneebabe

Cindaddy said:


> Notice they didn't say an incorrect points chart.  Just that it was incorrectly (read:unintentionally) posted.  I doubt the new chart will be much different.  They wouldn't have written up the PR blurb that went with it, if it wasn't real.



I agree.  I don't think it would have been there or in that format if they didn't intend that to be the correct charts.  I'm guessing they are coming up with another PR statement to tell us that "we" requested this change.


----------



## dizney4us

Inkmahm said:


> I don't think that is true for "most of us."  Certainly not me.  I will save about 12 points per year on my normal vacation schedule.
> 
> Remember, the points reallocation is neutral overall. Where some people "lose" others will "win".  The net effect is zero overall.



That may not be true, especially if we all try to switch our weeks to those lower points weeks,  some of us won't be getting in!  I REFUSE to buy more points.  I am also so disgusted, that I will not use DCL, I will now give that money to Princess or Royal Caribbean- I feel I've been conned!!!


----------



## Doctor P

So, do people think they will have the final points charts ready and available before MS opens on Sunday?  Wonder what they will do if they don't.


----------



## Dean

BeccaG said:


> I think I echo a lot of people's sentiments when I say that the whole thing is just disappointing.  Its not illegal or immoral, it just feels unfair.  Most of us probably purchased DVC because ultimately we believe in the Disney magic. Things like this change that are radical shifts from what we are use to, and seem to come without warning, challenge that magical aura.


As I noted, to me the surprise is that it's took them this long to make changes.  It shouldn't have been a surprise IMO.   Timeshares change over the years and the protections you have are what's in the legal documents and state statutes.  I simply don't get the unfair issue as I think everyone either knew or should have know this was a possibility if not a probability.



WebmasterDoc said:


> Having gone thru this once before, I must say I'm disappointed and surprised.


As you know, I've been predicting this for some time.  It took much longer than I expected because I expected it somewhere around 2001 or 2002.  Assuming they got it close to right, this might be the last time (or might not be) unless there are factors that change and thus change the demand such as new festivals or events.  I think we're seeing a different DVC now than then.  IMO, DVC was overly concerned about member reaction and held back on changes they should have made.  That certainly does not seem to be the case now with the changes we've seen lately.

Some are saying the notification was inappropriate but I'd somewhat disagree.  DVC cannot and should not put these things out there as a trial balloon to see how members will react.  They need to make their decisions (within the legal framework), post them and move on.  They will re-evaluate those decisions behind the scenes but should not let reaction or sentiment cause the to back away simply for the reason of avoiding the reaction.


----------



## Tysdad747

dizzneebabe said:


> I agree.  I don't think it would have been there or in that format if they didn't intend that to be the correct charts.  I'm guessing they are coming up with another PR statement to tell us that "we" requested this change.



Just like I was told at the beginning of the year the dining plan no longer includes a tip because the guests requested that.  This gives the guest full control over the tip.

BS!!!!


----------



## Cindaddy

Tysdad747 said:


> Just like I was told at the beginning of the year the dining plan no longer includes a tip because the guests requested that.  This gives the guest full control over the tip.
> 
> BS!!!!



Yeah.  That was good one!


----------



## Deb & Bill

Has anyone given a thought to the poor renters?  How this is going to affect them?  For years and years they have been told to rent Sun through Thur night.  Now what are they going to do??? 

Sammie, good to see you around again.  I love your bus driver analogy.  It is so true.  I saw this coming a few years ago.


----------



## bobbiwoz

Dean said:


> ...
> 
> Some are saying the notification was inappropriate but I'd somewhat disagree.  DVC cannot and should not put these things out there as a trial balloon to see how members will react.  They need to make their decisions (within the legal framework), post them and move on.  They will re-evaluate those decisions behind the scenes but should not let reaction or sentiment cause the to back away simply for the reason of avoiding the reaction.




I have been hoping for some weekend point relief.  

However, I do think that BLT owners have a legitimate complaint.  They bought into something that they won't be able to use for even a whole year and with the change of terms of buying BLT points, I think DVC is wrong on that score. Do you think even BLT points should have been affected like they were?

Bobbi


----------



## marynvince

They sucked folks in with the following:

1) Every guide sings a version of the following song, even the DVC videosays this: Based on the 160 point minimum you could get up to 2 weeks of vacations if you budget correctly.
2) Points can be adjusted but they will always balance...What does that mean? Well if you look at the history of DVC it means that the points chart will stay the same except for seasonal adjustments. Yes there have been a few isolated changes but for the most part it is implied that Xpoints will get you y accomodations in Z season Sunday through Thursday and 2X points for Fri and 3x for Sat. See the following from dvcnews:

DVC points can be redeemed for any of the Disney Vacation Club resorts as well as a variety of other Disney and non-Disney destination. The resorts which are home to actual DVC villas are collectively known as the Disney Vacation Club Collection. The most economical use of DVC points will always be found within this grouping. Also note that there is very little flexibility for these point values to ever change. An Old Key West Studio that costs 8 points per night today is likely to still cost 8 points per night in another 20 years. The only way that DVC could ever raise points for a given night at one of the Disney Vacation Club Collection resorts is by lowering the points for another night in the year.

3) Do we really think after all these years of DVC that a major rebalance is in order? They've had it that wrong for so long? Or is it more likely that Disney is taking advantage of travel habits and is trying to maximize their profit by minimizing the number of nights DVCers can get accomodations?

4) If Disney is truely rebalancing, what prevents them from rebalancing last minute every year? So much for planning and banking. What if their rebalancing causes a big up swing in weekend bookings, especially by local DVCers, then they will be "forced, as some have implied it is their fiduciary duty" forced to increase weekend points. Great, we'll be back where we were, except....
5) DVCers may add on to maintain there current preferred vacation style. Very clever.

6) For all of you that don't see a problem with what is going on here, I ask you this...What prevents Disney from changing the points structure so that every other night is "expensive"? They know that DVCers are going to stay more then one night so they make, pick any days, Friday, Sunday and Tuesday "premium" days. Nothing says they need to maintain the Sunday through Thursday and Fri/Sat. Maybe everyday will get it's own value to really balance demand.

I think we were all sold a bill of goods that implied that for any given vacation, until our contracts expired, the only increase in cost would be the MFs. I'm disappointed in the way Disney has handled this. I was seriously considering a substaintial add-on at HHI and now there is no way. I am also going to stop promoting to everyone I can, what a great deal Disney Vacation Club is. 

As it turns out, The "Best Kept Secret" was how Disney planned to screw DVCers with a major point reallocation.


----------



## Dean

bobbiwoz said:


> Do you think even BLT points should have been affected like they were?
> 
> Bobbi


I do because they obviously changed the formula for weekends vs weekdays.  They would be best served to implement those changes across the board.  Likely better to do so now than leave BLT the same then change it in a year or two.  As I noted, anyone either knew or should have know it could happen, and frankly, that it would likely happen at some point.  Now is as good a time as any.  IMO, anyone who purposefully bought only the number of points for only part of a week or even a full week in a lower season, made a poor choice.  I realize that sometimes you find the right contract resale (or add on)  where you don't have total control over the number of points.  The bottom line is to expect other changes and that at least part of those changes will be negative to you and I.


----------



## dclfun

A couple of things really bother me- being told initially by my guide to look at the points charts, figure when we wanted to travel and how many days, what type unit, etc. to decide how many points we'd want to purchase. How many members did that initially and now don't have enough? I was told that the points allocations could change however the total points needed for a weeks stay would be the same depending on the season. From what I'm hearing the total points for a week have changed. I don't mind the weekends being less points and the weekday points being more. I think there have been lots of members booking only Fri/Sat with cash to save their points and thus the same issue they were originally trying to prevent ( locals using up the weekend days for weekend-only stays) has occured in the other resorts- one of the reasons the weekend rates went up for cash bookings. I can see DVC wanting to balance things out for members who can't bear to pay twice as much for Fri/Sat. I know for me, it will be much less tempting to pay cash for Fri/Sat. The other recent changes bother me more-being charged the resort fee to stay in a non-DVC WDW resort ( and those points becoming more and more costly), policy change that allows people to walk reservations and shut others out, not being able to wtl individual days w/in a reservation, and as others have mentioned, being told that we, the members, requested the changes. I find it hard to believe that people requested things that would cause them to pay more for "choice", and make it harder for them to get a ressie or clear a waitlist. Same thing with the dining plan that the pp mentioned. I don't know anyone who requested to have prepaid grats removed from the dining plan. I, for one, would have been glad to pay more for the ddp if it included grats. Now we don't choose it at all knowing what we originally had that's been taken away.  Looking to the future, since we're now only able to waitlst two bookings a year, I imagine we'll soon not be able to rent or transfer points either, or on a very limited basis. I'm sure management would rather our points expire and thus be converted to $$ for cash ressies than for someone else to be able to purchase them at the bargain prices most members are selling them for. I've still gotten great value from my membership and I know I still will but I won't be adding more points, something I'd originally planned to do so that my children would have more points to divide once I'm gone. We'll enjoy today as who knows what tomorrow might bring.---Kathy


----------



## Dean

marynvince said:


> They sucked folks in with the following:
> 
> 1) Every guide sings a version of the following song, even the DVC videosays this: Based on the 160 point minimum you could get up to 2 weeks of vacations if you budget correctly.
> 2) Points can be adjusted but they will always balance...What does that mean? Well if you look at the history of DVC it means that the points chart will stay the same except for seasonal adjustments. Yes there have been a few isolated changes but for the most part it is implied that Xpoints will get you y accomodations in Z season Sunday through Thursday and 2X points for Fri and 3x for Sat. See the following from dvcnews:
> 
> DVC points can be redeemed for any of the Disney Vacation Club resorts as well as a variety of other Disney and non-Disney destination. The resorts which are home to actual DVC villas are collectively known as the Disney Vacation Club Collection. The most economical use of DVC points will always be found within this grouping. Also note that there is very little flexibility for these point values to ever change. An Old Key West Studio that costs 8 points per night today is likely to still cost 8 points per night in another 20 years. The only way that DVC could ever raise points for a given night at one of the Disney Vacation Club Collection resorts is by lowering the points for another night in the year.
> 
> 3) Do we really think after all these years of DVC that a major rebalance is in order? They've had it that wrong for so long? Or is it more likely that Disney is taking advantage of travel habits and is trying to maximize their profit by minimizing the number of nights DVCers can get accomodations?
> 
> 4) If Disney is truely rebalancing, what prevents them from rebalancing last minute every year? So much for planning and banking. What if their rebalancing causes a big up swing in weekend bookings, especially by local DVCers, then they will be "forced, as some have implied it is their fiduciary duty" forced to increase weekend points. Great, we'll be back where we were, except....
> 5) DVCers may add on to maintain there current preferred vacation style. Very clever.
> 
> 6) For all of you that don't see a problem with what is going on here, I ask you this...What prevents Disney from changing the points structure so that every other night is "expensive"? They know that DVCers are going to stay more then one night so they make, pick any days, Friday, Sunday and Tuesday "premium" days. Nothing says they need to maintain the Sunday through Thursday and Fri/Sat. Maybe everyday will get it's own value to really balance demand.
> 
> I think we were all sold a bill of goods that implied that for any given vacation, until our contracts expired, the only increase in cost would be the MFs. I'm disappointed in the way Disney has handled this. I was seriously considering a substaintial add-on at HHI and now there is no way. I am also going to stop promoting to everyone I can, what a great deal Disney Vacation Club is.
> 
> As it turns out, The "Best Kept Secret" was how Disney planned to screw DVCers with a major point reallocation.


1.  You can still get 2 weeks of vacation, it just might be a studio at HH adventure season.  Verbal representations mean nothing if not in writing.  
2.  I don't think that it was ever a given that weekend vs weekday wouldn't change, we've discussed the possibility if not likelihood here on DIS many times.
3. Yes I do think it was necessary and long overdue.  DVC has the obligation legally and contractually to manage demand and utilization.  I think the problem is that they didn't do it sooner.  I think they were too timid to and hoping things would even out.  But when weekend occupancy (# of rooms reserved) was as much as 25% off (from what I've heard), this is a problem.  Some will likely say it's because Disney can't rent out the rooms on weekends like before but I doubt that's the case.  This doesn't affect their profits at all for existing members and the affect on new sales is minimal to nothing either.  
4.  Nothing to prevent it other than the hassle and work involved.  It's foolish to think they have done this on a whim or will in the future without good reason.  If this isn't perfect, they may indeed have to fine tune in the future.  However, they now have a heck of a lot of info to know where they need to be.  Unless there are major changes that affect utilization patterns, I would expect this is pretty close to where we'll be in 2042.  The issue facing DVC in it's later years is a membership that's aging and thus the those too many HA units will become too few at some point.  You'll then have rooms that are empty that a subset of the membership can't use and points sitting waiting on a wait list for a room type with rooms available in general.
6.  Technically they would make such a change but it makes no sense, this does.  It's like you think they did this to screw the members when I see it as totally the opposite with only a subset negatively but unintentionally affected.  Truthfully I'm one of those affected as when I stay on points it's almost always S-F and when I rent out, it's generally the same.  IMO you should have known this was a possibility and I don't see it affecting the value of DVC significantly to any potential buyer.  If anything, they can better plan than those of us who have owned for a while.


----------



## alldiz

dizzneebabe said:


> I agree.  I don't think it would have been there or in that format if they didn't intend that to be the correct charts.  *I'm guessing they are coming up with another PR statement to tell us that "we" requested this change.*


 


Tysdad747 said:


> Just like I was told at the beginning of the year the dining plan no longer includes a tip because the guests requested that.  This gives the guest full control over the tip.
> 
> BS!!!!


  


bobbiwoz said:


> I have been hoping for some *weekend point relief.  *
> However, I do think that BLT owners have a legitimate complaint.  They bought into something that they won't be able to use for even a whole year and with the change of terms of buying BLT points, I think DVC is wrong on that score. Do you think even BLT points should have been affected like they were?
> 
> Bobbi



Unfortunately for me....WLV I usually get 1BR....looks like it went up on weekends and weekdays for all seasons 
Kerri


----------



## disneybride96

Is there really the same number of points total on those charts? Is it my imagination or has weekly totals on almost every catagory actally increased?

I'll admit... I am a Sun-Thurs traveler, but DVC made me that way. Before DVC, I never traveled that way. I think they overadjusted their own point chart to start with.


----------



## december14disney

Deb & Bill said:


> Has anyone given a thought to the poor renters?  How this is going to affect them?  For years and years they have been told to rent Sun through Thur night.  Now what are they going to do???
> 
> Sammie, good to see you around again.  I love your bus driver analogy.  It is so true.  I saw this coming a few years ago.



I wonder if rental prices per point will go up now?


----------



## december14disney

*I'm guessing they are coming up with another PR statement to tell us that "we" requested this change.*

 This made me laugh out loud.


----------



## dzorn

AnnaS said:


> Thank you.  I thought it would be on their first page with DVC News.



You would think breaking news would be on the first page but that just makes it to easy to follow.

Denise  in MI


----------



## Cindaddy

As far as BLT goes, Disney had an ethical obligation to start selling that resort with the newer point chart.  I'm not arguing whether the point change needed to happen or not.  I'm arguing that they knew the point change was coming and should have introduced it with that resort.


----------



## Anal Annie

I can't believe I missed this news yesterday when it was still HOT.  Where was I?   Now I can't see them and I don't know what I missed or how this will affect us.  GRRRR.  I can tell you now tho that I sure am glad we did not do some stooopid add-on for some stoooopid weird amount of points at stooopid BLT thinking we'd have just what we needed for banking & borrowing extended weekend trips!!  Good grief I'd be pissed.  

What happened with the BLT charts?  Did they go up?  I've heard VWL went up across the board.  How can they do that?  What happened to SSR?    GRRRRR again I say!  JUST when we were starting to think about a Sun-Thur trip for spring break 2010.  GRRRRRRRRRRR.  And I feel so-o-o in the dark that I didn't even get a chance to see this cluster of a mess.


----------



## jekjones1558

Here are points charts:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216


----------



## WebmasterDoc

Dean said:


> I do because they obviously changed the formula for weekends vs weekdays.  They would be best served to implement those changes across the board.  Likely better to do so now than leave BLT the same then change it in a year or two.  As I noted, anyone either knew or should have know it could happen, and frankly, that it would likely happen at some point.  Now is as good a time as any.  IMO, anyone who purposefully bought only the number of points for only part of a week or even a full week in a lower season, made a poor choice.  I realize that sometimes you find the right contract resale (or add on)  where you don't have total control over the number of points.  The bottom line is to expect other changes and that at least part of those changes will be negative to you and I.



You feel they just realized the need to change the formula within 4 months of starting sales at BLT?

I find it very disingenuous to have had every opportunity to create a point chart for BLT reflecting the new emphasis and yet within 4 months of releasing the BLT chart and starting sales they have now changed the point charts - at the same time increasing the minimum purchase at that resort - especially when the resort does not even open for more than 7 months.

With every new resort , they have had ample opportunity to modify the point charts to reflect the expected member usage. They did modify the chart for SSR, again for AKV and yet again 4 months ago for BLT. They certainly have no track record to go on for utilization at BLT. Are you suggesting this was just brought to their attention since BLT sales opened in September?

Since 1992, DVC has always released the new point charts about 15 months in advance and usually sent those charts, in print form and by mail to each member. For whatever reason, we still have nothing even on the member website and even that information has been posted and then retrieved because it was in error. 

I am not surprised that changes are being made - I agree it was inevitable at some point - but I am surprised at the changes across the board and at the poor timing used for these changes.


----------



## Dean

alldiz said:


> Unfortunately for me....WLV I usually get 1BR....looks like it went up on weekends and weekdays for all seasons
> Kerri


1 BR went up a little, studios went down some and 2 BR stayed about the same for a full week.


----------



## JimC

From the website:

"*On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused*."


----------



## logan115

december14disney said:


> I wonder if rental prices per point will go up now?


I wonder what happens if a member rented a 2010 reservation already for $X, and now has to use more of their points - is the rentor then supposed to pay extra if there was already an agreement of $X for a Sun-Thurs stay in 2010 ?


----------



## Dean

WebmasterDoc said:


> You feel they just realized the need to change the formula within 4 moinths of starting sales at BLT?
> 
> I find it very disingenuous to have had every opportunity to create a point chart for BLT reflecting the new emphasis and yet within 4 months of releasing the BLT chart and starting sales they have now changed the point charts - at the same time increasing the minimum purchase at that resort - especially when the resort does not even open for more than 7 months.


Yes and no.  The chart for BLT was likely done a couple of years ago (2-3) and based on the same basic formula (weekend vs weekday and unit size) as the other resorts.  They've likely be actively working on this current rebalancing for the last year or so and likely finalized it in the last 2-4 months.  I would agree it is poor timing to change the points chart after sales started but before the resort opened but given they changed the other resorts, now was as good a time as any going forward.  Ideally would have been to have this change in place and release the changes at or before BLT points chart was released so you only saw the new BLT chart.  I'd bet they just couldn't get it together in time (points charts done AND approved to all's satisfaction) in time to do it that way and had to chose between delaying sales and opening vs this issue we are now discussing.  These things usually work with a couple of people responsible for the work, who show their work to some admin VP type along the way then the proposals go to committee for a vote then to the BOD and voting rep for final approval.


----------



## Dean

logan115 said:


> I wonder what happens if a member rented a 2010 reservation already for $X, and now has to use more of their points - is the rentor then supposed to pay extra if there was already an agreement of $X for a Sun-Thurs stay in 2010 ?


If someone rented a unit pending a future reservation, whether it would be appropriate for the renter to eat any extra points (or pocket any extra $$) or ask the rentee to pay more would depend on the specifics of their agreement.  Certainly I can easily envision a situation where a renter could spend more points and have a commitment at a given price.  However, I think most rentals for future reservations are based on a per point price and most that are a set $$$ amount are already reserved.   If I had committed at a per point price and the number of points changed, I'd likely pass that cost on to the rentee but if I did so, I feel I'd have to let them out of any agreement if they so chose.  OTOH, if we had a set price and reservation and the points went down, I'd likely pocket the extra.


----------



## DeeCee735

I imagine they took the points chart off the website temporarity, stating it was incorrectly posted because they realized the weekly points had gone up on some weeks, and that's not supposed to change even if they reallocate nightly points


----------



## Dean

DeeCee735 said:


> I imagine they took the points chart off the website temporarity, stating it was incorrectly posted because they realized the weekly points had gone up on some weeks, and that's not supposed to change even if they reallocate nightly points


My guess would be that's not accurate.  Actually weekly points can go up.  What can't change is a UNIT for the entire year.  With a few units that are 3 BR, all other units I'm aware of are a collection of multiple rooms.  But if a single unit was a 2 BR lockoff, they could lower the studio and raise the 1 BR and still be within the rules.  Or they could raise this week and lower next week if they wanted.


----------



## KLR-wlv

I just don't see how we can count on the points being any fixed amount now. So just to cover any possible point reallocation, I should - just to be safe -buy enough at every resort for 1 week, in a 2 br - just in case they change it some more to cover our regular vacation habits we've been practicing since dvc's inception. VWL weeknight in a 2 br in premier season went up 7 points a night - 35 extra for a 5 night stay. AN extra 55 points for the VB reservation I have this thanksgiving - so I need an extra 85 points to cover the same 10 nights in 2010. NOT insignificant and NOT what I paid for. So I should just invest another $8000 to get the same trips....


----------



## sgtpet

This news is very disappointing.  This is impacting the DVC members negatively.  The threat of minimum stays being forced upon us will probably be the last straw for me.  What a shame.  I will take the money from this and buy into a Marriott timeshare.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

Dean said:


> Yes and no.  The chart for BLT was likely done a couple of years ago (2-3) and based on the same basic formula (weekend vs weekday and unit size) as the other resorts.  They've likely be actively working on this current rebalancing for the last year or so and likely finalized it in the last 2-4 months.  I would agree it is poor timing to change the points chart after sales started but before the resort opened but given they changed the other resorts, now was as good a time as any going forward.  Ideally would have been to have this change in place and release the changes at or before BLT points chart was released so you only saw the new BLT chart.  I'd bet they just couldn't get it together in time (points charts done AND approved to all's satisfaction) in time to do it that way and had to chose between delaying sales and opening vs this issue we are now discussing.  These things usually work with a couple of people responsible for the work, who show their work to some admin VP type along the way then the proposals go to committee for a vote then to the BOD and voting rep for final approval.



I think you're being most generous towards DVC with these comments.

To suggest that they planned the BLT charts 2-3 YEARS ago and just planned the changes to all of the point charts (including BLT) 2 - 4 months ago is a very generous suggestion. 

OK - lets say it was 4 months ago - then why would they NOT issue the new BLT points at the start of sales?  To suggest that this plan was made less than 4 months ago when for the past 16 years the newly printed point charts have always been in the hands of the members by October certainly indicates that any deviation from that policy was in the works long before sales ever began at BLT and probably before the BLT sales point charts were even printed. 

Perhaps some mention of these changes could have been announced at the annual meeting too - unless you're suggesting that the decision was made after early December?  DVC has had plenty of opportunity to make these changes in a timely fashion and still get the new charts to members in the fall. In doing so, the BLT charts would have reflected the changes prior to removing the 100 point minimum purchase at that resort. Waiting until reservations are beginning for 2010 is a poor treatment of it's members when there has been plenty of opportunity for timely release of information. The Member website alone allows for opportunity for immediate communication and they certainly also use email for a number of other purposes - why not something as important as a change in the point charts?

I am not disputing the ability and right of DVC to make these changes - I was a member when this happened the first time , but at that time the changes coming for 1996 were sent to the members in September, 1994. I am challenging the timing and poor communication for such a "customer service" oriented company and one that holds itself out as being a notch above - the "DVC Difference".


----------



## StayFLA

Megsmachine said:


> I am not trying to be a  or get people riled up, but really this was an excellent business decision on Disney's part.
> 
> You aren't a DVC member because you like to go to Disney occasionally, you are a DVC member because you are a HUGE Disney fan, or an addict.  It's not like you are going to say "thats it!!  Iam done with Disney!!"  They have you in the palm of their hand.
> 
> They are counting on members buying more points so they can continue coming to Disney.  Heck they probably even know most people were going to be angry about it, but all the while they knew you'd  have to get over it and find another way to make it work for you.
> 
> SO they upped the points, AND are making more money off of DVC'ers because you are going to have to buy more points.  How are you going to find 1-25 points to buy??  Well you're (most likely) not!  You are going to have to buy bigger add ons.  SO now Disney is really putting more money in their pockets.
> 
> Oh I am sure they realize a few will try to re-sell their points, but all in all, currents DVC'ers that try to sell are not going to make any money off of that or even break even.  And really, there are tons of new people lined up to buy
> points that have no idea this happened, as it in no way affects them.  Or at least they don't know what "used to be".
> 
> So you (DVC'ers) are caught between a rock and a hard place.  DO you buy more to add on or do you sell for a loss?  Or do you keep them and just go for fewer days?



This sums it up very well along with Tim's posts.  Ugly, but neccessary.  It does hurt my family, but that is how it works.  It's a killer for folks who banked and are 5 points short for a trip, but there are transfers available.  Hell, I may need one.  I wanted AKV SV this year and went OKW instead and maybe this saved me to allow 2010 December SSR.

Ralph

Ralph


----------



## Cindaddy

WebmasterDoc said:


> I think you're being most generous towards DVC with these comments.
> 
> To suggest that they planned the BLT charts 2-3 YEARS ago and just planned the changes to all of the point charts (including BLT) 2 - 4 months ago is a very generous suggestion.
> 
> OK - lets say it was 4 months ago - then why would they NOT issue the new BLT points at the start of sales?  To suggest that this plan was made less than 4 months ago when for the past 16 years the newly printed point charts have always been in the hands of the members by October certainly indicates that any deviation from that policy was in the works long before sales ever began at BLT and probably before the BLT sales point charts were even printed.
> 
> Perhaps some mention of these changes could have been announced at the annual meeting too - unless you're suggesting that the decision was made after early December?  DVC has had plenty of opportunity to make these changes in a timely fashion and still get the new charts to members in the fall. In doing so, the BLT charts would have reflected the changes prior to removing the 100 point minimum purchase at that resort. Waiting until reservations are beginning for 2010 is a poor treatment of it's members when there has been plenty of opportunity for timely release of information. The Member website alone allows for opportunity for immediate communication and they certainly also use email for a number of other purposes - why not something as important as a change in the point charts?
> 
> I am not disputing the ability and right of DVC to make these changes - I was a member when this happened the first time , but at that time the changes coming for 1996 were sent to the members in September, 1994. I am challenging the timing and poor communication for such a "customer service" oriented company and one that holds itself out as being a notch above - the "DVC Difference".


----------



## ekball

Can someone PLEASE help a newbie out?!  I just posted this on another thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tysdad747  
Am I reading this right, that points are increasing for your stay? *I was told when we purchased last month that points would never change*, only fluctuate based on holidays and the calendar by a couple days...

Tim 

*We were told the same thing when we bought! Points would NEVER change. Someone please fill us in here.*

From the sound of this thread I'd say someone told us some bad information.  What's going on?!?!


----------



## Dean

KLR-wlv said:


> I just don't see how we can count on the points being any fixed amount now. So just to cover any possible point reallocation, I should - just to be safe -buy enough at every resort for 1 week, in a 2 br - just in case they change it some more to cover our regular vacation habits we've been practicing since dvc's inception. VWL weeknight in a 2 br in premier season went up 7 points a night - 35 extra for a 5 night stay. AN extra 55 points for the VB reservation I have this thanksgiving - so I need an extra 85 points to cover the same 10 nights in 2010. NOT insignificant and NOT what I paid for. So I should just invest another $8000 to get the same trips....


I've made the suggestions a number of times to buy at least a 10% margin unless one bought enough for a 2 BR for a week in at least Magic season.  



WebmasterDoc said:


> I think you're being most generous towards DVC with these comments.
> 
> To suggest that they planned the BLT charts 2-3 YEARS ago and just planned the changes to all of the point charts (including BLT) 2 - 4 months ago is a very generous suggestion.
> 
> OK - lets say it was 4 months ago - then why would they NOT issue the new BLT points at the start of sales?  To suggest that this plan was made less than 4 months ago when for the past 16 years the newly printed point charts have always been in the hands of the members by October certainly indicates that any deviation from that policy was in the works long before sales ever began at BLT and probably before the BLT sales point charts were even printed.
> 
> Perhaps some mention of these changes could have been announced at the annual meeting too - unless you're suggesting that the decision was made after early December?  DVC has had plenty of opportunity to make these changes in a timely fashion and still get the new charts to members in the fall. In doing so, the BLT charts would have reflected the changes prior to removing the 100 point minimum purchase at that resort. Waiting until reservations are beginning for 2010 is a poor treatment of it's members when there has been plenty of opportunity for timely release of information. The Member website alone allows for opportunity for immediate communication and they certainly also use email for a number of other purposes - why not something as important as a change in the point charts?
> 
> I am not disputing the ability and right of DVC to make these changes - I was a member when this happened the first time , but at that time the changes coming for 1996 were sent to the members in September, 1994. I am challenging the timing and poor communication for such a "customer service" oriented company and one that holds itself out as being a notch above - the "DVC Difference".


To clarify I said planned around a year and finalized in the last 2-4 months.  This was just a guess knowing how these type of things tend to work, you can adjust the timeline proportionally if you desire with the principle that things take time to implement and much has to be approved by the state of FL on the sales side.  As for the fact it could have been done and timed better, no argument here, same for two AKV snafu's recently.  I guess my real point is what's done is done and the fact they didn't either plan or time it better doesn't change the appropriateness of the overall move.  Making the change now would be better than putting it off a year or two else there would be no reason to do it at all.  As I noted, getting the change out before the BLT charts became public knowledge and having BLT only be the new structure would have been ideal.  My guess is it would have set back sales about 4-6 months minimum reading this issue as I do.  In addition, to take these changes as a sign the sky is falling is over reacting.  These are things that timeshare do and one of the reasons I've always looked at DVC as just another nice timeshare, different but not better or worse (depending on context) than the Marriott's I own.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

According to the Member wesbite, they still have not finalized anything, but expect to in the next week. However, they still posted the "official" point charts there yesterday and removed them a few hours later with the current excuse du jour.

Poor guest relations, IMO. YMMV. 

Sorry to hear that Marriott is no better.


----------



## wildernessDad

ekball said:


> Can someone PLEASE help a newbie out?!  I just posted this on another thread...
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Tysdad747
> Am I reading this right, that points are increasing for your stay? *I was told when we purchased last month that points would never change*, only fluctuate based on holidays and the calendar by a couple days...
> 
> Tim
> 
> *We were told the same thing when we bought! Points would NEVER change. Someone please fill us in here.*
> 
> From the sound of this thread I'd say someone told us some bad information.  What's going on?!?!



The TOTAL number of points on the chart cannot change, but they can move points around and could even them all out if they wanted to so that every day costs the same amount of points.


----------



## ekball

wildernessDad said:


> The TOTAL number of points on the chart cannot change, but they can move points around and could even them all out if they wanted to so that every day costs the same amount of points.



Hm.  Gotcha.  And thank you for the explanation.  I feel a little better...now I need to go back and see what this change really means.


----------



## Tricia1972

wildernessDad said:


> The TOTAL number of points on the chart cannot change, but they can move points around and could even them all out if they wanted to so that every day costs the same amount of points.



That's my understanding as well.

For example, as I understand it, if it would cost 20,000 points to stay in a 1BR at SSR for a year, that will never change.  DVC can, however, change how they allocate those 20,000 points for the 1BR at SSR within any given year.

I hope I am understanding, and explaining it, correctly.


----------



## twinklebug

ekball said:


> Can someone PLEASE help a newbie out?!  I just posted this on another thread...
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Tysdad747
> Am I reading this right, that points are increasing for your stay? *I was told when we purchased last month that points would never change*, only fluctuate based on holidays and the calendar by a couple days...
> 
> Tim
> 
> *We were told the same thing when we bought! Points would NEVER change. Someone please fill us in here.*
> 
> From the sound of this thread I'd say someone told us some bad information.  What's going on?!?!



OK, this is bothering me to the point where I dug out my paperwork... it's not just you, there are others saying the same thing. That they were told the points would never increase.

If you look at your Product understanding checklist, which to my knowledge, everyone signed, item number 9 (on my AKV docs at least) regarding the assignment of nightly Vacation Points states:



> .... The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular vacation home may change based on seasonal demand. Except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year:
> 
> 
> The total number of Vacation points required to use at all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2057 can never increase.
> If Vacation Points for one specific night increases, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights.




So it's in there. What a person may have told you could certainly have been wrong, but it's also possible some folk heard bullet point #1 above and misconstrued it to mean that the vacation points needed for the vacation dates they want at their desired resort would never change.


----------



## ekball

Cindaddy said:


> Maybe.  I would argue that, in my case, selling me a number of points based on a point chart that they know is going to change 4 months after the resort opens is, at least, unethical.  Many people bought points based on a point chart over the years.  If that chart is going to be changed at anytime, that is an improper sales method and the Guide should use another method of calculating points or recommend a cushion to the buyer. My guide told me that the point chart wouldn't change (I knew better thanks to the folks here).




You know, our guide said the same thing.  And I DIDN'T know better, silly me I just believed the guide.  This is really cr@p in my opinion.  In fact, the guide really emphasized how this made DVC such a great deal because the points would never change, while the cost of the resorts on a cash basis would just continue to rise year after year.  How can they do that?!?


----------



## lugnut33

Dean said:


> As I noted, to me the surprise is that it's took them this long to make changes.  It shouldn't have been a surprise IMO.   Timeshares change over the years and the protections you have are what's in the legal documents and state statutes.  I simply don't get the unfair issue as I think everyone either knew or should have know this was a possibility if not a probability.
> 
> As you know, I've been predicting this for some time.  It took much longer than I expected because I expected it somewhere around 2001 or 2002.  Assuming they got it close to right, this might be the last time (or might not be) unless there are factors that change and thus change the demand such as new festivals or events.  I think we're seeing a different DVC now than then.  IMO, DVC was overly concerned about member reaction and held back on changes they should have made.  That certainly does not seem to be the case now with the changes we've seen lately.
> 
> Some are saying the notification was inappropriate but I'd somewhat disagree.  DVC cannot and should not put these things out there as a trial balloon to see how members will react.  They need to make their decisions (within the legal framework), post them and move on.  They will re-evaluate those decisions behind the scenes but should not let reaction or sentiment cause the to back away simply for the reason of avoiding the reaction.



So I also suppose you don't believe that in the last few days DVC sales reps were telling people and selling people contracts that had "just the right amount of points to take a vacation" during a certain time of year?  Sure, the sales rep might not have known, but somebody knew this change was coming and it looks really bad on Disney's part.  

It really screws people who bought in wanting to take several short trips a year.  Can you imagine during the sale presentation that the guide probably said, "oh absolutely you can stay 5 days 3 times a year on those points".  

Yeah, everything is nice and legal, it doesn't mean everyone should be jumping around with joy.  (and no, this change doesn't affect me, I just think it's terrible for all those that are being affected in the name of shareholder value)


----------



## tidefan

sgtpet said:


> This news is very disappointing.  This is impacting the DVC members negatively.  The threat of minimum stays being forced upon us will probably be the last straw for me.  What a shame.  I will take the money from this and buy into a Marriott timeshare.



Well, you'll have a 7-day minimum stay at the Marriott.  BTW, they aren't immune to changes either.  Numerous people bought b/c they could trade their week for Marriott Reward points for nice trips.  Was a major selling point of the program for developer sales (Resales don't have this option, although, IMHO, I didn't think it was a great option to begin with).  Well anyway, Marriott just went and changed that too.  Research before you jump...

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83687

Or, you could have the situation that we had this year with our Diamond Resorts timeshare where our MF's went up 35%...


----------



## Sammie

> But DVCMC has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the Condo Association(s) as a whole. You can't use surveys and member feedback to judge whether this reallocation was necessary. If weekend occupancy is a shadow of that during weekdays, something has to change. And unfortunately the only way to lower weekend costs is to raise weekdays.



If that is true, and I will agree it might be, then why always issue the standard phrase that this change is due to member requests.

If they truly are not going to base it on the members wants and as you pointed out maybe that is not in the best interest of DVC and the membership in general then just own up to it.

I could accept the changes alot better if that was the case.


----------



## lugnut33

Dean said:


> I've made the suggestions a number of times to buy at least a 10% margin unless one bought enough for a 2 BR for a week in at least Magic season.
> 
> .




Hmmm, maybe buying a 10% cushion IS the best kept secret because I never remember hearing that during the sales pitch??  

Where did it say, "Minimum point buy is 160 points, but we recommend 16 additional points in case we modify the points, which of course is perfectly legal for DVC to do"?  

It's absurd, as absurd as trying to sell me a dead parrot (Monty Python reference)  

Dean, you must watch this, it's so perfect.  DVC being the pet shop vendor, DVC owners being John Cleese  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218


----------



## goofygal1975

lugnut33 said:


> So I also suppose you don't believe that in the last few days DVC sales reps were telling people and selling people contracts that had "just the right amount of points to take a vacation" during a certain time of year?  Sure, the sales rep might not have known, but somebody knew this change was coming and it looks really bad on Disney's part.
> 
> It really screws people who bought in wanting to take several short trips a year.  Can you imagine during the sale presentation that the guide probably said, "oh absolutely you can stay 5 days 3 times a year on those points".
> 
> Yeah, everything is nice and legal, it doesn't mean everyone should be jumping around with joy.  (and no, this change doesn't affect me, I just think it's terrible for all those that are being affected in the name of shareholder value)




We JUST bought BLT YESTERDAY. And my guide told me that he was in a training session that morning and started to say things were interesting. Of course, this was before everyone saw the 2010 point changes and posted it on here, so I didn't know to ask him about it more. 

We bought 300 points, just a number we picked that seemed to cover any trips we may want to do in a year. I feel that if they KNEW they were changing the point system, then they should have informed ALL new buyers of this. If everyone says it is legal for them to do this fine, but there should be more notice, especially for people who are just buying! It's just not right to not even be able to use your points yet, and have them changed around. Change it around BEFORE you take my money!


----------



## Cindaddy

ekball said:


> You know, our guide said the same thing.  And I DIDN'T know better, silly me I just believed the guide.  This is really cr@p in my opinion.  In fact, the guide really emphasized how this made DVC such a great deal because the points would never change, while the cost of the resorts on a cash basis would just continue to rise year after year.  How can they do that?!?



I hear you.  It's hard to say.  Definately some ethics issues going on.  I'm not sure what to think.  My contract is going to sit here unsigned.


----------



## MiaSRN62

*Edited post because it was confusing (my apologies) :
*Well...count me in as disappointed.  And I know all about being legal and within Disney's rights....and so on.......

Our usually pattern with our OKW stays are a 2 bedroom/Magic Season/Sun-Thurs = 150 points

I tried every different way I could think to get 5 nights out OKW in a 2 bedroom/Magic season and it's bleak.  

According to the new charts (thanks for all that saved and posted), 5 nights would now cost me :

Sun thru Thurs = 180 points  (30 points more)
This is signifant to us and our travel patterns.  Been Members since 2000.  We are losing the equivalent of one night's stay. So the value of our DVC went down for us.  


Just bought a 100 point add-on at AKV.  We stayed this past August (Magic season) for 3 nights in a 1 bedroom SV for 90 points.  

In 2010, at the AKV, this same trip would cost us 12 points more.   Yeah it's only 12 points, but it's 12 points we DON'T have because we only bought a 100 point add-on.   Our option would be to drop to a standard view---but that is not why we bought AKV. 

We probably would have done another add-on at AKV to bring up our points to adjust to the new allocation, but now we missed the Jan 15 deadline and the cost went up for points at AKV.  I know my husband won't buy more points there now based on the timing of the price increase and the "convenient"   release of the new allocation (for disney that is).  

Just seems sort of snarky on Disney's part---to agree with what several others have said.  


So we're not talking 3 or 4, or 5 points more.........particularily in the case of OKW, we're talking 30 points more for the exact same stay.  So far, I see the allocation forcing us to NOT be able to make additional shorter stays down in WDW.   Thus, in turn, less money from us that we would spend on meals/souveniers.......and we may not even buy AP's any longer due to this change.  Not to mention, the add-on at BLT we were considering.  I don't know....still have to try and work this all out and see how it works for our family and the way we have become accustomed to vacationing for the past 8 years.  

I realize DVC probably won't care....or lose any sleep over this.  I realize this is in their best interest & within their legal right and will benefit those who mostly do weekend stays.  I understand all the arguments for the fairness of the point structure overall.  I get all that.  But it still has now become a snafu in our DVC vacation world.......and when things start making you unsettled to quote another DIS'er.....then....well......this is just such a drastic change and the timing doesn't seem fair.


----------



## Anal Annie

jekjones1558 said:


> Here are points charts:
> http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216



Thanks!  This WILL mess with our 2010 plans a bit.  It will require us to somehow "find" an additional 21 points (maybe I can pull them out of my behind) for our tentative 2010 trips.   I guess they really ARE tentative now.

Their timing sucks.  Ain't no other way to put it.


----------



## Chuck S

DeeCee735 said:


> I imagine they took the points chart off the website temporarity, stating it was incorrectly posted because they realized the weekly points had gone up on some weeks, and that's not supposed to change even if they reallocate nightly points



Weekly points can change.  The 1996 re-allocation at OKW sent studio points from 69 to 80 points per week in Adventure season.


----------



## lugnut33

goofygal1975 said:


> We JUST bought BLT YESTERDAY. And my guide told me that he was in a training session that morning and started to say things were interesting. Of course, this was before everyone saw the 2010 point changes and posted it on here, so I didn't know to ask him about it more.
> 
> We bought 300 points, just a number we picked that seemed to cover any trips we may want to do in a year. I feel that if they KNEW they were changing the point system, then they should have informed ALL new buyers of this. If everyone says it is legal for them to do this fine, but there should be more notice, especially for people who are just buying! It's just not right to not even be able to use your points yet, and have them changed around. Change it around BEFORE you take my money!



I completely and totally 100% agree with you.  

Unless you were going to do multiple weekday stays, it probably wont affect you too much, you have plenty of points.  Congrats.


----------



## pakhowe

I am very disappointed in what I consider to be drastic changes.  We bought in to AKV in September and have yet to take our first trip home.  Through banking and borrowing we have been planning to book our first trip home in Feb. of 2010.  We are planning on reserving multiple savannah view units sun - thurs as we are including family members for our first trip home.  According to the new point chart posted earlier, this trip will now cost us substantially more points.  A trip like this (which requires banking and borrowing) takes significant advance planning.  The short notice of such a significant change is in my opinion inexcusable.  I guess I just expected to be treated better.  I think the timing is unfair and the notion that "the poor timing does not affect the approriateness of the change" is absurd on it's face.  If the timing is inapropriate, it obviosely affects the overall appropriateness, at least as far as it relates to implementation.     

What irritates me even more than the changes based on day of the week, is the redistrubution of point requirements at AKV based on catagory.  A major selling point for AKV (used extensively by the salespeople as well as in the literature) are the animals right outside your room.  Our guide used the points chart to show us how to decide the number of points to purchase based upon the catagory and time of year we would likely desire.  We are now being hit with a double whammy.  Redistrubtion of points based on day of week and category, and all of this before we take our first trip home.  I am also confused by this changed, as I have read repeatedly on these boards that the value catagories are difficult to book as they go fast.

Perhaps a more customer friendly course of action would have been to provide a notice of up to three years.  Prospective buyers could then see what the current point requirements are as well as an approximation of point requirements based upon a well planned and thought out redistribution.

I understand the possibility of redistribution exists at any time, but this change so soon after I purchased leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.  I do not believe for a second that these changes were not planned at the time of my purchase and feel that DVC was not very forthcoming with me, bordering on deceptive.

On a side note I apologize if this post is a bit rambling.  I underwent surgery today and although the pain killers are doing their job, they left me a bit floaty.


----------



## BeccaG

december14disney said:


>



This was a very cool way to look at it!  Just had to say!


----------



## Belle & Ariel

I like the change.  We usually go on a Friday and stay 9 nights checking out on a Sunday.  It will drop our point cost a little. 
Hopefully the resorts will have better occupancy rates on the weekends making better use of our investment.
I think they should do it now rather than wait.  It would be a poor business decision to leave so many rooms vacant on weekends another year.  I don't know the per capita spending per day, but it would add up over a year.
I am sorry for those scrambling to get enough points for planned stays.  I think if you cut back one night every few years, you will be fine.  Your plans might even change to where you save points on some stays to balance it out.


----------



## tidefan

lugnut33 said:


> Yeah, everything is nice and legal, it doesn't mean everyone should be jumping around with joy.  (and no, this change doesn't affect me, I just think it's terrible for all those that are being affected in the name of shareholder value)



While I think that the timing of this isn't great and I feel for those who have planned Sun-Thurs trips at the same week every year for the next 40 years, I don't think that the reallocation is part of some "sinister" plan by accountaneers to separate more money from peoples wallet.  Being in the data analysis arena, I would bet anything that DVC maintains ratios of occupancy over points required or something similar.  My guess is that these were getting so out of whack that they felt like they had to do something.

I think that they are between a rock and a hard place due to what Dean alluded to about not doing this earlier.  By basically encouraging Sun-Thurs stays, the demand seemed to be getting to where people were having issues getting stays.  If you have 7 days worth of members all trying to reserve only 5 days, problems could come quickly.  Do any of you remember on the infamous reservation thread how "those checking in on weekends will prevent all of the Sun-Thurs stays from ever getting reservations" (BTW, I think that whole issue was a bit of a red herring, the reservation system hasn't seemed to make a big difference one way or the other).  So, it apparently is either reallocate or start getting to where people start to run into issues on reservations...

So, I guess I don't have an issue with the reallocations, as from a supply/demand standpoint, it makes perfect sense.  Now from a PR standpoint, if these are the true charts, then they've botched the rollout a bit.  A few things that if it were me that I might do are:

1)  Have like a 1 week period where the add-on minimums are gone.  Completely.  Now, I know that they probably can't logistically do this, but it seems like the biggest issue is with shifts of 1-5 points for a week.  Take a week and let folks add on any amount of points to cover their needs.  Even better, let the folks who now need 2 extra points purchase them from those who now have 2 points extra each year.  Now, I know contractually, this probably wouldn't work, so the next best thing would be...

2)  Get rid of 100 point minimum add-ons, at least for one's home resort, and go back to 25.

3)  Let any BLT member who purchased prior to the point change have the option to sell the contract back to DVC and to repurchase another contract (for the amount of points they may now want) under the same terms they originally purchased.

4)  God forbid, a member may have to stay at OKW every now and then...

5)  I'm OK with the gratuity on the meal plan, but let me have the choice of the appetizer instead of the dessert!


----------



## Chuck S

tidefan said:


> 2)  Get rid of 100 point minimum add-ons, at least for one's home resort, and go back to 25.



Doesn't the 100 point minimum add-on apply ONLY to BLT?  Aren't all other resorts still 25 points (cash) and 50 points (financed) minimum.  Or is the 100 point add-on for all resorts, now?


----------



## tidefan

Chuck S said:


> Doesn't the 100 point minimum add-on apply ONLY to BLT?  Aren't all other resorts still 25 points (cash) and 50 points (financed) minimum.  Or is the 100 point add-on for all resorts, now?



No.  You're right, it's BLT and GCV, but I still say get rid of it...


----------



## tjkraz

Chuck S said:


> Doesn't the 100 point minimum add-on apply ONLY to BLT?  Aren't all other resorts still 25 points (cash) and 50 points (financed) minimum.  Or is the 100 point add-on for all resorts, now?



It is just BLT now but all signs are pointing toward the Grand Californian having the same floor.  I guess VGC is a little different, though, since buyers should have all of the info up-front and sub-100 pt add-ons will never be an option.


----------



## BeccaG

Dean said:


> As I noted, to me the surprise is that it's took them this long to make changes.  It shouldn't have been a surprise IMO.   Timeshares change over the years and the protections you have are what's in the legal documents and state statutes.  I simply don't get the unfair issue as I think everyone either knew or should have know this was a possibility if not a probability.



I hear what you are saying and that is why I used the word feel before unfair.  However, for many of us there is an emotional part of us when it comes to vacationing and to Disney.  So while your point is valid and your predictions were accurate I think you need to understand that for many their decision to purchase had an emotional component.  Therefore their reaction to the "alleged point charts" will have an emotional component as well.  It seems that you are not emotionally connected to the process (which is neither a good or bad thing.)  But the bottom line, is many of us do get emotional about our vacations, which is OK too.


----------



## BeccaG

WebmasterDoc said:


> You feel they just realized the need to change the formula within 4 months of starting sales at BLT?
> 
> I find it very disingenuous to have had every opportunity to create a point chart for BLT reflecting the new emphasis and yet within 4 months of releasing the BLT chart and starting sales they have now changed the point charts - at the same time increasing the minimum purchase at that resort - especially when the resort does not even open for more than 7 months.
> 
> With every new resort , they have had ample opportunity to modify the point charts to reflect the expected member usage. They did modify the chart for SSR, again for AKV and yet again 4 months ago for BLT. They certainly have no track record to go on for utilization at BLT. Are you suggesting this was just brought to their attention since BLT sales opened in September?
> 
> Since 1992, DVC has always released the new point charts about 15 months in advance and usually sent those charts, in print form and by mail to each member. For whatever reason, we still have nothing even on the member website and even that information has been posted and then retrieved because it was in error.
> 
> I am not surprised that changes are being made - I agree it was inevitable at some point - but I am surprised at the changes across the board and at the poor timing used for these changes.



Well said!!!!


----------



## Inkmahm

MiaSRN62 said:


> Well...count me in as disappointed.  And I know all about being legal and within Disney's rights....and so on.......
> 
> Our usually pattern with our OKW stays are a 2 bedroom/Magic Season/Sun-Thurs = 150 points
> 
> I tried every different way I could think to get 5 nights out OKW in a 2 bedroom/Magic season and it's bleak.
> 
> According to the new charts (thanks for all that saved and posted), 5 nights would now cost me one of the following :
> 
> Sun thru Thurs = 180 points  (30 points more)
> Tues thru Sat = 226 points  (76 points more)
> Mon thru Fri = 203 points  (53 points more)
> 
> This is signifant to us and our travel patterns.  Been Members since 2000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we're not talking 3 or 4, or 5 points more.........particularily in the case of OKW, we're talking 30-76 points more for the exact same stay.  I mean, I'm still working different scenarios out right now....but the fact we tend to vacation in early to mid Aug out of necessity, we don't feel we have much choice at all here.  But so far, I see the allocation forcing us to NOT be able to make additional shorter stays down in WDW.   Thus, in turn, less money from us that we would spend on meals/souveniers.......and we may not even buy AP's any longer due to this change.  Not to mention, the add-on at BLT we were considering.  I don't know....still have to try and work this all out and see how it works for our family and the way we have become accustomed to vacationing for the past 8 years.



Your numbers didn't pass my "smell test" so I went to look them up myself.

Reality is that Sun-Thurs will be 180 and that IS 30 more points for the time you normally vacation.

But Tues-Sat would be 226 and that is actually 10 less than the 236 it would have been using the old 30 per night S-Th and 73 per night on F, Sa

Mon-Fri  would be 203 and that is 10 more than the 193 it would have been using the old 30 per night S-Th  and 73 per night on F, Sa

I realize you are comparing to what you paid before, but it seemed a bit misleading as it sounded like you were comparing to the 2009 charts.  In reality, Disney did just what it said.  Made weekends more inviting to use and Sun-Thurs less so.


----------



## Marshay

Ok, please know that I just ask this question in innocence. 

If Disney wants to fill up its rooms every day of the week, then why isn't every day the same number of points within a given season and room category?

I certainly understand the larger the room, the more points and the various busy seasons such as summer and holidays.  But I've never understood why Disney penalizes weekend stays so much  ... that DVC folks actually try to avoid the weekends ...

Thanks for your insight -- I'm new (owned for 2 years) and want to learn!


----------



## tjkraz

Marshay said:


> If Disney wants to fill up its rooms every day of the week, then why isn't every day the same number of points within a given season and room category?



The purpose of the points chart is to balance demand.  

It stands to reason that if the points were equal, Friday and Saturday nights would be booked MUCH earlier than the weeknights.  Specifically those within driving distance would purchase DVC in greater numbers for use as weekend getaway.  We would be left with a situation the opposite of what we have now--weekends would be at 100% occupancy and the resorts would struggle to fill rooms Su-Th.

It's pretty much the same concept as the different seasons on the calendar.  Demand for New Year's Eve is MUCH higher than, say, September 15th.  Thus it costs many more points to stay the night of NYE.


----------



## MagicalPins

Its about time Disney finally fixed the flawed point charts. I'm surprised it took them this long to get it done. After seeing how many people here are complaining, its obvious that this was the right move to make to even out the demand for booking and help improve DVC overall!

Good work Disney! You got something right this time!


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Your numbers didn't pass my "smell test" so I went to look them up myself.
> 
> Reality is that Sun-Thurs will be 180 and that IS 30 more points for the time you normally vacation.
> 
> But Tues-Sat would be 226 and that is actually 10 less than the 236 it would have been using the old 30 per night S-Th and 73 per night on F, Sa
> 
> Mon-Fri would be 203 and that is 10 more than the 193 it would have been using the old 30 per night S-Th and 73 per night on F, Sa


*Inkmahm....guess I didn't make myself clear.  I do apologize.  I have 150 points to work with....and can only go in Aug (Magic season).  For 8 years I've been able to get 5 nights/2 bedroom/OKW for 150.  The days/patterns I chose in my example didn't matter as I was just trying to find a way to get 5 nights---or at least 5 nights for not too much more.   I didn't care which days of the week we stayed.  

All I know is I can no longer stay 5 nights in a 2 bedroom at OKW for the number of points we have been for the past 8 years.   That's all I meant.  So, I'll just edit to say, our vacation in 2010 will cost us 30 more points.  This means, we lose one night stay every single year.  That's not chump change to me.  That's ALOT to borrow every year and we just simply won't do it.   This woeful reality, in addition to our issue with the AKV stay, is just upsetting.  I just can't even find the words for it. 

I probably should have just stated it this way to begin with.  I'm tired.  Coming off a 13 hour graveyard shift.  The news of this drastic allocation combined with my fatigue....just hit me like a ton of bricks.  I was just trying to say, I cannot make it work using any combination of days and still get 5 nights in a 2 bedroom.  So for me, this is a huge loss.  I realize some think this whole think is just grand.  I know it has made me think entirely differently about DVC.  REALLY glad now I didn't do the OKW extension.  I most assuredly don't see the flexibility as it has been.  I don't think I can recommend DVC to people as I have in the past.  Not all of us need or want a 7 night stay.   I have that with my offsite timeshare.  Never purchased DVC for the same reasons. *



> Disney did just what it said. Made weekends more inviting to use and Sun-Thurs less so.


*Ok fair enough.....but it has actually decreased the amount of days my family can vacation in WDW. So it's just how I, personally, feel about it.  Upset.  Makes me rethink everything about my Membership now.*


----------



## Kuzco

The adjustments, whatever they may turn out to be, probably won't affect my traveling too much as I'm pretty flexible about when I can go and how long my stay is.  However, I really hope the final adjustments don't affect everyone else's travel patterns too much.  I'll keep my fingers crossed!


----------



## mickeyinplano

Am I missing something? If I am reading the 2010 charts correctly for SSR it looks to me that the weekend points required for both a GV and Studio go up for 2010 vs 2009 and the weekday points go down. This is opposite what I understand the concern to be.


----------



## BroganMc

Well color me annoyed if these 2010 changes stick. They completely mess with my future plans for arranging family gatherings. I worked out all these alternative plans based on the assumption of ponying up for the bigger family-size units on the cheaper weekdays at SSR. Now DVC is nickle-and-diming me out of my points. (5 more in the Spring, Fall, and Winter) 

Looks like they are leaving my BLT "3-day studio stays a year" plans alone though. Still I think it incredibly stupid and dangerous for DVC to be pulling this kinda stunt now. 

First they set an arbitrary deadline for the smaller BLT add-ons. Then they artificially inflate the point schedule a week later. BEFORE they've sent out the BLT add-on contract paperwork and settled the deals. I just got my papers to sign this week. Now I'm thinking I should rethink settling that smaller add-on until I see what sort of stunt DVC runs with for next year.

Definitely a bait-and-switch approach from my POV.


----------



## MagicalPins

BroganMc said:


> Definitely a bait-and-switch approach from my POV.



Bait and switch just because Disney switch lowered the amount of points for you to stay on weekends and raised it on weekdays to make up for the error of the over inflated weekend pricing?


----------



## BroganMc

MagicalPins said:


> Bait and switch just because Disney switch lowered the amount of points for you to stay on weekends and raised it on weekdays to make up for the error of the over inflated weekend pricing?



You're forgetting the part where they gave me a 2009 chart with the proviso I buy just as many points as I expected to use. Then force me to make that decision by a certain date before they arbitrarily set the minimum add-on price to another $5000+. Once I make those calculations, begin the buying process then they magically change the point requirements for the next year AFTER the deadline to lower point add-ons passes. So let's say I had planned to use my smaller BLT add-on for a short (under 1 week stay) every Spring and come to find I'm now 5 points too short with my add-on contract. (The one where the ink hasn't even dried.) But to adjust for that I must now pay an additional several thousand dollars (in my case $4000+) for the new 100 pt minimum add-on at the very least. Or I can buy a smaller $10k 100 point add-on to buff up my smaller 60 pt contract.

Yup, bait-n-switch.

The whole idea of DVC is for members to buy the number of points needed to cover their intended stays. These altered charts affect those calculations, some more severe than others. I can imagine that's why they've been pulled so quickly. Someone made a lot of wrong assumptions in calculating this. DVC has never been a traditional weekly timeshare program. This is an attempt to make it appear that way. But, in the case of SSR, it's been a really botched job of it.

Now go look at the changes in the SSR point chart. That has weekly stays going up for just about every unit size except Grand Villas in the Fall & Winter. They robbed from the smaller units just to make the GVs less expensive. Not a good move IMHO. My SSR ownership (with 2 add-ons making it 430 points total) has gone from being able to easily do 4 weeks a year in a studio (Adventure, Choice, Dream & Magic) with 3 points to spare (427 points total) to now being 6 points under (436 points total). That means to keep the same value of my timeshare, I must add on 9 more points ($900+ to buy), but wait I have to do it in 25 pt minimums so that's really $2500+ more. $2500 more just to keep the same value I had last year and every year I've owned since 2006. And this is at a sold out resort. So all that calculating I did when I added on during the promotional periods, that means absolutely nothing now.

Don't get me started on the closure of the PI Clubs and the elimination of the NYE fireworks there. You would think DVC wants SSR owners to start hating their resort.


----------



## Maribel

Dean said:


> As I noted, to me the surprise is that it's took them this long to make changes.  It shouldn't have been a surprise IMO.   Timeshares change over the years and the protections you have are what's in the legal documents and state statutes.  I simply don't get the unfair issue as I think everyone either knew or should have know this was a possibility if not a probability.
> 
> As you know, I've been predicting this for some time.  It took much longer than I expected because I expected it somewhere around 2001 or 2002.  Assuming they got it close to right, this might be the last time (or might not be) unless there are factors that change and thus change the demand such as new festivals or events.  I think we're seeing a different DVC now than then.  IMO, DVC was overly concerned about member reaction and held back on changes they should have made.  That certainly does not seem to be the case now with the changes we've seen lately.



I have to say I agree with you. It looks like most people that come to this boards have squared down exactly how they want things done for the next 50 or so years and have some type of aversion to changes, but that is not the case for all, and I would dare to say, the majority of DVC members. 
I bought my points knowing they were entitled to make changes in order to make the program work at it best, and I kept it myself flexible knowing that life itself changes. 
There are many time shares programs that let you have your choice of week (the same every single year) when you buy. After you buy, you cannot change it, add a day one year, take a day off another, change the type of accommodation to invite family members, etc. To change you will have to go to an exchange process. 
This is not what you bought when you got into the points system. Flexibility was what sold me into DVC.
I do agree with other posters about how late in the game it is to change the 2010 points charts. They should have done this in the fall or early december so that people had enough time to plan their January 2010 vacations, which period for reservations will open next week, but the change itself is welcomed in my family, and I will say in the families of many DVC members that do not come or posts in these boards for fears of feeling like the odd kid at school. 
While some member will feel ripped off, others will feel they lucked out. 
The first group may decide to sell, but that won't really affect the rest or the DVC program as if someone sells, some other will buy and pay those dues anyway.


----------



## yasuern

just found this on the owners website


On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.


----------



## maburke

Maribel said:


> I do agree with other posters about how late in the game it is to change the 2010 points charts. They should have done this in the fall or early december so that people had enough time to plan their January 2010 vacations, which period for reservations will open next week.



Exactly!  They say the new point charts will be posted within a week, but doesn't the 11-month reservation window (with the new 7-day rule) for Jan. 1, 2010, start on SUNDAY??  This is ridiculously last minute, especially considering how much more important that 11-month window has become in recent years.


----------



## mrsswat

for those of you saying "borrow 2, borrow 5" to complete your plans, well our normal vacation reservations would require us to BORROW 20 POINTS EVERY YEAR, compared to the 15 points we had LEFT OVER (and would use 1 night on another trip). That's totally unacceptable to us!! Sorry, decline of everthing DVC has just today forced us to reconsider where our $$ goes.


----------



## maminnie

With the lower points on weekends, could we now see issues with the new reservation policy??  With more members likely arriving on weekend days now, those arriving the Friday/Saturday before a busy, high demand vacation week have reservation priority over those that do not in addition to lower points now.  Those members arriving later in the week could now face even more potential to be shut out by those who arrive earlier.  The walkers even have a few more points now to walk away!!  Yes I understand full rooms and members staying longer is wonderful for DVC (and its members supposedly) but for those of us that come in later in the week we face further possible issues with the new reservation policy now that the points are lower on the weekends.  (And yes we always stay on the weekends and do not just stay Sunday-Thursday so I can't be accused of that.  Our work and family schedule cause us to travel this way.)

The above concerns me as much as the fact that my one contract now does not have enough points to secure reservations as I have for years.  My story is that I did not buy enough the first time so I bought a second contract at the resort that was selling at the time.  I use both contracts to book my week and then waitlist either end.  Love both resorts so I never care which one comes through.  Have always had good luck with this and have never had to move.  Now the one contract is short a few points.  Yes I can borrow and bank but I personally have always tried to stay in my use year and current in case our jobs or family life do not allow us to travel to Disney in a given year.  

Yes it was my fault that I did not buy enough the first time and that I did not do a 10% security point purchase on my second contract as suggested in this thread but I had just made a sizeable DVC purchase the year before so I did what I could and my DVC salesperson never suggested this. So I will be the one that will have to make due with what I have but as other members have said  I am still disappointed and bit upset that what I have been doing for years is now not going to work.  But as was also said many times when the new reservation policy was being discussed on these boards "there are winners and there are losers with everything"; I just happen to be the loser yet again!!  This seems to be the trend with my DVC ownership interest at this time!!

maminnie

P.S.  For what it is worth I never would have bought a second contract at a different resort had I known the reservation policy was going to change or that this point restructure was going to occur.  I definitely would have bought at my original resort which I love as much as the second resort.  My original resort was sold out (quite a wait-list at the time) and for some crazy reason I wanted to go through Disney rather then resale.  Oh well my fault again!!


----------



## DebbieB

mickeyinplano said:


> Am I missing something? If I am reading the 2010 charts correctly for SSR it looks to me that the weekend points required for both a GV and Studio go up for 2010 vs 2009 and the weekday points go down. This is opposite what I understand the concern to be.



From what I see, studios did go up for weekdays but down for weekends.  GV's did go down for weekdays and up for weekends, except for premier season.

Studio:

Season 2009 weekday/weekend to 2010 weekday/weekend

Adventure  11/20 to 12/18
Choice  11/21 to 13/20
Dream 12/26 to 14/21
Magic 13/29 to 15/24
Premier 17/39 to 19/33

GV:

Adventure 67/85 to 63/95
Choice  71/86 to 65/99
Dream 79/106 to 75/114
Magic 97/117 to 89/135
Premier 117/142 to 89/135


----------



## Doug7856

pakhowe said:


> . . . I guess I just expected to be treated better.  . . .



Well said!


----------



## Anal Annie

Well, this whole sham messes us up a bit.  I just went thru & re-added the points for everything we had planned out.  Having just made our 2009 ressies with future "plans" for what / when / where for 2010 and noting when our booking windows open for each we will now be short by 3 points that we will have to borrow rather than having 23 points left to bank at the end of it all.   If this change was in effect for THIS year we'd have been short even more for our VB portion.   We were fine with how the OLD point charts worked.  They still didn't lower the weekend points enough to be able to work a 5 night stay any which way you work it.  Many, people did 5 night trips to make the cost of airfare worth it and that will no longer work in any way, shape or form.  We didn't necessarily AVOID weekends, almost always having at least SOME weekend nights planned if not both.  Sometimes we would plan to go for long weekends, but these particular charts are still out of whack and are not fairly balanced either.  We can no longer do a 4 n weekend 'cuz they raised the weekday too much but didn't drop the weekends enough.  That sucks.  There are too many existing members who made their DVC purchase based on the old charts.  

At the end of the day this re-allocation is gonna hurt more existing members than it helps and it basically screws a lot of people who purchased their number of points based on the existing charts.  I feel especially bad for those who just purchased small add-ons at BLT before the min. add-on went up last week.  Many of them based their purchases on what they could do specifically with banking and borrowing.  Now they may be short by only 5 points or something absurd.  THAT is just WRONG on DVC's part. 

Who do we write to complain?????


----------



## alldiz

lugnut33 said:


> Hmmm, maybe buying a 10% cushion IS the best kept secret because I never remember hearing that during the sales pitch??
> 
> Where did it say, "Minimum point buy is 160 points, but we recommend 16 additional points in case we modify the points, which of course is perfectly legal for DVC to do"?
> 
> It's absurd, as absurd as trying to sell me a dead parrot (Monty Python reference)
> 
> *Dean, you must watch this, it's so perfect.  DVC being the pet shop vendor, DVC owners being John Cleese  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218*



  


MiaSRN62 said:


> *Edited post because it was confusing (my apologies) :
> *Well...count me in as disappointed.  And I know all about being legal and within Disney's rights....and so on.......
> 
> Our usually pattern with our OKW stays are a 2 bedroom/Magic Season/Sun-Thurs = 150 points
> 
> I tried every different way I could think to get 5 nights out OKW in a 2 bedroom/Magic season and it's bleak.
> 
> According to the new charts (thanks for all that saved and posted), 5 nights would now cost me :
> 
> Sun thru Thurs = 180 points  (30 points more)
> This is signifant to us and our travel patterns.  Been Members since 2000.  We are losing the equivalent of one night's stay. So the value of our DVC went down for us.
> 
> 
> Just bought a 100 point add-on at AKV.  We stayed this past August (Magic season) for 3 nights in a 1 bedroom SV for 90 points.
> 
> In 2010, at the AKV, this same trip would cost us 12 points more.   Yeah it's only 12 points, but it's 12 points we DON'T have because we only bought a 100 point add-on.   Our option would be to drop to a standard view---but that is not why we bought AKV.
> 
> We probably would have done another add-on at AKV to bring up our points to adjust to the new allocation, but now we missed the Jan 15 deadline and the cost went up for points at AKV.  I know my husband won't buy more points there now based on the timing of the price increase and the "convenient"   release of the new allocation (for disney that is).
> 
> *Just seems sort of snarky on Disney's part---to agree with what several others have said. *
> 
> 
> So we're not talking 3 or 4, or 5 points more.........particularily in the case of OKW, we're talking 30 points more for the exact same stay.  So far, I see the allocation forcing us to NOT be able to make additional shorter stays down in WDW.   Thus, in turn, less money from us that we would spend on meals/souveniers.......and we may not even buy AP's any longer due to this change.  Not to mention, the add-on at BLT we were considering.  I don't know....still have to try and work this all out and see how it works for our family and the way we have become accustomed to vacationing for the past 8 years.
> 
> I realize DVC probably won't care....or lose any sleep over this.  I realize this is in their best interest & within their legal right and will benefit those who mostly do weekend stays.  I understand all the arguments for the fairness of the point structure overall.  I get all that.  But it still has now become a snafu in our DVC vacation world.......and when things start making you unsettled to quote another DIS'er.....then....well......this is just such a drastic change and the timing doesn't seem fair.


Disney could handle change a little better.....I shouldn't have to find out through the Dis.


Inkmahm said:


> Your numbers *didn't pass my "smell test*" so I went to look them up myself.
> 
> Reality is that Sun-Thurs will be 180 and that IS 30 more points for the time you normally vacation.
> 
> But Tues-Sat would be 226 and that is actually 10 less than the 236 it would have been using the old 30 per night S-Th and 73 per night on F, Sa
> 
> Mon-Fri  would be 203 and that is 10 more than the 193 it would have been using the old 30 per night S-Th  and 73 per night on F, Sa
> 
> I realize you are comparing to what you paid before, but it seemed a bit misleading as it sounded like you were comparing to the 2009 charts.  *In reality, Disney did just what it said.  Made weekends more inviting to use and Sun-Thurs less so*.


Not for me....WLV 1Br's has gone up on weekdays and weekends.


Marshay said:


> Ok, please know that I just ask this question in innocence.
> 
> If Disney wants to fill up its rooms every day of the week, then why isn't every day the same number of points within a given season and room category?
> 
> I certainly understand the larger the room, the more points and the various busy seasons such as summer and holidays.  *But I've never understood why Disney penalizes weekend stays so much  ... that DVC folks actually try to avoid the weekends ...*
> Thanks for your insight -- I'm new (owned for 2 years) and want to learn!



I don't see how anything has changed in that regard....Weekend points are still significantly higher.....now that my weekday points are higher....I definately can't afford the weekends now 

At WLV the 1BR's I stay in have gone up in EVERY(not premier) season....weekends also.
Kerri


----------



## dizzneebabe

I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here until the "official" charts are posted, but I have to say again that I completely agree with the fact that the weekend points are much too high in relation to weekdays.  It never really bothered me, because we always stay at least a week.  A week was a week was a week.

With the new reservation rules (check in +7) it seems they are more and more trying to encourage a weeks stay, rather than the shorter  trips, regardless of what days of the week you are vacationing.  And some of you believe there might be minimum stay requirements in our future (hope not!). So, then WHY change the weekly point totals????  How is forcing people to drop a night in order to make up 1-10 points for a week in line with the other changes they are making?  That just seems backwards to me.   

I know I'm rambling again. I guess I'm a bit punchy --I have actually made it through every post on this thread and my coffee hasn't kicked in 100% yet! 

I guess we'll all just have to wait and see.


----------



## jpolak

Deb & Bill said:


> How much longer until we see this message:
> 
> In order to make vacation reservations easier for our members, DVC will be changing to 7 day vacations only.  Booking will begin on Saturday and extend to the following Saturday.  On the four day of your stay, you will have your towels refreshed, trash emptied and toiletries renewed.  We feel this will make planning and scheduling your vacations much easier.  These changes will allow housekeeping to schedule all full cleaning on Saturdays once guests have checked out and prior to newly scheduled arrivals.  In addition to making this easier for our members, we expect to have some cost savings from the changes in housekeeping.
> 
> To assist with scheduling your vacations, MS will be open longer hours on Thursday and Fridays.  However, they will be closed Monday through Wednesday.



That will be a sad day.


----------



## maminnie

jpolak said:


> That will be a sad day.



My guess is that minimum stays could very well be the next "member enhancement" as they say!!


----------



## Bunkobeth

I keep running the numbers using the charts that we had a peek at.

If the points stay true, I have to move the time of year I vacation.  My job limits when I can go and distance to WDW is also a factor.  I can't shake the feeling that my DVC purchase has been devalued.


----------



## kristenrice

maminnie said:


> My guess is that minimum stays could very well be the next "member enhancement" as they say!!



If they "enhanced" it to require a weeklong, minimum stay, my contract would be up for sale immediately.  We bought in to stay in a 1BR for 5 nights.  Our contract isn't big enough for a full week in a 1BR...with the current "enhancement", we now have to cut back to going every other year instead of every year.  

DVC is going to "enhance" us right out of our contract.


----------



## rlt431

See the below message regarding 2010 points chart:

"On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused."

Let's see what this charts tells us.


----------



## Inkmahm

MiaSRN62 said:


> *Inkmahm....guess I didn't make myself clear.  I do apologize.  I have 150 points to work with....and can only go in Aug (Magic season).  For 8 years I've been able to get 5 nights/2 bedroom/OKW for 150.  The days/patterns I chose in my example didn't matter as I was just trying to find a way to get 5 nights---or at least 5 nights for not too much more.   I didn't care which days of the week we stayed.
> 
> All I know is I can no longer stay 5 nights in a 2 bedroom at OKW for the number of points we have been for the past 8 years.   That's all I meant.  So, I'll just edit to say, our vacation in 2010 will cost us 30 more points.  This means, we lose one night stay every single year.  That's not chump change to me.  That's ALOT to borrow every year and we just simply won't do it.   This woeful reality, in addition to our issue with the AKV stay, is just upsetting.  I just can't even find the words for it.
> 
> I probably should have just stated it this way to begin with.  I'm tired.  Coming off a 13 hour graveyard shift.  The news of this drastic allocation combined with my fatigue....just hit me like a ton of bricks.  I was just trying to say, I cannot make it work using any combination of days and still get 5 nights in a 2 bedroom.  So for me, this is a huge loss.  I realize some think this whole think is just grand.  I know it has made me think entirely differently about DVC.  REALLY glad now I didn't do the OKW extension.  I most assuredly don't see the flexibility as it has been.  I don't think I can recommend DVC to people as I have in the past.  Not all of us need or want a 7 night stay.   I have that with my offsite timeshare.  Never purchased DVC for the same reasons. *
> 
> 
> *Ok fair enough.....but it has actually decreased the amount of days my family can vacation in WDW. So it's just how I, personally, feel about it.  Upset.  Makes me rethink everything about my Membership now.*



I understand the Sun-Thurs people being upset. And a 30 point increase does seem high to me.  But another way to look at it is those who stay more weekend days who have been gouged for points for years in the past are finally getting a break with a more even allocation of points during the week.  It's still higher on the weekends but not double, which was just nuts IMHO.


----------



## Inkmahm

yasuern said:


> just found this on the owners website
> 
> 
> On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.


 That has probably been posted 20 times in this thread alone since yesterday.


----------



## maminnie

As someone posted in another thread on the boards, waitlisting between VWL, BCV, and BWV is now going to be more difficult (especially if one banks or borrows) as the points needed are no longer the same between the resorts for some timeframes.  

maminnie


----------



## WebmasterDoc

Tricia1972 said:


> That's my understanding as well.
> 
> For example, as I understand it, if it would cost 20,000 points to stay in a 1BR at SSR for a year, that will never change.  DVC can, however, change how they allocate those 20,000 points for the 1BR at SSR within any given year.
> 
> I hope I am understanding, and explaining it, correctly.



No, that's not accurate. They can't change the total points _for all units at the reort_ - so you need to add up the total points needed to reserve all of the studios, 1BRs, 2BRs and GVs. They can then modiify the room types based on seasons anyway they want as long as the total points are not changed.

Thus, they could balance the total points at SSR by rasing the 1BR points by 10,000 for the year and lowering the GV points by 10,000 and they would still be in balance without making any other changes. In reality, there are millions of points available to balance the system.


----------



## keishashadow

december14disney said:


> *I'm guessing they are coming up with another PR statement to tell us that "we" requested this change.*
> 
> This made me laugh out loud.


 
okay, who asked?::cop:  



Dean said:


> I've made the suggestions a number of times to buy at least a 10% margin unless one bought enough for a 2 BR for a week in at least Magic season.


unfortunately, _all _the guides rn't making the same suggestion _or even bothering to mentioning this provisio verbally. _While the details r buried in the contract, it would be prudent to have it be disclosed (via a special disclosure statement to be signed pre-purchase to avoid this type of 'surprise' for many...of course that's something that would probably have to be forced via change to FL TS law) 

many have reported for add-ons they were told to look @ the charts to determine how many points needed for travel and purchase accordingly, factoring in banking & borrowing...in a perfect world, I'd have all the DVC points I wanted (even extra points to rent out) yet, too bad RL gets in the way-darn it!



Chuck S said:


> Doesn't the 100 point minimum add-on apply ONLY to BLT? Aren't all other resorts still 25 points (cash) and 50 points (financed) minimum. Or is the 100 point add-on for all resorts, now?


 
so far, all is subject to change _rapidly_ it appears


----------



## Tricia1972

WebmasterDoc said:


> No, that's not accurate. They can't change the total points _for all units at the reort_ - so you need to add up the total points needed to reserve all of the studios, 1BRs, 2BRs and GVs. They can then modiify the room types based on seasons anyway they want as long as the total points are not changed.
> 
> Thus, they could balance the total points at SSR by rasing the 1BR points by 10,000 for the year and lowering the GV points by 10,000 and they would still be in balance without making any other changes. In reality, there are millions of points available to balance the system.



Thank you for the clarification.  That is vastly different from my previous misconception of how the point system worked.  The actuality is much less appealing than my previous (mis)understanding.

I appreciate the correction.


----------



## epcotwanderer

Inkmahm said:


> I understand the Sun-Thurs people being upset. And a 30 point increase does seem high to me.  But another way to look at it is those who stay more weekend days who have been gouged for points for years in the past are finally getting a break with a more even allocation of points during the week.  It's still higher on the weekends but not double, which was just nuts IMHO.



Thank you for seeing this! I think the new point charts will create a better balance. I always get gouged for my long weekends (Sun-Thurs uses too much vacation time). It's nice to see that I'm not being penalized for that now!! I'm psyched to finally have a break on Fri/Sat nights.


----------



## tjkraz

WebmasterDoc said:


> No, that's not accurate. They can't change the total points _for all units at the reort_ - so you need to add up the total points needed to reserve all of the studios, 1BRs, 2BRs and GVs. They can then modiify the room types based on seasons anyway they want as long as the total points are not changed.
> 
> Thus, they could balance the total points at SSR by rasing the 1BR points by 10,000 for the year and lowering the GV points by 10,000 and they would still be in balance without making any other changes. In reality, there are millions of points available to balance the system.



Are you sure about that, Doc?

I'll explain why I ask.  My SSR deed lists my ownership rights as "An undivided 0.3284% interest in Unit 1B of Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort..."  Later on it does reference the 150 vacation points, but with the caveat that the points are defined "for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose."

So my question is this:  Wouldn't alterations to the point charts which span multiple room sizes have a trickle-down impact on my ownership and thus be prohibited?  In other words, let's assume that a Two Bedroom Villa represents 20,000 points and that I own .3294%.  If DVC changes the charts such that the 2B is now 22,000 points, I no longer own .3294%.  

Wouldn't that fact alone keep them from rebalancing across multiple units?

Tim


----------



## MikeyNS

It's kind of a bummer for us.. we purchased a small 25pt BWV contract so that we could stay in the off season for the 5 days by banking and borrowing, leaving our main one alone for a year. It was supposed to work well, but now we can't.
Needless to say that small contract will be on the resale market very soon as it's become useless to us. You win some, you lose some!


----------



## tjkraz

december14disney said:


> *I'm guessing they are coming up with another PR statement to tell us that "we" requested this change.*
> 
> This made me laugh out loud.



Is there REALLY any doubt that members (and potential members) HAVE asked for a weekend reduction repeatedly over the years?

Look at all of the replies on this thread alone from people who are happy with the change.  To be honest, those numbers surprise me a bit.  I figured reactions would be about 99% against this move--at least in terms of the people who were willing to speak up and voice their opinions.  Instead there are quite a few people saying "it's about time!"

Did people requesting lower weekend points understand that it would mean higher weekdays?  Some yes, others no.  

Would it pass a majority vote if members were asked to voice an opinion?  Probably not.  But in a case like this DVC has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the whole--not to just allow majority rule.  Heck, if members were given their way I bet we could get a majority to vote in favor of charts that charged 1 point per night for weekdays and hundreds for the weekends.   

I don't see member requests as being the single driving force behind this change.  But I think it's ridiculous to act as if nobody has ever openly requested lower weekend points.


----------



## Scott

epcotwanderer said:


> Thank you for seeing this! I think the new point charts will create a better balance. I always get gouged for my long weekends (Sun-Thurs uses too much vacation time). It's nice to see that I'm not being penalized for that now!! I'm psyched to finally have a break on Fri/Sat nights.



How does this change create better balance? If the problem is an excess of sun-thursday travelers, how does this change improve that? That is, how will an increase in sun-thursday points make it easier for these members to take more weekend trips? It seems to me that it will simply take a night away from their trips and give an extra night (friday or sunday) to the current weekend travelers. I'm a 6 night traveler usually, but I have to say I always appreciated the mid-week point structure as my preference is to avoid weekend crowds at the parks. I think if we heard the logic behind the move, it would be easier to accept.


----------



## photobob

Any possibility that they posted those charts to gauge reaction?


----------



## wdwaholic2

When I was buying my points in 2005 I specifically asked my guide if the points would increase.  She stated "absolutley not" the only changes are if holidays change from year to year.

I asked again when I did a small add on just last year and again I was reassured this would not happen.

I bought my points knowing I would need so many for Sun-Thurs stays and now, I don't have enough.

I'm very disappointed with Disney right now and I'm very upset that I encouraged people to buy and told them I was told points wouldn't go up.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

tjkraz said:


> Are you sure about that, Doc?
> 
> I'll explain why I ask.  My SSR deed lists my ownership rights as "An undivided 0.3284% interest in Unit 1B of Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort..."  Later on it does reference the 150 vacation points, but with the caveat that the points are defined "for purposes of administrative convenience only and for no other purpose."
> 
> So my question is this:  Wouldn't alterations to the point charts which span multiple room sizes have a trickle-down impact on my ownership and thus be prohibited?  In other words, let's assume that a Two Bedroom Villa represents 20,000 points and that I own .3294%.  If DVC changes the charts such that the 2B is now 22,000 points, I no longer own .3294%.
> 
> Wouldn't that fact alone keep them from rebalancing across multiple units?
> 
> Tim



If you owned a % of a single villa, that might be true, but a "Unit 1B" is not a single villa - it is a group of villas which would include at least several different villas if not some from all types. At OKW a "unit" is an entire building (and not all buildings have GVs), but it is different at other resorts - some have even posted room groupings by "unit" for AKV. This is the reason that "The total points at the resort" cannot change, but the points may be reallocated - even to the extent of a "maximum reallocation" where every night would be the same. Again, I don't think any DVC member owns a portion of a single villa.

This is how it has been explained to me by several from DVC in conversations over the years.


----------



## DeeCee735

Dean said:


> My guess would be that's not accurate. Actually weekly points can go up. What can't change is a UNIT for the entire year. With a few units that are 3 BR, all other units I'm aware of are a collection of multiple rooms. But if a single unit was a 2 BR lockoff, they could lower the studio and raise the 1 BR and still be within the rules. Or they could raise this week and lower next week if they wanted.


 

Can anyone confirm this? It is my understanding that the points per week, per unit cannot go up, i.e. if a studio is 100 points (using this for example only), for a full week at any one resort, it cannot go higher than 100 for that week even though the points for the days that make up the week may be changed, i.e. sun - thurs raised, friday and saturday decreased.

Am I wrong? Where in the contract does it explain this?

I can't imagine weekly points can be raised. Meaning in 10 years a 100 point contract (again, using for example only) that got someone an accomodation for a full week, is now 160 points????? How can that be? Forcing people to sell or buy more? Other timeshares a week is a week forever, I can't imagine DVC can just increase at will over the years making any one contract unusable without buying more or borrowing?? 

If that's the case, selling my smaller contracts makes a whole lot of sense...


----------



## KLR-wlv

Buying Dean's "10% cushion"  would still do no good at Vero - the points for Beach cottages in all seasons and a 2 br in premier season (probably others - didn't check) sun - thursday went up EXACTLY 20% - the amount allowed in the contract - which makes me suspect they aren't finished adjusting. I have a feeling that screws many a people up who bought for Beach cottage rentals  since I doubt too many planned to stay weekends and spend 200 points. So my Vero points have been devalued by 20% - for 2010. Maybe another 20% in 2011. It makes any kind of planning impossible. Unless I just buy 700 points to have "just in case". WHatever problems are with Marriott - you get 7 days in a 2 bedroom that you can count on forever.


----------



## starbox

One thing lower weekend points does is make paying members cash much less attractive.  Under the "old chart"  - a weekend stay was cheaper paying cash than using points if you figured 10pp.  With the new chart - the cash and point price are about equal (assumming 10$ per point).isn

My question is - won't this hurt DVC???  I always assummed getting member cash prices from me for the weekend (250+ per room and no housekeeping) was good for Disney.  I stayed longer at the resort, paid them (in addition to my MF and DVC cost) additional cash for a room (and more than the discount they were probably offering CRO guests).  

While I won't be likely to book weekend trips on points (the weekend is still too expensive)  - I won't be paying Disney the extra 500$ per vacation I was paying for an extra weekend stay.  Those two nights used to give me enough points for 5 weekday nights and it was worth the $$$$.


----------



## Scott

photobob said:


> Any possibility that they posted those charts to gauge reaction?



Boy, they certainly didn't take public relations into consideration if that is the case! If they wanted a civil reaction perhaps that could have posted it on the member site as a proposed change, and then asked for feedback. Personally, I am one who will not be affected much by the change since I take 6 night trips, however, I still feel a bit disenchanted by the severity of the change and especially how it is being handled. I suppose I can't help but think "what's next?" (The minimum stay requirement would be a body blow). Above all else, I think DVC members need to figure out how to have a stronger voice in these decisions that "improve member services." There seems to be a disconnect between recent changes and the actual experience of the majority of DVC members.


----------



## jekjones1558

> How does this change create better balance? If the problem is an excess of sun-thursday travelers, how does this change improve that? That is, how will an increase in sun-thursday points make it easier for these members to take more weekend trips? It seems to me that it will simply take a night away from their trips and give an extra night (friday or sunday) to the current weekend travelers. I'm a 6 night traveler usually, but I have to say I always appreciated the mid-week point structure as my preference is to avoid weekend crowds at the parks. I think if we heard the logic behind the move, it would be easier to accept.



Disney's responsibility is not to make things better for any individual DVC member but to try to balance demand for rooms.  Currently that is not happening.  The changes may not entice all current Sun.-Fri. vacationers to occasionally go on a weekend, but it will get some to do so.  We currently stay at least a week but NEVER include 2 weekends.  Now we will be much more likely to disregard the issue of weekday/weekend costs.
I hope that a side benefit for those who only book weekdays will be that demand for those days will ease up just a bit, making availability better at 7 months and during high demand times.


----------



## paults

IMO these charts were posted (by mistake) to see what kind of reaction they would get from us.
Legal or not , it would not  be a good move DVC.  IMHO

My add-on will now go to MOTEL 8 AND THEIR NEW TIMESHARE IN ORLANDO.
Where I will be able to stay a month on 28 to 31 pts, depending on the month. (that's only 1 pt a day) can't beat that. And I will just go to Universal and Sea World 

Now if these pts do change then I think DVC should give us members    something like   
 1--   another $100 discount on AP's (total of $200 discount) 
 2--  2 My way tickets for the price of one(any combo) 
 3--  US BWV'ers want the ATTIC back 

DISNEY I KNOW YOU'RE READING, you're  us into a corner   and I do believe that you will lose some long time members with all these changes you're making.
You are making it harder and harder to believe in the MAGIC  anymore


----------



## epcotwanderer

tjkraz said:


> Is there REALLY any doubt that members (and potential members) HAVE asked for a weekend reduction repeatedly over the years?
> 
> Look at all of the replies on this thread alone from people who are happy with the change.  To be honest, those numbers surprise me a bit.  I figured reactions would be about 99% against this move--at least in terms of the people who were willing to speak up and voice their opinions.  Instead there are quite a few people saying "it's about time!"
> 
> Did people requesting lower weekend points understand that it would mean higher weekdays?  Some yes, others no.
> 
> Would it pass a majority vote if members were asked to voice an opinion?  Probably not.  But in a case like this DVC has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the whole--not to just allow majority rule.  Heck, if members were given their way I bet we could get a majority to vote in favor of charts that charged 1 point per night for weekdays and hundreds for the weekends.
> 
> I don't see member requests as being the single driving force behind this change.  But I think it's ridiculous to act as if nobody has ever openly requested lower weekend points.



I agree. Why should I pay 49 points for a weekend stay (Fri-Mon) when during the week it is 27 (Sun-Wed)? I think that is way out of whack. I know we all bought but I am happy that it will be more equitable for every night stay now. I think if it were put to a vote the new charts would pass. This is only the second time in EIGHTEEN YEARS this has happened. It's about time!!!


----------



## WebmasterDoc

DeeCee735 said:


> Can anyone confirm this? It is my understanding that the points per week, per unit cannot go up, i.e. if a studio is 100 points (using this for example only), for a full week at any one resort, it cannot go higher than 100 for that week even though the points for the days that make up the week may be changed, i.e. sun - thurs raised, friday and saturday decreased.
> 
> Am I wrong? Where in the contract does it explain this?
> 
> I can't imagine weekly points can be raised. Meaning in 10 years a 100 point contract (again, using for example only) that got someone an accomodation for a full week, is now 160 points????? How can that be? Forcing people to sell or buy more? Other timeshares a week is a week forever, I can't imagine DVC can just increase at will over the years making any one contract unusable without buying more or borrowing??
> 
> If that's the case, selling my smaller contracts makes a whole lot of sense...



Yes, a week may be raised as long as something else is lowered - even another type of villa. A "Unit" is not a single villa, it is a group of villas. At OKW is is an entire building, but is different at the other resorts. It is not just one villa though.

If it now costs 160 for 7 nights at OKW in a 1BR during Adventure Season (16 pts weeknites/40 points weekends). The new charts apparently show that that same week in 2010 will be 159 points (19 weekdays/32 weekends) - so a net drop, which means that some other week (or villa type) has been raised to keep the system in balance. For those who used to stay 5 nights - the change went from 80 points in 2009 to 95 points in 2010. There are similar situations - some will benefiit, some will not - at each resort (including BLT which has not even opened).

the total points at the resort cannot change, but DVC can juggle that total thru throughout the resort to keep it balanced. No members own a specific type of villa oor specific week - the flexibility of DVC - but DVC can and has changed the way those points work. 

The issue is that we have all found how the current system worked for our specific situation and have made plans based on that system - even knowing that DVC could change the system (but trusting they would not). We are all now faced with the need to figure out how to best use the new system with our current ownership - and either add more points, sell points or keep what we have.


----------



## tjkraz

WebmasterDoc said:


> If you owned a % of a single villa, that might be true, but a "Unit 1B" is not a single villa - it is a group of villas which would include at least several different villas if not some from all types. At OKW a "unit" is an entire building (and not all buildings have GVs), but it is different at other resorts - some have even posted room groupings by "unit" for AKV. This is the reason that "The total points at the resort" cannot change, but the points may be reallocated - even to the extent of a "maximum reallocation" where every night would be the same. Again, I don't think any DVC member owns a portion of a single villa.
> 
> This is how it has been explained to me by several from DVC in conversations over the years.



I understand that a unit is a group of rooms.  But since units appear to often be random groupings of physical rooms, crossing those boundaries from one room size to another would appear to be exceedingly difficult.  As you said, some OKW units have Grand Villas and others do not.  It seems like it would be impossible to blend (for example) a global increase in Grand Villa point costs across all of the OKW units and still have those deeded ownership percentages be equal.  

I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just trying to make sense of this aspect of it.  According to the deed the number of points I own is almost an incidental figure.  It's a unit of measure to simplify our lives.  

What I really (legally) own is .3284% of a physical building.  And if the points are shuffled across multiple room sizes, my 150 points would almost certainly no longer equate to the .3284%.  Ignoring the entire issue of how far points go, changing the ownership percentage seems like the equivalent of selling someone 5 acres of land and later saying "oh, well you only have 4 1/2 acres now."  I'm not grasping how that is possible.  

If I owned a fixed percentage of "Saratoga Springs Resort", then it would make more sense that the points could be shuffled however they wish.  But the existence of the legal units makes this less clear.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

tjkraz said:


> ...
> What I really (legally) own is .3284% of a physical building.  And if the points are shuffled across multiple room sizes, my 150 points would almost certainly no longer equate to the .3284%.  Ignoring the entire issue of how far points go, changing the ownership percentage seems like the equivalent of selling someone 5 acres of land and later saying "oh, well you only have 4 1/2 acres now."  I'm not grasping how that is possible.
> ...



Yes, but you can use your ownership to reserve any type of villa at that resort, you are not restricted to any single type of room and you may never stay in your "Unit 1B". My understanding of the % of ownership is that for legal reasons we had to own a portion of a specific physical entity. We could not own a % of SSR since no members have ownership of the public areas at the resort - we own only the accommodations and that is represented by that (small) %.

In that building are Studios, 1BRs, 2BRs and GVs and your "Unit 1B" may include portions of each of those types of villas.

Your 150 points have never represented any specific villa or date - they have no monetary value (as defined in the POS). Those points may presently have more "value" when used for a Studio in Adventure Season than they do if used for a GV at Christmas - and that "value" may have changed in the opposite direction for 2010 (I have not looked at the SSR chart - only using that as an example).


----------



## december14disney

tjkraz said:


> Is there REALLY any doubt that members (and potential members) HAVE asked for a weekend reduction repeatedly over the years?
> 
> Look at all of the replies on this thread alone from people who are happy with the change.  To be honest, those numbers surprise me a bit.  I figured reactions would be about 99% against this move--at least in terms of the people who were willing to speak up and voice their opinions.  Instead there are quite a few people saying "it's about time!"
> 
> Did people requesting lower weekend points understand that it would mean higher weekdays?  Some yes, others no.
> 
> Would it pass a majority vote if members were asked to voice an opinion?  Probably not.  But in a case like this DVC has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the whole--not to just allow majority rule.  Heck, if members were given their way I bet we could get a majority to vote in favor of charts that charged 1 point per night for weekdays and hundreds for the weekends.
> 
> I don't see member requests as being the single driving force behind this change.  But I think it's ridiculous to act as if nobody has ever openly requested lower weekend points.




Sure. Ill agree. I even thought weekends were too high. But the "change" that really bothers me is that I own at AKV and Savanna view rooms had an increase across the board where the "balance" was bringing down the points in value studios. *No one *asked for that change.


----------



## pakhowe

Again, I am mostly disapointed with the timing of these changes.  This will increase the cost of our first vacation home by about 50 points.  I believe DVC would open itself up to possible litigation if these new charts were to take affect.  

I know our guide told us to look at the charts decide what time of year and days of week we would be traveling and purchase points based on that.  We were informed that the point distribution could change, but the changes would be very small and this just gave DVC the flexibility to adjust for when holidays such as Easter and Thanksgiving fell.  We are then told that if we do not make the purchase by the end of our stay we will not get the incentives (the stick which accompanies the carrot). 

It is true the contract allows for these types of point redistributions.  However, there is more to contract law than the contract itself.  Sales practices and information relayed by representives can impact a contract.  Particuarly if trends can be demonstrated.  Just by reading this thread, I see many purchasers were given the same misinformation at the time of sale that I was.

For me, I would find this much more acceptable if adequate notice were given prior to the change taking affect.  There is no way DVC didn't have this in the works when I made my purchase.  

It is understood that DVC is for people who can plan their vacations well ahead of time.  The information to plan them should be provided well ahaed of time.


----------



## Belle & Ariel

tjkraz said:


> I understand that a unit is a group of rooms.  But since units appear to often be random groupings of physical rooms, crossing those boundaries from one room size to another would appear to be exceedingly difficult.  As you said, some OKW units have Grand Villas and others do not.  It seems like it would be impossible to blend (for example) a global increase in Grand Villa point costs across all of the OKW units and still have those deeded ownership percentages be equal.
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just trying to make sense of this aspect of it.  According to the deed the number of points I own is almost an incidental figure.  It's a unit of measure to simplify our lives.
> 
> What I really (legally) own is .3284% of a physical building.  And if the points are shuffled across multiple room sizes, my 150 points would almost certainly no longer equate to the .3284%.  Ignoring the entire issue of how far points go, changing the ownership percentage seems like the equivalent of selling someone 5 acres of land and later saying "oh, well you only have 4 1/2 acres now."  I'm not grasping how that is possible.
> 
> If I owned a fixed percentage of "Saratoga Springs Resort", then it would make more sense that the points could be shuffled however they wish.  But the existence of the legal units makes this less clear.



Think of your 150 points in relation to the 45,676,004 total points (150/.002384).  That is what portion you own now and you will still own in 2010, 2020, 2030, etc. You still own 150 out of the same total.  Your piece of the pie has not changed.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> I understand the Sun-Thurs people being upset. And a 30 point increase does seem high to me. But another way to look at it is those who stay more weekend days who have been gouged for points for years in the past are finally getting a break with a more even allocation of points during the week. It's still higher on the weekends but not double, which was just nuts IMHO.



True Inkman...you could look at it this way.  So now we're just messin' with the Sun-Thurs folks.  That makes it so much better I suppose ?  

I just think the allocation is a bit drastic in it's change.  Nothing subtle about it for alot of us. I'm being charged a whole 30 points more for our traditional OKW stays.   So my only option is to reduce our stay by one night every year.  That's significant to us as I have mentioned.  

And besides, I would think that the "weekend stay" Members who are so thrilled with this would have purchased their contracts having planned ahead that they were going to use alot of weekend points ?   I know we purchased feeling Sun-Thurs was the way to go for us.  This is due, on part, to an offsite timeshare we own that MUST be used weekend to weekend.  So we planned on weeknight stays at DVC so we could tack on and lengthen our stays.   It's not that we haven't ever use weekend points over the past 8 years, just wasn't the way we generally planned our point purchase.  

And I'm still miffed Disney didn't let on about this allocation before recent AKV/BLT purchases.  We purchased our add-on Sept 20.  I'd bet money alot of us would have rethought our point purchase.  I know we would have purchased more AKV points with that add-on.   Now the Jan 15th date has passed,  we would have to pay the higher point cost.  Doesn't leave us feeling very magical about the whole thing.  And this is all for the enhancement of the Member's experience.  How convenient for Disney with their planning ..........very clever disney....if they wanted to enact this allocation in 2010, we should have already been notified months ago about it.  




> To be honest, those numbers surprise me a bit. I figured reactions would be about 99% against this move--at least in terms of the people who were willing to speak up and voice their opinions. Instead there are quite a few people saying "it's about time!"


Me too tkraz....a poll might be interesting...........


----------



## tjkraz

december14disney said:


> Sure. Ill agree. I even thought weekends were too high. But the "change" that really bothers me is that I own at AKV and Savanna view rooms had an increase across the board where the "balance" was bringing down the points in value studios. *No one *asked for that change.



I think you need to check again.  According to the +/- chart that someone put together for AKV, there were no "across the board" increases for AKV Savanna View at the expense of the Value rooms.  

The weekly numbers (which is the relevant piece) shows only slight variations in each season.  In some cases the weekly costs for some seasons went up by a point or two, while Premier Season went down by several points for the week.  

I don't see any evidence that Savanna got a universal increase with another room class being lowered.  Weekdays went up.  Weekends went down.  And the weekly prices stayed as close as possible (given the fact that each week has 5 weekdays and 2 weekends.)


----------



## Inkmahm

tjkraz said:


> I think you need to check again.  According to the +/- chart that someone put together for AKV, there were no "across the board" increases for AKV Savanna View at the expense of the Value rooms.
> 
> The weekly numbers (which is the relevant piece) shows only slight variations in each season.  In some cases the weekly costs for some seasons went up by a point or two, while Premier Season went down by several points for the week.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that Savanna got a universal increase with another room class being lowered.  Weekdays went up.  Weekends went down.  And the weekly prices stayed as close as possible (given the fact that each week has 5 weekdays and 2 weekends.)


I know that my standard spring vacation to a 1 bedroom savanna view villa decreased from 208 to 202 points.  That's for a W thru Su stay.  No increase there...


----------



## Inkmahm

MiaSRN62 said:


> True Inkman...you could look at it this way.  So now we're just messin' with the Sun-Thurs folks.  That makes it so much better I suppose ?


Yes, actually. Why should Sun-thurs be so much cheaper than Wed-Sun? What makes Sun- Thurs sacred?


----------



## jakenjess

We're Sun-Thurs. people also (with only 160 points).  I just calculated our April 09 stay to April 2010 and the increase is 25 points!   I haven't had time to study the charts carefully, but it also seems those of us going during school vacation times are getting hit a little harder also.  With the kids getting older, it's more difficult to take them out of school.  I'm crossing my fingers that the final charts will have some adjustments; otherwise we'll really have to rethink our vacation plans in the future.


----------



## bobbiwoz

Most of our stays evolve around a weekend, usually Thursday to Monday.  It's what we can do as a couple.  I have mentioned to MS many times since we joined in '03 that I thought the weekend points are too high.

When we've traveled with family, we are more likely to do the Sunday to Friday stays, but we also have rented 2 bedrooms on weekends to maximize the airfare.  

Who knows, maybe all of this is moot...the ponts may not change, all of the outrage could be over nothing.  I do not like the way this is being handled.  I have the marathon weekend (2 bedroom + at least one studio) from Wednesday night to Sunday morning that I'll be booking soon.

In polls here, there were people who never used points on weekend, there were those who say they averaged the week.  There are all sorts of members, and I say again that I thought the weekend points that we've been paying have been too high.

Bobbi


----------



## jarestel

pakhowe said:


> I believe DVC would open itself up to possible litigation if these new charts were to take affect.



Historically, each time an adjustment is made to the way DVC operates, posts of litigation & class action suits make their way into the discussion. I can't recall a single case where any policy change or "enhancement" was ever overturned thru legal action. There have been instances of policy reversals due to member feedback (glassware fiasco, for one). 

Bottom line - I wouldn't count on the legal system to save us from the new point charts.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Buying Dean's "10% cushion" would still do no good at Vero



*Same with me KLR-wlv.  I'd still be short 15 points instead of 30 points every year.  We would still not be able to do our 5 night stay at OKW in Magic season.  *


----------



## tjkraz

Belle & Ariel said:


> Think of your 150 points in relation to the 45,676,004 total points (150/.002384).  That is what portion you own now and you will still own in 2010, 2020, 2030, etc. You still own 150 out of the same total.  Your piece of the pie has not changed.



I understand that.  I'm just trying to make sense of this from a legal standpoint and DVC points are not a legal unit of measure.  My ownership percentage in a physical structure IS the legal unit of measure.

Let me take a step back and ask a more basic question.  Are there any specific resorts and room sizes that appear to have had an across-the-board increase or decrease at the expense of another room size?  

Early on in this thread someone suggested that the AKV Concierge had been raised for every night.  Another poster suggested AKV Savanna view all went up.  But according to the +/-chart someone posted, the weekly values for every room category and size at AKV only have minor fluctuations (as expected.)  

So for those of you who have studied portions of the new charts:  Are there specific room sizes that appear to have had a net annual increase?  If not, this is probably a moot point.


----------



## jekjones1558

> But the "change" that really bothers me is that I own at AKV and Savanna view rooms had an increase across the board where the "balance" was bringing down the points in value studios. No one asked for that change.



And I am pretty sure that NO ONE asked for weekday rates to go up either.  But the point is that Disney must have seen less of an interest in the value studios than they anticipated when the points structure at AKV was put in place.  Disney is muddying the waters of member understanding by inferring that members have asked for the specific changes in the proposed points charts.  It is members' booking patterns that have spoken and required the changes in order to keep room occupancy as close to 100% as possible.  The popularity or lack thereof of these changes is really not important.  Disney must make point usage match room availability or the whole system falls apart.
The short notice of the changes is, IMHO, objectionable.  Certainly these booking patterns have not just suddenly appeared.  Forewarning members should have happened and didn't.  Very unacceptable treatment.  And BLT owners really have a right to scream, no doubt about it.  I hope that Disney will make some accommodations to members in order to make up for these issues.


----------



## Cindaddy

tjkraz said:


> I think you need to check again.  According to the +/- chart that someone put together for AKV, there were no "across the board" increases for AKV Savanna View at the expense of the Value rooms.
> *
> The weekly numbers (which is the relevant piece) shows only slight variations in each season*.  In some cases the weekly costs for some seasons went up by a point or two, while Premier Season went down by several points for the week.
> 
> *I don't see any evidence that Savanna got a universal increase with another room class being lowered. * Weekdays went up.  Weekends went down.  And the weekly prices stayed as close as possible (given the fact that each week has 5 weekdays and 2 weekends.)



His statement is correct, if you look at less than a week or longer than a week (but less than two weeks).  If you only consider a one week time period relevant, than your point is valid.


----------



## Kmango

december14disney said:


> Sure. Ill agree. I even thought weekends were too high. But the "change" that really bothers me is that I own at AKV and Savanna view rooms had an increase across the board where the "balance" was bringing down the points in value studios. *No one *asked for that change.



I've heard a few OPs comment that they shouldn't have lowered the Values because no one really wants to stay in them, and raised the Savannahs, where everyone DOES want to stay. However, that's exactly why DVC SHOULD have done it. The basic principle of supply and demand is that if you have way more demand than supply, you should raise your prices, and vice versa. In this case, apparently people aren't willing to pay the current number of points for the less-desirable Value rooms, at least not in sufficient numbers to maintain the necessary occupancy rates. Thus, DVC must be hoping that lowering the points will entice people to stay there. Conversely, concierge is

Also, a lot of people are insinuating that DVC's going to lose money by doing this because their family will be staying one less day and not spending money at WDW. And, in individual cases, this may be true. On the whole however, by raising the occupancy rates, especially on weekends, they're going to make more, because SOMEBODY's going to be in those rooms spending money. 

I understand this sucks a lot for a lot of people, and the rollout should have been handled a lot differently, but it seems necessary, if not way overdue.


----------



## Tinkmom

In the long run, I think this is a good idea, and what some people seem to miss is that it actually provides more flexibility to trips.  

Instead of the high weekend points more or less forcing people to either stick to Sunday-Thursday night trips or having to move because they can't afford Saturday and Sunday, now it makes the days more balanced.   I don't have to look for airfare arriving Sunday and leaving Friday; arriving on Saturday or departing on Sunday is now a realistic option and opens me up to some better rates on airfare.

Once the dust settles, I think that most will find it is a better system.


----------



## tjkraz

jekjones1558 said:


> Disney's responsibility is not to make things better for any individual DVC member but to try to balance demand for rooms.  Currently that is not happening.  The changes may not entice all current Sun.-Fri. vacationers to occasionally go on a weekend, but it will get some to do so.



 

It's more about the relationship between points used (or intended to be used) and the charts than it is about vacation days for individual members.

Let's say that members (collectively) wish to use 10,000,000 points for weekday stays.  However the current point charts only have 8,000,000 points represented by all of the weekday DVC rooms.  That appears to be on-line with what we have now and it's a big problem.  You can't fit 10 million points into 8 million points' worth of rooms.

So what DVC is doing is making each weekday night more expensive so that there are at least 10mil points worth of vacancies for the 10mil points people want to use on weekdays.  

That's an overly simplistic analogy but it's pretty much what is happening.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Yes, actually. Why should Sun-thurs be so much cheaper than Wed-Sun? What makes Sun- Thurs sacred?
> __________________



*Because it's such an extreme change....and when I sat down with my guide years ago, our trips were planned this way according to the point charts.  We planned it out.  My husband and I took 3 days to think it out before signing on the dotted line.  It's like having the rug pulled from under you with how drastic the change is (30 points is no joke to come up short every year), and the timing.........ALOT of us would have planned very differently with recent add-ons.  The Magic season points already were high coming just under Premiere season.  

My guide, back in Aug of 2000, never let on there would be a change of this magnitude or we would have planned differently. She did say something like , "they could switch the points around a little here and there" and made it out like it was not a big deal.    I could see my stays coming up 4, 5, 6 points short....hell....even 10......but I cannot borrow 30 points every single year.  So our vacations with DVC, as they have been planned out in conjunction with our knowledgable guide 8 years ago, are now changed forever.  Unless of course Disney one day changes it back.  Sorry you cannot manage to see how some of us are impacted by this in bigger ways than others. *


----------



## bobbiwoz

Our '09 Concierge AKV stay from March 26 to 29, a Thursday to Sunday morning is 87 points, in 2010, a Thursday to Sunday morning AKV concerige stay would be 76 points. 

I'm staying AKV, BWV from March 19, so my trip includes 3 weekend nights.  Overall, THAT stay...increases by 8 points because 4 of those nights are in a BWV standard view 2 bedroom with DGFs. The remaining night is AKV savannah view studio which decreases from 30 to 25, it's a Saturday night.

Bobbi


----------



## SuzanneSLO

jekjones1558 said:


> . . .The short notice of the changes is, IMHO, objectionable.  Certainly these booking patterns have not just suddenly appeared.  Forewarning members should have happened and didn't.  Very unacceptable treatment. . .



I agree whoelheartedly withthis point.  It shoudl be the 2011 point chart that has these changes, so that members can make 2010 booking with full knoweldge of the need to bank or borrow for 2011.

In general, though, this should be a big wake-up call for DVC members.  The DVC poitns system is very flexible and many bought for that very reason.  But that flexibility goes both ways.  No one bought with the right to vacation in a specific size unit during a specific time.  That you have been able to in the past is great, but every DVC member should now be aware that this will not always be the case.  -- Suzanne


----------



## MiaSRN62

> No one bought with the right to vacation in a specific size unit during a specific time.



Sorry Suzanne...but this is how the whole sales pitch with our guide went down at the time, back in 2000.  We sat down at a table and went over points. She asked when we planned on vacationing and in what type of accomodations.  Then she guided us to the amount of points we should purchase to fit our vacationing needs.  This is why I'm suprised Members who primarily stay over weekends didn't plan the same.  I would think they did and purchased the amount of points they would need to stay mostly weekends ?  If I call for a reservation too late and there's no availability....then yes, I don't get the vacation scenario I want.   But to not get my 5 nights in a 2 bedroom simply because now DVC wants to charge me an extra 30 points is a whole other scenario. 

So I disagree with your above statement.  We pay alot of money for our points and the MF's every year.  To induct a change of this magnitude can significantly impact some of us in a negative way.  I cannot find any way to get a 2 bedroom in Magic season for 5 nights now with 150 points.  I don't even have the option to go with a resort that has lower point cost, because I'm already there with OKW.  I've got nowhere to go but to shorten our vacations yet pay the same points.


----------



## Cindaddy

SuzanneSLO said:


> I agree whoelheartedly withthis point.  It shoudl be the 2011 point chart that has these changes, so that members can make 2010 booking with full knoweldge of the need to bank or borrow for 2011.
> 
> In general, though, this should be a big wake-up call for DVC members.  The DVC poitns system is very flexible and many bought for that very reason.  But that flexibility goes both ways.  *No one bought with the right to vacation in a specific size unit during a specific time. * That you have been able to in the past is great, but every DVC member should now be aware that this will not always be the case.  -- Suzanne



That's technically true from a contract perspective.  As Maria pointed out, that's exactly how the Guides are determining points during the sale.  This needs to be changed.


----------



## alldiz

Inkmahm said:


> I understand the Sun-Thurs people being upset. And a 30 point increase does seem high to me.  But another way to look at it is those who stay more weekend days who have been gouged for points for years in the past are finally getting a break with a more even allocation of points during the week.  It's still higher on the weekends but not double, which was just nuts IMHO.



IMO...it is still to "high" on the weekends.

For me at WLV staying in the 1BR's.....looks like my weekdays AND weekends increased.
Kerri


----------



## epcotwanderer

Tinkmom said:


> In the long run, I think this is a good idea, and what some people seem to miss is that it actually provides more flexibility to trips.
> 
> Instead of the high weekend points more or less forcing people to either stick to Sunday-Thursday night trips or having to move because they can't afford Saturday and Sunday, now it makes the days more balanced.   I don't have to look for airfare arriving Sunday and leaving Friday; arriving on Saturday or departing on Sunday is now a realistic option and opens me up to some better rates on airfare.
> 
> Once the dust settles, I think that most will find it is a better system.



 
I think people have trained themselves to travel Sun-Thurs nights. It's just going to be an adjustment.


----------



## crazydaisy00

Wow I am so glad we did not buy in Dec. when we were there.  We would have had to turn around and immediately purchase more points just to stay the first time.      We were going to buy into BLT but hesitated trying to figure out how many points and if we should buy at BLT or AKV. Sound like I should hold off for a while until they get the points figured out.  I feel sorry for all of you guys who now have to deal with this delimia while they are planning future vacations.


----------



## bwvBound

As Cindaddy points out above, Suzanne's statement is true from a contract view.  My ownership at Grand Pacific Palisades in Carlsbad, CA is for "week 33 in a 1BR unit of layout B every odd year."  I am guaranteed the same unit type, the same week every odd year.  My check-in is Saturday and I can write that into my planning calendar for years to come because I purchased a "fixed week" ownership.  I can exchange my week but the underlying ownership doesn't change.  DVC's points are different - they are not a "fixed week" or even a "floating week" -- they are points in a system subject to fluctuation.  Point systems offer great flexibility -- but also less certainty of booking the "same vacation" year after year.



MiaSRN62 said:


> Sorry Suzanne...but this is how the whole sales pitch with our guide at the time, went back in 2000.  We sat down at a table and went over points. She asked when we planned on vacationing and in what type of accomodations.  Then she guided us to the amount of points we should purchase to fit our vacationing needs.  This is why I'm suprised Members who primarily stay over weekends didn't plan the same.  I would think they did and purchased the amount of points they would need to stay mostly weekends ?  If I call for a reservation too late and there's no availability....then yes, I don't get the vacation scenario I want.   But to not get my 5 nights in a 2 bedroom simply because now DVC wants to charge me an extra 30 points is a whole other scenario.
> 
> So I disagree with your above statement.  We pay alot of money for our points and the MF's every year.  To induct a change of this magnitude can significantly impact some of us in a negative way.  I cannot find any way to get a 2 bedroom in Magic season for 5 nights now with 150 points.  I don't even have the option to go with a resort that has lower point cost, because I'm already there with OKW.  I've got nowhere to go but to shorten our vacations yet pay the same points.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> I think people have trained themselves to travel Sun-Thurs nights. It's just going to be an adjustment.


Quite a simplistic answer epcotwanderer.........
But where do I get an extra 30 points without: 
#1) buying more points (not going to do that especially with how I see DVC is trending)
#2)downgrading to a smaller unit which is not possible with my family of 5 and sometimes 6 (teens so they're adult sized---need a 2 bedroom) 
#3)going in a season with lower points (also not possible with kids in school).  


I could have saved or stretched out my points like others are able to do because they travel in Adventure or Choice season.  I paid Magic Season points primarily for 8 years.  So I could say, as someone else posted, I got "gouged" for years.   We could never vacation in early Dec or Sept or other low point seasons.   We planned according to when our kids were out of school which is Magic season.  So just as those who have been getting gouged because they have had to pay weekend points for years, I could say we have been getting gouged because we had to pay Magic season points for years.  But that is what we knew we would be doing 8 years ago and PLANNED accordingly.   But now, I can't even  swing that due to a DRASTIC point jump.  

So what do I "adjust" ?  I could really use some suggestions here. I really feel my DVC has lost value for us with this allocation.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> bwvBound : they are points in a system subject to fluctuation. Point systems offer great flexibility -- but also less certainty of booking the "same vacation" year after year.


Boy....sure wish my guide would have pointed this out back in 2000 as they watched us sign the contract...........


----------



## dis-happy

I venture to guess that Saturdays will become the new Sunday as far as check-in goes---it will by busy and those coming in early on Sunday won't be as likely to get their requests.   

Those who have blissfully booked weekends up to now, I'm glad the new point chart works in your favor.  But plan to book 11 months out; it's going to be a lot harder to get those weekend ressies now.


----------



## bwvBound

MiaSRN62 said:


> Boy....sure wish my guide would have pointed this out back in 2000 as they watched us sign the contract...........


I hear you.  In 2000 we signed our names to a contract in a _different_ point system for "7000" points equating to a studio in high season at any property in the system.  We later learned that not every property in the system offered studios, that newer properties came on board with higher point costs, that reservation rules could be changes, etc.  It was a bitter pill at first ... causing us to experience many of the feelings expressed in this thread.  FWIW, we come to accept that we have little to no control over timeshare even though they are sold as "ownership" interests.  Simply put, ownership does not mean control over anything.  Better to enjoy the good parts and figure workarounds for the rest.


----------



## PMDR59

I really cant believe that all these people have the  next 40-50 years of their life planned out .....and are only doing Disney!!!

We bought recently and havent made out first trip home yet.  But so what if you need a few more points, borrow from next year, and just keep borrowing. I'm certain somewhere down the road, whether its 5 years or 10 years, LIFE will happen and you may not be able to make that Disney trip you planned, or you may decide to go somewhere else, or G-D forbid the economy really gets worse, or you or your spouse lose a job.........and the year you dont use your points and have to bank whats left after borrowing, it will all even out for you somewhere.

Life happens and NOTHING is ever set in stone. We all have to be flexible.

Roll with it.  It is what it is.


----------



## Inkmahm

MiaSRN62 said:


> *Because it's such an extreme change....and when I sat down with my guide years ago, our trips were planned this way according to the point charts.  We planned it out.  My husband and I took 3 days to think it out before signing on the dotted line.  It's like having the rug pulled from under you with how drastic the change is (30 points is no joke to come up short every year), and the timing.........ALOT of us would have planned very differently with recent add-ons.  The Magic season points already were high coming just under Premiere season.
> 
> My guide, back in Aug of 2000, never let on there would be a change of this magnitude or we would have planned differently. She did say something like , "they could switch the points around a little here and there" and made it out like it was not a big deal.    I could see my stays coming up 4, 5, 6 points short....hell....even 10......but I cannot borrow 30 points every single year.  So our vacations with DVC, as they have been planned out in conjunction with our knowledgable guide 8 years ago, are now changed forever.  Unless of course Disney one day changes it back.  Sorry you cannot manage to see how some of us are impacted by this in bigger ways than others. *


I DO see how some are impacted by this in bigger ways than others but I don't disagree with Disney and believe you SHOULD be impacted. The people who stay Sun - THurs have been getting a better deal for years than those of us who have to stay over weekends due to work schedules, vacation shortages, whatever.  Disney is finally evening out this inequity.  A little bit, anyway.  I don't at all disagree with the adjustment to the point charts.  

I DO, however, disagree with how and when Disney is making the adjustment.
More information sooner would have been good.  Not selling BLT with an "old" chart would have been good.  Allowing very small add ons of points for people who need to add only 5 or 6 (or whatever) due to these changes would be good.  There are a lot of things Disney could do differently that would be good.  Keeping the points required heavily in favor of those who travel only Sun - Thurs is not one of them, IMHO.


----------



## logan115

What are the odds that DVC offers current owners a chance to buy smaller add-ons to address any shortfalls ?  Granted they may not be at the same resort, but just to get the points that may be a middle ground.

Realize that people that are short points now don't necessarily want to buy additional points to get the same vacation, but I'm guessing some people that are 1-15 pts short may be willing to do that, as opposed to buying a 50 pt contract in the resale market.

Just my .02,

Chris


----------



## DISNEY FIX

logan115 said:


> What are the odds that DVC offers current owners a chance to buy smaller add-ons to address any shortfalls ?  Granted they may not be at the same resort, but just to get the points that may be a middle ground.
> 
> Realize that people that are short points now don't necessarily want to buy additional points to get the same vacation, but I'm guessing some people that are 1-15 pts short may be willing to do that, as opposed to buying a 50 pt contract in the resale market.
> 
> Just my .02,
> 
> Chris



I like the problemsolving angle you took. How about easing or eliminating the transfer rules? Just and idea.


----------



## MiaSRN62

*



			bwvBound :Better to enjoy the good parts and figure workarounds for the rest.
		
Click to expand...

Well, dh and I discussed squeezing 5-6 in a 1 bedroom at OKW from now on. Because 30 extra points is too bitter a pill for us to swallow.   So gonna be shipping the air mattresses down to Orlando every year.   That is the only way we can workaround it........wonder how many others will be squeezing more people into smaller units to stretch out points in the future.  Ahhh...but that's a whole other thread topic..........




			I really cant believe that all these people have the next 40-50 years of their life planned out .....and are only doing Disney!!!
		
Click to expand...


Well believe it PMDR59....we have our offsite timeshare for trades to other places (especially now with DVC going with RCI !---that's another magic killer for us).  
DVC was for our WDW trips (it is the best value for the points in our eyes) primarily and plan lots of them in the future.  Kids......grandkids......that was our grand plan.  *


----------



## twebber55

jekjones1558 said:


> Disney's responsibility is not to make things better for any individual DVC member but to try to balance demand for rooms.  Currently that is not happening.  The changes may not entice all current Sun.-Fri. vacationers to occasionally go on a weekend, but it will get some to do so.  We currently stay at least a week but NEVER include 2 weekends.  Now we will be much more likely to disregard the issue of weekday/weekend costs.
> I hope that a side benefit for those who only book weekdays will be that demand for those days will ease up just a bit, making availability better at 7 months and during high demand times.



there may not be balnce but i can tell you this....This takes awasy one day per trip from me and many other families, one less day of buying tickets,one less day of DDP, etc....


----------



## epcotwanderer

MiaSRN62 said:


> Quite a simplistic answer epcotwanderer.........
> But where do I get an extra 30 points without:
> #1) buying more points (not going to do that especially with how I see DVC is trending)
> #2)downgrading to a smaller unit which is not possible with my family of 5 and sometimes 6 (teens so they're adult sized---need a 2 bedroom)
> #3)going in a season with lower points (also not possible with kids in school).
> 
> 
> I could have saved or stretched out my points like others are able to do because they travel in Adventure or Choice season.  I paid Magic Season points primarily for 8 years.  So I could say, as someone else posted, I got "gouged" for years.   We could never vacation in early Dec or Sept or other low point seasons.   We planned according to when our kids were out of school which is Magic season.  So just as those who have been getting gouged because they have had to pay weekend points for years, I could say we have been getting gouged because we had to pay Magic season points for years.  But that is what we knew we would be doing 8 years ago and PLANNED accordingly.   But now, I can't even  swing that due to a DRASTIC point jump.
> 
> So what do I "adjust" ?  I could really use some suggestions here. I really feel my DVC has lost value for us with this allocation.



It is a simplistic answer. But I have chosen to travel during Adventure season because my contract isn't big enough to handle the higher point values on the weekends of the higher seasons. I understand where you are coming from I have settled for less nights out of my DVC for years because I traveled on weekends. I made that choice to buy even though I knew I would only get three weekends (9 nights) or less a year. The contract states that the point values can change at any time. I am just happy that now I may get 11-12 nights now instead of 9. You may get less when you want to travel but that's when you CHOOSE to travel. I know it's difficult with the kids off season (believe me I know) but it's still a choice. We travel weekends with the kids is easier because its just one or two days out of school for us during the off season and it's much less crowded so we get to do more with less time.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> and believe you SHOULD be impacted.  The people who stay *Sun - THurs have been getting a better deal for years than those of us who have to stay over weekends *



*You know what Inkmahm.....you believe I should be impacted negatively by being charged an extra 30 points ? 

I can say the same thing about Members who FOR YEARS have been able to vacation in Adventure or Choice season and save TONS of points when we could only stay in Magic season ?  Adventure and Choice season travelers have been getting a better deal compared to me in my Magic season for years. 

Goes both ways...........so please............*


----------



## Inkmahm

MiaSRN62 said:


> *You know what Inkmahm.....you believe I should be impacted negatively by being charged an extra 30 points ?
> 
> I can say the same thing about Members who FOR YEARS have been able to vacation in Adventure or Choice season and save TONS of points when we could only stay in Magic season ?  Adventure and Choice season travelers have been getting a better deal compared to me in my Magic season for years.
> 
> Goes both ways...........so please............*


You can choose to travel in any season you like, just as the rest of us can.  

It makes sense to have seasonality in the points, just like there is seasonality in the hotel rooms.  It makes less sense to have variations between weekdays and weekends.  SOME variation I have no problem with. But double the points for a Fri or Sat night?  Nope.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> We travel weekends with the kids is easier because its just one or two days out of school for us during the off season and it's much less crowded so we get to do more with less time.


Well that's great if you can do this epcotwanderer.....but I live over 1,000 miles from WDW, so quickie weekend trips with the kids during school or offseason is in no way a feasible thing for us ?  Kids get out of school at 3 pm on friday....catch a late flight into Orlando ---get there maybe at 8 pm'ish ?  Pretty much eat and go to sleep....spend Sat in the parks and have to fly back Sunday for school on Monday ?  This scenario might be easier for you, but not me ?  That is just stressful..........


----------



## bub

I'm really sad to see these changes...we have been members since 1996, and the points for our trips have been the same since we joined. We do spring sometimes for weekends, but not all the time. While I don't like paying so many points for a weekend, I always thought the much lower weekdays enabled people to stretch their points more (either by skipping weekends, moving, or staying one weekend in the middle of a trip). We have family members who have always traveled Sun. through Thurs. and now their trips will either be shorter or less frequent. 

Somehow I can't hep but think they are doing this to get people to add on...and/or to encourage people to do full weeks.
I'll assume it's because they have more people who want to do just weekends and so were complaining about the points???


----------



## DeeCee735

MiaSRN62 said:


> *Well, dh and I discussed squeezing 5-6 in a 1 bedroom at OKW from now on. Because 30 extra points is too bitter a pill for us to swallow. So gonna be shipping the air mattresses down to Orlando every year. That is the only way we can workaround it........wonder how many others will be squeezing more people into smaller units to stretch out points in the future. Ahhh...but that's a whole other thread topic..........*
> 
> 
> 
> *Well believe it PMDR59....we have our offsite timeshare for trades to other places (especially now with DVC going with RCI !---that's another magic killer for us). *
> *DVC was for our WDW trips (it is the best value for the points in our eyes) primarily and plan lots of them in the future. Kids......grandkids......that was our grand plan. *


 
I partially agree with PMDR59, but I also realize nothing is set in stone, however that's what planning is......putting something in your head or on paper and doing your best to see it through. If it works, great, and if not, improvising. We did initially buy in with a "plan" at least til the kids were out of high school. And that plan - a 185 point buy in (1 bedroom, BWV, 6 nights, Pres week), worked out great when we wanted it, and it worked even better when we threw in a trip here and there, as I'm in NO WAY opposed to borrowing (I'm in a constant state of borrowing as a matter of fact  ). 

But, within the last few years, not "planning" on any add-ons, we added on 4 times (25 point contracts each)  , with 50 of those points being at AKV. We are also not in any way in a state of panic about the points structure changing, because our "planning" is always open to changes, and that works just fine for us. I book our family trips 11 months out, but my frequent 3 nighters with friends or cousins, I wing em! And that works just great too! I just booked three nights, starting on a Sunday in mid November in a savannah view studio at AKV WOO HOO and I don't even know who I'm bringing yet but I do know I'm going  

I've learned the hard way, that all things work out they way they are supposed to, whether or not we plan on it So, again learning the hard way, I've learned to relax and enjoy ALL the good stuff the best way I can


----------



## DVCSAMNH

epcotwanderer said:


> I think people have trained themselves to travel Sun-Thurs nights. It's just going to be an adjustment.



"Training"???  I don't think so. People do what works for them. What is "Optimal". We don't all live within a two or three hour drive from Disney. We can't all hop in the car and take long weekends. Some need to take their vacation all at one time. Some like my husband, who is self-employed, is not comfortable being away more than a few days. Weekends and end of month happen to be his busy time. We all do what we need to. We can't change because DVC gets a hair and decides they're going turn everything upside down. This change will not change the way I vacation it will change the number of days I spend at Disney. Training hasn't got anything to do with it.

Even if for the sake of argument it was all about "training", the weekend points still are much higher than the weekdays. What is the incentive for weekday travellers to put up with the weekend crowds? There still isn't any.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> You can choose to travel in any season you like, just as the rest of us can.



*Are ya kidding me Inkmahm ???  Seriously ???   Then why don't you CHOOSE to vacation on WEEKNIGHTS ???

Not if dh and I don't want to get jailed or fined for truancy in relation to keeping our kids out of school on a consistant basis ????  




			It makes sense to have seasonality in the points, just like there is seasonality in the hotel rooms. It makes less sense to have variations between weekdays and weekends. SOME variation I have no problem with. But double the points for a Fri or Sat night? Nope.
		
Click to expand...


So EVERYTHING makes sense to you as long as those weekend points are made lower....I get it.........lol

I'm out of this discussion................*


----------



## PrincessDadx2

MiaSRN62 said:


> *You know what Inkmahm.....you believe I should be impacted negatively by being charged an extra 30 points ?
> 
> I can say the same thing about Members who FOR YEARS have been able to vacation in Adventure or Choice season and save TONS of points when we could only stay in Magic season ?  Adventure and Choice season travelers have been getting a better deal compared to me in my Magic season for years.
> 
> Goes both ways...........so please............*



I believe you misunderstand this.  You have been subsidized for years in Magic season to the detriment of everyone who travels in the other seasons.  Assuming the change is based on actual DVC demand patterns, which seems logical, Disney had charged too few points for Magic season and Sun-Thurs.  You should have paid higher points - closer to premier because Magic season has higher actual demand than Disney forecast.  This has apparently become such a large subsidy that Disney needs to balance it out.  This creates winners and losers, but is "fairer" in the sense that the point requirements better match when people actually want to travel on a whole.  What they are saying is that you should have bought 180 points instead of 150 points based on hindsight.  So you have been getting a bargain, but it will no longer continue.   If the changes shift the demand back then they may readjust some time in the future, but the point costs should always follow the demand for nights.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

Since we're all *speculating* here, could someone be so kind as to pint me to the thread where the early charts were posted? Were they taken down?

I don't see how most of us can even comment since we haven't seen the charts, even if they turn out to be bogus. Maybe they're here somewhere and everyone knows where but me?


----------



## jekjones1558

> there may not be balnce but i can tell you this....This takes awasy one day per trip from me and many other families, one less day of buying tickets,one less day of DDP, etc....



But Disney's projection is that someone else will book that weekday that you will now not be using plus, perhaps, a weekend night or 2 that no one is using.  Disney's responsibility is not to guarantee the same amount of vacation time to any individual member.  Their responsibility is to devise points charts that ensure as close to 100% occupancy as possible, thus keeping the whole DVC points system viable.


----------



## Inkmahm

PrincessDadx2 said:


> I believe you misunderstand this.  You have been subsidized for years in Magic season to the detriment of everyone who travels in the other seasons.  Assuming the change is based on actual DVC demand patterns, which seems logical, Disney had charged too few points for Magic season and Sun-Thurs.  You should have paid higher points - closer to premier because Magic season has higher actual demand than Disney forecast.  This has apparently become such a large subsidy that Disney needs to balance it out.  This creates winners and losers, but is "fairer" in the sense that the point requirements better match when people actually want to travel on a whole.  What they are saying is that you should have bought 180 points instead of 150 points based on hindsight.  So you have been getting a bargain, but it will no longer continue.   If the changes shift the demand back then they may readjust some time in the future, but the point costs should always follow the demand for nights.


Thank you.  You obviously said that better than I did. Any you're exactly right.

I CHOOSE to travel for 5 or 6 nights including weekends because that's what fits for me to get the most out of my vacation days at work.  I also choose to offer the same schedule to any relatives who want to travel with us.  We go over weekends but kids still have to be taken out of school if they want to travel with us.  If they want to travel at another time, they can buy their own DVC.  I offer what fits best for me.


----------



## Inkmahm

WilsonFlyer said:


> Since we're all *speculating* here, could someone be so kind as to pint me to the thread where the early charts were posted? Were they taken down?
> 
> I don't see how most of us can even comment since we haven't seen the charts, even if they turn out to be bogus. Maybe they're here somewhere and everyone knows where but me?



http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2067216


----------



## epcotwanderer

MiaSRN62 said:


> Well that's great if you can do this epcotwanderer.....but I live over 1,000 miles from WDW, so quickie weekend trips with the kids during school or offseason is in no way a feasible thing for us ?  Kids get out of school at 3 pm on friday....catch a late flight into Orlando ---get there maybe at 8 pm'ish ?  Pretty much eat and go to sleep....spend Sat in the parks and have to fly back Sunday for school on Monday ?  This scenario might be easier for you, but not me ?  That is just stressful..........



I'm in Massachusetts ( I think that's over your 1,000 miles away too) so we have to fly too. You choose to travel when you would like just like we do. We fly in Fri morning and leave Monday afternoon usually, while you CHOOSE to do it differently.


----------



## Kmango

twebber55 said:


> there may not be balnce but i can tell you this....This takes awasy one day per trip from me and many other families, one less day of buying tickets,one less day of DDP, etc....



I'm not sure why people keep assuming that one day less of revenue from their family is a net loss for Disney. Sure, it's one less day of you buying tickets and DDP, but it's two extra days of tickets and DDP to Disney. 

Totally Theoretical Math Time: 
Let's say we have a room that is 30 pts weekdays and 60 points weekends under the old charts. 

You come in and pay 150 points for the weekdays, but the weekend ends up vacant, because nobody wanted to pay 120 points for 2 days, and CRO didn't sell it either. So Disney has gotten 5 days of tickets and 5 days of DDP for that room for the week. And then there are 120 orphaned points in the system that somebody's not going to get to use. 

Now under the new charts, you come in and pay 37 points a night for four weekdays, totaling 148. You buy 4 days of tickets and 4 days of DDP. Then somebody else comes in for a long weekend and IS willing to pay 121 points for three days. They buy 3 days of tickets and 3 days of DDP. No points are orphaned, everybody gets to stay proportional to their interest, and Disney gets 7 days of tickets and 7 days of DDP. 

It's not as good for your individual family, but it ensures the longterm health of the system.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

Thank you, Inkmahm. I can see this is going to take some in-depth analysis before I can draw any definative conclusions.


----------



## jekjones1558

Great explanation, Kmango.


----------



## dclfun

After reading through most of this thread I realize how fortunate I am to have enough points to be flexible and to live locally to make trips affordable and possible without lots of pre-planning. I remember on the resorts board the uproar when weekend costs became greater than weekday and then recently when AP discounts didn't include weekends. Both of those changes were business decisions made to boost the bottom line and were in line with many other hotels policies on when to offer discounts or when to adjust rates. Many of those who were upset with the changes were DVC members who used those discounts on weekends to stretch their points. Nothing wrong with that- we did it too, but it did hurt occupancy levels at the DVC resorts on the weekends. It probably affected things we weren't aware of such as staffing for housekeeping or even front desk.  I do trust DVC/Disney to do what's best for the business -that's actually their responsibility-and that may not be what's the best for individual member families who have planned their vacations the same way for years. Some of the other recent policy changes bother me more and I really feel for people who have been negatively impacted more than I have. I can work around the changes much more easily than someone who has to book air or has specific weeks in which they must travel. I haven't even looked over the charts yet and am anxiously awaiting the corrected charts. I do agree we should've been given more of an advance notice.  If there's one major gripe I have over this whole issue that's the one that's the toughest to swallow- last minute notification of such a major change. I also didn't receive anything in writing about the new waitlist policy or the 7+ day booking window and only heard that by calling to make a reservation or request a waitlist and thus was told things had changed. I guess I need to visit the member website more often but does anyone else think we should be given these changes in writing IN ADVANCE before they are implemented, and by "in advance" I don't mean the day prior posted on the website?? How did everyone else get notified of the other policy changes?---Kathy


----------



## epcotwanderer

Inkmahm said:


> Thank you.  You obviously said that better than I did. Any you're exactly right.
> 
> I CHOOSE to travel for 5 or 6 nights including weekends because that's what fits for me to get the most out of my vacation days at work.  I also choose to offer the same schedule to any relatives who want to travel with us.  We go over weekends but kids still have to be taken out of school if they want to travel with us.  If they want to travel at another time, they can buy their own DVC.  I offer what fits best for me.




You guys are both right on.
This is all about CHOICE. Some choose shorter, weekend stays even though they were more and some choice to travel weekdays only to stretch out the value. The new point system will even out the occupancy and points...which was long overdue. The net effect of this change is ZERO.


----------



## Inkmahm

epcotwanderer said:


> I'm in Massachusetts ( I think that's over your 1,000 miles away too) so we have to fly too. You choose to travel when you would like just like we do. We fly in Fri morning and leave Monday afternoon usually, while you CHOOSE to do it differently.


And I think I'm about 1,300 miles away in Wisconsin.  We always fly, too.


----------



## Inkmahm

WilsonFlyer said:


> Thank you, Inkmahm. I can see this is going to take some in-depth analysis before I can draw any definative conclusions.



You're welcome.  I compared my 2008, 2009, and 2010 trips under the old and the new charts.  Differences were 10, 12, and 14 points DOWN for us.  I expect it to be an average of 12 points less for us each year in the future, too.  We say Fri and Sat nights though so for us, it is a benefit.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

It is what it is (or more correctly; it will be what it will be). We might as well all just get the hell over it. (I don't have enough information to develop an informed opinion yet).

If arguing about it floats your boat, that's kool; but it won't change anything.

I sense there was much the same uproar when the weekend points were increased. I wasn't around but it appears all the hell-raisin' on one little internet forum didn't have much impact on changing it back.

It's business folks. It ain't about emotions with business and Disney is no exception despite what some of us may want to believe. 

It is what it is. Sell or adapt. It's really very simple. Sorry to be the party-pooper but that's the bottom line.


----------



## epcotwanderer

Inkmahm said:


> And I think I'm about 1,300 miles away in Wisconsin.  We always fly, too.



Thank you, Inkmahm. I'm glad to see that you see this is all about CHOICES.

I did compare all of our vacations (January, May and October)...May is a higher point value with the new chart (if I calculated it right it's just one point) but the overall net change is close to 17 DOWN.


----------



## Sammie

If I truly thought that DVC had made this decision on what is best for the total membership and not just a few and not just for future sales I would be less upset. 

But in recent months, the focus has been more about what will make the product more saleable and less about what members who bought years ago want.

And yes I realize that a business has to make money but there was a time that DVC cared about it's membership, and not just about expansion. 

If this change truly benefits a majority of members then it is fine they changed it. But truly I can not see that being the reason. 

There was a time DVC cared about "the member" now their focus is "any" member will do.

And so many times lately it is less about *what* they have done and *more *about how they did it.


----------



## DisFlan

WilsonFlyer - we'll all get over it and move on.  But that doesn't mean a few us can't vent a bit.  For some of us, the increased points needed is a bit of a kick in the head.  And it'll require a change in how we plan and vacation.  I'd say that's worth at least a small vent.

DisFlan


----------



## WilsonFlyer

DisFlan said:


> WilsonFlyer - we'll all get over it and move on.  But that doesn't mean a few us can't vent a bit.  For some of us, the increased points needed is a bit of a kick in the head.  And it'll require a change in how we plan and vacation.  I'd say that's worth at least a small vent.
> 
> DisFlan



Absolutely. I was just expressing the harsh reality of it all. 

When I have thoroughly analyzed it, I may not like the end result either so I do understand.


----------



## Towncrier

Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but here is my take on the reallocation. Originally DVC anticipated that there would be greater demand for weekend rooms and that weekdays would be less desirable. They skewed the points to make it "expensive" for the weekends. And perhaps they made it TOO expensive because a common thread is how to avoid the weekends by either moving to a value resort, going offsite, or simply arranging vacations around the weekends. When we first joined DVC, our guide even went so far to suggest that we use our points Sunday through Thursday and pay cash for the weekends. We did this for a couple of trips, especially since DVC members received a discount on cash reservations (is this still the case?). Eventually we added on enough points to stay more than 6 nights. I did the math and the best value was, of course, to say Sunday through Thursday. The next best choice (for lowest average points) was to stay either 6 or 12 nights. And so we started staying 12 nights each year, arranging our stay around one weekend of higher points.

With the new scheme, we will have to drop back to an 11 night stay if we want to visit once a year. Although I am disappointed by this turn of events, I understand the need for DVC to rebalance the point charts based on historic use. Perhaps the result will be a more efficient use of inventory and maybe reduced costs. And maybe we will be less concerned about booking a shorter trip through a weekend.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

WilsonFlyer said:


> ...
> 
> I sense there was much the same uproar when the weekend points were increased. I wasn't around but it appears all the hell-raisin' on one little internet forum didn't have much impact on changing it back.
> 
> ...



The last change was announced in 1994 - long before there was a DIS or any website with as large a DVC following as enjoyed in the many internet DVC sites now - so there was no big uproar to be heard and the changes affected a fairly small group of owners anyway. The weekend points were lowered at that time too and (except for Adventure Season which saw an increase for both weekdays and weekends).

Here is a link from 2006 with a comparison of the changes (announced in 1994) for 1996 thru 2009 for OKW. It will be interesting to see the actual (and official) point charts for 2010 whenerever they are made available to the members. The original point chart at OKW was valid from opening in 1991 thru the end of 1995.

OKW Point Chart comparison


----------



## MICKEYFAN28

Look at it this way. Some people will like it and some won't !! That is obvious.
Will this affect my vacation habits? Yes. Do I like it? No. It cuts my stay down a little. But it is what it is and I'll deal with it. My biggest problem is dropping it on us this way is wrong!!! They should have given more notice. I am taking a family with us for twelve days next week and if they ask about checking into DVC I WILL DISCOURAGE them! Four people have bought into disney because of me. Two of my uncles, my brother in law and my best friend. I have never complained before and dealt with everything that has gone down with a grain of salt. I won't stop using my membership but if this stuff keeps happening I will not reccomend it to anyone anymore and my spending habits with disney will change. 
Eric


----------



## LoveToDisney

I have been reading this thread and am hoping for the best. When we bought (from a seasoned member of the sales staff), we were told that the "week" totals would always be the same within seasons but the time periods within the seasons could change and the point distribution throughout the week could change so we bought with the thought of staying a week each time. Now we are a few points short of being able to stay a full week in some of the seasons if these unofficial charts become official. If DVC was planning on adjusting the WEEK totals (at some point in the 40-50 years of ownership), I believe that very possibility should have been declared via the sales person BEFORE we chose how many points we needed for a week's stay.


----------



## jmtf2004

MiaSRN62 said:
			
		

> But where do I get an extra 30 points without:
> #1) buying more points (not going to do that especially with how I see DVC is trending)
> #2)downgrading to a smaller unit which is not possible with my family of 5 and sometimes 6 (teens so they're adult sized---need a 2 bedroom)
> #3)going in a season with lower points (also not possible with kids in school).




It looks as though there were some problems with the charts that were posted incorrectly. Without knowing what the official points charts from DVC will look like, you cannot be absolutely certain that your anticipated 30 point shortfall is what you are going to be dealing with.  

Hopefully, with a bit of     the revised official points charts won't show such a drastic difference. If it turns out to be a few points rather than 30, perhaps you could get away with borrowing a few for the foreseeable future...leading to a deficit down the road, but maybe by that point you will have more flexibility in vacation time, or have the ability/desire to add on.
If it does turn out you do have this large shortfall of 30 points, I agree with you, and many others who would be in the same boat that this would be both frustrating and disappointing. Unfortunately you have been counting on the points structure remaining unchanged for the duration of your contract...as has been mentioned many times in this thread already, the allocation of points was not guaranteed to remain the same in the contract you signed when you purchased DVC. 
Here are my suggestions to add to your list: 
1) Change your length of stay - you could alternate years with shorter and longer stays, or vacation every other year by banking/borrowing
2) Top up by renting points from another member and keep your traditional plan
3) Pay cash for the extra nights and keep your traditional plan.  There are discounts on cash rates available for members and usually some very attractive rates for room only stays for AP holders - these are both limited, and also not guaranteed to be available at the time you might be vacationing, *and* this might require switching rooms/resorts partway through your stay, so not perfect, but you would be able to keep your traditional length of stay.
4) Start saving your pennies, and if it turns out your feelings towards DVC mellow at some point, maybe you can take advantage of better resales prices for an add on down the road. If they don't mellow, you might also want to start researching other timeshare companies that offer fixed week plans, since you don't have flexibility with your vacation time. It is my understanding that there are companies that offer fixed weeks at high quality resorts <gasp> offsite that are still very convenient to WDW. Who knows, you might find a great deal...and then end up selling your DVC....


----------



## DeeCee735




----------



## lugnut33

Inkmahm said:


> And I think I'm about 1,300 miles away in Wisconsin.  We always fly, too.




  fellow cheesehead

I have a great idea.  How about you people who are saving points under the new system donate them into a pot that people who are losing points can use to make up for their loss?  

Inkmahm, I believe you are wrong in your opinion that people who are losing points shouldn't be upset.  They have every right to be, as do the people who have bought recently to only now learn they didn't buy the correct amount of points to meet their needs. 

And why would Disney make this change... it's all about the money.


----------



## Bob Price

dzorn said:


> I agree I am more upset with the way thing are planned then poorly executed.
> 
> Denise in MI



Poorly executed AND poorly communicated.


----------



## KLR-wlv

This change indicates - to me - DVC's change to discouraging less than week stays. The way the reservation system is now it benefits higher point owners who can "walk" a reservation- and now weekday folks are disproportionately hit with this increase. Whatever you thought of the weekday/weekend point distribution - THAT is the system DVC has had for 16 years - that is what we bought into - and that is what we have planned with. THe only way you are not hurt by this to the tune of about 15% - 20% is if you typically do only weekends, or stay a full week. So DVC ceases to be much of a deal - to me. And I think management is getting a little high if they think they can continue to increase points and pricing to the extent that they have in the past couple months and have the loyal legion follow along. I was about to put $16000 into BLT until this decision - with $16000 I could buy 2 very good weeks with any number of timeshares and be assured of 2 weeks in a 2br. $16000 at BLT would - for now - assure me of a 1 br for 5 nights premier season - every other year. Until they reallocate again. $16000 is just too high for MAYBE a 5 night vacation every 2 years. That is what it is. I will adjust my vacation habits which will not include disney every year. I know I won't be missed - however these very interesting decisions in this economic climate will be fun for me to watch.


----------



## wildernessDad

They put these things out there on their website and then rip them off when they are found to contain mistakes.

I have a suggestion for Disney: Have someone check these things BEFORE you incorporate them into your website.  I am assuming that there were mistakes somewhere on their points chart(s).


----------



## Inkmahm

lugnut33 said:


> fellow cheesehead
> 
> I have a great idea.  How about you people who are saving points under the new system donate them into a pot that people who are losing points can use to make up for their loss?
> 
> Inkmahm, I believe you are wrong in your opinion that people who are losing points shouldn't be upset.  They have every right to be, as do the people who have bought recently to only now learn they didn't buy the correct amount of points to meet their needs.
> 
> And why would Disney make this change... it's all about the money.



I didn't say I didn't understand them being upset.  They had an advantage with points that they are now losing.  I said I thought the change was fair.

p.s.  No one staying Sun-Thurs every volunteered to give me extra points to cover my weekend stays...


----------



## bonybroad

Dh wants to sell our membership - he is MAD!  I want to buy an add-on at VWL (which I wanted to do before this whole debacle).
We have bigger issues to work out, obviously!


----------



## lugnut33

Inkmahm said:


> I didn't say I didn't understand them being upset.  They had an advantage with points that they are now losing.  I said I thought the change was fair.
> 
> p.s.  No one staying Sun-Thurs every volunteered to give me extra points to cover my weekend stays...



You know why they never volunteered them?  Because everyone knew how many points were needed for the last number of years.  They hadn't changed.  And when they bought they purchased a certain amount of points for a reason, now that dynamic has changed.  

Look, if they came in and raised your weekend points requirements I'd think that stinks also and I'd expect you to be upset.  No matter how much you're going to say it's fair, the people who are losing points in this deal are going to see it differently.  It's coming out of their pocketbook (because their points don't go as far), unexpectedly.


----------



## pakhowe

Inkmahm said:


> I didn't say I didn't understand them being upset.  They had an advantage with points that they are now losing.  I said I thought the change was fair.
> 
> p.s.  No one staying Sun-Thurs every volunteered to give me extra points to cover my weekend stays...



The difference is you bought into a system which you knew favored weekday stays.  For people to complain about weekend points being higher than weekday points is like buying a house next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.  Many of us were mislead at the time of purchase.  That is my beef.


----------



## jamstew

Marshay said:


> Ok, please know that I just ask this question in innocence.
> 
> If Disney wants to fill up its rooms every day of the week, then why isn't every day the same number of points within a given season and room category?
> 
> I certainly understand the larger the room, the more points and the various busy seasons such as summer and holidays.  But I've never understood why Disney penalizes weekend stays so much  ... that DVC folks actually try to avoid the weekends ...
> 
> Thanks for your insight -- I'm new (owned for 2 years) and want to learn!



I've been thinking the same thing since I started reading this thread. Like you, I'm new, so I'll be interested to see what the response is.

I personally like to avoid weekends, not just because of the points, but because the parks are generally more crowded.


----------



## Doctor P

pakhowe said:


> The difference is you bought into a system which you knew favored weekday stays.  For people to complain about weekend points being higher than weekday points is like buying a house next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.  Many of us were mislead at the time of purchase.  That is my beef.



NO ONE and I mean NO ONE was mislead at the time of purchase, at least if they read the documents carefully.  The POS and other legal documents clearly state their ability to reallocate points, there was a precedent for reallocating points, and the only statements upon which one can rely are those in the legal documents.  I understand why people would be disappointed, and I am concerned about the timing of the change with only two days to go until 2010 reservations begin and the way it wasn't communicated.  But, the change itself will likely just be another thing I need to adapt to in using my membership if the originally posted charts are anywhere close to what ends up being finalized.


----------



## Inkmahm

pakhowe said:


> The difference is you bought into a system which you knew favored weekday stays.  For people to complain about weekend points being higher than weekday points is like buying a house next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.  Many of us were mislead at the time of purchase.  That is my beef.



Exactly.  I knew what I bought, I read the paperwork.   I never complained about weekend points being higher at the time and I knew that that could change.   I wasn't "mislead" as I know to read any contract I sign and not believe any hype given by salespeople.  No matter what I buy, but especially for something that cost almost $50,000.


----------



## dis-happy

Why the assumption that the charts which were posted are incorrect?  I have full belief that those were supposed to be the new charts.  They didn't come into being overnight (my own experience on the member website is evidence that they beta tested several months ago....for one day at least I showed a 170 pt. completed stay as being a 195 pt. stay, which lines up with the new point chart).

What will happen next? It's possible that due to the outcry there will be new modifications.  I'm sure all the IT people are working overtime for the next few days....Since it's more than just posting a new chart (all the code for the system has to be rewritten for MS by the Sunday deadline) I wouldn't be halfway surprised if they back off the changes for a year.


----------



## kristenrice

How about a new IT department and computer upgrade as the next "member enhancement"


----------



## mooneyda

I just have to wiggle waggle points ( roll over here transfer there) to fit my vacation needs and plans .


----------



## jmtf2004

dis-happy said:
			
		

> Why the assumption that the charts which were posted are incorrect?



In at least one case, the total number of points for a resort changed. From what I understand, and has been stated numerous times here, this is not allowed...it would result in the ownership of the resort changing.  I have not got the time (or interest) to go through to check them myself but in another thread someone posted this info. So if this is true, those charts were definitely incorrect....no assumptions required.


----------



## Bob Price

jekjones1558 said:


> Disney's MAJOR mistake is that this change is being done with too little notice.  I agree with those who say that Disney has the fiduciary responsibility to have the DVC units filled 100% each night.  In so far as they do not do this, all of us will have a hard time getting reservations for the dates that we want because the demand is not even.  We all signed contracts stating that these changes are possible.  Many of us expected that Disney would be respectful enough of members to make necessary changes to the point structure with a fair warning, to allow members to adjust their plans.  My beef with Disney is not the changes, it is the short notice.  I do NOT think Disney stands to gain revenue from this.  DVC units CANNOT be empty on a regular basis on weekends.  If weekend rooms are empty, then there will more demand for weekdays than there are rooms to meet the demand.  IMPLEMENT THE NEW POINT STRUCTURE BEGINNING IN 2011, NOT 2010!



This is very poor communication. I expect more from a company that plans and executes things so well.


----------



## lugnut33

Inkmahm said:


> Exactly.  I knew what I bought, I read the paperwork.   I never complained about weekend points being higher at the time and I knew that that could change.   I wasn't "mislead" as I know to read any contract I sign and not believe any hype given by salespeople.  No matter what I buy, but especially for something that cost almost $50,000.




Nobody is disputing that DVC is allowed to reallocate points.  In the long run, it's probably a good thing.  In the short term however, a lot of people are getting screwed and that is a bad thing!!


----------



## pakhowe

Apparently many people were mislead.  We did read the contract and asked about the points being changed.  We were told the reallocation of points would be to adjust for certain holidays that did not always fall on the same day each year.  I have read other posts where people were told the same thing.  I understand that the wording of the contract allows more substantial changes, but to state "noone and I mean noone was misled" clearly is not the case.  Have another drink of the kool-aid.  And as I stated before, we were advised by the salesperson to buy points according to the chart based on season, days of the week and accomadations we would be using.  There is no way DVC didn't know they were going to be making this change at the time of my purchase.  The fact that they choose to keep their salespeople in the dark is no excuse.

I get that the contract is the contract and we will have to suck it up and accept however this works out.  But DVC's sales tactics were absolutely misleading.


----------



## Disneypirate85

On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Copied and pasted right from Members Page. Hope this helps....


----------



## twebber55

Inkmahm said:


> I didn't say I didn't understand them being upset.  They had an advantage with points that they are now losing.  I said I thought the change was fair.
> 
> p.s.  No one staying Sun-Thurs every volunteered to give me extra points to cover my weekend stays...



but you knew the numbers set up before you bought in


----------



## dis-happy

Disneypirate85 said:


> On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
> 
> Copied and pasted right from Members Page. Hope this helps....



Yeah, that's what they SAID, after the hue and cry.  Actually, the most likely scenario for Sunday is that MS computers will be "down" and no one will be able to make a 2010 ressie yet.


----------



## Bob Price

[I also feel bad for the BLT owners.  Good heavens, they changed the chart before one single reservation was made with the original one!  AND, they changed it right after they upped the minimum add-on requirement and price.  That's just dirty.  So much for Disney having great customer service.[/QUOTE]

Sad really  - What would Walt do?


----------



## twebber55

jekjones1558 said:


> But Disney's projection is that someone else will book that weekday that you will now not be using plus, perhaps, a weekend night or 2 that no one is using.  Disney's responsibility is not to guarantee the same amount of vacation time to any individual member.  Their responsibility is to devise points charts that ensure as close to 100% occupancy as possible, thus keeping the whole DVC points system viable.



im sorry but i  dont see it. people who go for the week arent affected by this only us sun-thur groups....again this is only my opinion but just because its legal doesnt make it right and doesnt mean i still dont love DVC...just going to have to adjust my plans and borrow more often or go one less day


----------



## wildernessDad

dis-happy said:


> Why the assumption that the charts which were posted are incorrect?  I have full belief that those were supposed to be the new charts.  They didn't come into being overnight (my own experience on the member website is evidence that they beta tested several months ago....for one day at least I showed a 170 pt. completed stay as being a 195 pt. stay, which lines up with the new point chart).



DVC says the following.


> On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week.



An updated version...


----------



## lugnut33

Disneypirate85 said:


> On January 21 a version of the 2010 Vacation Point Charts was incorrectly posted. An updated version will be made available within the next week. Members with valid email addresses on record will receive an email when the new charts are available. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
> 
> Copied and pasted right from Members Page. Hope this helps....



LOL, that's been posted about 50 times already.  Thanks anyways.


----------



## tgropp

*Wow, Just as I purchased an add on of 50 points at VWL, I find this out. Actually this will not affect me much as I usually paid 32 points for a 2BR in Dec and now it is 35 points weekday, but the weekends are cheaper so it will all work out in the end...... if you use weekends. Disney seems to be making lots of changes lately. I am still steamed about the new 90 day dining reservation policy*


----------



## fers31

I'm going to let you in on a little secret...the "updated version" will be the same as the one posted.


----------



## Sammie

Bob Price said:


> Poorly executed AND poorly communicated.



And the last time they did that, they promised it would not happen again. 

The updated version is going to have to be tweaked some, the points total is not adding up correctly.


----------



## lugnut33

fers31 said:


> I'm going to let you in on a little secret...the "updated version" will be the same as the one posted.




  

That really IS the worst kept secret.


----------



## jamstew

starbox said:


> While I won't be likely to book weekend trips on points (the weekend is still too expensive)  - I won't be paying Disney the extra 500$ per vacation I was paying for an extra weekend stay.  Those two nights used to give me enough points for 5 weekday nights and it was worth the $$$$.



Ditto


----------



## Bob Price

Dean said:


> Some are saying the notification was inappropriate but I'd somewhat disagree.  DVC cannot and should not put these things out there as a trial balloon to see how members will react.  They need to make their decisions (within the legal framework), post them and move on.  They will re-evaluate those decisions behind the scenes but should not let reaction or sentiment cause the to back away simply for the reason of avoiding the reaction.



Dean, no disrespect, I have been learning from you for months,  but I do think the timing of the notification is inappropriate.  Some people will be using these points days from now.


----------



## Doctor P

pakhowe said:


> Apparently many people were mislead.  We did read the contract and asked about the points being changed.  We were told the reallocation of points would be to adjust for certain holidays that did not always fall on the same day each year.  I have read other posts where people were told the same thing.  I understand that the wording of the contract allows more substantial changes, but to state "noone and I mean noone was misled" clearly is not the case.  Have another drink of the kool-aid.  And as I stated before, we were advised by the salesperson to buy points according to the chart based on season, days of the week and accomadations we would be using.  There is no way DVC didn't know they were going to be making this change at the time of my purchase.  The fact that they choose to keep their salespeople in the dark is no excuse.
> 
> I get that the contract is the contract and we will have to suck it up and accept however this works out.  But DVC's sales tactics were absolutely misleading.



Did you consult a lawyer when you purchased?  Did you call quality assurance to go over any contract provisions that were unclear?   I'm not sure how to answer such a personal attack given that no verbal statements made by a guide/salesperson have any weight (and the disclosure documents clearly state this).  Furthermore, the POS is quite clear about the reallocations that can occur.  My suspicion is that many people simply did not read the POS or call quality assurance with any questions they might have had.  Buying DVC is like buying any other real estate interest in the sense that you really need to know what you are signing.  For some people, this means hiring a lawyer who is well versed in timeshares to review the contract you are signing.  People might have deluded themselves or allowed themselves to "drink the kool aid", but no one could possibly have been mislead if they read their contract and asked quality assurance for clarifications.  Sorry, but I'm not the one drinking the kool aid here (actually, we might all need something a little stronger in this case, LOL).


----------



## Brian Noble

> I get that the contract is the contract and we will have to suck it up and accept however this works out. But DVC's sales tactics were absolutely misleading.


Welcome to the wonderful world of timeshare.

Disney's Guides are better than most, but at the end of the day, they are still timeshare salespeople, no matter how often they try to tell you they are not.


----------



## dis-happy

fers31 said:


> I'm going to let you in on a little secret...the "updated version" will be the same as the one posted.



Or pretty darn close.  My dh does IT conversions for big places (large companies, cities, hospital groups, municipal utilities).  At this stage of the game they aren't making radical changes, they are installing the new program and checking to see if balances match (and they NEVER match so they are troubleshooting that too).  There isn't time for much else.  If (IF!) DVC is trying to fine-tune some of the point spreads at this late date in the game, the most they can hope for is what one person could do at a time (too much of a problem to have several people making changes that could interfere with the code as written).  The rest of them are madly looking to see if the charte numbers add up. 

They are either going to have to punt with what they have already or back off completely.  At least, that is my guess.


----------



## Inkmahm

twebber55 said:


> but you knew the numbers set up before you bought in



Yes, which is why I never complained (or thought to ask anyone to subsidize me for points that I had to spend for weekends...)


----------



## Bob Price

Dean said:


> I do because they obviously changed the formula for weekends vs weekdays.  They would be best served to implement those changes across the board.  Likely better to do so now than leave BLT the same then change it in a year or two.  As I noted, anyone either knew or should have know it could happen, and frankly, that it would likely happen at some point.  Now is as good a time as any.  IMO, anyone who purposefully bought only the number of points for only part of a week or even a full week in a lower season, made a poor choice.  I realize that sometimes you find the right contract resale (or add on)  where you don't have total control over the number of points.  The bottom line is to expect other changes and that at least part of those changes will be negative to you and I.



BUT, this change didn't happen overnight.  They probably had some inkling they were going to do this WHILE they were setting the BLT charts. If they knew this was coming - hold off on announcing BLT, releasing the charts and beginning the sales UNTIL this change is implemented.


----------



## twebber55

Inkmahm said:


> Yes, which is why I never complained (or thought to ask anyone to subsidize me for points that I had to spend for weekends...)



im fairly new to DVC (which i still lve btw) but what was the reaction the last time they did something like this?


----------



## jamstew

Inkmahm said:


> Yes, actually. Why should Sun-thurs be so much cheaper than Wed-Sun? What makes Sun- Thurs sacred?



I think the point was (I could be wrong since I'm not the pp) that people who bought their contracts _with the intention of traveling Sun-Thurs _bought enough points to cover that travel pattern, and people who bought their contracts _with the intention of traveling on weekends _bought enough points to cover their travel patterns. i.e., they would have bought more points in the first place. Thus, the weekday traveler has been shorted (with little recourse), and the weekend traveler now has excess points and a great deal more flexibility


----------



## Inkmahm

twebber55 said:


> im fairly new to DVC (which i still lve btw) but what was the reaction the last time they did something like this?



We'll have to ask some of the old timers because I wasn't a DVC member back then, either.


----------



## chalee94

twebber55 said:


> im fairly new to DVC (which i still lve btw) but what was the reaction the last time they did something like this?



it was in 1994.  there's no real comparison.


----------



## Bob Price

WebmasterDoc said:


> You feel they just realized the need to change the formula within 4 months of starting sales at BLT?
> 
> I find it very disingenuous to have had every opportunity to create a point chart for BLT reflecting the new emphasis and yet within 4 months of releasing the BLT chart and starting sales they have now changed the point charts - at the same time increasing the minimum purchase at that resort - especially when the resort does not even open for more than 7 months.
> 
> With every new resort , they have had ample opportunity to modify the point charts to reflect the expected member usage. They did modify the chart for SSR, again for AKV and yet again 4 months ago for BLT. They certainly have no track record to go on for utilization at BLT. Are you suggesting this was just brought to their attention since BLT sales opened in September?
> 
> Since 1992, DVC has always released the new point charts about 15 months in advance and usually sent those charts, in print form and by mail to each member. For whatever reason, we still have nothing even on the member website and even that information has been posted and then retrieved because it was in error.
> 
> I am not surprised that changes are being made - I agree it was inevitable at some point - but I am surprised at the changes across the board and at the poor timing used for these changes.




Doc, I have learned from you too   and may have, inadvertently, borrowed your ideas.  I read this after I posted.  You have taught me well master.


----------



## tjkraz

pakhowe said:


> Apparently many people were mislead.  We did read the contract and asked about the points being changed.  We were told the reallocation of points would be to adjust for certain holidays that did not always fall on the same day each year.  I have read other posts where people were told the same thing.  I understand that the wording of the contract allows more substantial changes, but to state "noone and I mean noone was misled" clearly is not the case.  Have another drink of the kool-aid.



No kool-aid here.  It just sounds like some had a better grasp on what they were buying than others.  From the POS: 


> In order to meet the Club Members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, *DVCMC may, in its soie, absolute and unfettered discretion, increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day *within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation.



No ambiguity there, I'm afraid.  

As for people being mislead, I would never speak in such absolutes to say that nobody was mislead.  But I also think some people may have heard what they wanted to hear.  

For instance, if a customer asked whether the points changed on an annual basis, saying "no" would be an accurate answer even in light of the reallocation.  While the possibility for a reallocation exists, annual changes have never occurred.  

At the end of the day we all need to take some responsibility for protecting ourselves.  That language is in the POS for a very good reason.  And to simply think "oh, Disney would never do that to me" is a pretty naive outlook, in my opinion.  

The reallocation is designed to balance demand--pure and simple.  Emotional responses about how Disney is out to hurt people or suggestions that they just want to sell more points are simply that--emotional.  

The system is designed to be at 98% occupancy year-round.  Weekend points were too high to reach that 98% occupancy.  Thus the charts HAD to be adjusted.  Period.  And the severity of the adjustments suggests that occupancy was horribly low on the weekends.  

Gang, we just CANNOT have a system in which people expect to be able to use 98% of the points in 70% of the calendar nights.  It just doesn't work!  

DVC was *wrong *for waiting so long to communicate this.  I think they *ABSOLUTELY *erred in how BLT and AKV were actively sold with no mention of the changes.  These *SHOULD *be new points for 2011 and now 2010 to give people time to plan.  

But they also erred by waiting too long to reallocate.  This has been a long time coming.  And I also think that they made a mistake by (apparently) not adjusting any of the seasons.  Sorry but December 1-14 and the month of September should NOT be in the same season.  Demand for those periods is very, very different.  

But I digress.  Personally this hurts me.  In our years of ownership we have used points for exactly two weekend nights.  Our points undeniably will not go as far in 2010 and beyond.  But I also knew it was a very real possibility and that it's simply something I have to deal with.


----------



## Bob Price

WebmasterDoc said:


> I think you're being most generous towards DVC with these comments.
> 
> To suggest that they planned the BLT charts 2-3 YEARS ago and just planned the changes to all of the point charts (including BLT) 2 - 4 months ago is a very generous suggestion.
> 
> OK - lets say it was 4 months ago - then why would they NOT issue the new BLT points at the start of sales?  To suggest that this plan was made less than 4 months ago when for the past 16 years the newly printed point charts have always been in the hands of the members by October certainly indicates that any deviation from that policy was in the works long before sales ever began at BLT and probably before the BLT sales point charts were even printed.
> 
> Perhaps some mention of these changes could have been announced at the annual meeting too - unless you're suggesting that the decision was made after early December?  DVC has had plenty of opportunity to make these changes in a timely fashion and still get the new charts to members in the fall. In doing so, the BLT charts would have reflected the changes prior to removing the 100 point minimum purchase at that resort. Waiting until reservations are beginning for 2010 is a poor treatment of it's members when there has been plenty of opportunity for timely release of information. The Member website alone allows for opportunity for immediate communication and they certainly also use email for a number of other purposes - why not something as important as a change in the point charts?
> 
> I am not disputing the ability and right of DVC to make these changes - I was a member when this happened the first time , but at that time the changes coming for 1996 were sent to the members in September, 1994. I am challenging the timing and poor communication for such a "customer service" oriented company and one that holds itself out as being a notch above - the "DVC Difference".




  The master has spoken.


----------



## jamstew

epcotwanderer said:


> I think people have trained themselves to travel Sun-Thurs nights. It's just going to be an *adjustment*.



If by "adjustment," you mean "add-on," you may be right. That's what a lot of Sun-Fri travelers are going to have to do if they want to continue with the same vacations they planned when they bought in.


----------



## pakhowe

Doctor P said:


> Did you consult a lawyer when you purchased?  Did you call quality assurance to go over any contract provisions that were unclear?   I'm not sure how to answer such a personal attack given that no verbal statements made by a guide/salesperson have any weight (and the disclosure documents clearly state this).  Furthermore, the POS is quite clear about the reallocations that can occur.  My suspicion is that many people simply did not read the POS or call quality assurance with any questions they might have had.  Buying DVC is like buying any other real estate interest in the sense that you really need to know what you are signing.  For some people, this means hiring a lawyer who is well versed in timeshares to review the contract you are signing.  People might have deluded themselves or allowed themselves to "drink the kool aid", but no one could possibly have been mislead if they read their contract and asked quality assurance for clarifications.  Sorry, but I'm not the one drinking the kool aid here (actually, we might all need something a little stronger in this case, LOL).



No I did not contact a lawyer when I purchased.  I did contact quality assurance with a few questions I had concerning the contract.  I did not ask specifically about point reallocations as the explanation the guide gave seemed perfectly rational.  That was my mistake.  I accept responsibility for the documents I signed and truth be told I probably would have made the purchase even if I was aware of the changes.

I did not intend to attack you personnaly as I don't know you.  That being said I do think that there are a lot of people on these boards who will defend the actions of DVC blindly regardless of the facts.  Or allow the fact that this change may be postitive for them individually color their assessment of the fairness of the implementation.  In this case the described sales practices were less than above board.  Although it is true the contract is the contract, the manner in which the contract is sold can be and should be open to critique.  The allusion that it is okay for the salespeople to deliberately misrepresent the facts or that it is okay for DVC to knowingly keep their sales people in the dark knowing that they are giving incorrect information is unacceptable to me.

We have all heard the lamenting about the lack of customer service these days in society overall.  This goes hand in hand with the lack of manners in general.  By accepting these actions with a simple; well, they are salespeople and everyone knows you can't trust them, we are only exacerbating the problem.


----------



## kristenrice

Bob Price said:


> BUT, this change didn't happen overnight.  They probably had some inkling they were going to do this WHILE they were setting the BLT charts. If they knew this was coming - hold off on announcing BLT, releasing the charts and beginning the sales UNTIL this change is implemented.



In addition, they had no problem sending out promotional products (e-mails, flyers, etc) to encourage us to "add on before the price increase".  Why couldn't they have mentioned the reallocation?  It's not like someone came into the morning meeting and said, "Hey, let's reallocate all the points today"! 

Now, we have a price increase and some of us who purchased based on a 5 weeknight stay are going to be forced to either add on or take a 4 night stay.  

I also find it interesting that they lowered the buy in requirement at AKV to 100 points this past summer.  Now, how far can one spread those 100 points?  We planned on going 2 out of 3 years, banking and borrowing to utilize 300 points.  With our kids' spring break schedule, we could have done a standard 1BR each time and had a 15 point "buffer".  We also could have gone every other year and stayed in a 1BR savanna view or a 2BR standard.  Now, we are very limited to where we can stay in premiere season.  If we stick with the "2 out of 3" scenario, we are stuck with a value 1BR in premiere and a standard 1BR in magic season.  No more chance at a savanna view . When we grow out of a 1BR, we'll have to change to every other year and only stay in a standard.  Again, no savanna view.  Now, our only chance at a savanna view is to go once every 3 years.  (I know, we could stay in studios, but the 1BR is why we bought DVC.) Our kids are in pre-school and kindergarten so we have a lot of school ahead of us.  We are going to be confined to spring break and summer trips for the next 16 years. Apparently, we'll also be confined to standard view rooms too.

FWIW, I was aware that the reallocation could happen.  I wasn't expecting it to be a 20 point difference over 5 nights (I had a 15 point "buffer"!), but I digress.  We will have to change (lessen) our trips to Disney World, which is a shame, but we have no other option at this point. Not everyone can just add on indiscriminately to cover the point reallocation.  On top of that, we'd have to add on more points than we need because of the minimum add on requirement.  Convenient that it was just raised to 100 points for BLT, huh?  What about those people who purchased BLT with the intention of staying one week and now find themselves 2-3 points short?  Does Disney really think that people will add on 100 points to cover such a small shortage?  I'm thinking it will just result in a shorter stay.


----------



## toocherie

Doctor P said:


> Did you consult a lawyer when you purchased?  Did you call quality assurance to go over any contract provisions that were unclear?   I'm not sure how to answer such a personal attack given that no verbal statements made by a guide/salesperson have any weight (and the disclosure documents clearly state this).  Furthermore, the POS is quite clear about the reallocations that can occur.  My suspicion is that many people simply did not read the POS or call quality assurance with any questions they might have had.  Buying DVC is like buying any other real estate interest in the sense that you really need to know what you are signing.  For some people, this means hiring a lawyer who is well versed in timeshares to review the contract you are signing.  People might have deluded themselves or allowed themselves to "drink the kool aid", but no one could possibly have been mislead if they read their contract and asked quality assurance for clarifications.  Sorry, but I'm not the one drinking the kool aid here (actually, we might all need something a little stronger in this case, LOL).



Well, not to add fuel to the fire--because I don't believe the change at hand will really affect me (coming from West Coast I will likely stay 7-10 days) I will say I DID read the POS and I DID call Quality Assurance--who basically was unable to answer questions or make any changes to the contract.  Even though I believed something in the contract wasn't clear.  (I am a real estate attorney.)  Frankly, I (1) believed that Disney would not agree to ANY changes to their contract so after a few minutes of trying to explain the point just gave up, and (2) did so on the basis that Disney would "make it right" in the end if there was an issue.  (For the record, there hasn't been with respect to the issue I raised.)  So in my opinion I don't think calling Quality Assurance is helpful to really explain nuances of the contract;  I think they're mostly there to explain, "you have to sign by the palm tree and notarize by the Mickeys" (or whatever the system was) to people who aren't used to signing such documents.  

As a practical matter, what good would it have done for anyone to request a change--Disney couldn't make a change to how points are allocated anyway--because that would have thrown everyone else's contracts off.  Once that first contract was sold for that resort the program had to be locked in.  (The issue I wanted clarified would not have affected anyone else's contract--it was a clarification on Founding Member status for Grand Californian.)  And Disney is not going to spend a lawyer's time to revise a document so someone buys 100 points at one of its resorts.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

fers31 said:


> I'm going to let you in on a little secret...the "updated version" will be the same as the one posted.



That's what I've been thinking too. Not so much wrong as posted at the wrong time. Somebody in IT didn't get the memo on when to make it go live.


----------



## bethy

I bought recently and I bought to go over long weekends to DLR and the occasional 7+ days to WDW/AKV.  So this won't hurt us much.   Besides the fact that the timeshares are located at Disney the other main reason we chose DVC over other nice timeshares is because of the fact that we like the flexibility.  We do not want to do the same thing every year or even every other year.  We just wanted to guarantee our options to travel to either park often and stay in a Deluxe level resort at a decent price over time.  

For me, I guess I'm not as much a planner as many here.  The 7-11 month window is no problem but beyond that I just look forward to sitting down once per year or so and checking my point balances for both resorts and figuring out what I get to do with them _this_ time.    I'm very psyched about that!

We rented a villa at the Royal Sands in Cancun a couple of weeks ago which is an absolutely lovely resort.  We LOVED it and even talked about looking at resales.  Problem is, we just couldn't bear to commit to the same week every year or every other year.  So for now we'll just keep renting at all other places besides Disney.  DVC is about as locked in as I ever want to get and to be honest even that level of commitment makes me a tad nervous sometimes.  We really like to travel other places in the world as well and are not anywhere near close to retirement or having kids out of the house and so our available time during any given year is limited.

If I ever feel the sales spiel was misleading it will be when/if we come to a point where we are unable to visit other resorts besides our home resorts (which we adore, BTW).  That could happen by simple lack of availbility.  I also know and new before we signed that DVC could take away the ability to trade within DVC.  I'll admit though that I'm counting on getting a little variety in there in the future now and then.

All that said, I can definitely see why folks who have a different travel style or DVC goal would be very disappointed by this. Especially if they have a regular Family trip they like to take as a tradition.


----------



## TSMIII

FWIW, the new point charts hurt us in one way but help us in another - the weekly points for when we like to travel have gone up by several points but we are now able to add an additional day on to our vacations (either Friday on the front end or Saturday on the back end) for fewer points than we previously could.




Doctor P said:


> Did you consult a lawyer when you purchased?  Did you call quality assurance to go over any contract provisions that were unclear?   I'm not sure how to answer such a personal attack given that no verbal statements made by a guide/salesperson have any weight (and the disclosure documents clearly state this).  Furthermore, the POS is quite clear about the reallocations that can occur.  My suspicion is that many people simply did not read the POS or call quality assurance with any questions they might have had.  Buying DVC is like buying any other real estate interest in the sense that you really need to know what you are signing.  For some people, this means hiring a lawyer who is well versed in timeshares to review the contract you are signing.  People might have deluded themselves or allowed themselves to "drink the kool aid", but no one could possibly have been mislead if they read their contract and asked quality assurance for clarifications.  Sorry, but I'm not the one drinking the kool aid here (actually, we might all need something a little stronger in this case, LOL).



I agree completely with what Doctor P is stating above.  And also with folks like Dean, Webmaster Doc & tjkraz that this was probably to be expected at some point, in some fashion.  

I think there's almost universal agreement that it was a shock as to the timing and the botched delivery but it shouldn't have been considered as being completely out of the realm of possibility as it seems some people think it was.

That old maxim keeps ringing in my head:  Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware. 

No doubt some were told by their guide something different than what the POS states.  But if you are still unfamiliar with it, I would recommend you checkout tjkraz's most excellent site dvcnews.com and see his article on the POS language as well as read your own POS.

This most recent change, like others before and no doubt others yet to come, has understandably upset some members while at the same time pleasing others.  But regardless of what may transpire one thing is certain - CHANGE is a fickle mistress and sometimes she is with us and sometimes she is against us!


----------



## epcotwanderer

tjkraz said:


> No kool-aid here.  It just sounds like some had a better grasp on what they were buying than others.  From the POS:
> 
> 
> No ambiguity there, I'm afraid.
> 
> As for people being mislead, I would never speak in such absolutes to say that nobody was mislead.  But I also think some people may have heard what they wanted to hear.
> 
> For instance, if a customer asked whether the points changed on an annual basis, saying "no" would be an accurate answer even in light of the reallocation.  While the possibility for a reallocation exists, annual changes have never occurred.
> 
> At the end of the day we all need to take some responsibility for protecting ourselves.  That language is in the POS for a very good reason.  And to simply think "oh, Disney would never do that to me" is a pretty naive outlook, in my opinion.
> 
> The reallocation is designed to balance demand--pure and simple.  Emotional responses about how Disney is out to hurt people or suggestions that they just want to sell more points are simply that--emotional.
> 
> The system is designed to be at 98% occupancy year-round.  Weekend points were too high to reach that 98% occupancy.  Thus the charts HAD to be adjusted.  Period.  And the severity of the adjustments suggests that occupancy was horribly low on the weekends.
> 
> Gang, we just CANNOT have a system in which people expect to be able to use 98% of the points in 70% of the calendar nights.  It just doesn't work!
> 
> DVC was *wrong *for waiting so long to communicate this.  I think they *ABSOLUTELY *erred in how BLT and AKV were actively sold with no mention of the changes.  These *SHOULD *be new points for 2011 and now 2010 to give people time to plan.
> 
> But they also erred by waiting too long to reallocate.  This has been a long time coming.  And I also think that they made a mistake by (apparently) not adjusting any of the seasons.  Sorry but December 1-14 and the month of September should NOT be in the same season.  Demand for those periods is very, very different.
> 
> But I digress.  Personally this hurts me.  In our years of ownership we have used points for exactly two weekend nights.  Our points undeniably will not go as far in 2010 and beyond.  But I also knew it was a very real possibility and that it's simply something I have to deal with.



Very well said.


----------



## TK Brown

Wow. Ive been out of town for the past week and have not heard about all of this. There was no time to check the internet while I was in DC for the inauguration.

We have planned our vacations to only stay on 1 weekend night, to keep the points used down. So this will sting us a little bit.

I do remember our guide saying that the points would never go up, but i did not read (which is my own fault I understand) that they could re-allocate points for a weeks stay as they saw fit.

I dont think this is a change, with our current economy, that DVC had to make right now. They at least could have sent something out and waited until 2011. I mean this is near the end of January already and many people have made tenative plans for 2010.

This may not keeps us from going as much as we have been, but it does take some of the luster from our DVC purchase. Im just bummed.


----------



## jmtf2004

The info is back on the member site again and the 2010 charts are posted too.
"Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays and to better manage inventory of available rooms at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, primarily reducing Vacation Point requirements for most Friday and Saturday nights.

In addition to better reflecting the changes in Members' vacationing patterns, the adjusted charts make accommodations more affordable during many popular Walt Disney World® events, such as Mickey's Very Merry Christmas Party and ESPN The Weekend.

To make this change possible, Vacation Point requirements for most instances of Sunday-Thursday stays are now higher. However, a full week's stay will essentially cost the same amount of Vacation Points as before.

To view the adjusted Vacation Points charts, click on the "View Vacation Points Charts" link in the "Plan My Vacation" section of this Web site (located on the right side of the page)."


----------



## kristenrice

*oops!*


----------



## dis-happy

They're up on the website again....


----------



## toocherie

and I just got an email announcing "news" from DVC.  The point chart re-allocation is buried as the third or fourth news item.

The "banner" item is the reopening of sales at SSR because of the Treehouses.


----------



## toocherie

here'e the email:

Here are just a few of the stories waiting for you in the "News" section of your exclusive Member Web site. New stories debut weekly, so be sure to visit often for the latest scoop! The button at the bottom of this e-mail will take you to the Web site's sign-in page. Once you've logged into the site and have arrived at the homepage, simply click the "View All News" button below the box titled "Latest News."

 Treehouse development re-opens sales at Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort

As crews move full-speed ahead on the development of the Treehouse Villas at Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa, sales have officially re-opened at the largest resort in the Disney Vacation Club neighborhood. Vacation Club Guides are now taking calls from Members looking to Add On at Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort as its highly anticipated fourth phase takes shape.



Artist Rendering--Proposed 

Plus...

Disney Parks Celebrate US Military with Free Admission in 2009 
New wait-list process designed to improve Member experience 
Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points Charts 
Sanaa reservations begin Feb. 16


----------



## keishashadow

i could be wrong, but im sensing a pattern of those in favor of the point changes may just be those who hold more than the standard contract # (150-160) and have more wriggle room 

cynic in me wonders that if another change that would perhaps hit home a tad more for them personally, was implemented...say, that all owners _must stay only_ @ their home resort...how they would feel 

nothing wrong with venting or feeling let down/upset imo, we don't all have to agree with whatever decree is handed down by DVC

small comfort, yet we do all have the opportunity to walk away in one fashion or another


----------



## dzorn

pakhowe said:


> The difference is you bought into a system which you knew favored weekday stays.  For people to complain about weekend points being higher than weekday points is like buying a house next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.  Many of us were mislead at the time of purchase.  That is my beef.



 Yep


----------



## TSMIII

Interestingly enough, the point chart for VGC is not there this time!

Wonder if that one is being reworked now?!


----------



## lugnut33

I bet they are the same as before????


----------



## cinderella97

They are the same .


----------



## Inkmahm

keishashadow said:


> cynic in me wonders that if another change that would perhaps hit home a tad more for them personally, was implemented...say, that all owners _must stay only_ @ their home resort...how they would feel


Would be great with me!  I also followed the advice of "buy where you want to stay" so we own at the 3 resorts that we plan to use.  If I could never stay at any of the others (and I never have) it would be no skin off my nose.

And no, I"m not supporting such a rule change.  Just responding to the suggestion by the poster that I quoted...


----------



## tamclan

toocherie said:


> and I just got an email announcing "news" from DVC.  The point chart re-allocation is buried as the third or fourth news item.
> 
> The "banner" item is the reopening of sales at SSR because of the Treehouses.



Yup just got the email.  And there up.

Quick glance looks like they made the changes many feared.


----------



## Plutofan

Can you believe it that the points charts appear to be the same as orginally released.  I think DVC needs a new PR team...


----------



## bethy

Inkmahm said:


> Would be great with me!  I also followed the advice of "buy where you want to stay" so we own at the 3 resorts that we plan to use.  If I could never stay at any of the others (and I never have) it would be no skin off my nose.
> 
> And no, I"m not supporting such a rule change.  Just responding to the suggestion by the poster that I quoted...



I would be bummed if we could never stay at any others just for variety's sake but did buy with that possibility in mind.  I love both my resorts the most luckily.  Especially VGC.  Which is a good thing because it will be the ONLY option at DLR!     At least for a long while I suspect.

ALL DVC resorts are pretty darn nice IMO!


----------



## lugnut33

Inkmahm said:


> Would be great with me!  I also followed the advice of "buy where you want to stay" so we own at the 3 resorts that we plan to use.  If I could never stay at any of the others (and I never have) it would be no skin off my nose.
> 
> And no, I"m not supporting such a rule change.  Just responding to the suggestion by the poster that I quoted...



I  bet you like paying taxes also??  It's legal so it must be joyful!!

Is it really so hard to admit that some people (not me though) are getting screwed on this deal and have a legit reason to be upset?


----------



## dis-happy

They spent 2 days writing this:




Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts

To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays and to better manage inventory of available rooms at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, primarily reducing Vacation Point requirements for most Friday and Saturday nights.

In addition to better reflecting the changes in Members' vacationing patterns, the adjusted charts make accommodations more affordable during many popular Walt Disney World® events, such as Mickey's Very Merry Christmas Party and ESPN The Weekend.

To make this change possible, Vacation Point requirements for most instances of Sunday-Thursday stays are now higher. However, a full week's stay will essentially cost the same amount of Vacation Points as before.

To view the adjusted Vacation Points charts, click on the "View Vacation Points Charts" link in the "Plan My Vacation" section of this Web site (located on the right side of the page).


----------



## CheapMom

keishashadow said:


> i could be wrong, but im sensing a pattern of those in favor of the point changes may just be those who hold more than the standard contract # (150-160) and have more wriggle room



I don't mind the change- and I do own a bit more points than I need to fufill my vacation habits.  If I had a 150 point contract and my usage plan included using all my points with no weekends I would be disappointed- but I also would have known of the possibility.

If I could only stay at my home resort- I would be very sad about a change like that-but again- it is clearly with DVC's legal ability to implement that change- and I am aware of that.


----------



## wildernessDad

I still think it's odd that the required number points for a stay in an AKV GV went down during the week and up during the weekend, bucking the trend.  I wonder if the same is true of the other GVs.


----------



## CheapMom

dis-happy said:


> They spent 2 days writing this:



haha That is what it said 2 days ago! So far I am not seeing any differences in the "mistakenly posted" charts and the new ones.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

Here are direct links to each point chart. VGC was up ( I have a saved pdf copy), but was taken down a few minutes later.

Direct Links to the "corrected" DVC Point Charts


----------



## toocherie

keishashadow said:


> i could be wrong, but im sensing a pattern of those in favor of the point changes may just be those who hold more than the standard contract # (150-160) and have more wriggle room
> 
> cynic in me wonders that if another change that would perhaps hit home a tad more for them personally, was implemented...say, that all owners _must stay only_ @ their home resort...how they would feel
> 
> nothing wrong with venting or feeling let down/upset imo, we don't all have to agree with whatever decree is handed down by DVC
> 
> small comfort, yet we do all have the opportunity to walk away in one fashion or another



well, actually I only have a 160 point contract, so not sure that's true.  But I didn't plan my usage down to the point (in fact I rolled over/banked points this year).  and  yes, I would be upset if a "home resort" rule was implemented--but like you said one could always walk away.  In fact, now that I'm buying points at VGC there is a real possibility that I am going to "walk away" from my points in Florida anyway . . . . . . 



lugnut33 said:


> I  bet you like paying taxes also??  It's legal so it must be joyful!!
> 
> Is it really so hard to admit that some people (not me though) are getting screwed on this deal and have a legit reason to be upset?



I have no problem admitting that people are upset-=-people do not like change in general and build up expectations which when they are not met can be very upsetting.  I had built up in my mind what type of "first trip home" I expected when I went to SSR my first time and was sorely disappointed (not by the resort, by service).  And I was royally ticked off.



CheapMom said:


> I don't mind the change- and I do own a bit more points than I need to fufill my vacation habits.  If I had a 150 point contract and my usage plan included using all my points with no weekends I would be disappointed- but I also would have known of the possibility.
> 
> If I could only stay at my home resort- I would be very sad about a change like that-but again- it is clearly with DVC's legal ability to implement that change- and I am aware of that.



I would hope they wouldn't do that, but if they did I could live with it.


----------



## Inkmahm

toocherie said:


> I have no problem admitting that people are upset-=-people do not like change in general and build up expectations which when they are not met can be very upsetting.
> 
> 
> I would hope they wouldn't do that, but if they did I could live with it.


Exactly.


----------



## KLR-wlv

THat is interesting about GV at AKV - I think AK has the best point chart now. At WL - the rooms are mostly the same points as Savannah view (?) (I know that dumpster view at WL is pretty equal to giraffes) So the standard view at AK is a bargain - as well as the GV's now...probably just to get people to buy there and then they'll yank that rug in 2011! Whatever's legal must be fair.


----------



## ems_mom

I can certainly see how this reallocation of weekday/weekend points makes sense. However, I believe DVC was very misleading when marketing BLT add-ons.

My guide asked "why did you choose x number of points?" I explained that this number would allow us to stay in a 1 bedroom Sun.-Th. every 3rd year with banking and borrowing. And her response..."Wow, you really thought this out. Great! And how are you paying, etc...."

We signed the paperwork (did not finance) 1/14 and FedEx'd it to DVC on the 15th. And now we are *3 points shy *of being able to take the vacation we planned for.

Obviously DVC management knew about the new points chart even if my guide did not. And of course I would have purchased 3 more points had I known. No, I wasn't expecting a points adjustment 1 week after I purchased.

Is my dismay unreasonable? *How would you feel in my position?*


----------



## ashbradnmom

Without change the world we be a real boring place?


----------



## glennbo123

cinderella97 said:


> They are the same .



I knew they would, but over the time we were waiting I held out a sliver of hope that they wouldn't be as drastic as the "mistaken" post.  Dashed.


----------



## LoveToDisney

jmtf2004 said:


> RE: from the website. "However, a full week's stay will essentially cost the same amount of Vacation Points as before."


ESSENTIALLY = WOW, that's not essentially!!!! What a choice of words. You may be short a few points to complete your week's vacation but that "essentially" okay with them. Those few points creates PROBLEMS when you are banking and borrowing!


----------



## lugnut33

ems_mom said:


> I can certainly see how this reallocation of weekday/weekend points makes sense. However, I believe DVC was very misleading when marketing BLT add-ons.
> 
> My guide asked "why did you choose x number of points?" I explained that this number would allow us to stay in a 1 bedroom Sun.-Th. every 3rd year with banking and borrowing. And her response..."Wow, you really thought this out. Great! And how are you paying, etc...."
> 
> We signed the paperwork (did not finance) 1/14 and FedEx'd it to DVC on the 15th. And now we are *3 points shy *of being able to take the vacation we planned for.
> 
> Obviously DVC management knew about the new points chart even if my guide did not. And of course I would have purchased 3 more points had I known. No, I wasn't expecting a points adjustment 1 week after I purchased.
> 
> Is my dismay unreasonable? *How would you feel in my position?*




Yours is the worst type of screwing in this whole deal.  Brand new to DVC and wham-O, you get sucker punched.  Sorry it went down this way.  

According to some though, you didn't do your due diligence and since what DVC did was legal it's GREEEEEAAAAATTTT!!


----------



## MrsMork

We are not happy about this change.  We were told in 2002 when we bought, not once but twice, by our guide that the points would NEVER go up.  We plan our Florida vacations to maximize our points by using them Sun thru Thurs. and those points have gone up considerably.  We do not live close enough to do weekends.  I have called member services and told them we are not pleased.   We have been huge promoters of DVC, many people have told us they should be paying us.....that will stop.  I can no longer say the points will not go up.


----------



## Uncle Remus

ems_mom said:


> I can certainly see how this reallocation of weekday/weekend points makes sense. However, I believe DVC was very misleading when marketing BLT add-ons.
> 
> My guide asked "why did you choose x number of points?" I explained that this number would allow us to stay in a 1 bedroom Sun.-Th. every 3rd year with banking and borrowing. And her response..."Wow, you really thought this out. Great! And how are you paying, etc...."
> 
> We signed the paperwork (did not finance) 1/14 and FedEx'd it to DVC on the 15th. And now we are *3 points shy *of being able to take the vacation we planned for.
> 
> Obviously DVC management knew about the new points chart even if my guide did not. And of course I would have purchased 3 more points had I known. No, I wasn't expecting a points adjustment 1 week after I purchased.
> 
> Is my dismay unreasonable? *How would you feel in my position?*



That's bad, really, really bad.


----------



## mybabesuz

We just bought 180pt. AKV contract so we could stay every other year in a 2BR SV for a week Magic season... 360pts
And a SSR 2BR Sun-Thurs would be 180pts...Now 200 points !!!
We specifically asked if the points would change.  Our guide said that they might sift around the weeks or a day shift here and there,
But the points we needed would not change.
Well with the new chart that week is now 361 points instead of 360.
Leaving us short ONE point for each trip.
And now we can't even add on another 20 or 25 points!
I think I will be calling my guide to see if there is anyway we could add on that 25 points, since we feel he mislead us.
I guess we should have bought the 200 points... 
We didn't because we were hoping eventually to also buy a BWV or BCV contract resale.


----------



## Inkmahm

ems_mom said:


> I can certainly see how this reallocation of weekday/weekend points makes sense. However, I believe DVC was very misleading when marketing BLT add-ons.
> 
> My guide asked "why did you choose x number of points?" I explained that this number would allow us to stay in a 1 bedroom Sun.-Th. every 3rd year with banking and borrowing. And her response..."Wow, you really thought this out. Great! And how are you paying, etc...."
> 
> We signed the paperwork (did not finance) 1/14 and FedEx'd it to DVC on the 15th. And now we are *3 points shy *of being able to take the vacation we planned for.
> 
> Obviously DVC management knew about the new points chart even if my guide did not. And of course I would have purchased 3 more points had I known. No, I wasn't expecting a points adjustment 1 week after I purchased.
> 
> Is my dismay unreasonable? *How would you feel in my position?*


 I'd be irritated beyond belief.    Disney did NOT handle this well at all.


----------



## toocherie

Inkmahm said:


> I'd be irritated beyond belief.    Disney did NOT handle this well at all.



absolutely agree with that statement.


----------



## Cindaddy

Inkmahm said:


> I'd be irritated beyond belief.    Disney did NOT handle this well at all.


 
Huge understatement and very true.


----------



## KLR-wlv

ems_mom said:


> I can certainly see how this reallocation of weekday/weekend points makes sense. However, I believe DVC was very misleading when marketing BLT add-ons.
> 
> My guide asked "why did you choose x number of points?" I explained that this number would allow us to stay in a 1 bedroom Sun.-Th. every 3rd year with banking and borrowing. And her response..."Wow, you really thought this out. Great! And how are you paying, etc...."
> 
> We signed the paperwork (did not finance) 1/14 and FedEx'd it to DVC on the 15th. And now we are *3 points shy *of being able to take the vacation we planned for.
> 
> Obviously DVC management knew about the new points chart even if my guide did not. And of course I would have purchased 3 more points had I known. No, I wasn't expecting a points adjustment 1 week after I purchased.
> 
> Is my dismay unreasonable? *How would you feel in my position?*



You are still within your 10 day window to cancel - Call and cancel!


----------



## Starr W.

Inkmahm said:


> I'd be irritated beyond belief.    Disney did NOT handle this well at all.



Have they handled anything well in the last year? 

The change in the reservation system? No on that one.

Change from II to RCI? No on that one.

Now the new point charts? blundered that one too,

If this was a hockey game, I would throw my hat on the ice because DVC has a hat trick! 

(player scores 3 goals in a game is called a hat trick, for the non-hockey fan members out there).

Is this DVC upper mgmt?


----------



## alldiz

mybabesuz said:


> We just bought 180pt. AKV contract so we could stay every other year in a 2BR SV for a week Magic season... 360pts
> And a SSR 2BR Sun-Thurs would be 180pts...Now 200 points !!!
> We specifically asked if the points would change.  Our guide said that they might sift around the weeks or a day shift here and there,
> But the points we needed would not change.
> Well with the new chart that week is now 361 points instead of 360.
> Leaving us short ONE point for each trip.
> And now we can't even add on another 20 or 25 points!
> *I think I will be calling my guide to see if there is anyway we could add on that 25 points, since we feel he mislead us*.
> I guess we should have bought the 200 points...
> We didn't because we were hoping eventually to also buy a BWV or BCV contract resale.



this is what makes me CRAZY......here a new DVC'er feels mislead....yet they feel the need to give disney MORE MONEY 

Please....I feel for you...but it makes me crazy.
Disney knew people would not have enough points now.....and they "knew" that people would just buy more points.
Never mind demanding 1 more point.....let me buy 25 more.
Please don't take my post the wrong way....I am outraged for you....and myself.
Kerri


----------



## anna08

I also am in the group of folks with a recent BLT add-on and while I respect Disney's need to stay profitable, I despise dishonesty, and teach this to my kids, nurses and medical students everyday.  And now I can't add more points without spending $10k. Given the expense and length of time with which they publicize the minimum point increase, cost increases, etc etc with glossy postcards and calls from our guide, it is disgusting the way this  is presented last minute (aren't 11 month reservations for 2010 starting tomorrow for anyone checking in 12/24 and staying for a week?).  I will NOT promote DVC anymore, not recommend my guide who did not tell me of this 9 days ago when I purchased, and I will not buy more points. What this gets Disney is bad - I will stay fewer days and over the years that adds up to spending much less money in their parks.  Thanks for letting me rant...


----------



## LisaS

WebmasterDoc said:


> If you owned a % of a single villa, that might be true, but a "Unit 1B" is not a single villa - it is a group of villas which would include at least several different villas if not some from all types. At OKW a "unit" is an entire building (and not all buildings have GVs), but it is different at other resorts - some have even posted room groupings by "unit" for AKV. This is the reason that "The total points at the resort" cannot change, but the points may be reallocated - even to the extent of a "maximum reallocation" where every night would be the same. Again, I don't think any DVC member owns a portion of a single villa.
> 
> This is how it has been explained to me by several from DVC in conversations over the years.


AKV might be an exception here. In Jambo House there are units that consist of just one GV and nothing else. There are also several units that consist of either 3 or 4 dedicated studios and no other room type.


----------



## Uncle Remus

alldiz said:


> this is what makes me CRAZY......here a new DVC'er feels mislead....yet they feel the need to give disney MORE MONEY
> 
> Please....I feel for you...but it makes me crazy.
> Disney knew people would not have enough points now.....and they "knew" that people would just buy more points.
> Never mind demanding 1 more point.....let me buy 25 more.
> Please don't take my post the wrong way....I am outraged for you....and myself.
> Kerri



I "get" what you're sayin'.

Look at the folks who are down by 1-3 points, who the hell can even buy 1-3 extra points.   

This adjustment means I cut my two 5 day trips down to two 4 days instead, Disney loses nothing.


----------



## MrsMork

ashbradnmom said:


> Without change the world we be a real boring place?



Not necessarily.  I have been married to the same man for 41 years and it is definately not boring.  Change is not always a good thing.


----------



## MiaSRN62

*



			epcotwanderer :  I'm in Massachusetts ( I think that's over your 1,000 miles away too) so we have to fly too. You choose to travel when you would like just like we do. We fly in Fri morning and leave Monday afternoon usually, while you CHOOSE to do it differently.
		
Click to expand...

If that is how you choose to vacation, then more power to ya.   But your plan includes missing 2 school days which we cannot do.  So has nothing to do with a CHOICE on my part.  As far as the rules of my kids' school we simply CANNOT do it.  Not to mention the majority of sports my kids do or have done over the years (baseball, football, track & field ,soccer etc), all took place on the weekends.  I couldn't have them missing practices, games and meets.  Heck, my son's football coach didn't even like him missing practice if he was sick.  He wanted him there and sitting in the stands if he was sick. 
Also I'm an RN.  I am mandated to work a large majority of weekends.  Right now I work every other.....but for many years I worked 3 out of 4 weekends every month.  So how can you imply what works for you will work for others ?  I can't have my kids missing school and sports. Sorry. Yep....I simply just CHOSE to spend more points than you had to since you had the luxury of vacationing in low season.  I just enjoyed using up more points.....that's it...........personally I would have MUCH preferred to travel in low seasons which are less hot and crowded in FL and escape the winters of PA.  But, it wasn't a CHOICE and that's what you are missing here. 

It's a very cavalier attitude to simply state that I "choose" to vacation in the summer.  Uhhhh....maybe I have a very valid and unmovable reason for this ?  Oh...and yeah...I do believe MA is further than PA  (thank you)  





			PrincessDadx2 : You have been subsidized for years in Magic season to the detriment of everyone who travels in the other seasons. Assuming the change is based on actual DVC demand patterns, which seems logical, Disney had charged too few points for Magic season and Sun-Thurs. You should have paid higher points - closer to premier because Magic season has higher actual demand than Disney forecast. This has apparently become such a large subsidy that Disney needs to balance it out. This creates winners and losers, but is "fairer" in the sense that the point requirements better match when people actually want to travel on a whole. What they are saying is that you should have bought 180 points instead of 150 points based on hindsight. So you have been getting a bargain, but it will no longer continue.
		
Click to expand...

Oh ok.....nice.......but then I suppose Adventure and Choice season were subdized as well ?  Would have been nice to know this at time of purchase.  To know, that in a span of days I go from 150 to 180 points for my yearly vacation.  We asked our guide back in 2000...."how much should we buy".  Went with their recommendation so apparently she was clueless and useless in "guiding" me through the sale......I would have been fine with a smaller point jump for our vacation.  I would have no problem with having to borrow 10 points or so -----but 30 is a unmanageable/unreasonable amount for us.  I still don't get how some people can say I've been getting a bargain when I can say the same thing to people who have used much less points by traveling in low seasons when I could not.  But I never said anything like that over the years.  I accepted I had to travel in Magic season and planned accordingly.  I would have been fine with a smaller requirement of points in all honesty.   




			jmtf2004 :  Unfortunately you have been counting on the points structure remaining unchanged for the duration of your contract...as has been mentioned many times in this thread already, the allocation of points was not guaranteed to remain the same in the contract you signed when you purchased DVC. 
Here are my suggestions to add to your list: 
1) Change your length of stay - you could alternate years with shorter and longer stays, or vacation every other year by banking/borrowing
2) Top up by renting points from another member and keep your traditional plan
		
Click to expand...


Again, please, we could have swallowed a point jump of 6, 8 or 10.  But ya gotta admit, finding an extra 30 is a big deal ?  Sure I knew there could be some allocation.......this is just pretty significant and drastic.  Some keep repeating that we lamenters had to have known. Yes already....we knew. It's the drastic point difference that has me.   And of course I've already mentioned my disdain with the timing.  
I'm pretty sure we'll be the family in the parking lot of OKW you see with air mattresses under our arms because we've been relegated to a 1 bedroom......*


----------



## WebmasterDoc

LisaS said:


> AKV might be an exception here. In Jambo House there are units that consist of just one GV and nothing else. There are also several units that consist of either 3 or 4 dedicated studios and no other room type.



Then that supports the ability to change the charts without regard to room type as long as the total points at the resort are not changed, they can rearrange the points any way they choose. Owners of those units are certainly not restricted to reserve only that type of villa.

Thanks, Debbie!


----------



## wildernessDad

mybabesuz said:


> We just bought 180pt. AKV contract so we could stay every other year in a 2BR SV for a week Magic season... 360pts
> And a SSR 2BR Sun-Thurs would be 180pts...Now 200 points !!!
> We specifically asked if the points would change.  Our guide said that they might sift around the weeks or a day shift here and there,
> But the points we needed would not change.
> Well with the new chart that week is now 361 points instead of 360.
> Leaving us short ONE point for each trip.
> And now we can't even add on another 20 or 25 points!
> I think I will be calling my guide to see if there is anyway we could add on that 25 points, since we feel he mislead us.
> I guess we should have bought the 200 points...
> We didn't because we were hoping eventually to also buy a BWV or BCV contract resale.




This is the worst part of all of this imo - the fact that they raised the minimum add on points purchase just before issuing the new points charts.  It really seems underhanded even if it wasn't meant to be.  Flexibility is one of the hallmarks of this system and yet DVC is, in affect, funneling people into staying during the weekend.  Personally this change has little affect on my plans, but I can see why those who don't normally stay during the weekends are upset.


----------



## supersuperwendy

This has really thrown a wrench into my plans for 2010.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> My guide asked "why did you choose x number of points?" I explained that this number would allow us to stay in a 1 bedroom Sun.-Th. every 3rd year with banking and borrowing. And her response..."Wow, you really thought this out. Great! And how are you paying, etc...."



I feel for ya ems_mom....this is how our original contract discussion went with our guide as well back in 8/00.  We were staying at VB at the time and took 3 days (with a couple phone calls back and forth with our guide) before settling on the point amount we did.  
So we thought we had done the right thing......we knew weekend stays would not be the ideal for us, so planned around that.  Our guide knew this. She knew we had an offsite timeshare and wanted to supplement our stay in Orlando with DVC.




> the fact that they raised the minimum add on points purchase just before issuing the new points charts. It really seems underhanded even if it wasn't meant to be. Flexibility is one of the hallmarks of this system and yet DVC is, in affect, funneling people into staying during the weekend. Personally this change has little affect on my plans, but I can see why those who don't normally stay during the weekends are upset.


Exactly WD.....this is the caveat for me.


----------



## Sheribo

A 2 bedroom at VB in March has gone from 225 to 270 for a Sun-Thurs.  That's a whopping 45 points.  That's another vacation right there.

OK, so who do we write to???


----------



## lugnut33

Inkmahm said:


> I'd be irritated beyond belief.    Disney did NOT handle this well at all.




    

That's all I've been saying the whole darn time!!

And a previous poster brought up a really really good point, DVC knew this was coming months ago and said nothing.  However they were able to promote the new price increases and min. point buys for months.


----------



## KLR-wlv

I too - as a VB owner - am shocked at the increase in VB. 20% in all times I looked Sun-Thur. And that is the legal limit. So - again - I wonder if they're 'done" or should we - as many here are saying - obviously expect another hike next year? I didn't think this increase was "obvious" - I haven't been planning my vacations sun-fri, snickering all the way at how I was scamming the system - I was using the points I purchased in the point system which has been in place for 12 years. Sorry to feel a bit ripped off when my VB stays are devalued 20% when MF's certainly keep going up. (I just checked - the point difference isn't as bad as the previous poster listed - I believe a 2 br in March went up 11 points per night - so 55 points from Sun - Thurs)


----------



## Uncle Remus

Maybe we need to show Disney *our member interest* in reverting the point chart?  

member interest, my butt.


----------



## Inkmahm

Starr W. said:


> Have they handled anything well in the last year?
> 
> The change in the reservation system? No on that one.
> 
> Change from II to RCI? No on that one.
> 
> Now the new point charts? blundered that one too,
> 
> If this was a hockey game, I would throw my hat on the ice because DVC has a hat trick!
> 
> (player scores 3 goals in a game is called a hat trick, for the non-hockey fan members out there).
> 
> Is this DVC upper mgmt?


 Even though it wasn't in the last year, I'd through in the sudden limit on transfers in and out.   The limit of one in or out each year wasn't handled well a couple years ago, either.


----------



## iloveokw

Point charts are back up on the web site - look the same as before they yanked them for OKW, Vero, HH and BCV.


----------



## kristenrice

Inkmahm said:


> Even though it wasn't in the last year, I'd through in the sudden limit on transfers in and out.   The limit of one in or out each year wasn't handled well a couple years ago, either.



Yup...and I am guessing there are going to be a lot of people looking for transfers now that they are going to be short a few points for their vacations.  I wonder how many members are going to be willing to use their one transfer per year for just a few points.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

MiaSRN62 said:


> . . . To know, that in a span of days I go from 150 to 180 points for my yearly vacation.  We asked our guide back in 2000...."how much should we buy".  Went with their recommendation so apparently she was clueless and useless in "guiding" me through the sale .....[/B]



I feel your pain because I think very few of us realized that DVC would not work well in the long run for those who were not flexible with their dates, Season or unit sizes.

However, unlike some other posters who just bought their contracts, you really do have another option: sell.  If you have owned since 2000, it is likely that even in this down market you could break even on your contract after factoring in the value of all the vacations taken.

If, on the other hand, you still feel that your DVC membership provides the best vacation value for you $$$, then you will have to adjust to these changes.  Many of us are finding that we are havign to pay more to get the same thing we got in years past (say, checking luggage on an airline) and none of us like it.  Ultimately, you have decide it if you will live with it or no longer use that which has become more expensive. 

I wish you the best in whatever you decide -- Suzanne


----------



## Sammie

Question here, and honestly it has been so long since we purchased I don't remember. Is everything that is in the POS concerning the realignment of points included in the documents you sign to purchase or do you purchase then receive the complete POS after the fact.


----------



## Inkmahm

lugnut33 said:


> That's all I've been saying the whole darn time!!
> 
> And a previous poster brought up a really really good point, DVC knew this was coming months ago and said nothing.  However they were able to promote the new price increases and min. point buys for months.



It's the timing I disagree with though and the way they announced it.  NOT the actual change in the charts.


----------



## GANUT4WDW

So bummed with this news!!! Hasn't it been said that DVC is what sustained Disney after 9/11 when things weren't doing so well for the parks?
Now it seems as though they are almost expecting DVC to do the same thing during this economic crisis by creating a situation where members who have been happy with their vacations have to buy more points to continue their vacations as usual.  I truly don't see where this will change situations for S-Thurs people to entice them to add Fri and Sat to their schedules.  Not with this ecomomy.


----------



## KLR-wlv

What is an added annoyance is the haphazard point values now - some 1 brs are the same points - some weekends are more than other resorts (comparing between WL and BCV for instance) there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it. And again - the fact that AKV GV's went DOWN during the week - and VB Beach cottages went up the full 20% - it's very random and seems to negatively effect certain resorts over other.


----------



## Inkmahm

kristenrice said:


> Yup...and I am guessing there are going to be a lot of people looking for transfers now that they are going to be short a few points for their vacations.  I wonder how many members are going to be willing to use their one transfer per year for just a few points.



I think it would make Disney look a LOT better if they relaxed the transfer rule for a few years to allow people to adjust their vacations or get transfers as needed.  Those with extra points might be willing to do smaller transfers but not probably won't if they can only do one in a year.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

Not to add any further fuel to the fire, but I noticed that many of the changes for any single Use Day were the maximum allowable under the POS: 20%.  This is especially true for those Use Days with low point values such as studios at OKW. So a 9 point per night rental only went up by 1 point because 2 points would be more than 20%.  It would not shock me if we see another reallocation at some time in the future to further even out the weekday/weekend differential.  -- Suzanne


----------



## tjkraz

WebmasterDoc said:


> Then that supports the ability to change the charts without regard to room type as long as the total points at the resort are not changed, they can rearrange the points any way they choose. Owners of those units are certainly not restricted to reserve only that type of villa.
> 
> Thanks, Debbie!



I looked at AKV changes, though, and don't see any evidence of changes crossing over from one room size to another.  There were posts which implied this had happened (i.e. "ALL of the Concierge went up", "All of the Savanna View went up", "All of the one bedrooms went up.")  But when I look at the point charts, I don't see any evidence of that.  

Comparing the weekly values for each room class and size, there are only variations of 1-2-3 points per night when comparing the old weekly values to the new weekly values.  (Those variations are to be expected since they are lowering the points for 2 days and raising them for 5 in each weekly bucket.)  

I haven't looked at all of the point charts side-by-side, but I have yet to find any evidence that suggests certain room sizes were adjusted up or down at the expense of another.  

Also, this passage caught my eye in the POS where reallocation is addressed:



> ...the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing *within a given Unit *at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation.


----------



## DVC92

I believe this clearly affects the manner in which a majority of owners use their points since most stays are from Sunday-Friday (departure day). Personally, I usually go for 12 nights in a 1 bedroom, overlapping a weekend. It will definitely require more points.

I can only surmise that the change is an attempt to get members to purchase additional points if they want to continue maximizing their points for weekday use. 

One thing to remember, DVC can only reallocate the points 20% from the previous calendar year. 2011 might bring about a further reallocation to even out the daily point requirement.


----------



## tjkraz

KLR-wlv said:


> What is an added annoyance is the haphazard point values now - some 1 brs are the same points - some weekends are more than other resorts (comparing between WL and BCV for instance) there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it. And again - the fact that AKV GV's went DOWN during the week - and VB Beach cottages went up the full 20% - it's very random and seems to negatively effect certain resorts over other.



That simply suggests that the reallocation is based upon demand for each specific resort.  If a BCV One Bedroom is more points on the weekend than a BWV Preferred One Bedroom, that tells me that historical demand has been higher for the BCV room than BWV Preferred.


----------



## Disneyhappy

We are mostly Sun-Thur members and based  our original point purchase on that basis. With the change, instead of 5 nights at WDW and 2 nights at Loews Universal resort on our week long trips, it will now be 4 nights at WDW and 3 nights at Universal. As a result of this change,our family will  not be spending our money on property at least one day of our week long trips. 

Also, notice how they announced this after the closing window to add on a small amount of points? Members don't even have th option of trying to add on a few points to make their vacations work for them. What irriates me most is they think we are stupid by trying  to sell it that members were requesting this. Just be honest with me. I may not like it but at least they would have my respect.


----------



## Cindaddy

tjkraz said:


> I looked at AKV changes, though, and don't see any evidence of changes crossing over from one room size to another.  There were posts which implied this had happened (i.e. "ALL of the Concierge went up", "All of the Savanna View went up", "All of the one bedrooms went up.")  But when I look at the point charts, I don't see any evidence of that.
> 
> Comparing the weekly values for each room class and size, there are only variations of 1-2-3 points per night when comparing the old weekly values to the new weekly values.  (Those variations are to be expected since they are lowering the points for 2 days and raising them for 5 in each weekly bucket.)
> 
> I haven't looked at all of the point charts side-by-side, but I have yet to find any evidence that suggests certain room sizes were adjusted up or down at the expense of another.
> 
> Also, this passage caught my eye in the POS where reallocation is addressed:



Most of your posts seem to be based around weekly stays.  Most folks are not upset about the weekly rate (although there are some).  It's the shorter or longer stays that are most affected.


----------



## KLR-wlv

tjkraz said:


> That simply suggests that the reallocation is based upon demand for each specific resort.  If a BCV One Bedroom is more points on the weekend than a BWV Preferred One Bedroom, that tells me that historical demand has been higher for the BCV room than BWV Preferred.



I really don't think this is based on demand - VB points went up across the board in every season. ANd BLT hasn't opened yet - so who knows about that demand? And AK GV's going down during the week in all seasons? Those are sitting empty I guess. I guess that makes me happier I cancelled the BLT contract - if it's in high demand, then they'll just continue to re-allocate points and make peak times higher and higher? So if you want to stay on NYE in a studio you better plan for that to be 150 points since it'll be pretty high demand. I would really like to see the facts on occupancy rates see how these changes line up...I think this is about an across the board re-balancing of points and has nothing to do with a 1 bedroom at one resort having more demand on Saturdays in June so we'll charge 1 point more than the same accomodations at the other resort..


----------



## DisDaydreamer

Large threads overwhelm me so I have only read a handful of posts here.  That said....

At first I thought... DVC is having a hard time with so many people wanting to reserve S-T, and this would redistribute some pressure.  We always book S-T because we only have 200 points.  At first I thought this might make it easier to book a weekend, but now... I think it is a magical scheme (very well thought out) to cause the need for more points.  I am probably saying just what dozens of other have said on this thread, but it is what I am thinking now.


----------



## lugnut33

I wonder if those 25 point resale contracts will be going up in price as that's now the only way to pick up a small contract?  If a person was smart, they'd buy every single one of them they could.


----------



## ashbradnmom

MrsMork said:


> Not necessarily.  I have been married to the same man for 41 years and it is definately not boring.  Change is not always a good thing.



I did not say change was good or bad. But it is always what is good for some is bad for others.


----------



## Chuck S

Sheribo said:


> A 2 bedroom at VB in March has gone from 160 to 270 for a Sun-Thurs.  That's a whopping 110 points.  That's another vacation right there.
> 
> OK, so who do we write to???




I think you added wrong.  

2009 chart shows 45 points a night weeknights for March
2010 shows 54

45*5 nights = 225
54*5 nights=  270 
difference =  45

The weird part is ONE week in February at VB got bumped from Magic to Premier and ONE week in April bumped down from Premier to Magic...anyone know why February 21 to 28 is so special in 2010?  A local event in Vero, maybe?


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> *
> If that is how you choose to vacation, then more power to ya.   But your plan includes missing 2 school days which we cannot do.  So has nothing to do with a CHOICE on my part.  As far as the rules of my kids' school we simply CANNOT do it.  Not to mention the majority of sports my kids do or have done over the years (baseball, football, track & field ,soccer etc), all took place on the weekends.  I couldn't have them missing practices, games and meets.
> 
> ...
> 
> Also I'm an RN.  I am mandated to work a large majority of weekends.
> 
> ...
> 
> But, it wasn't a CHOICE and that's what you are missing here.
> *


*

I don't want to beat this into the ground since it's something of a tangent...and I also hate to come across as unsympathetic.  But in fairness, everything that you listed IS a "choice."  

We all CHOOSE our profession.  We choose where to live.  We choose to have kids or not have kids.  We choose to vacation in summer months or holiday periods or pull the kids out of school.  

I feel your pain--really I do.  I have kids who are into sports, girl scouts, etc.  I live 1100 miles away.  I have a relatively small number of points.  

But I still cannot view this as anything other than Disney doing what it MUST do in order to balance the inequities that have arisen in the system.  When the points were last reallocated, it was done to mirror demand patterns from the early 90s.  Since then DVC has added tens-of-thousands of new members who have all played their own part in tilting demand at the resorts.  If more people were willing to pay double points for the weekends, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.  But more and more people are gravitating toward the weekdays and the entire system just cannot support that without adjustments.  

As I said before, I think the communications have been atrocious and BLT owners (in particular) have a right to be really ticked-off.  But on this subject of reallocation, DVC would be doing us a great disservice if they did not act and/or let public relations fears keep them from acting.*


----------



## toocherie

I think the thing that would burn me up in this whole scenario is the increase in minimum add-on--I know my guide told me during my sales session that the minimum was 25 points in January 2008.  I'm sure at that time none of the guides imagined that this would change.  If I was one of those members who needed just a "few" extra points and it was 100 or nothing, I would be royally steamed.  I am not in that situation.  But I do feel your pain.


----------



## Uncle Remus

DisDaydreamer said:


> Large threads overwhelm me so I have only read a handful of posts here.  That said....
> 
> At first I thought... DVC is having a hard time with so many people wanting to reserve S-T, and this would redistribute some pressure.  We always book S-T because we only have 200 points.  At first I thought this might make it easier to book a weekend, but now... I think it is a magical scheme (very well thought out) to cause the need for more points.  *I am probably saying just what dozens of other have said on this thread, but it is what I am thinking now.*



Some of us have a few other 'choice' thoughts too.  


Good to see ya, Rob.


----------



## Uncle Remus

lugnut33 said:


> I wonder if those 25 point resale contracts will be going up in price as that's now the only way to pick up a small contract?  If a person was smart, they'd buy every single one of them they could.



I'm sure Disney will thru ROFR.


----------



## toocherie

Was there a typo in this statement?   (see below)




tjkraz said:


> I don't want to beat this into the ground since it's something of a tangent...and I also hate to come across as unsympathetic.  But in fairness, everything that you listed IS a "choice."
> 
> We all CHOOSE our profession.  We choose where to live.  We choose to have kids or not have kids.  We choose to vacation in summer months or holiday periods or pull the kids out of school.
> 
> I feel your pain--really I do.  I have kids who are into sports, girl scouts, etc.  I live 1100 miles away.  I have a relatively small number of points.
> 
> But I still cannot view this as anything other than Disney doing what it MUST do in order to balance the inequities that have arisen in the system.  When the points were last reallocated, it was done to mirror demand patterns from the early 90s.  Since then DVC has added tens-of-thousands of new members who have all played their own part in tilting demand at the resorts.  If more people were willing to pay double points for the weekends, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.  But more and more people are gravitating toward the *weekends *[don't you mean weekdays?]and the entire system just cannot support that without adjustments.
> 
> As I said before, I think the communications have been atrocious and BLT owners (in particular) have a right to be really ticked-off.  But on this subject of reallocation, DVC would be doing us a great _dis_service if they did not act and/or let public relations fears keep them from acting.


----------



## tidefan

wildernessDad said:


> This is the worst part of all of this imo - the fact that they raised the minimum add on points purchase just before issuing the new points charts.  It really seems underhanded even if it wasn't meant to be.  Flexibility is one of the hallmarks of this system and yet DVC is, in affect, funneling people into staying during the weekend.  Personally this change has little affect on my plans, but I can see why those who don't normally stay during the weekends are upset.



Actually, you can still get 25 pt add-ons at AKV and SSR (and BWV, VWL, BCV, VB, and HHI if Disney has them).  It is only BLT and GCV that have the 100 pt minimum add-on.


----------



## LauraLea

lugnut33 said:


> I wonder if those 25 point resale contracts will be going up in price as that's now the only way to pick up a small contract?  If a person was smart, they'd buy every single one of them they could.



Have I missed something???

Isn't BLT the only resort that has a minimum of 100 pts for an add on?  You can still add on 25 points everywhere else.  Right?

Laura


----------



## anna08

I had thought that Sun - Thurs points were less simply because the parks/WDW hotels have significantly less volume during the week, and this was good incentive to bring a loyal number of consumers into the parks on those days.  I really don't see in this economy and with some of the 100pt addon minimums that DVCers will add points to get their same vacation. I think they will simply stay fewer days and that is bad for Disney. Anyone agree? Don't know how to set up a poll, but would be interesting to poll if people will..
1. stay fewer nights
2. add on points
3. stay somewhere else (ie Universal..)
4. try to transfer in the points to make up the difference
5. stay the same, makes no difference
6. stay more nights, it's a benefit b/c i'm a weekender

If it confirmed fewer nights, maybe Disney would pay attention...


----------



## epcotwanderer

MiaSRN62 said:


> *
> If that is how you choose to vacation, then more power to ya.   But your plan includes missing 2 school days which we cannot do.  So has nothing to do with a CHOICE on my part.  As far as the rules of my kids' school we simply CANNOT do it.  Not to mention the majority of sports my kids do or have done over the years (baseball, football, track & field ,soccer etc), all took place on the weekends.  I couldn't have them missing practices, games and meets.  Heck, my son's football coach didn't even like him missing practice if he was sick.  He wanted him there and sitting in the stands if he was sick.
> Also I'm an RN.  I am mandated to work a large majority of weekends.  Right now I work every other.....but for many years I worked 3 out of 4 weekends every month.  So how can you imply what works for you will work for others ?  I can't have my kids missing school and sports. Sorry. Yep....I simply just CHOSE to spend more points than you had to since you had the luxury of vacationing in low season.  I just enjoyed using up more points.....that's it...........personally I would have MUCH preferred to travel in low seasons which are less hot and crowded in FL and escape the winters of PA.  But, it wasn't a CHOICE and that's what you are missing here.
> 
> It's a very cavalier attitude to simply state that I "choose" to vacation in the summer.  Uhhhh....maybe I have a very valid and unmovable reason for this ?  Oh...and yeah...I do believe MA is further than PA  (thank you)  *


*

I admit that scheduling between everything isn't always easy but we find a way to do it (with football, baseball, basketball, cheerleading and gymnastics). I am sorry you can't make this change work for you and your family. But you can always choose to sell if these changes are not inline with your families needs anymore.*


----------



## tjkraz

Cindaddy said:


> Most of your posts seem to be based around weekly stays.  Most folks are not upset about the weekly rate (although there are some).  It's the shorter or longer stays that are most affected.



I understand that.  

What I was addressing is a different issue--the question of whether DVC has increased the WEEKLY cost of a single room at the expense of another.  



KLR-wlv said:


> I really don't think this is based on demand - VB points went up across the board in every season.



Where do you see that?  

Beach Cottage Adventure Season:  429 (2009), 433 (2010)
Ocean View Inn Dream Season:  118 (2009), 118 (2010)
Two Bedroom Magic Season:  327 (2009), 325 (2010)

(Just pulled those at random.  Yes there are minor variances but that's just because there are 2 weekend nights and 5 weekday nights--you can't charge fractions of points so they had to round up or down.)



> ANd BLT hasn't opened yet - so who knows about that demand?



I suspect it was pretty easy to make guesses based upon aggregate information for the other resorts.  



> And AK GV's going down during the week in all seasons? Those are sitting empty I guess.



Probably.  They have been open for about 1 1/2 years now (70-80 weeks) so that should be enough info to draw some conclusions.


----------



## highlander

I need some clarification on VWL.  I stay a week using my 270 point contract each year.  Now I need 272?  Will DVC sell me 2 points or do I need to borrow?  This doesn't seem like a well thought out move.  Or maybe it's a way to stimulate add ons.


----------



## Goofy's apprentice

Love the Disboards !  I haven't been on for a while.  Soon as i got the DVC update email I checked it and headed right here !  I thought, "they will already be well into analysing it...

A few days ago I did some planning for 2010.  Now I re ran the numbers and it looks like the changes don't do much.  As we usually stay over a week we always have at least two weekend nights. The various options that I was running have us saving a few points on each one.  We resort switch and consequently one of the options with Vero in it has us saving around 10 points.

It may change our habits.  Sometimes we head home on the Saturday morning to avoid another high points night.  

For us, making the weeknights less of a point cost is beneficial.

As far as being informed how points could change, our guide did a good job of that and we knew that something like this was very possible.  He explained that the points stayed the same for the year overall.


----------



## KLR-wlv

tidefan said:


> Actually, you can still get 25 pt add-ons at AKV and SSR (and BWV, VWL, BCV, VB, and HHI if Disney has them).  It is only BLT and GCV that have the 100 pt minimum add-on.



I thought AKV went up to 100 pt minimum as of Jan 15? I May be wrong on that...


----------



## tjkraz

toocherie said:


> Was there a typo in this statement?   (see below)



Yup.  Thanks!


----------



## KLR-wlv

tjkraz said:


> I understand that.
> 
> What I was addressing is a different issue--the question of whether DVC has increased the WEEKLY cost of a single room at the expense of another.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you see that?
> 
> Beach Cottage Adventure Season:  429 (2009), 433 (2010)
> Ocean View Inn Dream Season:  118 (2009), 118 (2010)
> Two Bedroom Magic Season:  327 (2009), 325 (2010)
> 
> (Just pulled those at random.  Yes there are minor variances but that's just because there are 2 weekend nights and 5 weekday nights--you can't charge fractions of points so they had to round up or down.)
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it was pretty easy to make guesses based upon aggregate information for the other resorts.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably.  They have been open for about 1 1/2 years now (70-80 weeks) so that should be enough info to draw some conclusions.



20% increase Sunday thru Thursday. We all know the overall week has not changed drastically - I am talking about the weekday point changes for us freeloaders who travel those 5 days of the week...


----------



## chalee94

highlander said:


> I need some clarification on VWL.  I stay a week using my 270 point contract each year.  Now I need 272?  Will DVC sell me 2 points or do I need to borrow?



they will sell you a minimum of 25 pts.  (or you could buy a 25 pt resale.)

if you can find a DVCer who lucked into needing 2 fewer pts under the 2010 charts, maybe they'll transfer them to you.

otherwise, you need to borrow them...


----------



## chalee94

Inkmahm said:


> I think it would make Disney look a LOT better if they relaxed the transfer rule for a few years to allow people to adjust their vacations or get transfers as needed.  Those with extra points might be willing to do smaller transfers but not probably won't if they can only do one in a year.



this is a good point.


----------



## Uncle Remus

anna08 said:


> I had thought that Sun - Thurs points were less simply because the parks/WDW hotels have significantly less volume during the week, and this was good incentive to bring a loyal number of consumers into the parks on those days.  I really don't see in this economy and with some of the 100pt addon minimums that DVCers will add points to get their same vacation. I think they will simply stay fewer days and that is bad for Disney. Anyone agree? Don't know how to set up a poll, but would be interesting to poll if people will..
> 1. stay fewer nights
> 2. add on points
> 3. stay somewhere else (ie Universal..)
> 4. try to transfer in the points to make up the difference
> 5. stay the same, makes no difference
> 6. stay more nights, it's a benefit b/c i'm a weekender
> 
> If it confirmed fewer nights, maybe Disney would pay attention...



I gave it a try.


----------



## highlander

Thanks for the response.  Nothing I can do about the change, so I'll stick with being happy that I can enjoy Disney and VWL.


----------



## MiaSRN62

*



			tkraz :We all CHOOSE our profession. We choose where to live. We choose to have kids or not have kids. We choose to vacation in summer months or holiday periods or pull the kids out of school. 

I feel your pain--really I do. I have kids who are into sports, girl scouts, etc. I live 1100 miles away. I have a relatively small number of points.
		
Click to expand...


True about my profession....which I chose 10 years prior to buying DVC and planned my vacation around my work requirements 8 years ago.  I became an RN at the age of 25---before DVC even existed.  

Honestly, if you and others want to use the term "choose", then I guess you are right on the following points:  

NO, I don't "CHOOSE" to :
1)pull my kids out of school at the risk of fines, jail time, lost school work, missed sports, getting kicked off their sports teams ,etc 
2) change my profession to make it easier to get DVC vacation time in which could result in getting fired from my job. 
Nope....cannot in good conscience choose these options. 

Those above two choices would be ENTIRELY disruptive to life and job security and DVC is in NO WAY worth that.  Respectfully Tim, those options are not seen as a "choice" to me personally.   

Why is noone saying all the people who complained about the weekend points made the CHOICE to pay higher amounts and stay the weekend.  They are saying they have been "gouged" at the expense of those of us utilizing lower weekday points.  Haven't they CHOSEN all these years to book weekend stays ?   I mean what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander, no ?  

This is all being put on those of us who are finding drastic changes to our DVC Membership.   I mean I understand what you are saying Tim.  It's just not as easy as it sounds that we are making these "choices" lightly.  For me, it feels like mandation that we vacation in the summer.  For some, taking weekend trips in slow season is MUCH easier than it is for others.  But people here are assuming that everyone has the same set of circumstances.  

I would MUCH prefer the slow seasons. MUCH.  I'd save points and get an escape from the cold winter here in PA.   And probably one day down the line there will be a period where we can.  But I anticipate it going back to summer once the grandkids come too......there will be a period of time when my kids are out of school, and graduated from college, where we will be able to vacation in slow season.  

I planned.....I thought it out....with a guide at our side......thought we did the best we could at the time 8 years ago.  *


----------



## MiaSRN62

*Another thought.....

Someone suggested it might be easier for DVC in terms of housekeeping, to encourage week-long stays.  

Well that won't happen with us.  But what I could see us doing (I'm working the points in all sorts of combinations to maximize our days), is staying in 1 or 2 bedrooms on week nights.....then switching to studios for weekends.  So they will still incur the extra cleaning for me and those like me that will be doing this.   I know it won't be everyone, but DVC Membership is tens of thousands strong.  I predict many will be working different combinations that will include switching size units during a stay. I wonder if due to lower weekend points and people like me who will switch rooms to a studio on weekend nights will affect the ability to secure studios during some time periods.  Because we will have no problem switching rooms to save points---though it's not our preference during a vacation.  *


----------



## WilsonFlyer

I would like to see if I can form a "class" from BLT owners that feel that the combination of changing the points charts < 4 months after initial sales began, raising the minimum add-on amount < a week after implementing the 2010 charts and limiting that raise to only BLT and the fact that the resort will only be open for < 4 months based on the charts we were all sold with is all just a little too much to be coincidental.

I think we may collectively have a class here, if for no other purpose than to have our minimum add-on changed back to 25 like *all the other DVC resort owners have*.

Please PM me if you're interested in forming a class. If there's enough interest, I will start contacting some friends of mine and see if we have a legal foot to stand on. I've got some close friends that are lawyers that will do it just to make their legal department miserable.


----------



## Inkmahm

MiaSRN62 said:


> *
> Why is noone saying all the people who complained about the weekend points made the CHOICE to pay higher amounts and stay the weekend.  They are saying they have been "gouged" at the expense of those of us utilizing lower weekday points.  Haven't they CHOSEN all these years to book weekend stays ?   I mean what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander, no ?
> *


I DID say that I chose to vacation over the weekends and I bought points accordingly.  That doesn't mean the points required didn't gouge those of us staying on the weekend, we just accepted it.  Same as the reallocation will have to be accepted by the Sun-thurs crowd.  IMHO, the points are more fair with the weekends not being double what week days cost.


----------



## DebbieB

chalee94 said:


> they will sell you a minimum of 25 pts.  (or you could buy a 25 pt resale.)
> 
> if you can find a DVCer who lucked into needing 2 fewer pts under the 2010 charts, maybe they'll transfer them to you.
> 
> otherwise, you need to borrow them...



I'd find a member to transfer 25 or 50 points to you.    With banking, you could stretch that out several years to make up the difference.    Bank the left over current year points each year.


----------



## CheapMom

DebbieB said:


> I'd find a member to transfer 25 or 50 points to you.    With banking, you could stretch that out several years to make up the difference.    Bank the left over current year points each year.



This is a smart solution!


----------



## tjkraz

KLR-wlv said:


> 20% increase Sunday thru Thursday. We all know the overall week has not changed drastically - I am talking about the weekday point changes for us freeloaders who travel those 5 days of the week...



The overall weekly totals are exactly what I was addressing in my post.  

I understand that 99% of the weekday rates went up.  But some posts have suggested that weekly totals increased or decreased independent of the weekday/weekend rebalacing.


----------



## toocherie

DebbieB said:


> I'd find a member to transfer 25 or 50 points to you.    With banking, you could stretch that out several years to make up the difference.    Bank the left over current year points each year.



Debbie:  I was thinking the same thing.  Get a bigger transfer and then rollover unused regular points to the next year each year until you "use up" the extra.

But I still think DVC should make an exception to the 100 point add on limit for those who recently bought.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> That doesn't mean the points required didn't gouge those of us staying on the weekend, we just accepted it.



Just as I accepted that I was paying much more to stay in Magic season vs low season.....I could have saved 40 points x 8 years if we had stayed in Adventure season.  That's 320 points I got "gouged" out of ?  But I never saw it that way Inkmahm.  I knew what the point structure was when we signed the contract and planned accordingly.  If we felt we were going to be staying more weekends, we would have bought differently.


----------



## princessfionasmom

MiaSRN62 said:


> * But what I could see us doing (I'm working the points in all sorts of combinations to maximize our days), is staying in 1 or 2 bedrooms on week nights.....then switching to studios for weekends.   *



Wow that's a great idea, I didn't even think of doing that (I know, I"m a little slow on the uptake).  I wouldn't mind switching rooms for two nights and save the points.  Good thinking!


----------



## toocherie

princessfionasmom said:


> Wow that's a great idea, I didn't even think of doing that (I know, I"m a little slow on the uptake).  I wouldn't mind switching rooms for two nights and save the points.  Good thinking!



Except I would get the smaller room for the first two nights and then switch to the larger unit . . . . .


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> *
> 
> I planned.....I thought it out....with a guide at our side......thought we did the best we could at the time 8 years ago.  *



And I'm sure you did set everything up correctly 8 years ago.  The problem is that the travel habits and membership makeup of DVC has evolved dramatically over those 8 years.  That is why DVC has the reallocation provisions written into the contract.  

You can't just keep pouring more and more Sun - Thus vacationers into those finite number of weekday slots.  And I'm not just talking about new resorts--I'm talking about people who buy small add-ons from DVC or via resale at the older resorts with the intention of using points for a few weeknight stays.  

DVC members have evolved a lot over the last decade and DVC itself must adapt, too.


----------



## Starr W.

tjkraz said:


> The overall weekly totals are exactly what I was addressing in my post.
> 
> I understand that 99% of the weekday rates went up.  But some posts have suggested that weekly totals increased or decreased independent of the weekday/weekend rebalacing.



Premier season 2br at VB went up 3pts. 447 to 450. That was the first I looked at because my VB cushion isn't as big as my SSR one.


----------



## dd08

WilsonFlyer said:


> I think we may collectively have a class here, if for no other purpose than to have our minimum add-on changed back to 25 like *all the other DVC resort owners have*.



I don't know if the rest would fly, but for BLT owners, that would be your best shot, not saying that it is "legitimate" enough for a suit, but probably the only one that would have any chance at all.


----------



## ashbradnmom

MiaSRN62 said:


> *
> 
> 1)pull my kids out of school at the risk of fines, jail time, lost school work, missed sports, getting kicked off their sports teams ,etc
> 
> I would not want to live where you do if i want to pull my kids out of school
> i do not want fined or face jail time. I did not know that could happen if you took them out for a few days.*


----------



## chalee94

Inkmahm said:


> I DID say that I chose to vacation over the weekends and I bought points accordingly.  That doesn't mean the points required didn't gouge those of us staying on the weekend, we just accepted it.  Same as the reallocation will have to be accepted by the Sun-thurs crowd.



extremely illogical to say that point charts thats you signed up for were "gouging" you - you got what you agreed to.  you realized your vacation plans were going to "gouge" you and you still signed the DVC contract anyway?

DVC has a right to change the charts and probably should - and it's nice for you if that works to your benefit - but it's not at all the "same" to have the rules changed on you, as it is to get what you expected.  you could "accept it" or choose not to buy...getting rid of a contract after the fact is a little more of a hassle...


----------



## dd08

ashbradnmom said:


> MiaSRN62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 1)pull my kids out of school at the risk of fines, jail time, lost school work, missed sports, getting kicked off their sports teams ,etc
> 
> I would not want to live where you do if i want to pull my kids out of school
> i do not want fined or face jail time. I did not know that could happen if you took them out for a few days.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Yeah, I scratched my head on that one too......
> 
> Have family that lives in PA and they pull their kids to go to WDW in fact.*
Click to expand...


----------



## MiaSRN62

> And I'm sure you did set everything up correctly 8 years ago. The problem is that the travel habits and membership makeup of DVC has evolved dramatically over those 8 years. That is why DVC has the reallocation provisions written into the contract.
> 
> You can't just keep pouring more and more Sun - Thus vacationers into those finite number of weekday slots.


*You're right Tim.  Change was inevitable.  And to repeat myself, I would have been able to swallow a smaller point difference where I could borrow. I can accept change---but feel like I've been hit by a boulder here.  The 30 points is a bit much to borrow every single year.  

And to think.....my plan was to sell my offsite timeshare to buy more DVC points.  This whole thing is making my Vistana week look so much better all of a sudden.....  *



> dd08  : Have family that lives in PA and they pull their kids to go to WDW in fact.



*And if one can without major disruption or consequence....more power to them.  I think it's great that some can.  Being sincere here.  *


----------



## dd08

chalee94 said:


> extremely illogical to say that point charts thats you signed up for were "gouging" you - you got what you agreed to.  you realized your vacation plans were going to "gouge" you and you still signed the DVC contract anyway?
> 
> DVC has a right to change the charts and probably should - and it's nice for you if that works to your benefit - but it's not at all the "same" to have the rules changed on you, as it is to get what you expected.  you could "accept it" or choose not to buy...getting rid of a contract after the fact is a little more of a hassle...



So.......what you are telling her is that

"well, you knew the weekend points where higher but bought anyways so that's your fault, but the Sun-thurs people got used to this benefit of taking advantage of the misbalancing of points and therefore we have a right to complain?"  

How is that different than when it is said upfront in the POS that points can be reallocated as long as the overall total cannot increase.  We just recently bought, and we knew not to "expect" anything.......

The rules weren't changed, DVC did what they had to by the rules.....


----------



## dd08

MiaSRN62 said:


> *You're right Tim.  Change was inevitable.  And to repeat myself, I would have been able to swallow a smaller point difference where I could borrow. I can accept change---but feel like I've been hit by a boulder here.  The 30 points is a bit much to borrow every single year.
> 
> And to think.....my plan was to sell my offsite timeshare to buy more DVC points.  This whole thing is making my Vistana week look so much better all of a sudden.....  *



When I ask this I"m just trying to help, please don't flame......

What are the weekday nightly totals per the '10 charts for when you usually like to or need to travel to DVC?


----------



## Starr W.

dd08 said:


> ashbradnmom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I scratched my head on that one too......
> 
> Have family that lives in PA and they pull their kids to go to WDW in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only pull Mon-Tues of Thanksgiving week and the response from Jr. High to elementary is "Okay have a good time,  we have a lot of students out those days and just remember to fill and return the "form".
Click to expand...


----------



## anna08

thanks uncle remus for posting the poll - everybody check it out!
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2068957


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Lorelai : I did not know that could happen if you took them out for a few days.



*A friend of mine did this and got in some hot water with the school district. She was required to come in for a meeting with the truant officer and principal.  Fortunately, she got lucky and got "off" with a warning.  She is a few school districts away from me.....but many are like this here unfortunately. 

Maria*


----------



## Cmbar

tjkraz said:


> And I'm sure you did set everything up correctly 8 years ago.  The problem is that the travel habits and membership makeup of DVC has evolved dramatically over those 8 years.  That is why DVC has the reallocation provisions written into the contract.
> 
> You can't just keep pouring more and more Sun - Thus vacationers into those finite number of weekday slots.  And I'm not just talking about new resorts--I'm talking about people who buy small add-ons from DVC or via resale at the older resorts with the intention of using points for a few weeknight stays.
> 
> DVC members have evolved a lot over the last decade and DVC itself must adapt, too.



Personally I think renting points and having a means to that via the Dis Boards has changed a lot about how the reservations have changed over the last 8 years.  Now I am not complaining as I have rented and because of that ability I have decided to buy into DVC.  But I do believe there are plenty of people who own and just rent their points and therefore are calling MS often, changing plans, transfering points, etc.  I think Disney is responding to these changes by making a little tougher for the business of renting.  I also think this has impacted the availability and therefore the weekend rentals have been impacted somewhat.  Of course this is just speculation.  I don't own yet but and going through this thread trying to decide if I should be scared off.  They sure have done a lot of changes here lately.  Everytime I think they are done they do something more.  I am starting to think BLT will be one big "gotcha" in a few years, with them raising the MF's and points.


----------



## dd08

MiaSRN62 said:


> *And if one can without major disruption or consequence....more power to them.  I think it's great that some can.  Being sincere here.  *



And being sincere here....

Typically it's state laws/regulations that deem the "punishment" if any for pulling kids out of school......

You state you live in PA and that if you pulled your kids out of school you would go to jail.  I stated I have family in PA that do it without problem.....

EDIT: Oh, btw, not encouraging you to do this.    I'm sure you are a great parent, that is probably why you are so upset about the changes because you want to give your kids great vacations.    Again, peace


----------



## dd08

Cmbar said:


> I am starting to think BLT will be one big "gotcha" in a few years, with them raising the MF's and points.



You don't have to worry about them raising the overall points, (for the entire resort), they can't do that.

Now the MF's I have wondered that as well, that after a couple years the BLT fees would become more in-line with the other resorts, but somebody here did the math a few weeks ago and realized that because the rooms cost so many more points, they therefore have to sell more points for BLT, leading to a spreading of the MF over more points/members, thereby lowering the individual MF's per point.  

Therefore will probably stay lower, in the end however, the MF's aren't really lower because you would have to buy more points to stay a week at BLT than say AKV and while you are paying a little over a dollar less per point, the fact that you have to own more points makes up the difference.

Long story short, it's not that big of a difference.......


----------



## maminnie

As I read pages and pages of posts by those upset and those defending this change, I can't help but remember back when I bought my second contract.  I increased my contract by a few points rounding it so I would get a specific number of days during a specific season at my second home resort.  At no time did my sales representative encourage me to pad my purchase in case of a change.  We discussed in length why I was increasing it by a number of points in order to get that specific number of days during a specific season and he agreed.  As others have reported DVC reps seemed to concentrate more on possible holiday type reallocations between seasons.  Had he said you may want to add a few more points to cover a possible reallocation in a weeks stay in a specific season, I would have had the good sense and money to do so.  At no time was this suggested or encouraged.

Prior to our two purchases, my husband and I also spoke in great length to our rep as well as staff members in quality assurance about many issues to insure that we were making a wise and educated decision.  Neither advised us to pad our purchase.

I no longer can get the same number of days with my second contract or my first contract during the season that I travel and I too am very upset and feel I have the right to be upset.  I guess Disney/DVC thinks I'm just going to run to them for an extra 25 points at each resort.  This is not going to happen.  What is going to happen is that we are going to complete are 2009 stay and then we are going to re-evaluate.  It may be time to move on.  The sad thing is I just had a conversation with a friend a couple of days ago about DVC and the benefits.  I have since gone back to her and told her to put on the breaks and really make sure she understands the risks as well as the changes that we as members have experienced over the last years; increased dues, questionable housekeeping and resort upkeep, $95.00 fee for Disney resorts, extreme points for Disney cruises, Interval to RCI and the questions that remain, reservation policy change, wait-list change, point reallocation, etc.  I have to agree with others that I  don't know if I could strongly encourage people to purchase as in the past.  

As I just said to my husband if I had just purchased at BLT I would be furious if my stays were now going to be effected.  The place isn't even finished or occupied yet and reservations aren't even able to be made and the points chart has changed.   I really feel for these owners even more so then those of us who bought over the last years with a specific point amount and usage in mind.

Oh well just another change to adapt to or sell as those have said we all have the option to do.

I hope that when I go to Disney this year that all of my family finally says they have had enough and that will help me make the decision that I think may be the right one at this time.  Time will once again tell.

maminnie


----------



## ldo

Our kids get unexcused and get zeros for all missed work for vacations (even weddings)--and still must make-up the work.  More than 10 days (including sick) can mean child is held back a grade.  I don't know if they have ever done that for a  high-performing kid--but my neighbor was told this by asst. principal for pulling her 1/2 day K out of school the last week in May!  We had to cancel a family cruise (which was scheduled for college kids' break) b/c of elementary attendance policy.


----------



## jamstew

ashbradnmom said:


> MiaSRN62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 1)pull my kids out of school at the risk of fines, jail time, lost school work, missed sports, getting kicked off their sports teams ,etc
> 
> I would not want to live where you do if i want to pull my kids out of school
> i do not want fined or face jail time. I did not know that could happen if you took them out for a few days.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It definitely can. It depends on the policies of the local school boards. As far as I know, every public school in Texas has a set number of unexcused absences allowed before the court system kicks in. Penalties for unexcused absences (not excess ones, just normal ones) vary widely. In my kids' school (they've both been out for over 10 years), they would get a zero on any work they missed and were not allowed to make it up. This included tests. In most cases (again talking only about Texas public schools), family vacations are unexcused. We strictly vacationed in the summer or during school holidays.*
Click to expand...


----------



## La2kw

Tinkmom said:


> In the long run, I think this is a good idea, and what some people seem to miss is that it actually provides more flexibility to trips.
> 
> Instead of the high weekend points more or less forcing people to either stick to Sunday-Thursday night trips or having to move because they can't afford Saturday and Sunday, now it makes the days more balanced.   I don't have to look for airfare arriving Sunday and leaving Friday; arriving on Saturday or departing on Sunday is now a realistic option and opens me up to some better rates on airfare.
> 
> Once the dust settles, I think that most will find it is a better system.



IMO, the whole point of this is to get DVC members to buy more points.  I don't need any dust to settle to realize that, or to realize that this was a very calculated move by DVC.  I'm amazed that some people think Disney can do no wrong.   I think the new system stinks, and yes I do understand their right to do it.  There's lots of things that they have a right to do, but the DVC I purchased would have never exercised those rights.  Fifteen years ago, DVC was much different than it is now.    

We usually go for more than 7 days.  With lower Sun-Thurs points, I was able to add extra days to my 7 day ressie.  Now, I have to take one less day on that stay because I don't have enough points to add the extra weekdays that I used to.  One of the things that drew us to DVC is the fact that you didn't need to stay 7 nights.  Now DVC is moving towards that, and it is a stupid move IMO.   

That's okay, I'll just stay fewer nights, and spend the extra time and more of my money at Universal.  I no longer plan on adding on at BLT or VGC either.  I am reeling at this latest screw-over by DVC.  Add that to the new wait list procedures, the new fees for exchanges, the disgraceful housekeeping services, the glassware/coffee mug fiasco last year, the sudden replacement of II by RCI, etc.  The way all of these changes were handled show a complete disrespect by DVC for it's purchasers.  We are not owners anymore, we are just the suckers who purchase the points.

The DVC I purchased is dead.  Jim Lewis killed it.


----------



## chalee94

dd08 said:


> So.......what you are telling her is that
> 
> "well, you knew the weekend points where higher but bought anyways so that's your fault, but the Sun-thurs people got used to this benefit of taking advantage of the misbalancing of points and therefore we have a right to complain?"



do you imagine she'd complain if DVC's market data told them that there was still an imbalance on the other side and they announced they'd have to make weekends even more expensive to keep things in balance?  after she used the word "gouge" to describe the point costs that have been consistent for the prior 15 years and that she was aware of when she signed the contract, i'd find it difficult to believe that she'd just meekly "accept" it.

yes, if you sign a contract - all the while knowing that under the current rules you are going to be "gouged" - then it's your fault.  (i can't believe that i even need to type that sentence.)  

and yes, when point charts have remained unchanged for 15 years and DVC decides that the middle of a recession is a good time to make some alterations to people's travel plans, people have the right to complain. (especially on message boards - it's part of why al gore invented them shortly after he finished cobbling together the internet.)  this is true even if they've been cruelly "taking advantage" of disney for bungling the charts in 1994 and not realizing they needed changing until now.  i'd agree that they don't have any legal recourse - it's in the contract and legally binding that the charts can change even when they historically almost never do - but owners do still have the right to complain.  (OTOH, BLT owners who were shown one point chart and switched to another shortly after signing on the dotted line may have more rights than that - that kind of business practice may provide a legal recourse for at least breaking the contract and getting their purchase price back - but that's JMHO.)


----------



## La2kw

dd08 said:


> And being sincere here....
> 
> Typically it's state laws/regulations that deem the "punishment" if any for pulling kids out of school......
> 
> You state you live in PA and that if you pulled your kids out of school you would go to jail.  I stated I have family in PA that do it without problem.....
> 
> EDIT: Oh, btw, not encouraging you to do this.    I'm sure you are a great parent, that is probably why you are so upset about the changes because you want to give your kids great vacations.    Again, peace



As a teacher, I personally will not advocate pulling my students out of school.     That said, my district does offer independent study as an alternative.  With an independent study contract, our students are counted as "present" as long as the work assigned to them is returned on the day they return to school.  The contract doesn't even ask for a reason for the independent study, though most parents tell their teacher about the trip anyway.    If a child just disappears for 7 days, or has an unexcused absence for 7 days, then a truancy is involved.  For my district, that means a district attorney gets involved if it becomes a chronic problem.  Most of the time, it's due to attendance laws in the area.  Absences can be a huge problem and in California, it costs the districts money.  We get no funding each day a student is absent, even if they are sick.  Even though the school still operates and the rest of the class is still there working.


----------



## Chuck S

La2kw said:


> There's lots of things that they have a right to do, but the DVC I purchased would have never exercised those rights.  Fifteen years ago, DVC was much different than it is now.



Uhhh....you know there was a full re-allocation in 1996 at OKW, right?  Studios went from 69 pts a week in adv. season to 80.  Also there was a re-allocation to create the booking classes at BWV.  So they have excercised this right before, why would you think the DVC you purchased would not exercise those rights again?

This simply affects all resorts instead of one or two.


----------



## disneymamaof2

*And if one can without major disruption or consequence....more power to them.  I think it's great that some can.  Being sincere here.  *[/QUOTE]

I live in southwest PA and at my DD school after 3 unexcused days you are turned in and fined up to $300 and with a recurring offense face jail time. I think it depends on each school district, my neice and nephew go to a school about 30 miles from us and the rules there are different. Our school district is very particular about attendance.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> You state you live in PA and that if you pulled your kids out of school you would go to jail. I stated I have family in PA that do it without problem.....



*Oh no dd08......jail would be a chance we'd be taking down the road of course.  And didn't want to get into it, but my sil faced this with my nephew a couple years back.  So I know , first hand, they take it seriously here.   Our school district definitely starts with warnings, then fines, then excessive absences would lead to jail time.   I just didn't want to get into all the specifics.  I don't even want to get to the point of meeting with truant officers for a meeting or warning.  Saving DVC points is just not worth THAT to me.   And PA is different depending on what area of PA you're in.  Believe me......western PA can be light years away in rules and policies from southeastern PA where I live. I know my school's policies and I'm not making these things up.   So it is wonderful that you know someone in one of the hundreds of school districts in the state that has no problem.  I am truly glad for that.  But it's not just truancy either.  I already mentioned sports and activities that I simply have no "choice" in as far as taking off weekends during the school year.   Sorry to keep harping on the word "choice"   

I'm thinking, the way of vacationing taking frequent shorter weekend trips in slow season would add up with the amount of Fridays and Mondays missed at school.   This would be both disruptive (and in some cases not allowed) with both the school and sport coaches.  I shouldn't have to explain all the specifics or defend my reasons as to why I cannot travel in slow season.  Just takes to long to explain all the details.  Just please let it suffice, that between my work and kid's school and activities it is not doable.  Being a hospital-based nurse, I am required to work holidays too (and weekends and be on-call during the month)....so again....many issues for me if u can please try and understand. *


----------



## La2kw

wildernessDad said:


> This is the worst part of all of this imo - the fact that they raised the minimum add on points purchase just before issuing the new points charts.  It really seems underhanded even if it wasn't meant to be.  Flexibility is one of the hallmarks of this system and yet DVC is, in affect, funneling people into staying during the weekend.  Personally this change has little affect on my plans, but I can see why those who don't normally stay during the weekends are upset.



It is underhanded.  It is also very calculated, which is why I believe the intent is to boost sales.  Just because DVC can do it, doesn't mean they should do it.  The lack of respect towards the purchasers is what bothers me most.


----------



## La2kw

Chuck S said:


> Uhhh....you know there was a full re-allocation in 1996 at OKW, right?  Studios went from 69 pts a week in adv. season to 80.  Also there was a re-allocation to create the booking classes at BWV.  So they have excercised this right before, why would you think the DVC you purchased would not exercise those rights again?
> 
> This simply affects all resorts instead of one or two.



True, but those were not quite at the extent that this reallocation is.  I will reword it to say that the DVC I puchased would have never handled it the way this was handled.  At least that's the impression I got when I purchased.


----------



## drakethib

Maybe someone who is good at word smithing can draft up some kind of form letter that we could all enter our info (Name, member number) and email to jim lewis.

At this time there have been 26,000 views to this thread. I bet if they get 20,000 emails they would at least have to consider revisiting (well I would think they would anyway)

I think DVC just cost themselves some money as people wont be staying as long anymore.

If they wanted to "even out the playing field" I would have just as soon them make the weekend points the same as daily points, that way my family could take longer trips in lieu of a couple a times a year.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Starr W. said:


> dd08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only pull Mon-Tues of Thanksgiving week and the response from Jr. High to elementary is "Okay have a good time, we have a lot of students out those days and just remember to fill and return the "form".
> 
> 
> 
> Our county doesn't penalized absenses due to "family events"...we had a rare family disease that took at least one family member every year. Nobody ever questioned it......
Click to expand...


----------



## dd08

MiaSRN62 said:


> *Oh no dd08......jail would be a chance we'd be taking down the road of course.  And didn't want to get into it, but my sil faced this with my nephew a couple years back.  So I know , first hand, they take it seriously here.   Our school district definitely starts with warnings, then fines, then excessive absences would lead to jail time.   I just didn't want to get into all the specifics.  I don't even want to get to the point of meeting with truant officers for a meeting or warning.  Saving DVC points is just not worth THAT to me.   And PA is different depending on what area of PA you're in.  Believe me......western PA can be light years away in rules and policies from southeastern PA where I live. I know my school's policies and I'm not making these things up.   So it is wonderful that you know someone in one of the hundreds of school districts in the state that has no problem.  I am truly glad for that.  But it's not just truancy either.  I already mentioned sports and activities that I simply have no "choice" in as far as taking off weekends during the school year.   Sorry to keep harping on the word "choice"
> 
> I'm thinking, the way of vacationing taking frequent shorter weekend trips in slow season would add up with the amount of Fridays and Mondays missed at school.   This would be both disruptive (and in some cases not allowed) with both the school and sport coaches.  I shouldn't have to explain all the specifics or defend my reasons as to why I cannot travel in slow season.  Just takes to long to explain all the details.  Just please let it suffice, that between my work and kid's school and activities it is not doable.  Being a hospital-based nurse, I am required to work holidays too (and weekends and be on-call during the month)....so again....many issues for me if u can please try and understand. *




Sorry, shouldn't have spoke, hopefully you saw some of my positive comments, I was just questioning.  Because sometimes people "hear" somethign from a friend that just isn't correct.  For example this thread....there is a TON of misinformation on the thread, I wasn't trying to judge, criticize anything, just trying to let you know that what your friend told you may (or may not have been) an exaggeration.......

BTW - family = Philly and Bucks county so can't get much more Southeastern than that.   and again don't want to promote you pulling your kids from school, just was asking


----------



## anna08

well, only one poll responder said they would add on points so far....
about 44% say they will stay fewer nights or elsewhere. I don't think that's good for Disney's bottom line. They only reason they are doing this is that they are counting on lots of folks adding on. I just don't think that's realistic - look at the large volume of resales available. I don't think in this economy a lot of folks are going to add a minimum $2500 to their DVC investment. Who is making these stupid decisions for Disney?


----------



## Chuck S

La2kw said:


> True, but those were not quite at the extent that this reallocation is.  I will reword it to say that the DVC I puchased would have never handled it the way this was handled.  At least that's the impression I got when I purchased.



I agree, I think this was handled very poorly, as have been all the change announcements (glassware, etc.) the last few years.  


But the re-allocation itself really isn't a surprise to me, given the number of posters just on the DIS that were Sun-Thur DVCers.  I figured the open weekends for cash helped offset the costs for the trades to the non-DVC locations....maybe they simply had way too many rooms open on the weekends  

Also there _were_ several posts a year wanting the weekend points more in line with weekdays.


----------



## dd08

chalee94 said:


> do you imagine she'd complain if DVC's market data told them that there was still an imbalance on the other side and they announced they'd have to make weekends even more expensive to keep things in balance?  after she used the word "gouge" to describe the point costs that have been consistent for the prior 15 years and that she was aware of when she signed the contract, i'd find it difficult to believe that she'd just meekly "accept" it.
> 
> yes, if you sign a contract - all the while knowing that under the current rules you are going to be "gouged" - then it's your fault.  (i can't believe that i even need to type that sentence.)
> 
> and yes, when point charts have remained unchanged for 15 years and DVC decides that the middle of a recession is a good time to make some alterations to people's travel plans, people have the right to complain. (especially on message boards - it's part of why al gore invented them shortly after he finished cobbling together the internet.)  this is true even if they've been cruelly "taking advantage" of disney for bungling the charts in 1994 and not realizing they needed changing until now.  i'd agree that they don't have any legal recourse - it's in the contract and legally binding that the charts can change even when they historically almost never do - but owners do still have the right to complain.




so she shouldn't use the term "gouge" but you can miscorrectly state that DVC "changed the rules?"  OK.


Don't overstate my words, I didn't say SUn-THurs "Cruelly" took advantage.  But they DID take advantage of the disproportionate system.  Not saying it wasn't their right to do so, or that it was "cruel" just stating a fact.  If there wasn't an advantage in staying Sun-thurs to be had, I don't think there would be such an uproar on a 54 page and counting thread.........


----------



## ilovepooh

A 2-BR at VWL

2009 Sun.-Thurs. 200 points

2010 Sun.-Thurs. 220 points!!!!!!!

Sun.-Thurs. 40 now 44 points
Fri.-Sat.      75 to 66 points

We are 20 points short! Even if I try to build in a weekend night....it doesn't work! This is not right! I don't care if it says it in the contract. Let's be realistic here! We were all told that the only time points were rearranged was to accomodate the holidays, etc. *This is wrong on so many levels.*
I will not add-on to make-up the difference and give them more money to do this to me again! I will not recommend DVC to others any more!


----------



## ldo

WE came very close to adding on at AKV before the $ went up, but decided since we had enough points for 2009, that we would just wait until we really "needed" the add-on.  Now, I can't really justify adding on---the Sun-Thur. (our normal pattern) costs too many points for us--and staying less days (3-4) is just not worth it---for that, I might as well just stay at a moderate, if it is only for 3 days!


----------



## BeccaG

DisFlan said:


> WilsonFlyer - we'll all get over it and move on.  But that doesn't mean a few us can't vent a bit.  For some of us, the increased points needed is a bit of a kick in the head.  And it'll require a change in how we plan and vacation.  I'd say that's worth at least a small vent.
> 
> DisFlan



Well said.  Our family does not have a set vacation plan, so I am not sure how this will effect us, but I have been surprised at the "shut up and get over it" attitude many have expressed towards those who are upset.  Why can't we let people vent a bit without lecturing them on what they should have done or what they can do?  We are all adults, we will figure it out. . but sometimes you are just ticked off and want to voice it.  A message board should be a fairly safe place to do that. . but maybe that was wishful thinking on my part.  I think we should all share our opinions without berating the "winners" and "loosers" in this scenario. . .


----------



## Marshay

For anyone who received the new DVC Dream book, are the 2010 point charts the Old or New Version?

Obviously, the books had to be published a while ago ... just curious since the New point charts just went up today...


----------



## BeccaG

MiaSRN62 said:


> *
> 
> 1)pull my kids out of school at the risk of fines, jail time, lost school work, missed sports, getting kicked off their sports teams ,etc
> 
> I would not want to live where you do if i want to pull my kids out of school
> i do not want fined or face jail time. I did not know that could happen if you took them out for a few days.*


*


Yup. . , in most states it is illegal to pull your kids out of school, its just not enforced. . .do it enough and they will however. .its called a compulsory attendance law. Of course as a school teacher who is trying to make sure No Child gets Left Behind, I am some opinions on the taking kids out of school bit, but I digress. . .*


----------



## keishashadow

ashbradnmom said:


> It definitely can. It depends on the policies of the local school boards. As far as I know, every public school in Texas has a set number of unexcused absences allowed before the court system kicks in. Penalties for unexcused absences (not excess ones, just normal ones) vary widely. In my kids' school (they've both been out for over 10 years), they would get a zero on any work they missed and were not allowed to make it up. This included tests. In most cases (again talking only about Texas public schools), family vacations are unexcused. We strictly vacationed in the summer or during school holidays.


 
u r correct

Shame to see members nit-picking each other, when the issue is DVC making a major change very last minute 

Like Mia, i live in PA & know that policies vary widely from one district to the next. While all our state's districts follow the minimum requirements set by the state, each can further institute a more stringent set of rules

This year's handbook for my DSs HS contains a section addressing absenteesim (both excused & unexcused) & is pages long. There is a formal application wherein proper form is submitted prior to vacation with the details of "educational benefits" clearly spelled out. Once approved by the principal, all teachers must sign off & indicate what work will need to be completed. Then the student & parent must resign & submit; basically becoming a contract.

BTW, only 5 days per school year r suggested for family vacations, absolutely none will be approved during Aug, Sept, May or June

At least my school district's rules r clearly set forth and we know (at most) they'll only be modified once a year before the 1st term begins; unlike DVC which has been tweaking things in what i feel is in a rather capricious fashion lately


----------



## jamstew

anna08 said:


> well, only one poll responder said they would add on points so far....




That would be me  I did say that the only reason I'd add on is that I was already considering it. I still may not; I have to run some numbers.


----------



## Megsmachine

MiaSRN62 said:


> *Oh no dd08......jail would be a chance we'd be taking down the road of course.  And didn't want to get into it, but my sil faced this with my nephew a couple years back.  So I know , first hand, they take it seriously here.   Our school district definitely starts with warnings, then fines, then excessive absences would lead to jail time.   I just didn't want to get into all the specifics.  I don't even want to get to the point of meeting with truant officers for a meeting or warning.  Saving DVC points is just not worth THAT to me.   And PA is different depending on what area of PA you're in.  Believe me......western PA can be light years away in rules and policies from southeastern PA where I live. I know my school's policies and I'm not making these things up.   So it is wonderful that you know someone in one of the hundreds of school districts in the state that has no problem.  I am truly glad for that.  But it's not just truancy either.  I already mentioned sports and activities that I simply have no "choice" in as far as taking off weekends during the school year.   Sorry to keep harping on the word "choice"
> 
> I'm thinking, the way of vacationing taking frequent shorter weekend trips in slow season would add up with the amount of Fridays and Mondays missed at school.   This would be both disruptive (and in some cases not allowed) with both the school and sport coaches.  I shouldn't have to explain all the specifics or defend my reasons as to why I cannot travel in slow season.  Just takes to long to explain all the details.  Just please let it suffice, that between my work and kid's school and activities it is not doable.  Being a hospital-based nurse, I am required to work holidays too (and weekends and be on-call during the month)....so again....many issues for me if u can please try and understand. *



Homeschool, then you can go whenever you want.


----------



## hellerjw

BeccaG said:


> Well said.  Our family does not have a set vacation plan, so I am not sure how this will effect us, but I have been surprised at the "shut up and get over it" attitude many have expressed towards those who are upset.  Why can't we let people vent a bit without lecturing them on what they should have done or what they can do?  We are all adults, we will figure it out. . but sometimes you are just ticked off and want to voice it.  A message board should be a fairly safe place to do that. . but maybe that was wishful thinking on my part.  I think we should all share our opinions without berating the "winners" and "loosers" in this scenario. . .



I completely agree. Being ridiculed or berated for simply expressing your opinion (and that is all these 55+ pages really are for the most part - people's opinions) is one step away from censorship. It would be a really dull world if everyone agreed on everything. I say vent away, it's what makes these boards so interesting!


----------



## Mattsmommy

Chuck S said:


> The weird part is ONE week in February at VB got bumped from Magic to Premier and ONE week in April bumped down from Premier to Magic...anyone know why February 21 to 28 is so special in 2010?  A local event in Vero, maybe?



That's President's week. Many kids have the whole week off.


----------



## aurorafan

ldo said:


> Our kids get unexcused and get zeros for all missed work for vacations (even weddings)--and still must make-up the work.  More than 10 days (including sick) can mean child is held back a grade.  I don't know if they have ever done that for a  high-performing kid--but my neighbor was told this by asst. principal for pulling her 1/2 day K out of school the last week in May!  We had to cancel a family cruise (which was scheduled for college kids' break) b/c of elementary attendance policy.



Where in VA are you?  We're in Fairfax and we pulled our kids out of their elementary school for 8 days last school year (5 in Oct. and 3 in June) with nothing more than "have a great time!"  Some of the teachers had makeup work, some didn't.  Their grades were not affected and the absences were not unexcused.  

So I'm guessing it's by county in our state?  Because if it were a state rule they wouldn't have allowed us to do that.  I really feel for those who have such strict rules--I think we'd have to move!


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Megsmachine : Homeschool, then you can go whenever you want.



Oh....how I have often wished my job and hours would have allowed this over the years.....
 



> dd08 : Sorry, shouldn't have spoke, hopefully you saw some of my positive comments, I was just questioning. Because sometimes people "hear" somethign from a friend that just isn't correct. For example this thread....there is a TON of misinformation on the thread, I wasn't trying to judge, criticize anything, just trying to let you know that what your friend told you may (or may not have been) an exaggeration.......
> 
> BTW - family = Philly and Bucks county so can't get much more Southeastern than that.  and again don't want to promote you pulling your kids from school, just was asking



*Montgomery County here !  So we're practically neighbors.  But I've seen drastic differences from one school district to the next.  My kids used to be in Catholic school and they seemed more understanding about absences.  And no apologies needed.....there are just so many variables besides just missing school, that I don't want to clog up this thread with.  But let it suffice that aside from the fact, vacationing in slow season is not only not a choice, it's not even a remote option for us.  I have one in college and for every 3 classes they miss, they drop 1 letter grade as per almost every professor.  When you're on a partial scholarship, this is not an option.  I just couldn't get into all the details when I first posted.......but trust me on this......and no hard feelings dd08..... *


----------



## MiaSRN62

> That's President's week. Many kids have the whole week off.



*Yes !  And be afraid.....be VERY AFRAID of that week..........   *


----------



## Mattsmommy

MiaSRN62 said:


> *Yes !  And be afraid.....be VERY AFRAID of that week..........   *



I can't go on vacation when the kids are off from school. I am a rookie at my job and I can't take off that week or during the summer, but I always find a way


----------



## dd08

MiaSRN62 said:


> Oh....how I have often wished my job and hours would have allowed this over the years.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Montgomery County here !  So we're practically neighbors.  But I've seen drastic differences from one school district to the next.  My kids used to be in Catholic school and they seemed more understanding about absences.  And no apologies needed.....there are just so many variables besides just missing school, that I don't want to clog up this thread with.  But let it suffice that aside from the fact, vacationing in slow season is not only not a choice, it's not even a remote option for us.  I have one in college and for every 3 classes they miss, they drop 1 letter grade as per almost every professor.  When you're on a partial scholarship, this is not an option.  I just couldn't get into all the details when I first posted.......but trust me on this......and no hard feelings dd08..... *



OH, you don't need to justify yourself with me, and I'm sorry I came across that way, I was just trying to be helpful (and failing ) and stating my family member's "experiences." because I know sometimes stories get blown out of proportion, I was just sticking my foot in my mouth it turns out.....


----------



## Dean

WebmasterDoc said:


> Sorry to hear that Marriott is no better.


Nor worse, different expectations I guess.  Still it's interesting to see people's faith and value shaken so easily by what I'd consider minor issues that should have been anticipated as at least a possibility.  



lugnut33 said:


> So I also suppose you don't believe that in the last few days DVC sales reps were telling people and selling people contracts that had "just the right amount of points to take a vacation" during a certain time of year?  Sure, the sales rep might not have known, but somebody knew this change was coming and it looks really bad on Disney's part.


I'm sure some did but if you read my take on timeshare sales staff you'll know that you should take anything they say with a grain of salt the size of a HUMMER.  DVC's are better than most but their job is to sell.  Truthfully, it's unlikely they knew this was coming, they're usually the last to know such things and we often know them here before they do.  They may have known it was being worked on but wouldn't have known enough specifics to make any changes in their suggestions.  I wouldn't be upset with them due to timing.  IF they suggested to buy exactly the amount of points with no cushion for a smaller unit or less than a full week without a warning, I'd look for a new guide even if this had not happened because I wouldn't think they were doing a good job, period.



lugnut33 said:


> Hmmm, maybe buying a 10% cushion IS the best kept secret because I never remember hearing that during the sales pitch??


Maybe you should listen to me more and to the salespeople less.  At some point the buyer has to take responsibility to understand the product and read the literature and to remember that verbal representations are not binding.  Basically plan for the worst scenarios.



BeccaG said:


> I hear what you are saying and that is why I used the word feel before unfair.  However, for many of us there is an emotional part of us when it comes to vacationing and to Disney.  So while your point is valid and your predictions were accurate I think you need to understand that for many their decision to purchase had an emotional component.  Therefore their reaction to the "alleged point charts" will have an emotional component as well.  It seems that you are not emotionally connected to the process (which is neither a good or bad thing.)  But the bottom line, is many of us do get emotional about our vacations, which is OK too.


To be honest I know it is emotional.  However, my feeling is there is little place for emotion in these decisions or in member interpretation.  Having the main reaction to be emotional simply makes no sense just as buying a timeshare mainly on emotion is a poor choice as well though it's done every day.  Emotions cannot be the basis for judgement of such changes, the rental debate, occupancy, etc. as then there is NO standard to judge by.


----------



## DeeCee735

The Feb time slot that we like went up 11 points, and the January (like last week's trip) went up 20 points! That's alot, and if Disney's intention was to get people to vacation less, in my situation, they succeeded. I'm NOT buying more points, and now I see I'll most likely have to cut out one 3 night trip per year .

All I can say is, we bought what we wanted, we make the best use out of it. However I see Disney still trying to get more and more money out of me, and they will not. I also will not be renewing my AP, I'm going to go with a 10 day non expire, because since I'll have to cut back on nights per year there, it won't be worth it to buy an AP and the 10 day should last for three trips, but now it'll take more than a 12 month period to get those three trips in. I only like my AP if I get more then 10 nights a year out of it, and I'm pretty sure those days are now coming to an end. We'll continue to enjoy our once a year family trip, but I won't be bringing friends as often for the shorter trips, I guess I have to look at it as a good way to save some money, keeping it in my pockets instead of spending it in Disney 

Another change is that I won't be "promoting" DVC to anyone they way I have been. I had my cousin one phone call away from buying in, but I'm not pursuing that anymore, this will DEFINITELY be a big turn off to him, and I've got a co worker looking into buying a timeshare, I'm not going to mention DVC to her. She's interested in Marriot and Starwood and I'm just going to help her gather info on those without my usual DVC "push".

I'm not really complaining, but I will say I don't like this change, it's taking a couple of nights a year away from me, and I don't appreciate that much at all.


----------



## Dean

tjkraz said:


> I understand that a unit is a group of rooms.  But since units appear to often be random groupings of physical rooms, crossing those boundaries from one room size to another would appear to be exceedingly difficult.  As you said, some OKW units have Grand Villas and others do not.  It seems like it would be impossible to blend (for example) a global increase in Grand Villa point costs across all of the OKW units and still have those deeded ownership percentages be equal.
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just trying to make sense of this aspect of it.  According to the deed the number of points I own is almost an incidental figure.  It's a unit of measure to simplify our lives.
> 
> What I really (legally) own is .3284% of a physical building.  And if the points are shuffled across multiple room sizes, my 150 points would almost certainly no longer equate to the .3284%.  Ignoring the entire issue of how far points go, changing the ownership percentage seems like the equivalent of selling someone 5 acres of land and later saying "oh, well you only have 4 1/2 acres now."  I'm not grasping how that is possible.
> 
> If I owned a fixed percentage of "Saratoga Springs Resort", then it would make more sense that the points could be shuffled however they wish.  But the existence of the legal units makes this less clear.


It is my understanding that they grouped units taking this into account to allow for reallocation changes.  Still, it's got to be a lot of fun working out the details on something like this.  At least with a new resort like BLT, if you were off a points here or there there are no legal ramifications.  I think you'll find that each unit points were the same on average over a 6 year cycle but the points vary slightly every year due to where the weekends fall in relationship to the yearly calendar.  



jarestel said:


> Historically, each time an adjustment is made to the way DVC operates, posts of litigation & class action suits make their way into the discussion. I can't recall a single case where any policy change or "enhancement" was ever overturned thru legal action. There have been instances of policy reversals due to member feedback (glassware fiasco, for one).
> 
> Bottom line - I wouldn't count on the legal system to save us from the new point charts.


There have been a couple of issues that headed that direction and DVC caved.  The one that comes to mind is for those that had free tickets.  The original ruling was you couldn't borrow points into 1999 to use for free tickets.  This was changed as I understand it because a member who was a lawyer did threaten legal action.   Still I'd agree that I don't think it has any bearing on this situation and that it would be dismissed immediately by any judge as frivolous.  



MiaSRN62 said:


> *Same with me KLR-wlv.  I'd still be short 15 points instead of 30 points every year.  We would still not be able to do our 5 night stay at OKW in Magic season.  *


My recommendations have involved full weeks, I likely would have recommended a larger cushion for someone trying to time weekdays only.  Still, you'd be a lot better off with the extra 10% than without it wouldn't you.


----------



## ddhoeg

We bought 265 VB points with the idea of staying in a beach cottage during the summertime Sunday through Thursday.  That same 5 night stay with the new points chart increased 50 points to 315.  That is a 19% increase in points from 2009.  Even if we had bought a 10% cushion, it wouldnt have been enough.  To cover the additional points to keep our same stay, we would have to fork over at least another $5K, which isnt possible at this time.  To rent an additional 50 points we're looking at another $500 for the stay ($100 per night additional). 

Im peeved, especially in the way they present it like they are doing me a favor.  It's all about the spin.

Thanks for letting me vent !


----------



## Dean

jekjones1558 said:


> And I am pretty sure that NO ONE asked for weekday rates to go up either.


Sure, a lot of people did.  Everyone who wanted weekend points to go down.  



Bob Price said:


> Dean, no disrespect, I have been learning from you for months,  but I do think the timing of the notification is inappropriate.  Some people will be using these points days from now.





Bob Price said:


> BUT, this change didn't happen overnight.  They probably had some inkling they were going to do this WHILE they were setting the BLT charts. If they knew this was coming - hold off on announcing BLT, releasing the charts and beginning the sales UNTIL this change is implemented.


Bob no offense taken, we can disagree and still do beers.  The timing is unfortunate.  But assuming they simply couldn't get the change out in time to coincide with the BLT announcement and this was the earliest they could get it checked and ready then approved, what would you do in their place.  Would you wait 3-6 months to have it coincide with Easter bookings and BLT opening?  There will never be a perfect time going forward and any time a change is made is always going to be wrong for someone.  What would delaying on BLT have cost them, maybe 5-10 million dollars, who knows but you get the point.  If you were making the decisions for BLT, would you really have waited until it was almost done to announce and start selling it?  Look at the bright side, many of those buying in for BLT, HI and GCV will have the benefit of the new changes even if not everyone for BLT did.


----------



## tjkraz

Dean said:


> I'm sure some did but if you read my take on timeshare sales staff you'll know that you should take anything they say with a grain of salt the size of a HUMMER.  DVC's are better than most but their job is to sell.  Truthfully, it's unlikely they knew this was coming, they're usually the last to know such things and we often know them here before they do.  They may have known it was being worked on but wouldn't have known enough specifics to make any changes in their suggestions.



I'll go one further.  There is little doubt in my mind that we could have heard some rumblings about this if the Guides had any idea it was coming.  Someone would have...suggested...that a customer buy a few extra points or just outright spilled what was heard around the watercooler.

Forget add-ons.  If a salesperson had a chance to make larger sales in advance of this announcement, someone would have taken advantage of that knowledge.  

IMO, the guides had no idea this was coming.


----------



## westjones

DeeCee735 said:


> The Feb time slot that we like went up 11 points, and the January (like last week's trip) went up 20 points! That's alot, and if Disney's intention was to get people to vacation less, in my situation, they succeeded. I'm NOT buying more points, and now I see I'll most likely have to cut out one 3 night trip per year .



Well this will be us too.  I won't have enough points now for 2010, so we will have to skip that year and wait until 2011.  I guess we will save on airfare and all the money we would have spent at Disney while we are there.  We will just have to find something else to do over spring break.  
DJ


----------



## dzorn

Mattsmommy said:


> That's President's week. Many kids have the whole week off.



President's day is Feb 15th not the week everybody is saying is the Vero Beach week added.

Denise in MI


----------



## MiaSRN62

*Ok...dh got home from work at 8 pm and we've been mulling our situation over.  

Here's what we decided to do so that we can still stay at OKW in Magic season for 5 week nights :

OPTION 1 :
Night 1 : all 5 of us in a studio with an air mattress
Night 2 : rent an additional studio to give us 2 studios
Nights 3-5 : move to a 2 bedroom
Total cost of points = 144 (bank 6 points or use to supplement AKV stay)

OPTION 2 :
Nights 1 thru 5 : 1 bedroom with air mattresses 
Total cost of points = 130 (bank 20 points or use to supplement AKV stay)

OPTION 3 (only 4 night stay):
Nights 1 thru 4 : 2 bedroom (losing 1 night vacation every year)
Total cost of points = 144 (bank 6 points or use to supplement AKV stay)

Sure, we're not thrilled with using air mattresses, but it's the best we can figure out for now.   Thank goodness the OKW 1 bedrooms are so big !*


----------



## photobob

I am a Sun-Thurs stayer and this will definitely affect us negatively. I sent a long email to MS and I'm sure I'll get a form response. It a amazes me how they make changes like this and act like they are doing us a huge favor.

People in my situation how have smaller contracts(180 points) and never had any intentions of staying Fri-Sat nights will have to really alter our vacation planning. Either fewer trips or shorter trips or both. I'm sure there is a great number like me. I posted on another thread, that I honestly feel misled. My guide said there will occasionally be small point adjustments. This is no small adjustment this is wholesale change.


----------



## hoodedrooster

Lets see how this works.  We have 150 points.  Each year we stay at Disney World and spend $2,000 plus on food and other items.  Because of the point reallocation, I will NOT add points to stay the same number of nights (part of Disney's strategy here) but instead we will stay less nights (thus less money to WDW) or we will only travel every two years (thus less money to WDW).  So, I may actually save some money by not spending so much time at WDW and this now gives me the incentive to start spending our money at other resort destinations instead of being at Disney all of the time.  Overall, at least for this family, WDW will net less money from us the long run for this change.  Too bad.  It is an interesting, maybe risky strategy, on their part given the significant slow down at WDW this year.  I wonder if Jim Lewis was offered one of the buy-out packages.  If so, I hope he takes it.


----------



## BeccaG

Dean said:


> To be honest I know it is emotional.  However, my feeling is there is little place for emotion in these decisions or in member interpretation.  Having the main reaction to be emotional simply makes no sense just as buying a timeshare mainly on emotion is a poor choice as well though it's done every day.  Emotions cannot be the basis for judgment of such changes, the rental debate, occupancy, etc. as then there is NO standard to judge by.



 I agree with you emotion should not be the basis for making a decision, however to expect people's reactions, especially their initial one, to not be emotional is unrealistic at best and cold hearted at worse. Even though this change will probably benefit me, my initial reaction is to ask, "how do I feel about it?"  I wish I could think about things as purely logical from the get go, which you seem to be able to do, but I guess there is just not enough Spock in me!!!  That's why when I purchased DVC I took a few days to mull it over, so it wasn't an emotional decision.  Because it takes me a while to flush the emotion out of my system.  I am guessing most people are the same. But thanks Dean for your insight, maybe we  all won't be so shocked, but will still be disappointed when they implement a minimum stay.


----------



## WolfpackFan

Looking back now at the "official" points charts, this change will not effect our WDW trips as much as they will our HHI trips. For our WDW trips we were usually staying 6 nights anyway, we'll just go on and add that seventh night at the lower rate and save from having to pay cash for wherever we'd be staying for our night before lodging. But with HHI, it's really hurting us big time. We usually stay 5 nights in a 1BR the first week of June or in September. It was 110 points, now it's 125 points. That's a big difference. I guess what my thinking is now, I'll make my ressie for only 4 nights using my 11 month window and just hope I can add the 5th night using my VWL or AKV points. If not, we'll just stay 4 nights instead of 5. The thing is the Fri and Sat night points at HHI are still ridiculous. This change didn't help that situation much at all.


----------



## Dean

BeccaG said:


> I agree with you emotion should not be the basis for making a decision, however to expect people's reactions, especially their initial one, to not be emotional is unrealistic at best and cold hearted at worse.


I always expect the majority of this group to act, think and react on emotions.  There seems to be little room for anything else on anything that's not warm and fuzzy.  To a degree, that's OK, but only to a degree.  If you go back through this thread you see maybe 50 pages of emotion and 6 of substance.  It's the defending emotion as having substance that really gets me shaking my head.  As I said, this change will affect me negatively as well, probably more than most.  My usual December reservations will be approximately 70 points more than they would have been under the current chart.


----------



## Dean

hoodedrooster said:


> Lets see how this works.  We have 150 points.  Each year we stay at Disney World and spend $2,000 plus on food and other items.  Because of the point reallocation, I will NOT add points to stay the same number of nights (part of Disney's strategy here) but instead we will stay less nights (thus less money to WDW) or we will only travel every two years (thus less money to WDW).  So, I may actually save some money by not spending so much time at WDW and this now gives me the incentive to start spending our money at other resort destinations instead of being at Disney all of the time.  Overall, at least for this family, WDW will net less money from us the long run for this change.  Too bad.  It is an interesting, maybe risky strategy, on their part given the significant slow down at WDW this year.  I wonder if Jim Lewis was offered one of the buy-out packages.  If so, I hope he takes it.


To say this is a sales ploy is not understanding the situation.  It may hurt sales but this change is done by DVC, the management company, not DVD, the development company.  They are separate in large part.  There will be consequences but there always are with any change.  While you may not add on, someone else likely will.  And someone will stay in those rooms, actually a higher number of total people if the occupancy balance is better throughout the entire year.


----------



## BroganMc

So it's official now?

Ok then I'm officially PO'd. Has anyone else checked what they did to the SSR charts?

The total cost per week has gone UP in several seasons and unit sizes (from studio to 2bedroom). The only one to see a consistent lowering of points have been the already overpriced Grand Villas.

Adventure Season
Studio - +1
1bedroom: -6
2bedroom: -1
GV: no change

Choice
Studio: +8
1bedroom: -2
2bedroom: -4
GV: -4

Dream
Studio: same
1bedroom: -1
2bedroom: +1
GV: -4

Magic
Studio: -2
1bedroom: +4
2bedroom: +2
GV: -4

Premier
Studio: -2
1bedroom: +4
2bedroom: +1
GV: -32


I thought the point was to rebalance the weekly totals to make weekends more affordable not entire weeks unaffordable? What happens to those who purchased exactly enough points to vacation every Spring or Summer for a week in a 2bedroom? They are now 2 points short every year.

I'm just not seeing how DVC will get out of this unscathed. At best it's a huge PR fiasco; at worst I can see a class action suit in the works. This has caused a value loss for a lot of ownership interests. 

As to how it affects me, I figure I've lost about $1000 worth of ownership on my SSR contract. Before this change, I could manage a week in a studio for 4 of the 5 seasons and be 3 points under. Now I am 6 points short. That's a 9 point difference per year. To adjust either I can stay less, pay a cash night, or do a 25 pt add-on (which will cost me another $2500). The last thing I want to do is give DVC more of my money.


----------



## hoodedrooster

Dean said:


> To say this is a sales ploy is not understanding the situation.  It may hurt sales but this change is done by DVC, the management company, not DVD, the development company.  They are separate in large part.  There will be consequences but there always are with any change.  While you may not add on, someone else likely will.  And someone will stay in those rooms, actually a higher number of total people if the occupancy balance is better throughout the entire year.



Dean: Yes, I know DVC and DVD are legally different but they are still Disney and do work together.  As far as increasing the prices and points (Sun - thurs), your statement that "someone else likely will" is what real estate agents were saying just a year ot two ago about real estate in Florida and other states until the bubble burst.  Anyway, no argument from me that overal Disney will be fine with this after this dies down and people that know nothing about the change and price decide to buy.  I have no problem with Disney doing this I was just saying we will be spending less time and money at WDW due to the change.  Cheers.


----------



## lisareniff

Chuck S said:


> The weird part is ONE week in February at VB got bumped from Magic to Premier and ONE week in April bumped down from Premier to Magic...anyone know why February 21 to 28 is so special in 2010?  A local event in Vero, maybe?



From what I have gathered, they determine Premier Season to be the 7 weeks preceding Easter and the week following Easter.  Sometimes this includes President's Week, like last year, depending on the date of Easter.

I am also one of those Sun-Thurs VB BC optimizers.  The reallocated the max amount on Presidents Week, 20%.  It _was_ a very very good deal, 300 points for the 5 nights in a BC!  Its a bummer for me but I understand many of the weekends were going unreserved or reserved for cash.  Those weekend nights were twice as high at 150pts and the demand needed to be leveled out.  It needed to be done but they once again showed total disrespect with how they treat the members with it's implementation.

...and I'm sad about the increase for my well crafted vacation plans.


----------



## Inkmahm

chalee94 said:


> extremely illogical to say that point charts thats you signed up for were "gouging" you - you got what you agreed to.  you realized your vacation plans were going to "gouge" you and you still signed the DVC contract anyway?
> 
> DVC has a right to change the charts and probably should - and it's nice for you if that works to your benefit - but it's not at all the "same" to have the rules changed on you, as it is to get what you expected.  you could "accept it" or choose not to buy...getting rid of a contract after the fact is a little more of a hassle...


  Gouging in comparison to weekdays and yes, I did.  I've said that over and over.  I also accepted that the points could change in the future because I actually read the paperwork that I signed when I bought DVC.  I'm happy for the changes announced today.


----------



## Inkmahm

dd08 said:


> So.......what you are telling her is that
> 
> "well, you knew the weekend points where higher but bought anyways so that's your fault, but the Sun-thurs people got used to this benefit of taking advantage of the misbalancing of points and therefore we have a right to complain?"
> 
> How is that different than when it is said upfront in the POS that points can be reallocated as long as the overall total cannot increase.  We just recently bought, and we knew not to "expect" anything.......
> 
> The rules weren't changed, DVC did what they had to by the rules.....



Exactly. The rules were not changed at all.


----------



## DisneyDreams21

The changes in the past year have irked me some, but the new chart will actually do two things for me directly: eliminate a trip or two each year and prevent me from offering my previously enthusiastic reviews when I talk to potential members.  

I truly feel bad for those who purchased for a specific # of points and are hindered by the changes in major ways.  I knew they could change the points charts and I crossed all my t's and dotted my i's when I purchased, but emotions aside, I will simply be going less.  Include the emotion part and I will be looking at other vacation options to replace some of those extra Disney trips. The warm and fuzzy feelings just took a hit.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> I thought the point was to rebalance the weekly totals to make weekends more affordable not entire weeks unaffordable?


I assume their point was to even out demand and therefore utilization over the entire year.  Given the requirement to keep the points the same for the entire resort for the whole year and that it's impossible to predict exactly, I'm sure this is the "best guess" based on a plethora of historical data for DVC and WDW in general.  Be careful because the other approach they can take is to change around the seasons by moving say early Dec to a higher season and lowering something else.  I'm a little surprised they didn't this time, shucks, maybe next year.



> I'm just not seeing how DVC will get out of this unscathed. At best it's a huge PR fiasco; at worst I can see a class action suit in the works. This has caused a value loss for a lot of ownership interests.


I doubt any of these things, the worst they're going to get is likely some that are ticked because what they use went up, very unlikely to be even a mild PR issue in the big scheme of things.  If you see it on national news, let me know.  Any lawyer who looks at this will drop it like a hot potato simply because it's clearly written in the rules that not only can they, but they have the responsibility to do so if demand is out of balance.  You can bet DVC can easily produce documentation to justify both the need and method.  The only issue one can quibble with is the timing which may speak to the quality of the current middle and upper management (taken with other recent issues) but not the legal rights or responsibilities.  You can also bet that more than one person has already been raked over the coals for this getting out just after BLT sales were started.


----------



## Dean

hoodedrooster said:


> Dean: Yes, I know DVC and DVD are legally different but they are still Disney and do work together.


I guess that's the rub.  Technically they are different and I think they work together less than you think which may be why I see this differently than most.  Have a great weekend.


----------



## lisareniff

Dean said:


> Maybe you should listen to me more and to the salespeople less. ....



  I have found listening to you and other knowledgeable posters to be one of my best sources of understanding.   The guides?   I wish I had a better tolerance for reading legalese.

Thanks for your years of help.


----------



## BeccaG

Dean said:


> It's the defending emotion as having substance that really gets me shaking my head.  As I said, this change will affect me negatively as well, probably more than most.  My usual December reservations will be approximately 70 points more than they would have been under the current chart.



And that I can 100% agree with, and I am sorry your plans are getting "messed" with too!


----------



## arielfan

It's says on the DVD with Casey that your points will never change for as long as you own!!!  So how can they change the points???


----------



## lugnut33

Dean said:


> I'm sure some did but if you read my take on timeshare sales staff you'll know that you should take anything they say with a grain of salt the size of a HUMMER.  DVC's are better than most but their job is to sell.  Truthfully, it's unlikely they knew this was coming, they're usually the last to know such things and we often know them here before they do.  They may have known it was being worked on but wouldn't have known enough specifics to make any changes in their suggestions.  I wouldn't be upset with them due to timing.  IF they suggested to buy exactly the amount of points with no cushion for a smaller unit or less than a full week without a warning, I'd look for a new guide even if this had not happened because I wouldn't think they were doing a good job, period.
> 
> Maybe you should listen to me more and to the salespeople less.  At some point the buyer has to take responsibility to understand the product and read the literature and to remember that verbal representations are not binding.  Basically plan for the worst scenarios.



And if you had read better you'd note that I said "even if the sales staff didn't know, somebody surely did".  That somebody would be higher-ups, or do you think they decided to do this in a day?   I also think people here are mad with those higher-ups, not so much the sales staff because they realize that they are clueless.  

And maybe at some point DVC/Disney needs to take some responsibility also?  Why change the point system so close to the booking window opening?  Why allow low point sales to go on at BLT/AKV?  Why change the min. add on just before his comes down?  Why bungle the announcement?  

I honestly believe that had they announced this back in the fall of 08 with the implementation date of 2010 and given the real reasons for it (to get people to stay longer and more evenly utilize the total points), then I think it would have been better received.  People could have adjusted to it better.  It would be like the IRS coming out right now saying, "OK, we've decided to increase everyone's tax by 10%".  Of course it's legal, but not right and it would p.o. a bunch of people.


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> Be careful because the other approach they can take is to change around the seasons by moving say early Dec to a higher season and lowering something else.  I'm a little surprised they didn't this time, shucks, maybe next year.



The very reason early December was so popular with members was the lower point costs. Pushing it to a higher season negates that incentive and then you have the effect of fewer members seeing it as time worthy to go. Demand drops and moves to another time of year.

So then what do we get? Another changed point chart, until demand rolls to a different structure and another changed chart. Eventually it becomes the timeshare of the rolling requirements.



> I doubt any of these things, the worst they're going to get is likely some that are ticked because what they use went up, very unlikely to be even a mild PR issue in the big scheme of things.  If you see it on national news, let me know.



You know as well as I that timeshares (or sales of any kind) exist on the person-to-person recommendations. That's the PR I'm talking about. How likely do you think people are to recommend DVC over say Marriott with this change? In my case, I know if I recommend someone buy a weekly ownership at Marriott during the summer season, they will be getting that week for the life of the contract. But if I can no longer say that about DVC. Any weekly summer ownership has now just gone up in point price and therefore ownerships purchased before decreased in value. In other words, a week is still a week at Marriott but a week at DVC is now 6 days.

Look closely at those charts again. I'm finding it hard to see how it all balances out to the same allocation. SSR shows increases that far outweigh any point drops throughout the year.



> You can also bet that more than one person has already been raked over the coals for this getting out just after BLT sales were started.



What?! BLT sales have been going for months. The problem is that these charts have been released TOO LATE for any new buyers to adjust. Bookings for Jan 1, 2010 begin Monday. They absolutely had to release these charts now. And they've done so one week AFTER changing the minimum point add-on for BLT from 25 to 100. If they desired to be fair and honest with members, they would have released these charts well before the Jan 15 deadline. They've been sitting on this information because they know it would adversely affect some members and then forced them into spending more for add-ons. It's a cheesy flam-flam operation.

Dean I know you know alot about timeshares in general but I think you're missing the extent to how this affects individual members. Demand was definitely higher in the periods adjusted but the way it was addressed has significantly devalued ownership for a lot of people. And those are the ones who will hurt DVC's PR the most. Whether it appears in the national media is immaterial. Whether DVC sales in the next quarter veer sharply and we see more resales and less friendshare sales, that's the judge.


----------



## AUTigerFan

BroganMc said:


> The very reason early December was so popular with members was the lower point costs. Pushing it to a higher season negates that incentive and then you have the effect of fewer members seeing it as time worthy to go. Demand drops and moves to another time of year.
> 
> So then what do we get? Another changed point chart, until demand rolls to a different structure and another changed chart. Eventually it becomes the timeshare of the rolling requirements.
> \Quote]
> 
> I think that DVC needs to get the point charts right to optimize occupancy, especially as the number of members increase.  However, the stability of the system is important as well.  Just like the stock market craves stability and hates uncertainty (I admit this is oversimplified), DVC needs a stable points chart to sell to new members.  If DVC gets into the position where they have to adjust more often, I believe customers won't be as willing to buy.  When I bought, I knew that there was the possibility of reallocation, but I never dreamed it would be this drastic.  I feel there are a lot of people with me on that as well.  I will adjust to this change, and will continue to vacation at Disney.  But if every few years the charts change, I will probably get fed up and sell.


----------



## Inkmahm

dd08 said:


> so she shouldn't use the term "gouge" but you can miscorrectly state that DVC "changed the rules?"  OK.
> 
> 
> Don't overstate my words, I didn't say SUn-THurs "Cruelly" took advantage.  But they DID take advantage of the disproportionate system.  Not saying it wasn't their right to do so, or that it was "cruel" just stating a fact.  If there wasn't an advantage in staying Sun-thurs to be had, I don't think there would be such an uproar on a 54 page and counting thread.........



Thank you.


----------



## ashbradnmom

MiaSRN62 said:


> Oh....how I have often wished my job and hours would have allowed this over the years.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Montgomery County here !  So we're practically neighbors.  But I've seen drastic differences from one school district to the next.  My kids used to be in Catholic school and they seemed more understanding about absences.  And no apologies needed.....there are just so many variables besides just missing school, that I don't want to clog up this thread with.  But let it suffice that aside from the fact, vacationing in slow season is not only not a choice, it's not even a remote option for us.  I have one in college and for every 3 classes they miss, they drop 1 letter grade as per almost every professor.  When you're on a partial scholarship, this is not an option.  I just couldn't get into all the details when I first posted.......but trust me on this......and no hard feelings dd08..... *




I meant no disrespect by any of what i posted. I just think that if you want to pull your kids out for a couple of days you should be able to. If teachers can get subs when they miss a day(and alot of them do quite often where i live) then they should get punished as well. If they miss a certain amount of days then they should loose pay or something along that line but that is not how it works whrere i live. 

And again i mean no disrespect to anyone we are all Disney lovers that is why we bought in the first place


----------



## jamstew

ashbradnmom said:


> I meant no disrespect by any of what i posted. I just think that if you want to pull your kids out for a couple of days you should be able to.



And you can do that if you live in a district that has liberal absentee policies. If one wants the right to pull their kids out of school for whatever reason, they should investigate the district's attendance policies. If being able to take off during the school year is an important consideration, I suppose they can choose to live somewhere else.

We chose the school district where my kids went to school because it was the best in the area and had the lowest school taxes. It would never have occurred to me to make that choice based on whether or not I could pull them out of school for a vacation. Public schools (at least in Texas) are controlled by local school boards, members of which are elected by residents of that district. Those Boards must follow State and Federal guidelines and may adopt more stringent policies of their own. If you don't like the school's local policies, go to a school board meeting and present an alternative. I've done it quite a few times


----------



## Megsmachine

ashbradnmom said:


> I meant no disrespect by any of what i posted. I just think that if you want to pull your kids out for a couple of days you should be able to.* If teachers can get subs when they miss a day(and alot of them do quite often where i live) then they should get punished as well.* If they miss a certain amount of days then they should loose pay or something along that line but that is not how it works whrere i live.
> 
> And again i mean no disrespect to anyone we are all Disney lovers that is why we bought in the first place



The bolded portion makes no sense whatsoever. Apples and oranges.


----------



## princessvacg

Deb & Bill said:


> How much longer until we see this message:
> 
> In order to make vacation reservations easier for our members, DVC will be changing to 7 day vacations only.  Booking will begin on Saturday and extend to the following Saturday.  On the four day of your stay, you will have your towels refreshed, trash emptied and toiletries renewed.  We feel this will make planning and scheduling your vacations much easier.  These changes will allow housekeeping to schedule all full cleaning on Saturdays once guests have checked out and prior to newly scheduled arrivals.  In addition to making this easier for our members, we expect to have some cost savings from the changes in housekeeping.
> 
> To assist with scheduling your vacations, MS will be open longer hours on Thursday and Fridays.  However, they will be closed Monday through Wednesday.



Is this for real?????


----------



## kikiq

Dean said:


> Maybe you should listen to me more and to the salespeople less.  At some point the buyer has to take responsibility to understand the product and read the literature and to remember that verbal representations are not binding.  Basically plan for the worst scenarios.



Actually, I found DIS the week after I first saw the presentation and initially I thought your posts were so "hard nosed"  BUT then realized there was a reason we didn't ever want a timeshare, and just because this was Disney was no reason to change our mind.  Rereading your posts, your advice was solid and not based on the emotion of "owning a bit of the magic".   Because of you and several other DIS folks, we didn't take the "bait" when offered additional incentives, but went on our "expensive" WDW vacation at the Poly (when we could have had a "free" DVC vacation on DP).  We had a list going back to our guide and she was very patient with us explaining the points and reworking the points we needed.  We did finally buy enough points planning for different scenarios, not just one.  Thank you for the straight forward answers and time share information you share with us.


----------



## MAGICFOR2

bookwormde said:


> Yea I am beginning to feel like I bought into Wyndham Fairfield not DVC. Makes me wonder what is coming, can’t imagine this is going to help resale prices, Uncertainty always hurts a market
> 
> bookwormde



I was thinking the same thing - wasn't time share given a bad name in the 80's because of people feeling like they'd been duped?  I really thought Disney was different.  I feel so sorry for the AKV people who haven't even got to use their resort before the points changed.  Since when did "virtually" mean "really?"

I am just reading about this tonight!  I'm not sure how it will affect our future plans yet, but it would have kept us away from our March 2009 trip - we are staying Sun-Thurs to use some "reservation points", then moving off-site.  We only came because of the exact number of points we had to use, and the weekday rates were attractive.  Were it costing 10 more points, we would have used them at DL or maybe one of the West Coast RCI properties. 

I think DVC is shooting themselves in the foot, because people like us with smaller contracts will choose shorter visits or fewer visits -that means less money spent in the parks -  great move during a recession!


----------



## BroganMc

AUTigerFan said:


> I think that DVC needs to get the point charts right to optimize occupancy, especially as the number of members increase.  However, the stability of the system is important as well.  Just like the stock market craves stability and hates uncertainty (I admit this is oversimplified), DVC needs a stable points chart to sell to new members.  If DVC gets into the position where they have to adjust more often, I believe customers won't be as willing to buy.  When I bought, I knew that there was the possibility of reallocation, but I never dreamed it would be this drastic.  I feel there are a lot of people with me on that as well.  I will adjust to this change, and will continue to vacation at Disney.  But if every few years the charts change, I will probably get fed up and sell.



Which is exactly what I would expect. That's why I'm coming down so harshly on DVC right now. This change was far too drastic and unreasonable. It's one thing if they had merely rebalanced the weekly points to keep the same totals per week and season. Instead they monkeyed with everything and changed the totals per week.

This after over a decade of selling based on a certain expectation of season and point schedules. I've watched many a sales presentation at DVC and I can bet you the sales guides are in a tizzy right now. They frequently advised buyers to study the charts and figure out when they'd like to go and what size unit when deciding how many points to purchase.

Reallocation of points was possible but not expected to be carried out to this level. It's gonna leave a sour taste in a lot of mouths and not have the expected effect DVC upper management thinks (selling more add-on contracts). Instead, I expect we'll see a flood of resales hit the market as people lose faith in the system and head for greener pastures.

After all, you can always rent points at a considerable savings.


----------



## JPS439

eyeheartgoofy said:


> Ha!  Don't you know that any complaints about DVC will warrant at least one lecture?
> 
> *Was your room not cleaned properly, or did you have a broken piece of equipment in your room?*  Your fault for not personally making camp in the lobby for 3 hours waiting for a manager to come and fix the problem.
> 
> *Were you disappointed in your room location?*  Your fault.  Every member understands that requests are just requests ... no disappointment allowed.
> 
> *Did you have a question about DVC financing?* Fool.  Everyone knows if you don't pay cash for DVC, then you can't afford it and need to go back to the HoJo.
> 
> *Did a family member back out of a DVC vacation and your stuck with points in holding? * Your fault.  Everyone knows you don't invite family or friends to use your DVC points.
> 
> *And, of course now, ... not enough points to book the same stay you have been booking for the past 5 years?  Just close on a contract that is a few points shy of meeting your needs?*  Your fault b/c you should have purchased a point cushion.
> 
> *Can't get into your home resort 9 months out?*  Your fault.  Everyone knows you have to book at 9:00am exactly 11 months out.
> 
> *Hurricane put a damper on your plans at DVC?*  Your fault.  Everyone knows you don't book during hurricane season, or hurricane shoulder seasons.



Took 2 days, but I just finished all 58 pages of this thread. The best post was on page 16!


----------



## maburke

ashbradnmom said:


> If teachers can get subs when they miss a day(and alot of them do quite often where i live) then they should get punished as well. If they miss a certain amount of days then they should loose pay or something along that line but that is not how it works whrere i live.


I bet it does.  Teachers have a limited number of sick days.  When I was a teacher on a school-year contract (not paid in the summers), I was not allowed to take vacation days at all, only sick days, and they were limited in number before I would lose pay.  (Sorry so  )

I did want to say that I don't for a moment believe that DVC did this in some way to encourage add-ons.  They did it to balance out occupancy, which we really do need.  When too many people are avoiding weekends, we are not going to be able to get into the weekdays that we want.  That I think is also why we needed to make reservations further and further ahead of time.  However, even if the total number of points remain the same, if they are evened out, it means that there are fewer ways to do a low-point stay, which I think devalues the membership.  And for people who settled into a specific, well-planned pattern, this is distressing, especially coming so late (2 days before relevant reservations can start).  And there is NO excuse for it coming 4 months after BLT sales started under the old-style chart, and one week after the minimum add-on went up there.

Maria, I feel for you!  Give up on this thread and come back to the VB chair thread, where we love you and will give you much sympathy and gratitude!


----------



## bookwormde

I suspect that with the changes and uncertainty and the poor way the announcements have been handled that DVC has seriously decimated their “free” sales force (the existing members). I know that I have gone from wholeheartedly recommending DVC to cautiously recommending it to the point where I would just say nothing and now to the point where under current management I would actually discourage people from purchasing. I guess I deluded myself that DVC was actually being run by competent people with the interests of the members as a priority unlike other time-shares, silly me.

bookwormde


----------



## drakethib

So what is the best way to contact DVC and let them know of the dissatisfaction?

Does anyone have an email address to do so?

Has anyone done so yet?


----------



## maminnie

Without adequate notice of the point reallocation, DVC did not give their members the courtesy of allowing them to make educated decisions regarding their 2009 and 2010 points.  Many have budgeted/allocated points for particular planned vacations during 2009 and 2010, banked, borrowed etc. based on the old charts. For some it may be too late to make necessary adjustments.  How many would not have planned a certain trip or length of trip in 2009 if they knew they needed a few more points in 2010?  How many would not have borrowed from 2010 if they knew more were going to be needed for their yearly trip to Disney?  And of course how many who purchased recently at BLT or AKV would have purchased a few more points???

There is nothing emotional about this rather it is simply a fact and IMHO a very poor decision on DVC's part to release the reallocation at such a late date thereby likely effecting many of its members negatively.

maminnie


----------



## CheapMom

arielfan said:


> It's says on the DVD with Casey that your points will never change for as long as you own!!!  So how can they change the points???



What is the direct quote on that? I would be very surprised if it is worded that plainly.


----------



## lisareniff

bookwormde said:


> I suspect that with the changes and uncertainty and the poor way the announcements have been handled that DVC has seriously decimated their free sales force (the existing members). I know that I have gone from wholeheartedly recommending DVC to cautiously recommending it to the point where I would just say nothing and now to the point where under current management I would actually discourage people from purchasing. I guess I deluded myself that DVC was actually being run by competent people with the interests of the members as a priority unlike other time-shares, silly me.



I think your sediment may be common amongst many here.  Before we purchased in Early 2003 there was nothing but praise and harmony toward DVC from posters here.  That influenced our purchase to buy.  The DISboards did have it's disgruntled members but it was more between members about which long hallways and an occasional dirty room.  I'm not sure if I was to read the DISboards today if I would have purchased.

Although one of our planned trips just went up 20% (60pts) I only have issue with the implementation to the change and treatment of the members as Maminnie stated.



			
				Maminnie said:
			
		

> Without adequate notice of the point reallocation, DVC did not give their members the courtesy of allowing them to make educated decisions regarding their 2009 and 2010 points. Many have budgeted/allocated points for particular planned vacations during 2009 and 2010, banked, borrowed etc. based on the old charts. For some it may be too late to make necessary adjustments. How many would not have planned a certain trip or length of trip in 2009 if they knew they needed a few more points in 2010? How many would not have borrowed from 2010 if they knew more were going to be needed for their yearly trip to Disney? And of course how many who purchased recently at BLT or AKV would have purchased a few more points???


----------



## rutgers1

On the whole, my guess is that the DVC execs are patting themselves on the backs for a big coup. Yes, it sounds all nice and cheery that they balanced out the points and made weekends more affordable, but you have to realize that people ARE going to be vacationing less...which I think is just fine with them. Here's why - You are either going to:
1) fork over more money for an add-on
2) spend less days in their rooms

I think they actually want you to cut down your stays. Why? The less nights you stay, the more inventory they have to sell through CRO. The less moving around you do (to avoid weekend rates), they less they have to spend on mousekeeping. 

Some people have mentioned that the points change was a stupid move by the DVC execs since they won't be getting our food and park ticket money. However, what you are forgetting is that the DVC execs could care less about your food and park ticket expenditures. As anyone who read Disney War knows, the various divisions of Disney (parks, DVC, movies, etc.) rarely communicate and all operate to make their own execs look good. So, if you spend less on park tickets, that is another guy's concern - not the DVC execs' concern. All DVC wants to do is sell more DVC and maximize the profits they get from those who have already purchased, and if they feel that changing the point totals can help them in any regard, they are going to do it regardless of what the current members think.


----------



## disneybride96

I am not happy with the week day points change. That being said, I understand the weekends not being full and the points adjustment being made.

However, I do believe that DVC created it's own monster in that regards. How many of you were Sun-Thurs travelers prior to buying DVC? I wasn't, but I sure enough changed when I bought in so that I could visit more often.

It makes sense that if *most* travelers stayed the weekends, you would have overlapping vacations thus full weekends. I suspect that the weekend points were high originally to avoid this situation. Unfortunately DVCers were smarter than they anticipated and avoided the weekends and high points, thus the low occupancy on weekends.

There are soooooo many things wrong with how this was announced, and so many individuals were misled and have really had their plans screwed up. I too almost purchased "just enough" BLT points, but luckly had my DH talk me into 100. (Those 'just enough' BLT folks should get their money back!) 

DVC created their own monster. (Sun-Thurs travelers) and unfortunately they are now the ones taking the biggest hit on this points change. DVC can't be suprised that so many people are upset. They created the problem.


----------



## BroganMc

rutgers1 said:


> On the whole, my guess is that the DVC execs are patting themselves on the backs for a big coup. Yes, it sounds all nice and cheery that they balanced out the points and made weekends more affordable, but you have to realize that people ARE going to be vacationing less...which I think is just fine with them. Here's why - You are either going to:
> 1) fork over more money for an add-on
> 2) spend less days in their rooms
> 
> I think they actually want you to cut down your stays. Why? The less nights you stay, the more inventory they have to sell through CRO. The less moving around you do (to avoid weekend rates), they less they have to spend on mousekeeping.
> 
> Some people have mentioned that the points change was a stupid move by the DVC execs since they won't be getting our food and park ticket money. However, what you are forgetting is that the DVC execs could care less about your food and park ticket expenditures. As anyone who read Disney War knows, the various divisions of Disney (parks, DVC, movies, etc.) rarely communicate and all operate to make their own execs look good. So, if you spend less on park tickets, that is another guy's concern - not the DVC execs' concern. All DVC wants to do is sell more DVC and maximize the profits they get from those who have already purchased, and if they feel that changing the point totals can help them in any regard, they are going to do it regardless of what the current members think.



First of all, CRO doesn't get the rooms to rent unless DVC owners trade out on cruises, exchanges or to other CRO rooms. Making you stay less does not help them in this regard.

Second, shorter stays from members means more room turnover not less. More turnover, more cleaning. That member who stayed 12 days saved Mousekeeping a full cleaning.

Third, I highly doubt there will be enough add-ons to make it a worthwhile move for DVC execs. The sample of members here are showing an overwhelming majority who are obstinately refusing to add-on. DVC execs killed an incentive they had by bungling the news, apologizing and promising a fix then publishing the UNfixed charts anyway, and doing all of it after raising the sale prices and minimum add-ons. This done just days before members have to book 2010.

So while they may be chuckling over their coup, I suspect they'll be crying for a golden parachute 6 months from now when it blows up in their faces.


----------



## Chuck S

I think it will be interesting over the next year to see if, overall, this helps or hinders the resale market for 25 to 50 point contracts.  I think it may increase demand at first from existing members who need a few more points for their normal established vacation habits, but will decrease demand from people that were buying small contracts just to get the AP discount and other perks, and staying only a night or two.  It will also be interesting to see the effect on the overall point rental market, as those Sun-Thurs stays won;t be as attractive to renters if they are paying 20% to 30% more for the same stay.  In a way, it is DVCs success and the smaller contract owners that contributed to the need for reallocation.  Remember the original bu in was 230, not 150 points.  And as I suggested a year or so ago, those smaller buy in contracts could have the same negative impact on Sun to Thur bookings that the locals theoretically would have had if the weekend points had been low when DVC started.  This may also have somewhat led to the 7 day forward booking policy.


----------



## KLR-wlv

Well - It certainly makes them have to remake all those sales videos "With 175 points, you can stay 5 nights in magic season, plus two nights at a concierge collection hotel." Anyone saying that the sales people TOTALLY haven't been selling us on the maximization of lower point contracts by staying weeknights is deaf. Yes - my guide - when I bought (15%) more points at VB for a BC every other year - certainly recommended I use those points to stay one Saturday night, as opposed to 5 weeknights. ANd again - where are occupancy charts with reall factual numbers? I stayed a saturday night in OCtober at VB - booked last minute - and there was only one inn room left - and that's hurricane season. I really don't think those rooms are sitting empty on a regular basis. Perhaps they are anticipating that with the economy and that is why they changed - perhaps this is to entice more locals to buy. I have never had difficulty getting a reservation at DVC - so again - not sure about all these members who can't get any rooms. Perhaps locals who want a last minute trip have difficulty - but if you plan 5-10 months out - there has never been an issue in my 7 years as a member.


----------



## Dean

lugnut33 said:


> And if you had read better you'd note that I said "even if the sales staff didn't know, somebody surely did".  That somebody would be higher-ups, or do you think they decided to do this in a day?   I also think people here are mad with those higher-ups, not so much the sales staff because they realize that they are clueless.
> 
> And maybe at some point DVC/Disney needs to take some responsibility also?  Why change the point system so close to the booking window opening?  Why allow low point sales to go on at BLT/AKV?  Why change the min. add on just before his comes down?  Why bungle the announcement?
> 
> I honestly believe that had they announced this back in the fall of 08 with the implementation date of 2010 and given the real reasons for it (to get people to stay longer and more evenly utilize the total points), then I think it would have been better received.  People could have adjusted to it better.  It would be like the IRS coming out right now saying, "OK, we've decided to increase everyone's tax by 10%".  Of course it's legal, but not right and it would p.o. a bunch of people.


LOL, there is always going to be a break point that is somewhat arbitrary.  From a company standpoint they cannot and will not call the sales staff and say something like "be careful in this areas because we're going to make changes".  The guides don't find out most things until we do or after, often after.  The reason is if you tell them, or any similar group of employees, some will pass it along and then it becomes a much bigger mess with rumors posted places like here and then people start calling and emailing MS about the rumor of whatever the topic is.  The guides are not clueless overall, it's just poor business to let such issues trickle down to such levels where it'll likely leak out.  Think if your favorite restaurant closes and you show up for dinner with a reservation only to find they closed that day with a sign on the door for employees to call X number to get their final paycheck.  I've seen this happen many time over the years though I don't agree with the approach, it's still the best one from a business standpoint.  

To go a step further, this might be considered a trade secret for DVD/DVC and anyone who did let the cat out of the bag would likely have been putting their job on the line.  You get no argument that the timing was somewhat poor, that it should have been out by or before the BLT chart was available, but it simply didn't happen so DVC and the members must go forward.  Ask yourself one question, would most of the people posting saying they are upset, not be upset if DVC had done it that way.  I would bet you that every single person who has posted on this thread as being upset isn't mad because of the timing, they're mad because of the change itself.  The timing just rubs salt in the wound.  With the two AKV fiasco's, this, the wait list changes and the reservation lead time changes; one has to ask themselves whether the current (and possibly future) DVC is right for them.  The truth is they should have asked that question up front and assumed worst case scenarios.  IMO these are minor issues that should not rock the foundation of one's DVC ownership and they are things where such changes and issues should be anticipated.  Not that every specific change can be anticipated but that one should expect changes, and screw-ups, and know that most of them will not be favorable to everyone.  I think people have held DVC to too high of a standard over the years and that some of these issues are simply bringing them back closer to earth.  YMMV.


----------



## KLR-wlv

Dean - I have enjoyed your insight over the years - but with all due respect - I don't know how we should all just should have expected what we purchased to go to ****. When we have experienced one thing for the 7 or 15 years of owning a product. I guess I should purchase a house, expecting there to be a sinkhole under it, or radon in the basement, or the tree next door to surely fall on it at some point. I suppose that way of viewing all purchases would keep me from any disappointment. DVC has upheld a way of vacationing - which was sold to me - and which I have enjoyed as I understood it initially - for 8 years. WIth this drastic change - yes I believe changing weeknights the full 20% they are allowed under the contract is drastic - just as many would believe the full increase in maintenance fees allowed under law would be. What if that were the situation - what is the MF limit - 15% in one year? What would you say if - for the past 15 years DVC MF's have gone up the normal couple % points - and next year - they jump to the full % under law? I guess that should be expected too - and we should all purchase with the assumption that in 5 years, MF's will be double. I just don't trust this product anymore so I will not invest further thousands of dollars. Is that an emotionall decision? Sure - but it's a financial one for me and DVC as well.


----------



## dzorn

maminnie said:


> Without adequate notice of the point reallocation, DVC did not give their members the courtesy of allowing them to make educated decisions regarding their 2009 and 2010 points.  Many have budgeted/allocated points for particular planned vacations during 2009 and 2010, banked, borrowed etc. based on the old charts. For some it may be too late to make necessary adjustments.  How many would not have planned a certain trip or length of trip in 2009 if they knew they needed a few more points in 2010?  How many would not have borrowed from 2010 if they knew more were going to be needed for their yearly trip to Disney?  And of course how many who purchased recently at BLT or AKV would have purchased a few more points???
> 
> There is nothing emotional about this rather it is simply a fact and IMHO a very poor decision on DVC's part to release the reallocation at such a late date thereby likely effecting many of its members negatively.
> 
> maminnie



Yep For these reasons I will not promote DVC. Heck they better hope it's not to crowded when we go look at the BLT model's in a few weeks because I will not to quietly mention How I think they ******* the people that purchased BLT early. 

Would I feel this way if BLT was handled appropriate way. Or is members were given reasonable notice. Nope. I can handle if they need to adjust for occupancy issues but it should be before the points for the use year are able to be used. Which would have been last January because that's when people we able to borrow their 2010 points. 

Denise in MI


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Dean said:


> LOL, there is always going to be a break point that is somewhat arbitrary. From a company standpoint they cannot and will not call the sales staff and say something like "be careful in this areas because we're going to make changes". The guides don't find out most things until we do or after, often after. The reason is if you tell them, or any similar group of employees, some will pass it along and then it becomes a much bigger mess with rumors posted places like here and then people start calling and emailing MS about the rumor of whatever the topic is. The guides are not clueless overall, it's just poor business to let such issues trickle down to such levels where it'll likely leak out. Think if your favorite restaurant closes and you show up for dinner with a reservation only to find they closed that day with a sign on the door for employees to call X number to get their final paycheck. I've seen this happen many time over the years though I don't agree with the approach, it's still the best one from a business standpoint.
> 
> To go a step further, this might be considered a trade secret for DVD/DVC and anyone who did let the cat out of the bag would likely have been putting their job on the line. You get no argument that the timing was somewhat poor, that it should have been out by or before the BLT chart was available, but it simply didn't happen so DVC and the members must go forward. Ask yourself one question, would most of the people posting saying they are upset, not be upset if DVC had done it that way. I would bet you that every single person who has posted on this thread as being upset isn't mad because of the timing, they're mad because of the change itself. The timing just rubs salt in the wound. With the two AKV fiasco's, this, the wait list changes and the reservation lead time changes; one has to ask themselves whether the current (and possibly future) DVC is right for them. The truth is they should have asked that question up front and assumed worst case scenarios. IMO these are minor issues that should not rock the foundation of one's DVC ownership and they are things where such changes and issues should be anticipated. Not that every specific change can be anticipated but that one should expect changes, and screw-ups, and know that most of them will not be favorable to everyone. I think people have held DVC to too high of a standard over the years and that some of these issues are simply bringing them back closer to earth. YMMV.


Hey Dean! Seems like the emotional posters are running to other timeshares (Marriot, Wyndham, etc) as a way to "do" something to offset the changes in DVC now. I have been slowly learning about the other timeshares, and it seems everyone has some type of risk, disadvantage, trading power issues. Each as a specific strategy that must be used to maximize that particular timeshare. I don't think others should be so quick to jump into these other timeshares. There is ALOT TO LEARN about them. I'm not so sure they are the solution to the unhappiness some are experiencing with DVC right now.


----------



## Chuck S

Friendly Reminder


Using *** to block out only part of a word that is in the board word filter, and leaving the word(s) recognizable, is considered a filter violation and subject to 30 infraction points.  I realize this reallocation is an issue that negatively impacts a lot of members, but please remember the DIS Posting Guidelines and that these are family friendly boards.

Thanks.


----------



## KLR-wlv

But - regardless of the other timeshares issues - you get a 2 bedroom for 7 days - usually with no expiration - and on ebay for the $16000 I was going to buy 145 blt points with - I could buy 2 very good marriott or Hyatt weeks. not emotional - very much financial and practical - 14 days of vacationing, as opposed to 2.5 nights per year (that is until the next reallocation). Not emotional at all...


----------



## BWV Dreamin

KLR-wlv said:


> But - regardless of the other timeshares issues - you get a 2 bedroom for 7 days - usually with no expiration - and on ebay for the $16000 I was going to buy 145 blt points with - I could buy 2 very good marriott or Hyatt weeks. not emotional - very much financial and practical - 14 days of vacationing, as opposed to 2.5 nights per year (that is until the next reallocation). Not emotional at all...


I guess the question then is why didn't you purchase them in the first place?


----------



## dzorn

Dean said:


> Ask yourself one question, would most of the people posting saying they are upset, not be upset if DVC had done it that way.  I would bet you that every single person who has posted on this thread as being upset isn't mad because of the timing, they're mad because of the change itself.



No Dean I can understand if they need to even out occupancy, but the timing is what is upsetting to me. 2010 the points were available for use for January 2009 reservations started. I have a current trip planned for Feb 2009. I would have done this reservation differently to have enough points for my Feb 2010 trip. IF they would have even announced this 6 months ago I would not now be short for my 2010 trip. Heck if they would have announced this even 1 day before my 30 trip window I cold have cut days off that trip and banked them to have enough for 2010. 

Denise in MI


----------



## dzorn

Chuck S said:


> Friendly Reminder
> 
> 
> Using *** to block out only part of a word that is in the board word filter, and leaving the word(s) recognizable, is considered a filter violation and subject to 30 infraction points.  I realize this reallocation is an issue that negatively impacts a lot of members, but please remember the DIS Posting Guidelines and that these are family friendly boards.
> 
> Thanks.



OOPs sorry.


----------



## maminnie

Dean:

I believe many of us would have been much less upset had we been given the opportunity to make educated decisions about our 2009/2010 usage.  My vacation plans WOULD HAVE been different for 2009 had I known about the reallocation.  I also would not have borrowed into 2010 so that one of my contracts would have been better positioned to be sold.  This may have been part of DVC's strategy as well in introducing the reallocation so late.

maminnie


----------



## KLR-wlv

BWV Dreamin said:


> I guess the question then is why didn't you purchase them in the first place?



Because I have been very happy with my DVC purchase until now. But after spending $20000 for a 5 night vacation that is now 4 - it makes me reevaluate the entire thing. I'm glad you enjoy your membership. We've been members since 2001 and have sang praises of dvc until now. Now that we are a family of 5 - I want to spend a nice week with my family -and I can't do that with DVC unless I buy more than 400 points for the year to stay the week I need to travel. - because DVC is a week timeshare now. I think that is the only way to prevent from being affected by further reallocation. So Do I like DVC $32000 more than Hyatt or Marriott? I'm thinking NO right about now.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> The very reason early December was so popular with members was the lower point costs. Pushing it to a higher season negates that incentive and then you have the effect of fewer members seeing it as time worthy to go. Demand drops and moves to another time of year.
> 
> So then what do we get? Another changed point chart, until demand rolls to a different structure and another changed chart. Eventually it becomes the timeshare of the rolling requirements.


Exactly, the purpose of such changes is to change demand.  I'm not sure I agree that early Dec is more popular than anticipated simply due to costs but it is a factor.  DVC has had 2 reallocations in 16 years, 3 if  you count the change in the points formula from OKW to other resorts.  Touting it as expecting a reallocation yearly or similar would be a little melodramatic don't you think.  As I've said, DVC has the responsibility and requirement to even out usage by reallocation if it gets too far out.  My guess is you could expect at most one more reallocation before 2042 but it you see another it's likely to involve changing early Dec, which will also hurt me.  DVC could have used the minimum stay option to affect at least part of the problem.  Could you imagine the length of this thread now if they had made the change where you could only do 3 days, 4 day or combine the 2 into full week reservations but nothing else.  This would be legal under the rules and legal structure.



> You know as well as I that timeshares (or sales of any kind) exist on the person-to-person recommendations. That's the PR I'm talking about. How likely do you think people are to recommend DVC over say Marriott with this change? In my case, I know if I recommend someone buy a weekly ownership at Marriott during the summer season, they will be getting that week for the life of the contract. But if I can no longer say that about DVC. Any weekly summer ownership has now just gone up in point price and therefore ownerships purchased before decreased in value. In other words, a week is still a week at Marriott but a week at DVC is now 6 days.


To a degree, but not as much as you think.  While DVC is a LITTLE different, most people don't buy a timeshare retail based on recommendations per se from other owners.  Resale is a necessary evil from the company's standpoint and doesn't come into play.  We'll run this thread and a couple of smaller ones and this will settle down even here.  I don't believe for a second that there were hundreds of people here that thought DVC was great before and horrible now and will all of a sudden stop recommending it.  They MAY add a few words of caution over some of the recent issues but those are cautions that SHOULD have been in the mix anyway.  I've often wondered, and sometimes posted, how the membership would feel about some of the ways other companies do things like Marriott's priority for multiple week owners or Bluegreen and Wyndhams (and others) priority for those who own more points that are developer qualified.  My answer to myself is that those that think of DVC as a timeshare that is different and they "wouldn't own a timeshare" would not be able to handle the real world out there.



> Look closely at those charts again. I'm finding it hard to see how it all balances out to the same allocation. SSR shows increases that far outweigh any point drops throughout the year.


Without the spreadsheets DVC has and a weekend (or 2 weeks to generate my own), It looks to me like they basically shifted points from GV much of the year to choice studios and a couple of points here and there otherwise looking at full weeks.  The rest is just shifting a few points to weekdays from weekends.  There really are two different issues at work here.  One is rebalancing demand from weekdays to weekend, the other is to allow rebalancing of seasonal demand.  This make me wonder why they didn't change early Dec or IF the demand for that time is as great as we think it is, esp  given that it was common to get those weeks in II.  The one problem they could get in trouble with, using SSR as an example, is if the units sizes are too small and esp if the GV are units unto themselves since the GV went down significantly for the year.  IF that were the case they either they are in violation of the legalities OR they committed points Disney owns to make up the difference.  



> What?! BLT sales have been going for months. The problem is that these charts have been released TOO LATE for any new buyers to adjust. Bookings for Jan 1, 2010 begin Monday. They absolutely had to release these charts now. And they've done so one week AFTER changing the minimum point add-on for BLT from 25 to 100. If they desired to be fair and honest with members, they would have released these charts well before the Jan 15 deadline. They've been sitting on this information because they know it would adversely affect some members and then forced them into spending more for add-ons. It's a cheesy flam-flam operation.


BLT is not sold out, it was released too late for those that have already bought and not in their cancelation period to adjust their plans, my reference was going forward for those that might buy now or in the future.  DVD did not force anyone.  They made changes where some members made decisions and unfortunately then changed the information shortly thereafter that might have altered those decisions, I get that.  No argument the timing stinks but it happened.  I am confident DVC made significant efforts to get this done in time and were simply unsuccessful, such is the corporate world.  Given I usually come across as the pessimist (I'm really not, realist maybe), it's always funny when I'm in this position.  I would suggest that anyone who would have bought a different number of points (esp more), to contact DVD and ask if there is something they can do. I doubt they'll cancel anything outside the legal window but I wouldn't be surprised if they'll work with you on say 60 instead of 50 points.  



> Dean I know you know alot about timeshares in general but I think you're missing the extent to how this affects individual members. Demand was definitely higher in the periods adjusted but the way it was addressed has significantly devalued ownership for a lot of people. And those are the ones who will hurt DVC's PR the most. Whether it appears in the national media is immaterial. Whether DVC sales in the next quarter veer sharply and we see more resales and less friendshare sales, that's the judge.


Like many other things it affects some members positively and others negatively.  And DVD may indeed see a slight downturn due to the changes but likely only from members and a few potential members who frequent places of communications like DIS.  To me if this (and all the changes I mentioned above) is enough to make DVC not right for you, then DVC wasn't really right to start with.  I'm of the opinion that the threat of PR  issues is WAY overrated in such issues.  I've seen a lot of threats about it but no real substance whether it's Marriott or DVC which seem to be the two main ones it gets said about.  I'm confident DVC is not turing in to Westgate.


----------



## BroganMc

BWV Dreamin said:


> Seems like the emotional posters are running to other timeshares (Marriot, Wyndham, etc) as a way to "do" something to offset the changes in DVC now. I have been slowly learning about the other timeshares, and it seems everyone has some type of risk, disadvantage, trading power issues. Each as a specific strategy that must be used to maximize that particular timeshare. I don't think others should be so quick to jump into these other timeshares. There is ALOT TO LEARN about them. I'm not so sure they are the solution to the unhappiness some are experiencing with DVC right now.



Not much bad about Marriott. The worst thing they've done in the last 10 years has been to raise the number of reward points required to stay in hotels. (Akin to Disney raising the point costs to stay in hotels.) Your resale prices are less, but buy-in and maintenance fees are also a lot cheaper. Availability is generally good, especially last minute in Orlando. And best yet, a week is still a full week.


----------



## Kmango

BroganMc said:


> First of all, CRO doesn't get the rooms to rent unless DVC owners trade out on cruises, exchanges or to other CRO rooms. Making you stay less does not help them in this regard.
> 
> Second, shorter stays from members means more room turnover not less. More turnover, more cleaning. That member who stayed 12 days saved Mousekeeping a full cleaning.
> 
> Third, I highly doubt there will be enough add-ons to make it a worthwhile move for DVC execs. The sample of members here are showing an overwhelming majority who are obstinately refusing to add-on. DVC execs killed an incentive they had by bungling the news, apologizing and promising a fix then publishing the UNfixed charts anyway, and doing all of it after raising the sale prices and minimum add-ons. This done just days before members have to book 2010.
> 
> So while they may be chuckling over their coup, I suspect they'll be crying for a golden parachute 6 months from now when it blows up in their faces.



I don't think for a second this is a ploy to sell more points. Most of the resorts are either sold out or pretty close to it, so it wouldn't even be plausible for even 10% of the members to do a 25pt add-on. There just aren't that many points. And the problem here is not that too few points are sold, but that rooms are going empty on weekends, and that points are being orphaned. When enough points are orphaned, that means that people -- people like you, who paid good money for DVC and pay good money for MFs -- can't get a reservation and can't use their points. (And before you say that doesn't happen, remember that every so often around here we get a thread that darkly insinuates that DVC has oversold the resort because the poster can't get a reservation for when they want. It's not oversold, just out of balance.) Thus, there are actually too many points in the system to support the old point charts. If only, say, 75-80% of the resorts' points were sold, we could muddle on in the current system. But because 98% are sold, occupancy really has to stay up there or things don't work.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

KLR-wlv said:


> Because I have been very happy with my DVC purchase until now. But after spending $20000 for a 5 night vacation that is now 4 - it makes me reevaluate the entire thing. I'm glad you enjoy your membership. We've been members since 2001 and have sang praises of dvc until now. Now that we are a family of 5 - I want to spend a nice week with my family -and I can't do that with DVC unless I buy more than 400 points for the year to stay the week I need to travel. - because DVC is a week timeshare now. I think that is the only way to prevent from being affected by further reallocation. So Do I like DVC $32000 more than Hyatt or Marriott? I'm thinking NO right about now.


I feel your pain. I have been affected as well, although only very slightly, and it looks like I have time to rectify my BLT purchase. But lets put a different slant on this......those that have the money, will simply buy additional points to continue in DVC. Others will need to modify or sell. This may be a maneuver to advance DVC's reputation into a more "elite" status. The "have's" will buy more points, the "have nots" will pass or sell. Just a thought....


----------



## supersuperwendy




----------



## Scott

Dean said:


> Exactly, the purpose of such changes is to change demand.  I'm not sure I agree that early Dec is more popular than anticipated simply due to costs but it is a factor.  DVC has had 2 reallocations in 16 years, 3 if  you count the change in the points formula from OKW to other resorts.  Touting it as expecting a reallocation yearly or similar would be a little melodramatic don't you think.  As I've said, DVC has the responsibility and requirement to even out usage by reallocation if it gets too far out.  My guess is you could expect at most one more reallocation before 2042 but it you see another it's likely to involve changing early Dec, which will also hurt me.  DVC could have used the minimum stay option to affect at least part of the problem.  Could you imagine the length of this thread now if they had made the change where you could only do 3 days, 4 day or combine the 2 into full week reservations but nothing else.  This would be legal under the rules and legal structure.
> 
> To a degree, but not as much as you think.  While DVC is a LITTLE different, most people don't buy a timeshare retail based on recommendations per se from other owners.  Resale is a necessary evil from the company's standpoint and doesn't come into play.  We'll run this thread and a couple of smaller ones and this will settle down even here.  I don't believe for a second that there were hundreds of people here that thought DVC was great before and horrible now and will all of a sudden stop recommending it.  They MAY add a few words of caution over some of the recent issues but those are cautions that SHOULD have been in the mix anyway.  I've often wondered, and sometimes posted, how the membership would feel about some of the ways other companies do things like Marriott's priority for multiple week owners or Bluegreen and Wyndhams (and others) priority for those who own more points that are developer qualified.  My answer to myself is that those that think of DVC as a timeshare that is different and they "wouldn't own a timeshare" would not be able to handle the real world out there.
> 
> Without the spreadsheets DVC has and a weekend (or 2 weeks to generate my own), It looks to me like they basically shifted points from GV much of the year to choice studios and a couple of points here and there otherwise looking at full weeks.  The rest is just shifting a few points to weekdays from weekends.  There really are two different issues at work here.  One is rebalancing demand from weekdays to weekend, the other is to allow rebalancing of seasonal demand.  This make me wonder why they didn't change early Dec or IF the demand for that time is as great as we think it is, esp  given that it was common to get those weeks in II.  The one problem they could get in trouble with, using SSR as an example, is if the units sizes are too small and esp if the GV are units unto themselves since the GV went down significantly for the year.  IF that were the case they either they are in violation of the legalities OR they committed points Disney owns to make up the difference.
> 
> BLT is not sold out, it was released too late for those that have already bought and not in their cancelation period to adjust their plans, my reference was going forward for those that might buy now or in the future.  DVD did not force anyone.  They made changes where some members made decisions and unfortunately then changed the information shortly thereafter that might have altered those decisions, I get that.  No argument the timing stinks but it happened.  I am confident DVC made significant efforts to get this done in time and were simply unsuccessful, such is the corporate world.  Given I usually come across as the pessimist (I'm really not, realist maybe), it's always funny when I'm in this position.  I would suggest that anyone who would have bought a different number of points (esp more), to contact DVD and ask if there is something they can do. I doubt they'll cancel anything outside the legal window but I wouldn't be surprised if they'll work with you on say 60 instead of 50 points.
> 
> Like many other things it affects some members positively and others negatively.  And DVD may indeed see a slight downturn due to the changes but likely only from members and a few potential members who frequent places of communications like DIS.  To me if this (and all the changes I mentioned above) is enough to make DVC not right for you, then DVC wasn't really right to start with.  I'm of the opinion that the threat of PR  issues is WAY overrated in such issues.  I've seen a lot of threats about it but no real substance whether it's Marriott or DVC which seem to be the two main ones it gets said about.  I'm confident DVC is not turing in to Westgate.



What bothers me the most is that press release sheds almost no light on the logic and rationale used by DVC in making this change (and most other recent changes). The "to enhance the member experience" or "based on member feedback" is getting a bit tired. Yes, the press release alludes to balancing occupancy, but DVC has had the same system for many years...what has changed that has suddenly hurt DVC in regards to these travel patterns? DVC set the system up to favor weekday stays...why? Why is this suddenly a problem? Guides have promoted this value quite a bit in sales. Their rationale might help us better understand or accept the decision. Shouldn't we expect some sort of thorough explanation on this change and others? Goodness, this is an ownership program not a rewards program. Putting aside the emotions of this change hurting or helping our travel plans, I am most concerned with how and why these changes are made. Who is making them and why? 

Include me in the group that is most upset over the manner in which the changes are made, and less about the outcome of the changes. Call me illogical for expecting logic. 

Scott


----------



## Inkmahm

maminnie said:


> Without adequate notice of the point reallocation, DVC did not give their members the courtesy of allowing them to make educated decisions regarding their 2009 and 2010 points.  Many have budgeted/allocated points for particular planned vacations during 2009 and 2010, banked, borrowed etc. based on the old charts. For some it may be too late to make necessary adjustments.  How many would not have planned a certain trip or length of trip in 2009 if they knew they needed a few more points in 2010?  How many would not have borrowed from 2010 if they knew more were going to be needed for their yearly trip to Disney?  And of course how many who purchased recently at BLT or AKV would have purchased a few more points???
> 
> There is nothing emotional about this rather it is simply a fact and IMHO a very poor decision on DVC's part to release the reallocation at such a late date thereby likely effecting many of its members negatively.
> 
> maminnie


  Good post.  I don't disagree with WHAT Disney did in the reallocation, just in HOW they did it.


----------



## kristenrice

maminnie said:


> Dean:
> 
> I believe many of us would have been much less upset had we been given the opportunity to make educated decisions about our 2009/2010 usage.  My vacation plans WOULD HAVE been different for 2009 had I known about the reallocation.  I also would not have borrowed into 2010 so that one of my contracts would have been better positioned to be sold.  This may have been part of DVC's strategy as well in introducing the reallocation so late.
> 
> maminnie



Same here!  We had to decide between taking a June 2009 trip or banking the 2009 points.  We opted to take the trip and then borrow ALL of our 2011 points for our 2010 trip.  Now, with the reallocation, we are 24 points short!  Thanks DVC!  

I wonder what choice words might come flying out of my mouth while I walk by all those DVC kiosks?   I'd love to wear a button that says, "Ask ME about DVC!"


----------



## bookwormde

I do not think most owners would be upset if DVC gave “honest” reasons and facts to support the change (and supplied the data to demonstrate that they were following the “same number of total points rule”), gave at least a years notice and made the changes more gradually plus came up with as many practical ways to mitigate the impact (allowing point add ons at small levels at reduced prices where it can be demonstrated that the now allocations had an impact, allowing members to buy small amount of points (actually a transfers) from DVC to make up the difference, allowing more small transfers between members or even having DVC at least price match CRO on cash reservations etc.

There are reason other than  lack of ROFR why most timeshares values have fallen to near zero, while I do not expect this to happen to the full extent, these types of management practices definitely push it in that direction.

bookwormde


----------



## Inkmahm

rutgers1 said:


> On the whole, my guess is that the DVC execs are patting themselves on the backs for a big coup. Yes, it sounds all nice and cheery that they balanced out the points and made weekends more affordable, but you have to realize that people ARE going to be vacationing less...which I think is just fine with them. Here's why - You are either going to:
> 1) fork over more money for an add-on
> 2) spend less days in their rooms
> 
> I think they actually want you to cut down your stays. Why? The less nights you stay, the more inventory they have to sell through CRO. The less moving around you do (to avoid weekend rates), they less they have to spend on mousekeeping.
> 
> Some people have mentioned that the points change was a stupid move by the DVC execs since they won't be getting our food and park ticket money. However, what you are forgetting is that the DVC execs could care less about your food and park ticket expenditures. As anyone who read Disney War knows, the various divisions of Disney (parks, DVC, movies, etc.) rarely communicate and all operate to make their own execs look good. So, if you spend less on park tickets, that is another guy's concern - not the DVC execs' concern. All DVC wants to do is sell more DVC and maximize the profits they get from those who have already purchased, and if they feel that changing the point totals can help them in any regard, they are going to do it regardless of what the current members think.



What makes people think there might not be MORE people in the parks spending money on food and tickets due to this change?  Some of you that were doing 11 and 12 day trips that will cut back weren't likely in the parks every day anyway.   And if you had an AP, there was no additional revenue from tickets for the days you intend to decrease now.  Disney gets your AP fee no matter how many days you are in the parks. 

If any of the days you won't be staying in a villa  are replaced with people who WILL go to the parks and buy tickets/spend money, then Disney comes out ahead.


----------



## Dean

kikiq said:


> Actually, I found DIS the week after I first saw the presentation and initially I thought your posts were so "hard nosed"  BUT then realized there was a reason we didn't ever want a timeshare, and just because this was Disney was no reason to change our mind.  Rereading your posts, your advice was solid and not based on the emotion of "owning a bit of the magic".   Because of you and several other DIS folks, we didn't take the "bait" when offered additional incentives, but went on our "expensive" WDW vacation at the Poly (when we could have had a "free" DVC vacation on DP).  We had a list going back to our guide and she was very patient with us explaining the points and reworking the points we needed.  We did finally buy enough points planning for different scenarios, not just one.  Thank you for the straight forward answers and time share information you share with us.


Thank you for getting it, I'd rather help you than make you feel warm and fussy.  Think of me as your older brother.  



KLR-wlv said:


> Dean - I have enjoyed your insight over the years - but with all due respect - I don't know how we should all just should have expected what we purchased to go to ****. When we have experienced one thing for the 7 or 15 years of owning a product. I guess I should purchase a house, expecting there to be a sinkhole under it, or radon in the basement, or the tree next door to surely fall on it at some point. I suppose that way of viewing all purchases would keep me from any disappointment. DVC has upheld a way of vacationing - which was sold to me - and which I have enjoyed as I understood it initially - for 8 years. WIth this drastic change - yes I believe changing weeknights the full 20% they are allowed under the contract is drastic - just as many would believe the full increase in maintenance fees allowed under law would be. What if that were the situation - what is the MF limit - 15% in one year? What would you say if - for the past 15 years DVC MF's have gone up the normal couple % points - and next year - they jump to the full % under law? I guess that should be expected too - and we should all purchase with the assumption that in 5 years, MF's will be double. I just don't trust this product anymore so I will not invest further thousands of dollars. Is that an emotionall decision? Sure - but it's a financial one for me and DVC as well.


And I don't think it has.  I don't think anyone could have anticipated the specifics but every buying in knew or should have know that it could change, it's clearly laid out in the paperwork and there's even a worst case scenario displayed where all points are equal throughout the year.  



KLR-wlv said:


> But - regardless of the other timeshares issues - you get a 2 bedroom for 7 days - usually with no expiration - and on ebay for the $16000 I was going to buy 145 blt points with - I could buy 2 very good marriott or Hyatt weeks. not emotional - very much financial and practical - 14 days of vacationing, as opposed to 2.5 nights per year (that is until the next reallocation). Not emotional at all...


DVC has always been more expensive to buy and own than almost anything else and ultimately for one reason, being on property.  Think if WDW were to close down with Sea World and Universal remaining open, what would be the value of DVC compared to say Marriott?  Not all timeshares are full week or fixed week, esp other points systems which have the same risks.  IMO this is in large party a casualty of the DVC flexibility.  I'd quibble with your numbers to a degree as you're not going to get two top Marriott resorts and seasons for that price though the 2 weeks yearly fees would be marginally more than a weeks ownership at DVC but the point that DVC is over priced is and always has been true to a degree, the question is to what degree.


On a side note that I've seen hinted at but not specifically stated THAT I RECALL (long thread though), this may encourage full week stays which could be a good think for members in general and may have been involved in the decision to reallocate.


----------



## Inkmahm

Dean said:


> <snip>You get no argument that the timing was somewhat poor, that it should have been out by or before the BLT chart was available, but it simply didn't happen so DVC and the members must go forward.  Ask yourself one question, would most of the people posting saying they are upset, not be upset if DVC had done it that way.  I would bet you that every single person who has posted on this thread as being upset isn't mad because of the timing, they're mad because of the change itself.  The timing just rubs salt in the wound.  With the two AKV fiasco's, this, the wait list changes and the reservation lead time changes; one has to ask themselves whether the current (and possibly future) DVC is right for them.  The truth is they should have asked that question up front and assumed worst case scenarios.  IMO these are minor issues that should not rock the foundation of one's DVC ownership and they are things where such changes and issues should be anticipated.  Not that every specific change can be anticipated but that one should expect changes, and screw-ups, and know that most of them will not be favorable to everyone.  I think people have held DVC to too high of a standard over the years and that some of these issues are simply bringing them back closer to earth.  YMMV.



Agreed.


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> Without the spreadsheets DVC has and a weekend (or 2 weeks to generate my own), It looks to me like they basically shifted points from GV much of the year to choice studios and a couple of points here and there otherwise looking at full weeks.  The rest is just shifting a few points to weekdays from weekends.  There really are two different issues at work here.  One is rebalancing demand from weekdays to weekend, the other is to allow rebalancing of seasonal demand.  This make me wonder why they didn't change early Dec or IF the demand for that time is as great as we think it is, esp  given that it was common to get those weeks in II.  *The one problem they could get in trouble with, using SSR as an example, is if the units sizes are too small and esp if the GV are units unto themselves since the GV went down significantly for the year.*  IF that were the case they either they are in violation of the legalities OR they committed points Disney owns to make up the difference.



Not sure how this factors into things but SSR has 36 GVs with 12 person occupancy. They went down overall in a year by 44 points. SSR has 432 studios, 432 1bedrooms, 360 dedicated 2bedrooms and now 60 treehouse villas. The studios went up by 7 points; 1bedrooms increased by 3;  dedicated and lockoff 2bedrooms by 9 (dedicateds decreased by 1 point per year); and THVs increased by 3 points per year total allottment. So that means 1584 points decreased at GVs offset by 8460 increased in all other size units. It should be noted those GVs can hold 12 people while the majority of units can hold 4 people (864 units), less 8 (792) and fewer 9 (60).

Doesn't seem like DVC ponied up some of their ownership to defray costs. More likely they used points from smaller units to offset any gains to GVs. I'm still trying to figure out how DVC managed a net gain of 6876 points per year with the point reallocation. (Yes I did only count studios and 1bedrooms once and subjected the net reduction of 1 point per dedicated 2bedroom per year in my calculation.)

Your either more charitable or more sanguine about DVC as a timeshare. Being the highest priced one on the market and a highly niche product, I see it as suffering more to the vagaries of emotional ownership and personal recommendation. People aren't buying DVC to be part of a general vacation timeshare like you'd find with Marriott or the others. They do it specifically to vacation at this one destination. To be part of a so-called family.

If anything I can see them having a tougher time making new sales once the grumbles from existing members grow loud enough to be outright growls. Who wants to pay to be part of a grumpy family?


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Dean said:


> DVC has always been more expensive to buy and own than almost anything else and ultimately for one reason, being on property. Think if WDW were to close down with Sea World and Universal remaining open, what would be the value of DVC compared to say Marriott? Not all timeshares are full week or fixed week, esp other points systems which have the same risks. IMO this is in large party a casualty of the DVC flexibility. *I'd quibble with your numbers to a degree as you're not going to get two top Marriott resorts and seasons for that price though the 2 weeks yearly fees would be marginally more than a weeks ownership at DVC* ......


That was my thought also.....


----------



## Kmango

Inkmahm said:


> What makes people think there might not be MORE people in the parks spending money on food and tickets due to this change?  Some of you that were doing 11 and 12 day trips that will cut back weren't likely in the parks every day anyway.   And if you had an AP, there was no additional revenue from tickets for the days you intend to decrease now.  Disney gets your AP fee no matter how many days you are in the parks.
> 
> If any of the days you won't be staying in a villa  are replaced with people who WILL go to the parks and buy tickets/spend money, then Disney comes out ahead.



Precisely. And if rooms are sitting vacant currently, that's not earning any money. If this gets people to come on weekends, that's more revenue. Also, neither tickets nor (I'm guessing) merchandise revenues track have a linear relationship with the days stayed. Which is to say that you pay a lot for the first day, less for the second, less for the third, and almost nothing for anything past that. So if you drop the fifth day of your stay, that changes the ticket revenue from your family by about $5/person. I suspect that a family staying 4 days spends almost as much on souvenirs as a family staying 5, that you'll just spend slightly more per day.


----------



## Dean

dzorn said:


> No Dean I can understand if they need to even out occupancy, but the timing is what is upsetting to me. 2010 the points were available for use for January 2009 reservations started. I have a current trip planned for Feb 2009. I would have done this reservation differently to have enough points for my Feb 2010 trip. IF they would have even announced this 6 months ago I would not now be short for my 2010 trip. Heck if they would have announced this even 1 day before my 30 trip window I cold have cut days off that trip and banked them to have enough for 2010.
> 
> Denise in MI


But would you be upset with the timing if the change did not affect you negatively?  I understand the timing is poor but would point out that there would have been people in the same boat if they'd have announced the changes 6 months or a year ago though maybe less people.  



BroganMc said:


> Not much bad about Marriott. The worst thing they've done in the last 10 years has been to raise the number of reward points required to stay in hotels. (Akin to Disney raising the point costs to stay in hotels.) Your resale prices are less, but buy-in and maintenance fees are also a lot cheaper. Availability is generally good, especially last minute in Orlando. And best yet, a week is still a full week.


Let me add to the list.  There have been a number of special assessments in the last few years including one right now at Aruba Ocean Club which is apparently a direct result of poor workmanship and materials from pre-construction and possibly known by Marriott that early as well. In essence many owners think they're being require to pay for something that Marriott should have fixed before sales and that they likely knew this was the case.  Marriott has dropped 9 different resorts over the time I've been following them and in some cases, resorts where they sold weeks to members knowing they were buying for the purpose of the internal trading preference with II.  They strong armed the 3 remaining resort components at Vail into performing their required upgrades, two were dropped or pulled out because they couldn't go along with the changes.  In the case of Spicebush and Swallow tail it appears that Marriott forced them to make certain upgrades to stay in the system then dropped them anyway.  They just strong armed Beachplace to do certain upgrades that were more expensive, it was interesting to see the game of chicken.  In the case of both the Vail and HH resorts that were dropped many were saying Marriott could never do so because it was HH and Vail and too valuable of a location.  I predicted they would, they did.  In he case of Vail there are technically 5 resorts in one, many said legally they could not be split up and Marriott would never let them be split up.  I predicted they could and would, they did.  Harbour Pointe and possibly Sunset point will likely be the next to go.  If it happens, SP would be the first Marriott built resort to be dropped.  To be honest, Marriott is likely less to blame than the HOA in these but they did/are happening.  Oh and Marriott tells you which contractor to use then takes a % off the top for the recommendation.


----------



## newgeneb

I Never thought i would see the day when MICKEY MOUSE would lie and be so underhanded


----------



## tjkraz

Scott said:


> What bothers me the most is that press release sheds almost no light on the logic and rationale used by DVC in making this change (and most other recent changes). The "to enhance the member experience" or "based on member feedback" is getting a bit tired. Yes, the press release alludes to balancing occupancy, but DVC has had the same system for many years...what has changed that has suddenly hurt DVC in regards to these travel patterns?  DVC set the system up to favor weekday stays...why? Why is this suddenly a problem?



The answer is simple:  things change.  

DVC basically made a stab in the dark setting charts back in 1991.  Then they adjusted 3 years later (announced in '94, effective '96) based upon the limited data that was available.

Over the next 15 years ('94 to '09) the demographic and travel habits of DVC members has changed.  DVC went from a somewhat elite program with one destination and a 230 pt minimum buy-in (which was significant given the low point charts at OKW), to something that just about anyone could agree to finance at 15%.  

Slowly the scales kept tipping more and more to weekday stays which the system as a whole simply cannot support. 

Communications issues aside, DVC's biggest mistake was not rebalancing the charts sooner.  Over the last 15 years we probably should have seen single-digit adjustments every 7-8 years.  But we didn't and that's why this adjustment is so substantial.  

If there is any silver lining for the weekday vacationers it's that we are just now being asked to pay higher rates.  They should have gone up by smaller margins several times now.


----------



## tamclan

This change has affected me in a negative way, less nights for usual vacation trip of about 10 nights.

That said. To me this change is a realization by Disney that the points floating out there could not sustain the model of members mostly staying on weeknights.  While it stinks for those that were the Sun - Thur pattern, if too many of these existed and weekends had a much lower occupancy the model is broken and in their eyes must be modified.  DVC sells points for usage over 51 weeks, not 51 weeks of Sun - Thur usage.


----------



## Maribel

Kmango said:


> I don't think for a second this is a ploy to sell more points. Most of the resorts are either sold out or pretty close to it, so it wouldn't even be plausible for even 10% of the members to do a 25pt add-on. There just aren't that many points. And the problem here is not that too few points are sold, but that rooms are going empty on weekends, and that points are being orphaned. When enough points are orphaned, that means that people -- people like you, who paid good money for DVC and pay good money for MFs -- can't get a reservation and can't use their points. (And before you say that doesn't happen, remember that every so often around here we get a thread that darkly insinuates that DVC has oversold the resort because the poster can't get a reservation for when they want. It's not oversold, just out of balance.) Thus, there are actually too many points in the system to support the old point charts. If only, say, 75-80% of the resorts' points were sold, we could muddle on in the current system. But because 98% are sold, occupancy really has to stay up there or things don't work.


I think this is the best explanation to the situation, emotions apart. If weekend nights were left unused, it means a large number of points were orphaned, and, taking into account that in most cases, those two weekend nights were the equals to 4 weekday nights. That is way to many points left around. 
I live in Fl, and when ocassionally want to make a weekend trip on a short notice (even one week before), I found myself able to get a reservation. Granted, most of the time the only resort available is SSR, but the fact that I'm able to get something tells me that those weekend nights are not being used as they should.
If this was only a sales scheme on their part, they would only affect the resorts that are currently selling, not the sold out resorts. 
But after 15+ years, DVC has now sufficient historical data about usage patterns to make this type of drastic changes.
I'm really sorry for those affected. I understand their right to vent and I don't think the timing of the changes are right, in the end, I think it will benefit the DVC program, and therefore, us owners.


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> Let me add to the list.  There have been a number of special assessments in the last few years including one right now at Aruba Ocean Club which is apparently a direct result of poor workmanship and materials from pre-construction and possibly known by Marriott that early as well. In essence many owners think they're being require to pay for something that Marriott should have fixed before sales and that they likely knew this was the case.  Marriott has dropped 9 different resorts over the time I've been following them and in some cases, resorts where they sold weeks to members knowing they were buying for the purpose of the internal trading preference with II.  They strong armed the 3 remaining resort components at Vail into performing their required upgrades, two were dropped or pulled out because they couldn't go along with the changes.  In the case of Spicebush and Swallow tail it appears that Marriott forced them to make certain upgrades to stay in the system then dropped them anyway.  They just strong armed Beachplace to do certain upgrades that were more expensive, it was interesting to see the game of chicken.  In the case of both the Vail and HH resorts that were dropped many were saying Marriott could never do so because it was HH and Vail and too valuable of a location.  I predicted they would, they did.  In he case of Vail there are technically 5 resorts in one, many said legally they could not be split up and Marriott would never let them be split up.  I predicted they could and would, they did.  Harbour Pointe and possibly Sunset point will likely be the next to go.  If it happens, SP would be the first Marriott built resort to be dropped.  To be honest, Marriott is likely less to blame than the HOA in these but they did/are happening.  Oh and Marriott tells you which contractor to use then takes a % off the top for the recommendation.



Your talking about individual resort problems with a managing company. That's not the same as changing an overall system for every owner. And as you say, it's the HOAs in these cases that have instigated these problems. That scenario is equivelant only if SSR's HOA were to decide to drop Disney as a manager (something they can't due to Disney retaining an ownership interest).

To equate the same situation to what Disney is doing, Marriott would have to impose a policy that using my October week at Cypress Harbour is now worth only 6 days in May. Fact is I can stay a full week at Cypress Harbour any time of the year. The difference in cost between Gold and Red seasons is a measly $20. I've also routinely traded my 2bedroom Cypress Harbour for a 3bedroom at Grande Vista for the exact same exchange fee as a 2bedroom.


----------



## Dean

Scott said:


> What bothers me the most is that press release sheds almost no light on the logic and rationale used by DVC in making this change (and most other recent changes). The "to enhance the member experience" or "based on member feedback" is getting a bit tired. Yes, the press release alludes to balancing occupancy, but DVC has had the same system for many years...what has changed that has suddenly hurt DVC in regards to these travel patterns? DVC set the system up to favor weekday stays...why? Why is this suddenly a problem? Guides have promoted this value quite a bit in sales. Their rationale might help us better understand or accept the decision. Shouldn't we expect some sort of thorough explanation on this change and others? Goodness, this is an ownership program not a rewards program. Putting aside the emotions of this change hurting or helping our travel plans, I am most concerned with how and why these changes are made. Who is making them and why?
> 
> Include me in the group that is most upset over the manner in which the changes are made, and less about the outcome of the changes. Call me illogical for expecting logic.
> 
> Scott


Assuming all else, what would you have put in the press release had you been writing it.  They could have, and maybe should have, said something like this.  





> We have the obligation to even out usage  and we've noticed some areas where occupancy is skewed.  The POS requires us to do so and we did.  Here it is, have fun.


LOL!  IMO, they should have addressed the issue of the timing in relationship to BLT sales proactively, I think anything before the 11 month window opens is fine and appropriate otherwise, obviously many disagree.  Certainly with the aggregate of issues lately it's fair to question the quality of DVC's management.  The question then becomes whether now is bad or before was bad but we didn't know it and current management has to fix it or a combination.  Look at it as a healthy dose of reality.  Hopefully these issues will get people thinking about he nuts and bolts in their decisions rather than the fluff.  My experience with corporate matters is that a little basic bland explanation is OK but too much simply opens up for argument and makes it worse.  It's much like when your teen wants something and you say no, the more you explain your answer to many of them, the more argument you get.


----------



## dis-happy

Say good-bye to the kinder and gentler DVC.  When you think about how many new rooms DVC is adding as a percentage to the existing program (starting with SSR, then AKV, BLT, GCV and Hawaii) it's easy to see how things are going to change, and change drastically.  

Since sales can't be booming due to the economy, more cost cutting measures will be in place.  Things from as small as losing the tote bag for add-ons, to (I venture to guess) cutting back or eliminating Member events like the Christmas party.  It's been fun the past few years but we won't have that pixie dust experience again.  

I also wonder about the balance of power....up to now DVC properties have been all East Coast; it will be interesting to see if the new properties in the west cause further changes at WDW.  I liken to whole thing to having a good relationship with my local bank, then one day they turn into B of A and you are hit with a bunch of extra fees (and nothing to show in return), they don't know who you are and they really don't care; the bottom line and a push to open new accounts is all that matters.  

I'd really like to know why their PR dept. is so bad!  As far as the charts being posted, unposted, the re-posted (and accompanying text which changed each time or didn't come true) really makes me wonder if there wasn't a crisis of heart in there somewhere.  It's almost like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, or the ones making decisions are out of touch as to how the execution will affect their membership (and I'm sure the bean counters were trying to see if would affect sales).  We purchased DVC not because we particularly wanted a timeshare (vacations in the summer house at Hilton Head are just dandy) but because we love Disney and had a faith that their standards were high and they would always do things well.  All I can say now is that they are slipping.


----------



## Belle & Ariel

I think we need to look at this from a business standpoint.

Too many rooms are vacant weekends.  Points need to be adjusted to improve occupancy rates which also raises park revenues.  We can do it now (thought the effect will not be seen for nearly year).  Or we can give longer notice.  If it takes place 3/1/10, someone will be upset because they are going 3/2 and if they went a week earlier, they would not be affected.  Ditto for if it is implemented 6/1 or 9/1 or whatever.  Someone will always feel cheated.
As a business owner or stockholder who sees they are missing out on revenue, how long would you be patient to wait to remedy it?  Most likely not
over a year.  Companies are not in business to please the customer, that is a hoped for thing but not number one priority.
Finally, we all gripe about cutbacks--Fantasmic, shorter hours, less housekeeping, etc.  Disney is struggling just like everyone else and has to do what is financially wise to continue providing the thing we all love.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> Your talking about individual resort problems with a managing company. That's not the same as changing an overall system for every owner. And as you say, it's the HOAs in these cases that have instigated these problems. That scenario is equivelant only if SSR's HOA were to decide to drop Disney as a manager (something they can't due to Disney retaining an ownership interest).
> 
> To equate the same situation to what Disney is doing, Marriott would have to impose a policy that using my October week at Cypress Harbour is now worth only 6 days in May. Fact is I can stay a full week at Cypress Harbour any time of the year. The difference in cost between Gold and Red seasons is a measly $20. I've also routinely traded my 2bedroom Cypress Harbour for a 3bedroom at Grande Vista for the exact same exchange fee as a 2bedroom.


To me you buy a resort that may happen to be a member of a group.  I realize that most DVC members don't see it that way but I'm sure you've seen me post that idea before.  I'd break everything down to the level of resort first, system second.  OK, how about when Marriott changed the reservation rule to allow 13 month reservations, this hasn't always been in place and was a change that came about well after many resorts were selling or sold out.  If you owned one week and the potential availability were just cut in half, you might not be happy.  And there are situations where DVC could drop a given resort and where the resort could drop DVC as the management company.  Both unlikely to happen but possible and we've discussed it on DIS a number of times.  As for the number of days, you're trying to come up with too specific of an example it seems.  However, your post is inaccurate.  You can stay in a full week in the unit size and season you own at the resort you own assuming the resort is still in business and your legally owned unit is on line.  The ability to trade at all could be eliminated as could your resorts participation with Marriott, not likely but possible.  Still, if Marriott take over internal exchanges, expect similar threads on places like TUG as you can be not everyone will be happy, possibly no one.


----------



## jlewisinsyr

The difference between Disney struggling and DVC is we pay for it.  It's not like Disney is paying for the hotels, the rooms, the housekeeping or anything about the timeshare.  We as members pay for it in our dues.

To add to it, I think in this economy, the worst thing any company can do is piss off its clients.  Customers have shown already that they have brand loyalty to companies that are customer centric (companies like Apple have actually seen their sales continue to rise, even in this tight market).


----------



## DVCSAMNH

I am truly enjoying reading about why everyone thinks DVC did what they did. It reminds me of trying to figure out why my one of my 16 yr olds did something. All I can say is " good luck"!  We're probably not even close. 

I do have a question for the very smart folks on this board who seem to have the POS memorized. I know that DVC can raise points 20% per year so at some point they can even out weekdays and weeknights but can they go to a one week only reservation system? This would in effect do away with our point system. Now, I admit to only reading the POS before signing it, so forgive my ignorance on this subject but if I see a trend towards this, DVC will no longer hold any appeal for me.


----------



## dizzneebabe

After reading through the 61 pages of posts, I think my head has finally stopped spinning! My DH has talked me off the ledge--he's always the rational one in our house 

I understand the need to even out the points on weekends.  I agree with others that more notice would have made it much easier on many people, taking into consideration banking/borrowing for upcoming trips. 

And I am really sorry for the people who feel that their membership has devalued.  Fortunately, we feel our membership is still one of the best purchases for our family.  We based our purchases on magic season (2x in 3 years). That way, if we didn't travel in magic, we automatically gained a cushion.  Ideally we had enough points to go EVERY year in adventure, without banking/borrowing.  Now, we'll have to borrow every year to do that--1pt in 2010, 2pts in 2011, etc. So, it's definitely not the end of the world for us.  We'll make it work.

As with most changes,  taking the emotion out of the situation is key to figuring out how to adjust. It's just so easy to be overcome by frustration and anger!  I hope we are done with the surprises for now--I'm not sure I could take anymore!!!  

Now I'm done ranting on this thread.  Thanks for letting me vent earlier!  My DH appreciates it!!!


----------



## La2kw

Belle & Ariel said:


> I think we need to look at this from a business standpoint.
> 
> Too many rooms are vacant weekends.  Points need to be adjusted to improve occupancy rates which also raises park revenues.  We can do it now (thought the effect will not be seen for nearly year).  Or we can give longer notice.  If it takes place 3/1/10, someone will be upset because they are going 3/2 and if they went a week earlier, they would not be affected.  Ditto for if it is implemented 6/1 or 9/1 or whatever.  Someone will always feel cheated.
> As a business owner or stockholder who sees they are missing out on revenue, how long would you be patient to wait to remedy it?  Most likely not
> over a year.  Companies are not in business to please the customer, that is a hoped for thing but not number one priority.
> Finally, we all gripe about cutbacks--Fantasmic, shorter hours, less housekeeping, etc.  Disney is struggling just like everyone else and has to do what is financially wise to continue providing the thing we all love.



Disney is struggling?
Have you seen Iger's compensation for last year?  Wanna take bets on what it will be this year?

A company that is in the business of customer service better make sure they are pleasing their customers.  If not, there's a good chance they may run into a few problems.


----------



## OKW Lover

DVCSAMNH said:


> I do have a question for the very smart folks on this board who seem to have the POS memorized. I know that DVC can raise points 20% per year so at some point they can even out weekdays and weeknights but can they go to a one week only reservation system? This would in effect do away with our point system. Now, I admit to only reading the POS before signing it, so forgive my ignorance on this subject but if I see a trend towards this, DVC will no longer hold any appeal for me.



While I don't consider myself one of those "very smart folks", I would question your statement that DVC can raise points 20% per year.  I've never seen any provision remotely approximating that.


----------



## Dean

dizzneebabe said:


> After reading through the 61 pages of posts, I think my head has finally stopped spinning! My DH has talked me off the ledge--he's always the rational one in our house
> 
> I understand the need to even out the points on weekends.  I agree with others that more notice would have made it much easier on many people, taking into consideration banking/borrowing for upcoming trips.
> 
> And I am really sorry for the people who feel that their membership has devalued.  Fortunately, we feel our membership is still one of the best purchases for our family.  We based our purchases on magic season (2x in 3 years). That way, if we didn't travel in magic, we automatically gained a cushion.  Ideally we had enough points to go EVERY year in adventure, without banking/borrowing.  Now, we'll have to borrow every year to do that--1pt in 2010, 2pts in 2011, etc. So, it's definitely not the end of the world for us.  We'll make it work.
> 
> As with most changes,  taking the emotion out of the situation is key to figuring out how to adjust. It's just so easy to be overcome by frustration and anger!  I hope we are done with the surprises for now--I'm not sure I could take anymore!!!
> 
> Now I'm done ranting on this thread.  Thanks for letting me vent earlier!  My DH appreciates it!!!


Nice post.



DVCSAMNH said:


> I am truly enjoying reading about why everyone thinks DVC did what they did. It reminds me of trying to figure out why my one of my 16 yr olds did something. All I can say is " good luck"!  We're probably not even close.
> 
> I do have a question for the very smart folks on this board who seem to have the POS memorized. I know that DVC can raise points 20% per year so at some point they can even out weekdays and weeknights but can they go to a one week only reservation system? This would in effect do away with our point system. Now, I admit to only reading the POS before signing it, so forgive my ignorance on this subject but if I see a trend towards this, DVC will no longer hold any appeal for me.


Here's my interpretation.  The longest required stay DVC could impose would be 5 days, that is clearly spelled out in the POS.  They could also likely make it 7 days by a vote of the members themselves.    What isn't addressed at all is any further requirements or restrictions.  Could they for example say which 5 days such as saying your stay must include at least 1 weekend points night or even 2.  IMO they could and I definitely want to participate in that thread if it were to even happen.  I'm sure you'll get a lot of dissenting views on this subject but I think people will be a little less likely to say it won't happen simply because DVC is warm and fuzzy as has been many people's stance in the past.


----------



## tom in ct.

All i can say is I'm glad they got that extra $3,500 out of me for the contract extention before they announced the new point reallocation THANKS DISNEY!!!!!!!! Okay can eveyone say SLEAZY! If I just would of known i would of used that money to buy an add on to fix the point shortage i now have with my vacationing habits!!! AGAIN THANKS DISNEY!!!


----------



## Sammie

I think what some are missing, is that Disney is selling a product and has sold this product for years, and lately many feel the product they sell is not what we get after the fact. 

From their website: 





> Disney Vacation Club vs. Traditional Time-Share
> 
> Discover what sets Disney Vacation Club apart from traditional time-shares. In addition to the *magic and wonder *for which Disney is world-renowned, Disney Vacation Club offers unsurpassed vacation-planning flexibility, special money-saving benefits and an incomparable commitment to excellence. Disney Vacation Club invites you to vacation your way  and see for yourself why it's Disney's best kept secret.



and



> The Disney Difference is what sets Disney Vacation Club apart... it's the heritage, tradition and values that began with Walt himself, carried forward to today.



It's just lately and with the way they handled this last situation, I am not seeing alot that sets them apart from other time-shares and I am definitely not seeing the heritage, tradition and values that began with Walt. 

So either they need to live up to their sales pitch or speak the truth. Right now I think they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.


----------



## disneynutz

DVCSAMNH said:


> I am truly enjoying reading about why everyone thinks DVC did what they did. It reminds me of trying to figure out why my one of my 16 yr olds did something. All I can say is " good luck"!  We're probably not even close.



In the last few years it has become apparent that DVC does what they do because of Greed. DVC has gone from a small Disney unit to a major revenue stream and now they want to cut and adjust to make even more money.

Nothing just happens at Disney. Every change, every adjustment, is well thought out and planned for well in advance. The way that they make changes with no advanced warning is done for a reason.

I really wish that they would focus more on the membership and infrastructure, and less on sales. They really need to fix what they have before they grow more.


----------



## CheapMom

OKW Lover said:


> While I don't consider myself one of those "very smart folks", I would question your statement that DVC can raise points 20% per year.  I've never seen any provision remotely approximating that.


In the POS it says the points can be reallocated but no unit can be increased more than 20% in a given year.  So in order to make a very dramatic reallocation they would have to do over the course of a few years- they can't do it all at once.

It doesn't say they can raise it up to 20% without lowering it elsewhere.

Also not a very smart POS memorizer- but I do remember reading that.


----------



## Inkmahm

DVCSAMNH said:


> I am truly enjoying reading about why everyone thinks DVC did what they did. It reminds me of trying to figure out why my one of my 16 yr olds did something. All I can say is " good luck"!  We're probably not even close.
> 
> I do have a question for the very smart folks on this board who seem to have the POS memorized. I know that DVC can raise points 20% per year so at some point they can even out weekdays and weeknights but can they go to a one week only reservation system? This would in effect do away with our point system. Now, I admit to only reading the POS before signing it, so forgive my ignorance on this subject but if I see a trend towards this, DVC will no longer hold any appeal for me.



Yes, they can.  And no, it wouldn't "do away" with the point system because each week could and probably would still be a different point value depending on the time of year.

I wouldn't like that change at all, but I realize there is a chance it could be made in the future.


----------



## twinklebug

disneynutz said:


> In the last few years it has become apparent that DVC does what they do because of Greed. DVC has gone from a small Disney unit to a major revenue stream and now they want to cut and adjust to make even more money.
> 
> *Nothing just happens at Disney. Every change, every adjustment, is well thought out and planned for well in advance*. The way that they make changes with no advanced warning is done for a reason.
> 
> I really wish that they would focus more on the membership and infrastructure, and less on sales. They really need to fix what they have before they grow more.



I agree. DVC, as much as we love it, is a business. I highlighted your one statement that stands out in this case of the missing 2001 charts: I believe everything is well thought out and they do things for a reason. It's possible, someone at DVC may have accidentally posted those charts, or they may have posted them for _just_ long enough for few members to see them and tell the world and reign in some feedback. However, I don't think they were counting on digital copies being made. 

Hm. We'll never know. As a tech, knowing how easy it is to post something on the wrong server at the wrong time, I favor the 1st option: 'twas an accident. LOL.


----------



## Kmango

disneynutz said:


> In the last few years it has become apparent that DVC does what they do because of Greed. DVC has gone from a small Disney unit to a major revenue stream and now they want to cut and adjust to make even more money.
> 
> Nothing just happens at Disney. Every change, every adjustment, is well thought out and planned for well in advance. The way that they make changes with no advanced warning is done for a reason.
> 
> I really wish that they would focus more on the membership and infrastructure, and less on sales. They really need to fix what they have before they grow more.



First of all, DVD is SUPPOSED to make money. So is Disney. Their attempts to do so are not 'greed.' The primary responsibility of a company is, within the realm of legal behavior, to return a profit to its investors/shareholders, not to make people feel warm and fuzzy. Now, one of the best ways to do the former is to do the latter, but not always. Foremost, the business must sustain itself. If it doesn't, then the investors lose their money AND the public loses their warm-fuzzies. 

Similarly, it's not greedy for DVC to attempt to equally represent the interests of ALL of its owners. Under the old system, some people were getting a large number of days for a disproportionately small number of points, some people were getting a small number of days for a disproportionately large number of points, and some people were getting shut-out entirely. It would be irresponsible for DVC not to attempt to re-balance the system. If Disney makes more money from these changes, it will be a natural result of the system working as it should, not greed. 

Similarly, the


----------



## TIGGERmetoo

By being a new DVC member (just purchase BLT in Oct) I do feel disappointed that the point chart is changing before it even opens, however I don't see it being a problem for us personally. It has been very interesting reading this whole thread and I'm sorry for those who have to re-think their vacation plans.


----------



## OKW Lover

Sorry, I have to disagree with all those that are calling this a point increase.  

I just went through and compared my 2008 actual point usage to what it would be in 2010 if I stayed the same season/nights/day of week/size of unit.  In other words, the only variable is the points per night.  In my case its an actual 4.79% *decrease* in the required number of points.

My 2008 visits included OKW, BWV, BCV, SSR & VWL and the unit size included some studio, 1BR and 2BR stays.  Some visits included weekends.  A very large mix of stays.  

I don't know how well this will come out here in the post but below is a cut and paste from my spreadsheet.

Accommodations	2008 Stay		2010 Stay		Change				
	Start Date	Points	Start Date	Points	Points	Percent			
1 BR at Boardwalk Garden/Pool (Sunday - Wednesday)	Jan 20, 2008	66	Jan 17, 2010	57	-9	-13.64%			
1 BR at BCV (Saturday - Wednesday)	May 3, 2008	140	May 1, 2010	143	3	2.14%			
2 BR at SSR (Tuesday & Wednesday)	Aug 19, 2008	62	Aug 17, 2010	72	10	16.13%			
2 BR at SSR (Saturday)	Aug 23, 2008	65	Aug 21, 2010	53	-12	-18.46%			
1 BR at Boardwalk Garden/Pool (Sunday - Wednesday)	Oct 12, 2008	72	Oct 10, 2010	63	-9	-12.50%			
Studio at OKW (Friday)	Dec 12, 2008	20	Dec 10, 2010	16	-4	-20.00%			
Studio at VWL (Saturday & Sunday)	Dec 13, 2008	34	Dec 11, 2010	33	-1	-2.94%			
Total		459		437	-22	-4.79%			

This would make more sense if I could figure out how to insert tabs, sorry.


----------



## jarestel

50 years is a long time for anything to remain in a static condition, and if we've learned anything over the past few years it's that DVC has the ability to modify, with specific limited exceptions as spelled out in the contract documents, practically any parts of the DVC system they choose. At the risk of stating the obvious, the DVC system of the "old days" when membership was small just doesn't work for today's members, numbering in the hundreds of thousands (and growing).

It's reasonable to assess changes to determine how and to what extent the changes will affect a member's personal situation. However, IMO, it's unreasonable to expect that the DVC system in place at the time an individual member signed purchase documents will be the same system for the life of the contract. 

Of course, in determining how many points to purchase, one can only estimate based on the information available at the time, ie current points charts. If the charts change, which it appears they now have, it's time for a new plan. Re-assessment on everything from vacation habits to whether DVC still works for the specific member. 

For potential DVC buyers seeking advice, it's as important to make them aware of the very real possibility that the DVC they purchase today will in all likelihood not be the DVC they own tomorrow. Unfortunately, for the most part, we've not done a good job of communicating anything but cost savings and pixie dust to prospective buyers and that probably contributes to much of the disappointment when changes do occur. With growth comes loss of flexibility. Unfortunate, but inevitable.


----------



## KLR-wlv

OKW Lover said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree with all those that are calling this a point increase.
> 
> I just went through and compared my 2008 actual point usage to what it would be in 2010 if I stayed the same season/nights/day of week/size of unit.  In other words, the only variable is the points per night.  In my case its an actual 4.79% *decrease* in the required number of points.
> 
> My 2008 visits included OKW, BWV, BCV, SSR & VWL and the unit size included some studio, 1BR and 2BR stays.  Some visits included weekends.  A very large mix of stays.
> 
> I don't know how well this will come out here in the post but below is a cut and paste from my spreadsheet.
> 
> Accommodations	2008 Stay		2010 Stay		Change
> Start Date	Points	Start Date	Points	Points	Percent
> 1 BR at Boardwalk Garden/Pool (Sunday - Wednesday)	Jan 20, 2008	66	Jan 17, 2010	57	-9	-13.64%
> 1 BR at BCV (Saturday - Wednesday)	May 3, 2008	140	May 1, 2010	143	3	2.14%
> 2 BR at SSR (Tuesday & Wednesday)	Aug 19, 2008	62	Aug 17, 2010	72	10	16.13%
> 2 BR at SSR (Saturday)	Aug 23, 2008	65	Aug 21, 2010	53	-12	-18.46%
> 1 BR at Boardwalk Garden/Pool (Sunday - Wednesday)	Oct 12, 2008	72	Oct 10, 2010	63	-9	-12.50%
> Studio at OKW (Friday)	Dec 12, 2008	20	Dec 10, 2010	16	-4	-20.00%
> Studio at VWL (Saturday & Sunday)	Dec 13, 2008	34	Dec 11, 2010	33	-1	-2.94%
> Total		459		437	-22	-4.79%
> 
> This would make more sense if I could figure out how to insert tabs, sorry.




Your 1 br points are incorrect at BW - they increase by 2 points per night in January 2010 so it is an INCREASE of 6 points - not a decrease. I do believe ALL weekday points went up (except for GV at AKV). Your Oct BW trip goes UP by 9 points as well in 2010


----------



## DisneyQueen1320

I'm trying to look on the bright side.  It's not bad staying for one weekend night, our flights are cheaper if you leave Mon and return Sat.  But I really do think they should have gave more notice about this.


----------



## chalee94

Inkmahm said:


> Gouging in comparison to weekdays and yes, I did.  I've said that over and over.  I also accepted that the points could change in the future because I actually read the paperwork that I signed when I bought DVC.  I'm happy for the changes announced today.



of course, you're happy.  _the changes benefit you_.  that's nice for you.

i'm just suggesting that your advice to others to suck it up and deal because it's the "same" as your situation is not true at all. 

you had time to consider whether DVC was worth it to you at the inflated weekend rates before you signed.  the point charts were the same for a long time.  these new charts were changed on pretty short notice - maybe you could be so generous as to give the sun-thurs folks at least a few days to adapt to the new rules. 

(BTW, bragging to the n00bs that you "actually read the paperwork" is similarly unhelpful.  i was aware that although the point charts hadn't changed in over a decade that they could change at any time - and i'd agree that it's best for DVC to make the change if demand is out of whack - but it's still an agitation and effectively a cost increase.  so even if you "accepted" that the points could change, try to imagine how you'd feel if weekend costs had been increased - and then sit back and let people rant a little.)



Inkmahm said:


> Exactly. The rules were not changed at all.



seriously?

was the waitlist change a "rule change?"  was changing booking dates from check-out to check-in a "rule change?"  

most of us are pretty clear that we're playing disney's version of calvinball here and the only hard and fast rule is that disney can change the rules.  if you're really that hung up about the word "rule", please let me know if it's more correctly termed a "policy" change or what _precisely_...


----------



## OKW Lover

KLR-wlv said:


> Your 1 br points are incorrect at BW - they increase by 2 points per night in January 2010 so it is an INCREASE of 6 points - not a decrease. I do believe ALL weekday points went up (except for GV at AKV). Your Oct BW trip goes UP by 9 points as well in 2010



I checked this when I saw your post.  I believe my calculation is correct.  The 1BR unit was a standard view and did cost me 66 points in 2008.  In 2010, a January stay will be 19 points per night in a standard view, or 57 points for three nights.


----------



## ColoradoDisneyFan

When we bought BCV in 2002, we decided 210 pts were perfect for us.  We thought our trips would likely be during magic season and that 6 nights would give us enough time at WDW (6 nights during magic season = 210 pts).  NOW 6 nights during magic season is 220 pts!  What happened to the Disney promise that vacation charts WILL NEVER CHANGE?!  We have friends who bought the exact same time we did and they also bought 210 pts for the same reason.  Although both families have older kids with many activities and our WDW trips can be at any time of the year and are often just long weekends, I am still disappointed in Disney.  What is the next "promise" they will break re our DVC membership?


----------



## OKW Lover

ColoradoDisneyFan said:


> When we bought BCV in 2002, we decided 210 pts were perfect for us.  We thought our trips would likely be during magic season and that 6 nights would give us enough time at WDW (6 nights during magic season = 210 pts).  NOW 6 nights during magic season is 220 pts!  What happened to the Disney promise that vacation charts WILL NEVER CHANGE?!  We have friends who bought the exact same time we did and they also bought 210 pts for the same reason.  Although both families have older kids with many activities and our WDW trips can be at any time of the year and are often just long weekends, I am still disappointed in Disney.  What is the next "promise" they will break re our DVC membership?



Disney did not promise that the number of points per night would never change.  Go back and read the contract you signed, its specifically stated in there that they can reallocate the number of points per night but that only the total number of points per year can not change.


----------



## KLR-wlv

OKW Lover said:


> I checked this when I saw your post.  I believe my calculation is correct.  The 1BR unit was a standard view and did cost me 66 points in 2008.  In 2010, a January stay will be 19 points per night in a standard view, or 57 points for three nights.



In the current 2008 point chart a standard view 1 br for the whole month of January staying sunday for 3 nights would cost 16 points per night = 48 points. In 2010 the same unit is 19 points per night so 54 points. Only the preferred view for 3 nights would have cost you 66 points. And in 2010 that would be 72 points, or 24 points per night. I think you are comparing the preferred view in 08 to the standard view in 10 (which is 19 per night, but was only 16 per night in 08)

Perhaps MS charged you for a preferred view in 08 when you thought you booked a standard view??


----------



## msteddom

I am another one who likes to vacation Sun.-Thurs., not only because of the lower points, but because five nights is a great length of time, and it gives you Sat. to prepare for vacation and the next weekend to recover.  I am disappointed in the changes, but I'm not angry.  I have always thought that weekend points were ridiculous, and Disney has corrected that, the only way they can.  I do think the way they handled it was horrible though, we should have had a few months notice.  So am I disappointed, yes.  Will I sell my contract in protest, not by a long shot.

Melissa


----------



## Belle & Ariel

La2kw said:


> Disney is struggling?
> Have you seen Iger's compensation for last year?  Wanna take bets on what it will be this year?
> 
> A company that is in the business of customer service better make sure they are pleasing their customers.  If not, there's a good chance they may run into a few problems.




And if it were your company would you let it continually lose money?
And  many are pleased with the change.  The problem is you can't please everyone and maximize profits at the same time.


----------



## DisFlan

Just a random thought here, but does anyone actually know how low the actual weekend usage was/is?  Was it really bad enough to warrant all the _sturm und drang_ and bad PR this thing is generating, especially with the current economic conditions and the other recent DVC changes?  

If enough members shorten their trips by a day or two, it may make for less generated revenue in the long run.  Not to mention the people who _won't_ be buying more points because of the 100 pt. minimum - or don't want to feel pressured into doing add-ons.  Or simply can't afford it right now.  

The other thing that comes to mind is that DVC sales to both new and current members are likely quite a bit lower than had been projected a year or two ago.  I'm not at all certain that re-jiggering points, upping point costs or the required minimum add-on purchase will help sales.  And all this is happening in a short span of time - at the wrong time in a bad economy.  (If they waited this long to change the point structure, including a couple of economic downturns, why not wait a couple more years?  Or when the economy improves a bit?)

We'll have to wait and see if this bid for more revenue works.  I _want_ DVC to succeed, but at the moment, I'm a bit grumpy with them.

DisFlan


----------



## kikiq

Dean said:


> Thank you for getting it, I'd rather help you than make you feel warm and fussy.  Think of me as your older brother.



  Well, since I don't have an older brother, you'll do  
 I certainly would consider you straight forward and helpful.  Let me take care of the warm and fuzzy.  I'm good at it   DVC was eventually a "warm and fuzzy" decision by my DH based on his horrified reaction to our expensive Poly vacation.   And as much as I would love to have VGC points, I'm not convinced with the high point chart it's worth it for us.


----------



## FuzzyMelton

OKW Lover said:


> Disney did not promise that the number of points per night would never change.  Go back and read the contract you signed, its specifically stated in there that they can reallocate the number of points per night but that only the total number of points per year can not change.



*YES THEY DID* DURING THE SALES PRESENTATION!!!!!!!!  I guess  you are just not listening.  They represented Disney and everyone planned on how many points to buy using their point charts.   

I love Disney too but STOP being such a  !  What they did was wrong and affects far to many people in the wrong way!  *Like the other person said, "Just because it's legal doesn't make it right....!" *


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Fortunately, we feel our membership is still one of the best purchases for our family. We based our purchases on magic season (2x in 3 years). That way, if we didn't travel in magic, we automatically gained a cushion. Ideally we had enough points to go EVERY year in adventure, without banking/borrowing. Now, we'll have to borrow every year to do that--1pt in 2010, 2pts in 2011, etc. So, it's definitely not the end of the world for us. We'll make it work.
> 
> As with most changes, taking the emotion out of the situation is key to figuring out how to adjust. It's just so easy to be overcome by frustration and anger! I hope we are done with the surprises for now--I'm not sure I could take anymore!!!


*Sure...I agree with Dean in that this is a "nice post" by dizznee.   But to be fair and to put it in perspective, you also are not losing as much as some of us.  If you are only having to borrow 1-2 points, you've got it better than ALOT of us.  And you have the ability to travel in Adventure season.   I know people here will say it's a choice....but in the real world it is not a choice to remove kids from school work, sports, job issues.....it's just not.  Can't put our whole life in turmoil because I have the choice to save points and go in off season.  I wish it were that easy for some of us--as I'm having to borrow 30 points every year.  
So I see a trend....if this new allocation doesn't alter people's plans much.....or they save points....or don't have to borrow too many points, they are fine and accepting of it & prasing DVC/DVD for it.  And that's fine. I guess I'd be feeling warm and fuzzy about it as well if I was saving points.   But not all of us are capable of writing "nice" posts when this is all just hitting us in the last 24 hours.  We need time to digest and adjust......some of us are going through a wide range of emotions (regardless of whether we KNEW DVC had this right).   Several of us are being challenged and accused of just not wanting to vacation in slow season (i.e. making that choice)....or accused of not reading fine print.....or accused of "taking advantage" of the weekday point system.   Come on....this is obviously going to get some of us even more emotional than we already are about this.  It's putting some of us in a defensive mode (defending why we can't pull kids out of school etc).   Those of us paying a high price for this allocation, just really need some understanding and time to work through all this and adjust our vacation patterns.  Not necessarily the easiest thing to do.  We are feeling that our Membership has lost "value" for our families (not talking about resale value). 
Thanks for listening...........
Maria*


----------



## Inkmahm

chalee94 said:


> of course, you're happy.  _the changes benefit you_.  that's nice for you.
> 
> i'm just suggesting that your advice to others to suck it up and deal because it's the "same" as your situation is not true at all.
> 
> you had time to consider whether DVC was worth it to you at the inflated weekend rates before you signed.  the point charts were the same for a long time.  these new charts were changed on pretty short notice - maybe you could be so generous as to give the sun-thurs folks at least a few days to adapt to the new rules.
> 
> (BTW, bragging to the n00bs that you "actually read the paperwork" is similarly unhelpful.  i was aware that although the point charts hadn't changed in over a decade that they could change at any time - and i'd agree that it's best for DVC to make the change if demand is out of whack - but it's still an agitation and effectively a cost increase.  so even if you "accepted" that the points could change, try to imagine how you'd feel if weekend costs had been increased - and then sit back and let people rant a little.)
> 
> 
> 
> seriously?
> 
> was the waitlist change a "rule change?"  was changing booking dates from check-out to check-in a "rule change?"
> 
> most of us are pretty clear that we're playing disney's version of calvinball here and the only hard and fast rule is that disney can change the rules.  if you're really that hung up about the word "rule", please let me know if it's more correctly termed a "policy" change or what _precisely_...


I disagree.  We all got the same paperwork to read when we purchased DVC. We were/are all in the same situation but that situation will not affect us all the same.  Not my issue if some people wanted to believe what they were told by guides vs what their own eyes could read if they took the time to read what they were signing.

Call it whatever you want, but Disney played by the rules.


----------



## chalee94

DisFlan said:


> Just a random thought here, but does anyone actually know how low the actual weekend usage was/is?  Was it really bad enough to warrant all the _sturm und drang_ and bad PR this thing is generating, especially with the current economic conditions and the other recent DVC changes?
> 
> DisFlan



see, the thing is: the higher the percentage of DVC members who were staying on sun-thurs, the higher the sturm (with proportionately higher drang as well).  so the more members who are aggravated by the change, the more necessary the change probably is...


----------



## Inkmahm

Kmango said:


> Similarly, it's not greedy for DVC to attempt to equally represent the interests of ALL of its owners. Under the old system, some people were getting a large number of days for a disproportionately small number of points, some people were getting a small number of days for a disproportionately large number of points, and some people were getting shut-out entirely. It would be irresponsible for DVC not to attempt to re-balance the system. If Disney makes more money from these changes, it will be a natural result of the system working as it should, not greed.


Excellent summary.


----------



## CommandoDawg

ColoradoDisneyFan said:


> When we bought BCV in 2002, we decided 210 pts were perfect for us.  We thought our trips would likely be during magic season and that 6 nights would give us enough time at WDW (6 nights during magic season = 210 pts).  NOW 6 nights during magic season is 220 pts!  What happened to the Disney promise that vacation charts WILL NEVER CHANGE?!  We have friends who bought the exact same time we did and they also bought 210 pts for the same reason.  Although both families have older kids with many activities and our WDW trips can be at any time of the year and are often just long weekends, I am still disappointed in Disney.  What is the next "promise" they will break re our DVC membership?



I read on Disboards before I bought that the total points allocated to the entire resort stayed the same but the points could be reallocated.  If the points could never change, there would have simply been a point chart.  There would not have been a "2008" point chart and a "2009" point chart and so on.   For the people who wanted to stay in the same size room the same week every year, the system that was used by the other Timeshares worked better.  Being able to change point values depending on demand was always an integral part of the Point system.  When my family went to WDW in the mid 1980s, the crowds were not bad.  But going to WDW became more popular through the years until it is now one of the busiest weeks.  Other events like F & W get more popular every year.   With so many members, DVC needs the ability to adjust point values both as a RESULT of high demand (which changes through the years) and to ENCOURAGE usage for slower times and days.  The pre 2010 calendars encouraged the use of weekdays.  Probably too much.   I can buy a large BLT addon if someone will pay me $1 for each entry on Disboards about a DVC member having a split stay to avoid the high point charge for weekends.


----------



## roelongo

Why wasn't this change brought up at hte member meeting in December?  Isn't that what those meetings are for?


----------



## mickeymom629

I am so unhappy, as we are one of the many families who can only afford the Sunday through Thursday stays unless we skip years.  We have 4 children, and we bought at 150 HH points and later added 50 VB.  With my 150 points, we could stay every summer in a 2 bedroom at OKW.  With our entire 200 points, we could stay 5 nights in a 2 bedroom at BWV during spring break.  With banking and borrowing, we were able to go a little more often as long as we didn't stay on the weekends.  

I wrote member services just to express my unhappiness, though I know it won't change things.

I am now a little relieved that we got APs last year, managed 4 trips (not all DVC) and used up our points until 2010.  I have 2 sons about to graduate college and a DD about to graduate HS, so I guess our vacation villa size needs could reduce to a 1 bedroom.  (Not experienced with 1 bedrooms to know how difficult booking them is ). 

I guess I should be happy that they didn't change things until now, but it is still very disappointing.


----------



## glennbo123

Dean said:


> Thank you for getting it, I'd rather help you than make you feel *warm and fussy*.



I think this is a Freudian typo -- many of us are feeling a little fussy lately.


----------



## Ksp

I guess it's time to plug in some numbers for our family and find out if this will be a positive or negative for us in terms of amount of points needed for our vacation. 
It does seem to me, based on our official documents as well as what our guide initially told us, that Disney has the right to shift the point allowances around as long as they stay within the total amount allowed for that resort.  Whether I will enjoy this change or not remains to be seen.


----------



## DisFlan

chalee94 said:


> see, the thing is: the higher the percentage of DVC members who were staying on sun-thurs, the higher the sturm (with proportionately higher drang as well).  so the more members who are aggravated by the change, the more necessary the change probably is...



I don't completely buy this.  If DVC _really_ wanted to encourage more weekend stays, those points would have come down more.  If folks want to dodge the high weekend points, they still can (and will) do it.

DisFlan


----------



## Brian Noble

> YES THEY DID DURING THE SALES PRESENTATION!!!!!!!!


Sadly, one of the documents you signed said, in effect, that nothing anyone _said_ was binding, and only the contract mattered.  This is an important thing to keep in mind.  If a Guide ever says something works a certain way, and that is important to you, ask the Guide to show it to you in writing.  For example, a lot of people bought after being told by a Guide, "Sure, it's okay to put five in any 1BR.  We do it all the time, just bring an air mattress."

If DVC ever decides to actually adhere to the published limits, a lof of people are going to be scrambling for those AKV and BLT 1BRs and they are going to be very upset.  But it will be their own doing.


----------



## tom in ct.

Those meetings are just window dressing to make you feel as though your part of the master plan! kinda like checking your bag before you go in the parks! It makes you feel more safe but your not!! If Disney really wanted to save money they would get rid of all those "SECURITY" gaurds checking those pocketbooks!!


----------



## glennbo123

KLR-wlv said:


> In the current 2008 point chart a standard view 1 br for the whole month of January staying sunday for 3 nights would cost 16 points per night = 48 points. In 2010 the same unit is 19 points per night so 54 points. Only the preferred view for 3 nights would have cost you 66 points. And in 2010 that would be 72 points, or 24 points per night. I think you are comparing the preferred view in 08 to the standard view in 10 (which is 19 per night, but was only 16 per night in 08)
> 
> Perhaps MS charged you for a preferred view in 08 when you thought you booked a standard view??



I think you're exactly right.  When I saw the original post I thought there's no way a Sunday to Wednesday stay went down!!  

The 66 points in 2008 divided by 3 nights' stay equals 22 points per night, which is a Boardwalk/Preferred view.  The 57 points in 2010 works out to 19 points per night, which is a Standard view.


----------



## tom in ct.

Lets clear all the smoke here and # crunching!!! It's simple

If your stay is usually 7 days that includes Fri. and Sat. things bacically stay the same no winner or loser!

If you are a local or even an out of state weekender that stays 3 to 4 nights that include Fri. and Sat. your a BIG winner!!

IF what seems alot of people are here a Sun. through Thurs. vacationer your a BIG LOOSER!! 

So who does it effect the most? Families trying to save and spend extra quality time with their kids at disney! THANK DVC 

                                        And that's that


----------



## ashbradnmom

FuzzyMelton said:


> *YES THEY DID* DURING THE SALES PRESENTATION!!!!!!!!  I guess  you are just not listening.  They represented Disney and everyone planned on how many points to buy using their point charts.
> 
> I love Disney too but STOP being such a  !  What they did was wrong and affects far to many people in the wrong way!  *Like the other person said, "Just because it's legal doesn't make it right....!" *



Yes your guide may have promised you that. But would you believe a car saleman who told you your car would never change and be the same the entire time you owned it. 

Just a little comparison. Plus i never trust a salesman. JMO


----------



## KLR-wlv

Could this be - since I don't buy the balancing out occupancy reasoning- increasing the weeknights to make the extremely high points at VGC and probably Hawaii seem more in line with the rest of the system? So there isn't one resort with obvious "point bargains" (like VB beach cottages sadly once were).


----------



## jamstew

Inkmahm said:


> I disagree.  We all got the same paperwork to read when we purchased DVC. We were/are all in the same situation but that situation will not affect us all the same.  Not my issue if some people wanted to believe what they were told by guides vs what their own eyes could read if they took the time to read what they were signing.



Unintended I hope, but it just comes across as sounding really condescending.


----------



## DisDaydreamer

OT, but I'm wondering what the 3 day record (for a DVC board thread) is for posts and views.  We're almost at 1000 posts and 33,000 views.  That's amazing.

That's almost 14 posts per hour every hour for three days.
AND
That's almost 8 views per MINUTE for three days.


----------



## skunk

Sorry if a repost.  Looking at 2009 BWV chart for all seasons and room categories, in general:

*2 weekend days = 4 weekdays*, with one exception: 

GV = 2 weekend days pretty much = 2 weekdays 

*For 2010, all seasons and room categories, 2 weekend days = 3 weekdays*

So all of the room categories had to take a 1 weekday hit, to make GV equal to the rest?  Too simplistic?


----------



## pakhowe

OKW Lover said:


> Disney did not promise that the number of points per night would never change.  Go back and read the contract you signed, its specifically stated in there that they can reallocate the number of points per night but that only the total number of points per year can not change.







Inkmahm said:


> I disagree.  We all got the same paperwork to read when we purchased DVC. We were/are all in the same situation but that situation will not affect us all the same.  Not my issue if some people wanted to believe what they were told by guides vs what their own eyes could read if they took the time to read what they were signing.
> 
> Call it whatever you want, but Disney played by the rules.




Disney may have played by your rules, but they did not play by mine.  If you pay attention to the what people are writing you will see a common thread where guides provided a rational explanation to the reallocation clause having to do with where certain holidays fall in the calender year.  This is a misrepresentation and is wrong.  To simply say they are sales people and you should expect them to lie is overly simplistic.  This is the kind of rational that has caused such behavior to become almost acceptable in our society.  Obviously quite acceptable to some of the posters here.  

I agree Disney acted within the letter of the contract, but allowed their sales practices to be less than above board.  It is easy to be smug when you are benefitting from these changes, but it does not change the fact that Disney has fallen way short in the manner in which this reallocation has played out.


----------



## DVCSAMNH

Dean said:


> Nice post.
> 
> Here's my interpretation.  The longest required stay DVC could impose would be 5 days, that is clearly spelled out in the POS.  They could also likely make it 7 days by a vote of the members themselves.    What isn't addressed at all is any further requirements or restrictions.  Could they for example say which 5 days such as saying your stay must include at least 1 weekend points night or even 2.  IMO they could and I definitely want to participate in that thread if it were to even happen.  I'm sure you'll get a lot of dissenting views on this subject but I think people will be a little less likely to say it won't happen simply because DVC is warm and fuzzy as has been many people's stance in the past.



Thanks, Dean. It would be interesting to see if DVC would ever give up the amount of control necessary to allow the members to decide on the 7 day minimum. It doesn't seem to fit their pattern.


----------



## Mattsmommy

tom in ct. said:


> If your stay is usually 7 days that includes Fri. and Sat. things bacically stay the same no winner or loser!



Not true 

HHI Premier Season 1 week 2009
1 bd room-259
2 bd room-330


HHI Premier Season 1 week 2010
1 bd room- 261
2 bd room- 336

I know the difference is only a few points but some people bought just enough to cover a one weeks stay


----------



## T-i-double-g-err

DisFlan said:


> I don't completely buy this.  If DVC _really_ wanted to encourage more weekend stays, those points would have come down more.  If folks want to dodge the high weekend points, they still can (and will) do it.
> 
> DisFlan



I think for some of the room categories the 20% cap on point change per night would limit the point changes to 1-2 points.  On others, my guess is that someone was picking an increase that would be a "step in the right direction" to reduce instances of hitting people with a 4-5 pt/night increase.  So, over the next few years, we may see the points differential between week nights and weekend nights erode further.  I've speculated elsewhere that this may be part of a multi-year reallocation process with 2010 being the first one towards some goal point charts created based upon prior occupancy/demand usage data.

If that's the case, management's perspective may be that they are phasing the reallocation into the system over time in a way that does not make the whole change they believe is necessary in one big leap.  I'm not defending them, and I certainly think that the lack of communication and notification to current and new members was awful.  I'm just stating that DVC management may have actually believed that these charts minimized the planning impact on membership rather than going in one jump to where they think the point charts should ultimately reach.  If so, going back to communication, I would certainly appreciate knowing what that point is so that I can plan accordingly now, rather than scramble every time an incremental change is made along the path.


----------



## Inkmahm

jamstew said:


> Unintended I hope, but it just comes across as sounding really condescending.



Because I've been saying the same thing for 60+ pages and some people still choose to not understand and insist Disney is the big bad wolf because Disney followed the contract.  The contract that we all signed.  Yes, I'm frustrated that there are adults that spent thousands of $ and seem not to have taken the time to read the contract to understand what they were buying.  That is not Disney's fault, it is their own fault.  

Maybe it's because I work in business and deal with contracts all the time.  I would never sign something I didn't understand.


----------



## Inkmahm

pakhowe said:


> Disney may have played by your rules, but they did not play by mine.  If you pay attention to the what people are writing you will see a common thread where guides provided a rational explanation to the reallocation clause having to do with where certain holidays fall in the calender year.  This is a misrepresentation and is wrong.  To simply say they are sales people and you should expect them to lie is overly simplistic.  This is the kind of rational that has caused such behavior to become almost acceptable in our society.  Obviously quite acceptable to some of the posters here.
> 
> I agree Disney acted within the letter of the contract, but allowed their sales practices to be less than above board.  It is easy to be smug when you are benefitting from these changes, but it does not change the fact that Disney has fallen way short in the manner in which this reallocation has played out.



 I'm going to benefit by 10 to 14 points per year based on our current travel pattern.  Not enough to sway my opinion.  If the change had hurt me by 10 to 14 points per year I'd be saying the same thing.


----------



## DisFlan

T-i-double-g-err said:


> I think for some of the room categories the 20% cap on point change per night would limit the point changes to 1-2 points.  On others, my guess is that someone was picking an increase that would be a "step in the right direction" to reduce instances of hitting people with a 4-5 pt/night increase.  So, over the next few years, we may see the points differential between week nights and weekend nights erode further.  I've speculated elsewhere that this may be part of a multi-year reallocation process with 2010 being the first one towards some goal point charts created based upon prior occupancy/demand usage data.
> 
> If that's the case, management's perspective may be that they are phasing the reallocation into the system over time in a way that does not make the whole change they believe is necessary in one big leap.  I'm not defending them, and I certainly think that the lack of communication and notification to current and new members was awful.  I'm just stating that DVC management may have actually believed that these charts minimized the planning impact on membership rather than going in one jump to where they think the point charts should ultimately reach.  If so, going back to communication, I would certainly appreciate knowing what that point is so that I can plan accordingly now, rather than scramble every time an incremental change is made along the path.



You may well be right, but WOW, I hate to think of this "enhancement" becoming a yearly occurrence.  If their ultimate goal is actually a "flatter" point system, a little more upfront info would go a _long_ way toward helping with the impact of this plan.  

DisFlan


----------



## tigger2on

should allow owners who already have contracts to add a few points now if they don't have enough to do their vacations.... it won't happen I know... 25 pt. min contracts but it would show good faith to investors to have a limited time add-ons....


----------



## epcotwanderer

Inkmahm,
You and I are in the same boat.
I can't believe how many people did not read the contract either. 
I know it's Disney but you and I know you still have to read the fine print.


----------



## Inkmahm

epcotwanderer said:


> Inkmahm,
> You and I are in the same boat.
> I can't believe how many people did not read the contract either.
> I know it's Disney but you and I know you still have to read the fine print.



Exactly.  

And on that note, I'm out of here to go enjoy a nice steak dinner with my DH.  Maybe you can carry on the battle while I'm gone.


----------



## Donald is #1

Out of curiosity today, I calculated my upcoming December trip with both point charts.  The details are: 10 nights, beginning of December, AKV SV 1BR.  Well the answer is the same with both point charts.  296 points


----------



## epcotwanderer

Inkmahm said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And on that note, I'm out of here to go enjoy a nice steak dinner with my DH.  Maybe you can carry on the battle while I'm gone.



Enjoy your dinner!


----------



## DisDaydreamer

Donald is #1 said:


> Out of curiosity today, I calculated my upcoming December trip with both point charts.  The details are: 10 nights, beginning of December, AKV SV 1BR.  Well the answer is the same with both point charts.  296 points



I think the problem is really experienced by the smaller contract owners.  The ones who typically book Su - Th. to maximize their points.  Like me  

For some it will mean they can afford to book into Friday and/or Saturday, but for most it just means more points needed.


----------



## Brian Noble

> The same thing being that is perfectly alright for Disney to mislead people through their sales practices?


Every salesman---every single one---is going to give you reasons why you should buy their product.  That's their job.  They are not going to go out of their way to explain why you should not buy it.  That's not their job.  Furthermore, when you ask even a scrupulously honest one a question, you can expect to get the truth, and nothing but the truth, but maybe not the whole truth.

For example: "Will the points I need ever change?"  "The points allocated to each Unit can never change."  Here's another one: "They've never changed as long as I've been here"

The first one is true, and the second is too for any guide who hired in after the OKW reallocation.  And, both answer the question, after a fashion, though not really the question the customer was asking.

I also will bet you that many guides had _no idea_ that reallocation was possible.  I teach for a living, and my kids are pretty darn smart.  Even so, if I had a dollar for every time one of them asked me a question that was already answered in the assignment handout that they supposedly read, I'd be able to buy a hefty BLT contract right now.

To be sure, I'm not saying "it's alright for them to do this."  But, I _am_ saying that if you didn't at least consider the possibility that your Guide might have said something that was misleading, you probably shouldn't have given them tens of thousands of dollars.


----------



## DisFlan

As Rob mentioned in another thread, increasing the allowed yearly transfer to two or three would help ease the impact of this change.

DisFlan


----------



## DisDaydreamer

DisFlan said:


> As Rob mentioned in another thread, increasing the allowed yearly transfer to two or three would help ease the impact of this change.
> 
> DisFlan



That is my assertion... If this is truly a means to make things better for the DVC owner then let us transfer points up to three times per year to be able to work this out and minimize the negative results for the members who will be impacted negatively. 

Simple solution in my book... If they are really trying to help membership.


----------



## Chuck S

DisDaydreamer said:


> That is my assertion... If this is truly a means to make things better for the DVC owner then let us transfer points up to three times per year to be able to work this out and minimize the negative results for the members who will be impacted negatively.
> 
> Simple solution in my book... If they are really trying to help membership.



I would have no objection to amending the one transfer per year rule for 2010, but not permanently.  It reopens too many opportunities for the "commercial" renter.


----------



## Dean

DisFlan said:


> Just a random thought here, but does anyone actually know how low the actual weekend usage was/is?  Was it really bad enough to warrant all the _sturm und drang_ and bad PR this thing is generating, especially with the current economic conditions and the other recent DVC changes?
> 
> If enough members shorten their trips by a day or two, it may make for less generated revenue in the long run.  Not to mention the people who _won't_ be buying more points because of the 100 pt. minimum - or don't want to feel pressured into doing add-ons.  Or simply can't afford it right now.
> 
> The other thing that comes to mind is that DVC sales to both new and current members are likely quite a bit lower than had been projected a year or two ago.  I'm not at all certain that re-jiggering points, upping point costs or the required minimum add-on purchase will help sales.  And all this is happening in a short span of time - at the wrong time in a bad economy.  (If they waited this long to change the point structure, including a couple of economic downturns, why not wait a couple more years?  Or when the economy improves a bit?)
> 
> We'll have to wait and see if this bid for more revenue works.  I _want_ DVC to succeed, but at the moment, I'm a bit grumpy with them.
> 
> DisFlan


None of us have spread sheets from Disney with numbers on them.  I think 1995 or 1996 was the last year the state of FL required timeshares to publish such data.  While I don't have a hard copy or specifics, the one set of published numbers I saw then had quite a spread on them of somewhere around 20% difference weekends to week days for some of the slower times, less for busier times.  Actually shortening a trip makes for no loss of income to Disney per se and if the overall occupancy is up, it increases Disney's revenue for a number of reasons.  Still, this is DVC which has a requirement to management the resorts for the members benefit.  Any time there is a change, some will win and some will lose.  If the balance was off they had to do it without regard to the economic impact for either party.  



FuzzyMelton said:


> *YES THEY DID* DURING THE SALES PRESENTATION!!!!!!!!  I guess  you are just not listening.  They represented Disney and everyone planned on how many points to buy using their point charts.
> 
> I love Disney too but STOP being such a  !  What they did was wrong and affects far to many people in the wrong way!  *Like the other person said, "Just because it's legal doesn't make it right....!" *


Did they say it wouldn't change? can you prove it?  Did you not sign that verbal representations not in writing didn't apply?  Did you read the paperwork that said otherwise?  I think many are still missing the point that this isn't DVC out to get members as some seem to think.  It's something they had to do if the usage was skewed and how it affected an individual member should have been at most only a small part of the discussion.  It's unfortunate for those that planned tightly and now are short but it's part of the system one signed on to.  The truth is that what the salesperson said really has no meaning by itself.  With DVC they gave their best honest spiel as a rule, with some timeshares you get frank manipulation and lies.


----------



## Dean

roelongo said:


> Why wasn't this change brought up at hte member meeting in December?  Isn't that what those meetings are for?


No, but they should be IMO.



glennbo123 said:


> I think this is a Freudian typo -- many of us are feeling a little fussy lately.


LOL, maybe.  I was afraid some were drinking themselves fuzzy today.  



tom in ct. said:


> Lets clear all the smoke here and # crunching!!! It's simple
> 
> If your stay is usually 7 days that includes Fri. and Sat. things bacically stay the same no winner or loser!
> 
> If you are a local or even an out of state weekender that stays 3 to 4 nights that include Fri. and Sat. your a BIG winner!!
> 
> IF what seems alot of people are here a Sun. through Thurs. vacationer your a BIG LOOSER!!
> 
> So who does it effect the most? Families trying to save and spend extra quality time with their kids at disney! THANK DVC
> 
> And that's that


I was with you right up until the editorial.  We don't really know who it helps or hurts from a family standpoint nor is it relevant to the change IMO.  The only question that's important to making the change is whether usage was skewed enough to do so.


----------



## Dean

KLR-wlv said:


> Could this be - since I don't buy the balancing out occupancy reasoning- increasing the weeknights to make the extremely high points at VGC and probably Hawaii seem more in line with the rest of the system? So there isn't one resort with obvious "point bargains" (like VB beach cottages sadly once were).


The idea that you saw certain options as points bargains would suggest you saw the issue the same was DVC did.  Ideally one would look at the points and from a cost standpoint see every day the same value as any other day.  I realize that is an impossible goal for a given member but on an aggregate basis that is the goal.  



DisDaydreamer said:


> OT, but I'm wondering what the 3 day record (for a DVC board thread) is for posts and views.  We're almost at 1000 posts and 33,000 views.  That's amazing.
> 
> That's almost 14 posts per hour every hour for three days.
> AND
> That's almost 8 views per MINUTE for three days.


Wasn't the reservation change to 7 days at a time at 100 pages by around 24 hours.  And pretty much with the same tone from the same people, myself included.



pakhowe said:


> I agree Disney acted within the letter of the contract, but allowed their sales practices to be less than above board.  It is easy to be smug when you are benefitting from these changes, but it does not change the fact that Disney has fallen way short in the manner in which this reallocation has played out.


I don't think that's fair.  I think the guides did what most of the rest on this thread have done, make assumptions that ended up being untrue, namely that things wouldn't change or if they did, not to this degree.  If a minimum stay were instituted next year will you feel the guides were inappropriate in telling you there was no minimum stay currently.  Would you feel they should warn everyone they tour "you know it could change tomorrow".  They wouldn't sell very well if they were too honest about the what if's.


----------



## Dean

DVCSAMNH said:


> Thanks, Dean. It would be interesting to see if DVC would ever give up the amount of control necessary to allow the members to decide on the 7 day minimum. It doesn't seem to fit their pattern.


They've never taken anything to a vote.  Disney certainly is about control, esp in the current economic times.



Mattsmommy said:


> Not true
> 
> HHI Premier Season 1 week 2009
> 1 bd room-259
> 2 bd room-330
> 
> 
> HHI Premier Season 1 week 2010
> 1 bd room- 261
> 2 bd room- 336
> 
> I know the difference is only a few points but some people bought just enough to cover a one weeks stay


I would qualify those as basically the same as Tom did.  



Inkmahm said:


> I'm going to benefit by 10 to 14 points per year based on our current travel pattern.  Not enough to sway my opinion.  If the change had hurt me by 10 to 14 points per year I'd be saying the same thing.


It hurt me by a lot more than 10-14 and I am saying the same type of things.


----------



## Dean

Here are two thread's within the last year where I made the recommendation to buy a 10% cushion.  In one I cautioned that I'd make it a priority for smaller units and lower seasons.  

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=28002929




http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1797529


----------



## maminnie

Dean said:


> Here are two thread's within the last year where I made the recommendation to buy a 10% cushion.  In one I cautioned that I'd make it a priority for smaller units and lower seasons.
> 
> http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=28002929



Dean:  

Seems to me your 10% recommendation should have also been part of DVC sales rep's sales presentation over the years too.  It certainly was not part of the conversation relative to our two purchases.  My husband and I did not take our purchases lightly and spent hours and days sifting through the materials and the contracts.  We spent hours determining how many points to buy based on our future travel needs.  We asked our sales rep and quality assurance personnel many, many questions even about point reallocation.  It was almost rediculous and obsessive how many questions we asked!  Reallocation info pertained more to holidays and seasons then week days and weekend days.  At no time did anyone recommend a point cushion.

We understand what is in the contract and what it says and Disney certainly exercised their legal right to make changes but I feel disappointed for all of us whose future plans are now effected.  As I said in a previous post I feel that we should have been notified in time to make educated decisions regarding our 2009/2010 points.  Mine would have been different and my guess so would many other people's.

maminnie


----------



## Dean

maminnie said:


> Dean:
> 
> Seems to me your 10% recommendation should have also been part of DVC sales rep's sales presentation over the years too.  It certainly was not part of the conversation relative to our two purchases.  My husband and I did not take our purchases lightly and spent hours and days sifting through the materials and the contracts.  We spent hours determining how many points to buy based on our future travel needs.  We asked our sales rep and quality assurance personnel many, many questions even about point reallocation.  It was almost rediculous and obsessive how many questions we asked!  Reallocation info pertained more to holidays and seasons then week days and weekend days.  At no time did anyone recommend a point cushion.


But don't you think that the recommendations you get here on DIS are a lot better for you than what you'd get from the guides.  Sales people, esp timeshare sales people, are often some of the most skilled at manipulating people you'll ever see usually making car sales people look like amateurs.  I think that's not quite true for DVC sales staff overall but they are still good at spinning the positives while still being honest within the context at hand.  Do you think for a second that if they thought you, or anyone, would be easy to convince to buy an extra 50 or 100 points, they wouldn't go for it.  If you're sitting there trying to figure out EXACTLY how many points you need for a given trip and they get a sense that's the best way to sell you, they are not going to remind you that at that moment that the numbers could change and you need extra unless they're pretty sure it'll get you to buy but more points.  I would and that's why I wouldn't make a good salesperson.


----------



## twebber55

im not at all happy with what happened with the points reallocation because im a sunday - thursday guy.  but i didnt love what my wife did today but i think i still love her and i ll keep her just like i ll keep DVC even though i dont like what happened i ll just lose one day of vacation day a year


----------



## TSMIII

KLR-wlv said:


> Dean - I have enjoyed your insight over the years - but with all due respect - I don't know how we should all just should have expected what we purchased to go to ****. *When we have experienced one thing for the 7 or 15 years of owning a product. I guess I should purchase a house, expecting there to be a sinkhole under it, or radon in the basement, or the tree next door to surely fall on it at some point. I suppose that way of viewing all purchases would keep me from any disappointment.*



Well, maybe not expect it when you first purchase the house but certainly you should not believe that it would be out of the realm of possibility that something like this could happen after 7 or 15 years of owning it. Trees fall on houses all the time, radon is found in basements years after purchase all the time. It's a risk you take.  If you buy a house with trees standing in close proximity, and you are a reasonable person, you realize there is a chance things may change in the future and one of those trees may be in your living room one day.  So if you buy a timeshare and are told there's a chance the points can be reallocated, you need to at least allow for the possibility.



KLR-wlv said:


> DVC has upheld a way of vacationing - which was sold to me - and which I have enjoyed as I understood it initially - for 8 years. WIth this drastic change - yes I believe changing weeknights the full 20% they are allowed under the contract is drastic - just as many would believe the full increase in maintenance fees allowed under law would be. What if that were the situation - what is the MF limit - 15% in one year? *What would you say if - for the past 15 years DVC MF's have gone up the normal couple % points - and next year - they jump to the full % under law? I guess that should be expected too - and we should all purchase with the assumption that in 5 years, MF's will be double. I just don't trust this product anymore so I will not invest further thousands of dollars.* Is that an emotionall decision? Sure - but it's a financial one for me and DVC as well.




I would guess that if MFs were to jump substantially there would have to be some causal factor for this - hurricane damage, unanticipated labor costs, necessary upgrade, etc. - and DVC would have to indicate that in our MF statements or else do a special assessment justifying the increase.

Certainly, you and anyone else could make up their mind that this would be too much to swallow and sell.  I'd imagine that if point charts were reallocated multiple times over a short span of years, MFs went up due to uncontrolled costs, member satisfaction dropped, etc. then word would get out and a large number of members would be unhappy and want to sell. And I'd guess DVC would start looking like a number of other timeshares in that it's resale prices would fall to bargain basement levels accordingly.


----------



## jecpva

After reviewing some of the new points charts, I understand what Disney is doing but it still doesn't make it fair to people that unfortunately assumed that what they were presented would not change (i.e. the Point ratio for weekend days vs. weekday days).  I for one thought that the only issue up for interpretation by Disney was the Seasons.  For me, we never vacation at one spot consistantly but we usually do try to avoid Fri & Sat, we were doing alot of Mon. - Fri. trips.  I've felt for the last few years that Disney is trying to steer members to more of the time share swapping & off property options so this may figure into this move also.  The RCI swap at 160 Points for a 1 br in high season ends up being a deal compared to a 1 br on property (but remember, you're not at Disney!!) but some of the other options are way too top heavy with points for me to even consider.  Oh, the days of free park admissions because you bought into DVC.  Now that was a perk!!


----------



## DVC Mike

jecpva said:


> After reviewing some of the new points charts, I understand what Disney is doing but it still doesn't make it fair to people that unfortunately assumed that what they were presented would not change (i.e. the Point ratio for weekend days vs. weekday days).


 
The paperwork you received along with your DVC contract clearly spelled out that while the total number of points on a chart is fixed, DVCMC has some leeway to reallocate the points to different seasons and days of the week in order to ensure a balance between supply and demand. There was never any promise in your DVC contract that DVCMC is required to maintain the existing point ratio between Sun-Thu and Fri-Sat.

Due to numerous small point add-ons that were being used to book only Sun-Thu, an imbalance arose where there was inadequate availability Sun-Thu and excess availability Fri-Sat. DVCMC has an obligation to keep demand/supply in balance.

I feel sorry for those people that didn't read the Public Offering Statement before they signed on the dotted line. Unfortunately, these people are now going to get burned. That's a bad thing - a very bad thing - as they find they won't have enough points to book what they could before. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone can pin this on DVC.


----------



## ColoradoDisneyFan

pakhowe said:


> Disney may have played by your rules, but they did not play by mine.  If you pay attention to the what people are writing you will see a common thread where guides provided a rational explanation to the reallocation clause having to do with where certain holidays fall in the calender year.  This is a misrepresentation and is wrong.  To simply say they are sales people and you should expect them to lie is overly simplistic.  This is the kind of rational that has caused such behavior to become almost acceptable in our society.  Obviously quite acceptable to some of the posters here.
> 
> I agree Disney acted within the letter of the contract, but allowed their sales practices to be less than above board.  It is easy to be smug when you are benefitting from these changes, but it does not change the fact that Disney has fallen way short in the manner in which this reallocation has played out.



Okay, so I am STUPID for not asking my lawyer to explain every detail and every scenario possible in the contract.  But I guess I had too much pixie dust sprinkled over me as I was giddy that we could finally buy into BCV.  I did specifically ask about the pts changing because that's how we arrived at the 210 number.  I am normally a skeptic and believe most salespeople will try to %$*# me.  I just thought Disney was more trustworthy than the norm.  Don't flame me for not spending days on understanding the contract to the Nth degree...after all it wasn't a mortgage!


----------



## WilsonFlyer

ColoradoDisneyFan said:


> Okay, so I am STUPID for not asking my lawyer to explain every detail and every scenario possible in the contract.  But I guess I had too much pixie dust sprinkled over me as I was giddy that we could finally buy into BCV.  I did specifically ask about the pts changing because that's how we arrived at the 210 number.  I am normally a skeptic and believe most salespeople will try to %$*# me.  I just thought Disney was more trustworthy than the norm.  Don't flame me for not spending days on understanding the contract to the Nth degree...*after all it wasn't a mortgage!*



You can't be serious?!? That's *exactly* what it *is*.


----------



## ColoradoDisneyFan

WilsonFlyer said:


> You can't be serious?!? That's *exactly* what it *is*.



for me I was paying $15,000 (plus annual dues) for 40+ years of lodging at my favorite resort at my favorite place to vacation


----------



## TSMIII

dis-happy said:


> Say good-bye to the kinder and gentler DVC...
> Things from as small as losing the tote bag for add-ons, to (I venture to guess) cutting back or eliminating Member events like the Christmas party.  It's been fun the past few years but we won't have that pixie dust experience again.
> 
> I liken to whole thing to having a good relationship with my local bank, then one day they turn into B of A and you are hit with a bunch of extra fees (and nothing to show in return), they don't know who you are and they really don't care; the bottom line and a push to open new accounts is all that matters.
> 
> We purchased DVC not because we particularly wanted a timeshare (vacations in the summer house at Hilton Head are just dandy) but because we love Disney and had a faith that their standards were high and they would always do things well.  All I can say now is that they are slipping.



I think this is where some of the problem lies with changes such as this -too many of us do not separate in our minds the hospitality side of Disney from the business/sales side of DVC/DVD. 

Yes, same parent company, but two totally different agendas.  We begin to blur the two and feel that how things are done with the mechanics of the timeshare will be akin to how we are treated as guests in the resorts, parks and restaurants.

With DVC, it's about managing the timeshare to the letter of the law and the overall benefit of the membership.  Yes, some will always be alienated with any change, but there are others that won't be and "post-change" the new members coming into the system won't be affected at all (though they potentially may be with subsequent changes).

IMO, the cardinal sin was the way in which we were all ambushed by the change - there was no prelude, no warning, no indication that something with such a major impact on many people's vacationing patterns was in the offing.  To be sure, even with notification, many people would still be upset, but at least they'd have time to digest it and plan accordingly.


----------



## DisDaydreamer

DVC Mike said:


> The paperwork you received along with your DVC contract clearly spelled out that while the total number of points on a chart is fixed, DVCMC has some leeway to reallocate the points to different seasons and days of the week in order to ensure a balance between supply and demand. There was never any promise in your DVC contract that DVCMC is required to maintain the existing point ratio between Sun-Thu and Fri-Sat.
> 
> Due to numerous small point add-ons that were being used to book only Sun-Thu, an imbalance arose where there was inadequate availability Sun-Thu and excess availability Fri-Sat. DVCMC has an obligation to keep demand/supply in balance.
> 
> I feel sorry for those people that didn't read the Public Offering Statement before they signed on the dotted line. Unfortunately, these people are now going to get burned. That's a bad thing - a very bad thing - as they find they won't have enough points to book what they could before. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone can pin this on DVC.



I think you are right on the spot with the justification of point balancing...

That said, if DVC was truly trying to balance things and help the membership out, I would think a simple allowance of two or three points transfers per year would certainly help the members to smooth out any inequities amongst ourselves without having to acquire new points.

MY beef is that DVC has done this and we cannot help each other.  Why?

This one transfer per year was supposedly in response to commercial renting, but obviously it is completely out of line and doesn't serve the DVC owners.  This needs to change. 

I'm not mad at you... just using your post to vent.  Something is wrong in Disney.


----------



## ColoradoDisneyFan

TSMIII said:


> IMO, the cardinal sin was the way in which we were all ambushed by the change - there was no prelude, no warning, no indication that something with such a major impact on many people's vacationing patterns was in the offing.  To be sure, even with notification, many people would still be upset, but at least they'd have time to digest it and plan accordingly.



*Absolutely*...all in all this will probably benefit our family.  School and activities are priorities for us now and quick weekend trips will be it for a few yrs!!  (But I'm still disappointed.)


----------



## WilsonFlyer

If you're 10 points short with the new schedule and you own 150 points, what's the big deal about borrowing 10 points every year for 15 years? You might be ready to skip a year by then anyway... or do an add-on. I'm obviously missing something.

I still think the new BLT owners have a legitimate beef (in the interest of full disclosure, I am one) but Jeez people, this is turning into a whine-fest over 2-4 points per year (Edit: or per vacation). What is WRONG with _you people_?


----------



## TSMIII

Kmango said:


> First of all, DVD is SUPPOSED to make money. So is Disney. Their attempts to do so are not 'greed.' The primary responsibility of a company is, within the realm of legal behavior, to return a profit to its investors/shareholders, not to make people feel warm and fuzzy. Now, one of the best ways to do the former is to do the latter, but not always. Foremost, the business must sustain itself. If it doesn't, then the investors lose their money AND the public loses their warm-fuzzies.
> 
> Similarly, it's not greedy for DVC to attempt to equally represent the interests of ALL of its owners. Under the old system, some people were getting a large number of days for a disproportionately small number of points, some people were getting a small number of days for a disproportionately large number of points, and some people were getting shut-out entirely. It would be irresponsible for DVC not to attempt to re-balance the system. If Disney makes more money from these changes, it will be a natural result of the system working as it should, not greed.



 

Truer words were never written.

This is the definitive answer regarding their motivation, pure and simple.

Kudos Kmango!


----------



## La2kw

Belle & Ariel said:


> And if it were your company would you let it continually lose money?
> And  many are pleased with the change.  The problem is you can't please everyone and maximize profits at the same time.



I was responding to your assertion that companies are not there to please the customer, they are there to make money.  DVC has been doing both for many years, as do many companies that are in the business of dealing with customers.  I don't believe DVC is losing money.  If it was, I doubt they would be building 4 new resorts at once, with the fifth one beginning construction soon.


----------



## ColoradoDisneyFan

WilsonFlyer said:


> If you're 10 points short with the new schedule and you own 150 points, what's the big deal about borrowing 10 points every year for 15 years? You might be ready to skip a year by then anyway... or do an add-on. I'm obviously missing something.
> 
> I still think the new BLT owners have a legitimate beef (in the interest of full disclosure, I am one) but Jeez people, this is turning into a whine-fest over 2-4 points per year. What is WRONG with _you people_?



I could give a crap about a few pts...but what is wrong with wishing that Corporate America could have a little foresight and do the right thing?  It's everywhere and I really did not expect Disney to be immune...after all, it's about the bonuses and the shareholders, right?


----------



## BroganMc

DVC Mike said:


> The paperwork you received along with your *DVC contract clearly spelled out that while the total number of points on a chart is fixed*, DVCMC has some leeway to reallocate the points to different seasons and days of the week in order to ensure a balance between supply and demand.



Ok this point is really bugging the heck out of me. *The point totals ARE NOT the same for the entire SSR chart.* There is a net difference shifting more points needed to cover all the smaller (studio to treehouse villas) rooms with a slight decrease in Grand Villas and Dedicated 2bedrooms. But overall, DVC seems to have manufactured several thousand points due from members for equal stays.

This was not a balanced change. If it was, then you would see weekly totals for a given unit balance out to 0 difference among the season. Instead we find plus numbers in all but two of the 5 columns. And the units covered in those two decreased columns are less than 1/3 of the entire resort stock.

Someone show me numbers that disprove my math.


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> OK, how about when Marriott changed the reservation rule to allow 13 month reservations, this hasn't always been in place and was a change that came about well after many resorts were selling or sold out.  If you owned one week and the potential availability were just cut in half, you might not be happy.



And exactly how could I possibly be adversely affected by that "multiple week owners get first dibs at 13 mos" rule EXCEPT when looking at possibly the highest demand week: Christmas to New Year's. Given that when I purchased my first (and then my assumed sole week) I knew demand would be high then and my likelihood of getting thus decreased, I fail to see the pain in that rule change.



> And there are situations where DVC could drop a given resort and where the resort could drop DVC as the management company.  Both unlikely to happen but possible and we've discussed it on DIS a number of times.  As for the number of days, you're trying to come up with too specific of an example it seems.  However, your post is inaccurate.  You can stay in a full week in the unit size and season you own at the resort you own assuming the resort is still in business and your legally owned unit is on line.  The ability to trade at all could be eliminated as could your resorts participation with Marriott, not likely but possible.  Still, if Marriott take over internal exchanges, expect similar threads on places like TUG as you can be not everyone will be happy, possibly no one.



You keep trying to say that this DVC change is nothing compared to what Marriott _might_ one day do. But you fail to miss what DVC did and what Marriott can *never* do: shorten my one week timeshare to 6 days.

That is precisely what's happening with Choice season at SSR. The weekly jump of 8 whole points means that one of my 4 weeks has gone to 6 days. Absolutely no benefit to me. The lower weekend points are completely overwhelmed by a 2 pt daily increase in the weekday rates.


----------



## Dean

ColoradoDisneyFan said:


> Okay, so I am STUPID for not asking my lawyer to explain every detail and every scenario possible in the contract.  But I guess I had too much pixie dust sprinkled over me as I was giddy that we could finally buy into BCV.  I did specifically ask about the pts changing because that's how we arrived at the 210 number.  I am normally a skeptic and believe most salespeople will try to %$*# me.  I just thought Disney was more trustworthy than the norm.  Don't flame me for not spending days on understanding the contract to the Nth degree...after all it wasn't a mortgage!


Most lawyers wouldn't know any more than you could by reviewing the paperwork for an hour or two unless they had an inherent knowledge of the product and or industry separately.  I would quibble with your insinuation that this is dishonest on DVC's part as it is clearly marked in the POS and is in bold letters in most of them.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

ColoradoDisneyFan said:


> I could give a crap about a few pts...but what is wrong with wishing that Corporate America could have a little foresight and do the right thing?  It's everywhere and I really did not expect Disney to be immune...*after all, it's about the bonuses and the shareholders, right?*



Yes. As a matter or fact, it is.


----------



## ColoradoDisneyFan

WilsonFlyer said:


> Yes. As a matter or fact, it is.



Wilson, I guess you and I agree on something!!  (Dean are you getting paid by Disney??)


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

For the record I am negatively impacted even though I didn't try and avoid weekend stays.  But I'll work with what is given and am not crying unfair.  I'm lucky enough to be able to choose various times to vacation so I'll adjust.  But I have had a few thoughts about this change.


I think this was poorly handled and that DVC is making too many sweeping changes.  From a business standpoint I think this alone has been a bad decision and is creating ill will.

I think DVC probably should have done season date adjustments and that they are now creating other allocation problems.  I'm specifically referring to Adventure season in early Dec. which I felt was a real bargain.  It may make the other adventure seasons a bit more difficult to fill and cause another gap in occupancy.  After all isn't that the time people have really been complaining about not being able to get reservations?

We don't have DVC's information so it is all supposition that weekends were not filling up.  Personally we are and were going to continue to be weekend/week stayers.  The DIS group is great at maximizing DVC value (and there's nothing at all wrong with that).  But I don't think it's a typical representation.  Ths jist is that I haven't been convinced that weekend/weekday points were so out of whack.  In fact I'm now fully expecting to have difficulty in getting weekends.  This change is a BIG plus for people who live close to WDW.

The change to BLT points is just plain unfair and unacceptable.  There is no way that they didn't know this change was coming.  This is where Disney really brought themselves down more than a few pegs to the level of bad-mouthed timeshares.

I do understand about people's complaints in being told to pick out your season and unit size to determine what you buy.  I was told the same thing.  And even though the paperwork negates anything your told I have never bought the idea that just because a business covers their behinds in the legal paperwork that it is ethical to feel they can say anything for a sale.  I hope that people will contact DVC and complain about how they were sold this product.  I disagree with posters that say it's how it's done and just accept it.  I won't get political but that's so much at the root of the problems we're experiencing in the country today.  It actually is possible to be correct and honest and make a sale b/c hopefully there is enough to the product that makes it worthwhile in selling.

*More than the point charts the thing that gives me greater pause is the much less discussed change to waitlisting.  I think Dean is 100% on track that DVC is certainly encouraging and may be setting up for a change to longer stays.  Limiting to 2 waitlists and starting to even out weekday/weekend points leads me to that conclusion.  *

Yikes!


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

BroganMc said:


> Ok this point is really bugging the heck out of me. *The point totals ARE NOT the same for the entire SSR chart.* There is a net difference shifting more points needed to cover all the smaller (studio to treehouse villas) rooms with a slight decrease in Grand Villas and Dedicated 2bedrooms. But overall, DVC seems to have manufactured several thousand points due from members for equal stays.
> 
> This was not a balanced change. If it was, then you would see weekly totals for a given unit balance out to 0 difference among the season. Instead we find plus numbers in all but two of the 5 columns. And the units covered in those two decreased columns are less than 1/3 of the entire resort stock.
> 
> Someone show me numbers that disprove my math.



Is there anyway that they are messing around with the SSR points in the adding of the treeshouse villas?  ie - could they "issue" more points in their declaration for those units than the 2 bedroom number that they are going to charge since technically they are a different type?  I haven't seen any paperwork and really wouldn't think so but if so then they could up all the points around the resort.  And, it would leave them open to change the point requirements for the tree house units later if they determine they are experiencing a greater demand and then reduce other units back to the level they were.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

KAT4DISNEY said:


> . . .
> [*]I think DVC probably should have done season date adjustments and that they are now creating other allocation problems.  I'm specifically referring to Adventure season in early Dec. which I felt was a real bargain.  It may make the other adventure seasons a bit more difficult to fill and cause another gap in occupancy.  After all isn't that the time people have really been complaining about not being able to get reservations? . . .



The limit on not making more than a 20% change in the point total for any particular night prohibited DVC from switching certain rooms at certain resorts from one Season to the another.

For example, a Studio in Adventure Season in OKW on weekdays was 8 points; the most it could change (and not violate the 20% limit) was by 1 point, which it did in 2010, to 9 points.  If DVC does further weekday/weekend rebalancing for 2011, the Adventure Season OKW weekday studio could go all the way to 10 points per night.

If they did more changes in 2011, then in 2012, DVC might be able to move early Dec into Dream Season (i.e, a weekday Studio at 12 points) and move, say, late Aug into Adventure Season (i.e., a weekday studio at 10 points).  If they are going that route, I would also expect to see Oct move to Dream Season and May move to Choice Season.

I don't have a crystal ball, but DVC has taken the genie out of the bottle with this change in the points chart and I would not be surprised by more changes. -- Suzanne


----------



## kristenrice

WilsonFlyer said:


> If you're 10 points short with the new schedule and you own 150 points, what's the big deal about borrowing 10 points every year for 15 years? You might be ready to skip a year by then anyway... or do an add-on. I'm obviously missing something.



Some people bought smaller contracts (i.e. the 100 point minimum at AKV offered this summer) to take a 200 point vacation very other year. Some planned for a 300 point trip every three years.  It is not so simple as just "borrowing 10 points" from next year.  Some folks need to use every available point for their vacations and now they are coming up a few points short.   

I have had to redo my vacation plans for the next several years just like others who have posted here. I am not thrilled about it, but I will make due.  Instead of putting 4 of us in a 2BR down the road, we will have to tough it out in a 1BR. Sure, we might not be bringing along family and friends like we had planned, but we'll adjust. 

Some people can't just borrow the points and even fewer are in the financial position to "just do an add-on".  As much as I would have like to buy in for 200-300 points, we didn't have that kind of money.  For those who can afford enough points for a full 7 nights, congrats!  I am not one of you.  I can afford enough for 5 weeknights...for now.  We'll see what happens if there are further reallocations.  I am with those who have said that it is not so much THAT they made the change, it's more upsetting as to HOW they went about it. I've adjusted and moved on since there is nothing I can do to change it.


----------



## Belle & Ariel

Inkmahm said:


> Because I've been saying the same thing for 60+ pages and some people still choose to not understand and insist Disney is the big bad wolf because Disney followed the contract.  The contract that we all signed.  Yes, I'm frustrated that there are adults that spent thousands of $ and seem not to have taken the time to read the contract to understand what they were buying.  That is not Disney's fault, it is their own fault.
> 
> Maybe it's because I work in business and deal with contracts all the time.  I would never sign something I didn't understand.



When we did our tour, we asked our guide for a copy of the contract to preview.  He was astonished and said no one had ever done this before. 
When do people typically get their contract?  If it is not seen until you are back home and under deposit/contract, you are emotionally invested and it's a little late to read the fine print.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> Ok this point is really bugging the heck out of me. *The point totals ARE NOT the same for the entire SSR chart.* There is a net difference shifting more points needed to cover all the smaller (studio to treehouse villas) rooms with a slight decrease in Grand Villas and Dedicated 2bedrooms. But overall, DVC seems to have manufactured several thousand points due from members for equal stays.
> 
> This was not a balanced change. If it was, then you would see weekly totals for a given unit balance out to 0 difference among the season. Instead we find plus numbers in all but two of the 5 columns. And the units covered in those two decreased columns are less than 1/3 of the entire resort stock.
> 
> Someone show me numbers that disprove my math.


You may want to work it out room by room, day by day for the entire year.  Some weeks went up and some went down but only two instances did a specific week, unit and season change by more than 4 points, choice studios went up 8 points and Premier GV went down 32 points.  All total there were 13 unit size and season decreases and 8 increases if you count 2 BR and THV as different if I scanned through correctly.  In all cases except the two I mentioned above, the change up or down was between 1 & 4 points for the entire week.  This will not be an exact science given that there are several factors.  You start with the current charts and demand and are limited by the 20% change limitation and the need to balance the entire resort (but not a given unit type).  If I read your post correctly, I think you made some incorrect assumptions.  There is no need for a given season or room type to balance, effectively all they have to do is balance the entire resort for the year, it's a little more complicated than that but in effect that is the ultimate limitation.  While the newer POS suggest each unit "group of rooms" must balance, the oldest one I have from 1994 essentially implies the entire resort must balance.



BroganMc said:


> And exactly how could I possibly be adversely affected by that "multiple week owners get first dibs at 13 mos" rule EXCEPT when looking at possibly the highest demand week: Christmas to New Year's. Given that when I purchased my first (and then my assumed sole week) I knew demand would be high then and my likelihood of getting thus decreased, I fail to see the pain in that rule change.


I'm not saying you personally but any member.  It likely doesn't affect you because you own at low demand large resorts and this happened before you were a member so you knew up front.  But for those that bought places like Maui and tried unsuccessfully for 5 or so years to get the week they wanted and couldn't, you might feel differently.  You make another point for me, that it's how it affects one personally that is the issue for most, not the overall interpretation of the situation.  My point in this was that Marriott changed the rules mid stream without input and it did affect a large block of owners at many resorts.  And they did so almost exclusively with the intent of spurring sales it appears.




> You keep trying to say that this DVC change is nothing compared to what Marriott _might_ one day do. But you fail to miss what DVC did and what Marriott can *never* do: shorten my one week timeshare to 6 days.
> 
> That is precisely what's happening with Choice season at SSR. The weekly jump of 8 whole points means that one of my 4 weeks has gone to 6 days. Absolutely no benefit to me. The lower weekend points are completely overwhelmed by a 2 pt daily increase in the weekday rates.


I'm not trying to say anything, I AM saying it's small potatoes in the big scheme of things and is a lot less than things Marriott has done in the past and that both DVC and Marriott MIGHT do in the future.  How it affects you is obviously important to you but not germane to the decisions.  I am sorry it cost you a day of usage simply because you were aiming at that exact unit size and season but DVC did not single you out personally.  As with any changes there are winners and losers, you are one of the losers it appears and I truly am sorry about that.  But I guess the real question is what do you do now?  Do you sell, buy more points, do an occasional cash day, shorten your stay every few trips; those are the type of decisions that we all must make if we are on the losing end of this.


----------



## Dean

ColoradoDisneyFan said:


> Wilson, I guess you and I agree on something!!  (Dean are you getting paid by Disney??)


No but I'm open to any bonus they might throw my way.  They might think it's funny as I'm usually taking them to task in one way or another.  



Belle & Ariel said:


> When we did our tour, we asked our guide for a copy of the contract to preview.  He was astonished and said no one had ever done this before.
> When do people typically get their contract?  If it is not seen until you are back home and under deposit/contract, you are emotionally invested and it's a little late to read the fine print.


Unless they were very new I don't believe this for a second.  More likely sales talk for no need to worry, no need to read it.


----------



## jekjones1558

I am one of those who believes that Disney did what its fiduciary responsibility to members requires, although I think that it delayed this move too many years, thus making it more painful.  I also believe the short notice is totally disrespectful.  DVC booking works best when planned well in advance.  
I wish there were a way to put pressure on Disney to open a window for multiple point transfers and for small point add-ons.  Although I know that some folks are too angry to consider putting any more $$ into DVC vacations, I think that there are some who just want to solve their new point shortage dilemma.  Once the initial shock and fury have passed, there remains the task of work-arounds.  I wish I knew of an effective way of organizing an effort to facilitate solutions for those members who are most negatively impacted.


----------



## CheapMom

How can we tell if DVC is in compliance- is there some sort of points audit that is available to us so that we can see that the resorts are truly reallocated and that it is not, as Brogan's SSR math shows, a resort wide increase?


----------



## DisDaydreamer

BroganMc said:


> Ok this point is really bugging the heck out of me. *The point totals ARE NOT the same for the entire SSR chart.* There is a net difference shifting more points needed to cover all the smaller (studio to treehouse villas) rooms with a slight decrease in Grand Villas and Dedicated 2bedrooms. But overall, DVC seems to have manufactured several thousand points due from members for equal stays.
> 
> This was not a balanced change. If it was, then you would see weekly totals for a given unit balance out to 0 difference among the season. Instead we find plus numbers in all but two of the 5 columns. And the units covered in those two decreased columns are less than 1/3 of the entire resort stock.
> 
> Someone show me numbers that disprove my math.



Not sure about this, but it was always my understanding that the points had to balance over a year.  Not a day or week or month.  I have not done any numbers for any time periods.  So I don't know how the numbers really work out.

I guess I'm going to have to go back and read all these damn posts to understand what all is being said.

Personally, I think a thread should be limited to 10 pages.


----------



## Belle & Ariel

La2kw said:


> I was responding to your assertion that companies are not there to please the customer, they are there to make money.  DVC has been doing both for many years, as do many companies that are in the business of dealing with customers.  I don't believe DVC is losing money.  If it was, I doubt they would be building 4 new resorts at once, with the fifth one beginning construction soon.



I am talking about the lost revenue resulting from empty rooms on weekends translating into no money spent on tickets, food, etc.  Every empty room represents a loss of potential income--I'm sure they have a per diem average.
If you have taken any business classes, you would know a company is in business to make money and maximize shareholder wealth. 
Can you imagine going into a bank to get a business loan and saying your goal was to please customers?  That's not why businesses exist.


----------



## DisDaydreamer

Belle & Ariel said:


> Can you imagine going into a bank to get a business loan and saying your goal was to please customers?  That's not why businesses exist.



Somehow, I think Walt Disney had just THAT in mind.

Now I'm getting sucked in.... just got my feelings going.


----------



## tjkraz

ColoradoDisneyFan said:


> for me I was paying $15,000 (plus annual dues) for 40+ years of lodging at my favorite resort at my favorite place to vacation



The standard terms and conditions acknowledged at check-in as a cash guests are what...a single page?  The collective DVC ownership docs are several hundred pages in length.  Big difference.


----------



## TIGGERmetoo

I guess we were lucky, before we bought I asked our guide about points changing & he explained that the total points for a resort for a total year would not change but they could be reallocated into different days/weeks.


----------



## Sammie

DisDaydreamer said:


> Not sure about this, but it was always my understanding that the points had to balance over a year.  Not a day or week or month.  I have not done any numbers for any time periods.  So I don't know how the numbers really work out.
> 
> I guess I'm going to have to go back and read all these damn posts to understand what all is being said.
> 
> Personally, I think a thread should be limited to 10 pages.



I was told by Member Services that they have to be equal from year to year for the total based on weekly stays, adding all the seasons and all the room types.


----------



## Sammie

Belle & Ariel said:


> I am talking about the lost revenue resulting from empty rooms on weekends translating into no money spent on tickets, food, etc.  Every empty room represents a loss of potential income--I'm sure they have a per diem average.
> If you have taken any business classes, you would know a company is in business to make money and maximize shareholder wealth.
> Can you imagine going into a bank to get a business loan and saying your goal was to please customers?  That's not why businesses exist.



If DVC truly does not have any desire to please its customers they need to redo thier website.



> The Disney Difference is what sets Disney Vacation Club apart... it's the heritage, tradition and values that began with Walt himself, carried forward to today.



Believe me Walt cared.


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> You may want to work it out room by room, day by day for the entire year.  Some weeks went up and some went down but only two instances did a specific week, unit and season change by more than 4 points, choice studios went up 8 points and Premier GV went down 32 points.  All total there were 13 unit size and season decreases and 8 increases if you count 2 BR and THV as different if I scanned through correctly.  In all cases except the two I mentioned above, the change up or down was between 1 & 4 points for the entire week.  This will not be an exact science given that there are several factors.  You start with the current charts and demand and are limited by the 20% change limitation and the need to balance the entire resort (but not a given unit type).  If I read your post correctly, I think you made some incorrect assumptions.  There is no need for a given season or room type to balance, effectively all they have to do is balance the entire resort for the year, it's a little more complicated than that but in effect that is the ultimate limitation.  While the newer POS suggest each unit "group of rooms" must balance, the oldest one I have from 1994 essentially implies the entire resort must balance.



Yes I understand that but I think you have not understood my math.

I went through each room category and did a simple equation of increase or decrease in weekly total.

For SSR that means for the room category of studio, there was a net INCREASE of 7 points needed per year. Grand Villas had a net decrease of 44 points. Of course there are many more studios than Grand Villas (432 to 36) so any net decrease is far outweighed by the net increase for the resort.

I did the same equations on the other categories, accommodating for the exact number of units in that category and multiplying by a factor of 52 for the number of weeks in the year. What I came up with in the end was a net increase number of points. 

What makes this all hinky to me is that if you expected there to be a balanced chart just redistributed points then adding up all the point differentials should give you a net difference of 0. It does not.

SSR 2010 Overall Weekly Point Differential (factoring point adjustments for each room category & season per year multiplied by number of each unit in the resort)

GVs -44 (x 36) = -1584
THVs +3 (x 60) = 180
Dedicated 2bedrooms -1 (x 360) = -360
1bedrooms +3 (x 432 units) = 1296
Studios +7 (x 432) = 3024

TOTAL POINT DIFFERENTIAL

-1584 (GVs) + 180 (THV) + - 360 (Ded 2bed) + 1296 (1bed) + 3024 (studio) = +2556 (net increase)

Or if we want to break it down for the 52 weeks next year then the totals are:

-82368 (GVs) + 9360 (THV) - 18720 (Ded 2bed) + 67392 (1bed) + 157248 (studio) = +132912 (net increase)



> You make another point for me, that it's how it affects one personally that is the issue for most, not the overall interpretation of the situation.  My point in this was that Marriott changed the rules mid stream without input and it did affect a large block of owners at many resorts.  And they did so almost exclusively with the intent of spurring sales it appears.



Honestly, the reason I'm not all bothered by the 13 month rule is that it doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect me because I own multiple weeks already. I have yet to be able to snag a holiday week in Hawaii however because I do not own there. Had I desired to purchase there I'd significantly increase my chances. The 13 month rule doesn't help me or hurt me.

The same is true for point changes at resorts I don't own, which is why I'm not screaming about any resort other than SSR and BLT. BLT seems to have a more balanced chart to my eyes. SSR is different.

Skimming chatter about VWL, I wonder if there's something similarly hinky about that one too.



> I'm not trying to say anything, I AM saying it's small potatoes in the big scheme of things and is a lot less than things Marriott has done in the past and that both DVC and Marriott MIGHT do in the future.



If Marriott drops Cypress Harbour or Grande Vista or even Manor Club, I lose the ability to trade my unit for hotel rewards points. I still get to travel to those resorts for a full week. I also own weeks during the times I like to travel, just in case they decide to go to a fixed week system. If they drop II and go to internal exchanges, well then I own at only the resorts I like to visit. This is all covered in the same rules you and others have given to prospective DVC buyers (i.e. don't count on the perks, don't count on trading, etc.).

The one thing you seem to want to overlook is that the weekly totals have changed significantly enough that a week at DVC has decreased to 6 days for many.

Now sure, I can weather the storm better than others. I have enough of a cushion that I can just adjust my travel patterns. But I still notice the shortfall and am incensed at the principle of the thing. Everything you're saying about what's in the POS does not seem to be what DVC actually did.



> But I guess the real question is what do you do now?  Do you sell, buy more points, do an occasional cash day, shorten your stay every few trips; those are the type of decisions that we all must make if we are on the losing end of this.



If this had simply been a matter of rebalancing (and handled with much better communication), I would have just added on a 25 pointer to cover the difference for times I like to go (October & May). But because they've bungled this and seem to be willfully cheating me and others out of their usage, my faith in the company is hanging by a thread. I don't wish to enter into more contracts with them.

I still enjoying going to Disney and will until the personnel and amenities detoriate to similar levels. So for me, I'll just adjust my traveling pattern to maximize my point usage. That means I'll just shorten my stays in May and extend them in September, October or December. I fail to see how this change will make one bit of difference to weekend demand. I suspect very few people bookended a week with weekends. The point decrease on weekends does not equate to the point increase in weekdays. So even if you were able to bank a few points on your stay it is not enough to cover a full day's usage at any time. People will be flocking to the same travel patterns, just with much less enthusiasm for the company and a sense of being pressured.

Overall it seems the ones making these decisions are the ones counting on sales as their bottom line. So the best way I can make a statement to them  (other than send off my e-mails and letters of complaint) is to not add to their sales anymore than I have. That also means they lose me as a free PR person. I'm more likely to warn prospective buyers from the program than toward it.


----------



## DisDaydreamer

Sammie said:


> I was told by Member Services that they have to be equal from year to year for the total based on weekly stays, adding all the seasons and all the room types.



Hey Sammie, Thanks... I don't remember it that way, but I am not a real good reader. So, if I am wrong...  wouldn't be the (many numbers) time.  Need to be more careful about what I know and what I THINK I know.


----------



## DisDaydreamer

BroganMc said:


> Overall it seems the ones making these decisions are the ones counting on sales as their bottom line. So the best way I can make a statement to them  (other than send off my e-mails and letters of complaint) is to not add to their sales anymore than I have. That also means they lose me as a free PR person. I'm more likely to warn prospective buyers from the program than toward it.



Well said... this is me... I won't be a PR person, but I am not yet going to discourage prospective buyers.


----------



## TSMIII

BroganMc said:


> Yes I understand that but I think you have not understood my math.
> 
> I went through each room category and did a simple equation of increase or decrease in weekly total.
> 
> For SSR that means for the room category of studio, there was a net INCREASE of 7 points needed per year. Grand Villas had a net decrease of 44 points. Of course there are many more studios than Grand Villas (432 to 36) so any net decrease is far outweighed by the net increase for the resort.
> 
> I did the same equations on the other categories, accommodating for the exact number of units in that category and multiplying by a factor of 52 for the number of weeks in the year. What I came up with in the end was a net increase number of points.
> 
> What makes this all hinky to me is that if you expected there to be a balanced chart just redistributed points then adding up all the point differentials should give you a net difference of 0. It does not.



I'm sorry but it's more complicated than that.

You have to do as Dean said and calculate day by day.  There are too many variables, like the shift of the weekends year to year, season to season.

Further, there is the Base Year that DVCMC has used for the initial calculation of the point chart.  I mentioned in a previous post that one could go to tjkraz's excellent site dvcnews.com and find his article about the POS language which he actually pulled from the SSR POS.  This will help explain the methodology DVCMC used to derive the point totals.


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

SuzanneSLO said:


> The limit on not making more than a 20% change in the point total for any particular night prohibited DVC from switching certain rooms at certain resorts from one Season to the another.
> 
> For example, a Studio in Adventure Season in OKW on weekdays was 8 points; the most it could change (and not violate the 20% limit) was by 1 point, which it did in 2010, to 9 points.  If DVC does further weekday/weekend rebalancing for 2011, the Adventure Season OKW weekday studio could go all the way to 10 points per night.
> 
> If they did more changes in 2011, then in 2012, DVC might be able to move early Dec into Dream Season (i.e, a weekday Studio at 12 points) and move, say, late Aug into Adventure Season (i.e., a weekday studio at 10 points).  If they are going that route, I would also expect to see Oct move to Dream Season and May move to Choice Season.
> 
> I don't have a crystal ball, but DVC has taken the genie out of the bottle with this change in the points chart and I would not be surprised by more changes. -- Suzanne



To use your example - they could have shifted the weeks b/c a studio at OKW was 8 pts in both seasons (and in my quick perusal of point charts this equality in the lower cost units is true at most resorts).  They still would have been able to make both the shift in seasons and in the point charts.  The easiest way to do this would be to move a whole week into one season and another back into the other just as they do in shifting the seasons around holidays.

I find the 20% to be pretty ambiguous in exactly how it can be applied and think that DVC could work around that when it comes to seasons.

I agree that I don't think this is the end and think changes may be much more the norm rather than the exception.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Belle & Ariel said:


> When we did our tour, we asked our guide for a copy of the contract to preview. He was astonished and said no one had ever done this before.
> When do people typically get their contract? If it is not seen until you are back home and under deposit/contract, you are emotionally invested and it's a little late to read the fine print.


When we bought resales, two separate company's DID NOT furnish the POS. Ihad to specifically request it, and I could only get it post closing.
Purchasing direct thru Disney, I received POS for my specific resort as well as Member Benefits info, etc. Again, none of this was furnished by two different resales companys. Their response to acquiring this info..."This needs to be provided by the seller." There were only a few things that I wasn't totally aware of, and my guide really did a great job at the inital tour. This may be why many folks here seemed uninformed.


----------



## Tamplain

TIGGERmetoo said:


> I guess we were lucky, before we bought I asked our guide about points changing & he explained that the total points for a resort for a total year would not change but they could be reallocated into different days/weeks.




Yes you were lucky. In my discussions with guide was told that the points would not change. I asked about similar because I was looking at the charts thinking I buy 200 points and that gives me a week in a 1 bedroom during certain seasons. Was sent points list via email and told to base my points purchase on how long I would be staying for my vacation. I said most probably 1 week. Was told 200 would cover it and that I was safe since the points as I saw them on the list would never change per night.

I almost went into it but decided to hold out. Now in hindsight If I would have purchased at 160 or 200 I would not have enough based on the new changes. Whether the guide new this change was coming I don't know but that is not sitting well with me right now and has really put the resale purchase we had been looking at on the back burner. As someone said in another post if they have changed this now how much more would I need in the coming future as I had no plans to buy more points for stay each year.

Resale agent also just recently informed they are being flooded with request to sell DVC contracts and all of the small contracts were being scooped up very fast. Wonder if this has anything to do with the changes just made and now people need more points.

Oh well was still on the fence but now back down on the other side for a while to watch some more.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

TSMIII said:


> I'm sorry but it's more complicated than that.
> 
> You have to do as Dean said and calculate day by day.  There are too many variables, like the shift of the weekends year to year, season to season.



I did this in an excel spreadsheet. The results below are for total points for all units, 365 days with the studios/1br split as such.

2009 Total Points = 15,017,316
2010 Total Points = 15,028,644



A total difference of +11,328 or 0.075%

I'd say it's pretty well balanced.

Edit: I should mention that this is for SSR.


----------



## Sammie

DisDaydreamer said:


> Hey Sammie, Thanks... I don't remember it that way, but I am not a real good reader. So, if I am wrong...  wouldn't be the (many numbers) time.  Need to be more careful about what I know and what I THINK I know.



no problem and with all the confusion even MS might be wrong.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> Yes I understand that but I think you have not understood my math.
> 
> I went through each room category and did a simple equation of increase or decrease in weekly total.


I doubt it is exact nor would I expect it to be absolute.  I'd expect it to be off by a few points as it will vary one year to another based on leap year and what day of the week the year starts on.




> Honestly, the reason I'm not all bothered by the 13 month rule is that it doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect me because I own multiple weeks already. I have yet to be able to snag a holiday week in Hawaii however because I do not own there. Had I desired to purchase there I'd significantly increase my chances. The 13 month rule doesn't help me or hurt me.


That's been one of my major points that whether this hurts or help you really should not come into play as to the reasonableness of the change.  Still, owning multiple weeks doesn't matter unless you reserve them concurrently or consecutively.  


> The one thing you seem to want to overlook is that the weekly totals have changed significantly enough that a week at DVC has decreased to 6 days for many.


I don't overlook it and I do care.  However, I do not think it has any place in the reasonableness of the decision.  A maximum reallocation would have likely limited you to 4 or 5 days instead of 6, the issue would be no different.  



> But because they've bungled this and seem to be willfully cheating me and others out of their usage, my faith in the company is hanging by a thread. I don't wish to enter into more contracts with them.


There's no cheating here, simply doing the job they were contracted to do, no more and no less.  Other than the unfortunate timing in regards to those that have already bought BLT, I'm not sure the timing is an issue either.  As long as the change occurs before the 11 month window opens, that is sufficient time to allow for reservations.  Asking them to announce an extra 6-12 months ahead of the year in question is an unreasonable expectation IMO.  



> Overall it seems the ones making these decisions are the ones counting on sales as their bottom line. So the best way I can make a statement to them (other than send off my e-mails and letters of complaint) is to not add to their sales anymore than I have. That also means they lose me as a free PR person. I'm more likely to warn prospective buyers from the program than toward it.


Do you really think this is a sales ploy and do you think this will make any dent in their sales at all.  I say no on both counts whether you add on or not.


----------



## ashbradnmom

BroganMc said:


> Ok this point is really bugging the heck out of me. *The point totals ARE NOT the same for the entire SSR chart.* There is a net difference shifting more points needed to cover all the smaller (studio to treehouse villas) rooms with a slight decrease in Grand Villas and Dedicated 2bedrooms. But overall, DVC seems to have manufactured several thousand points due from members for equal stays.
> 
> This was not a balanced change. If it was, then you would see weekly totals for a given unit balance out to 0 difference among the season. Instead we find plus numbers in all but two of the 5 columns. And the units covered in those two decreased columns are less than 1/3 of the entire resort stock.
> 
> Someone show me numbers that disprove my math.



not to defend it but the points for the treehouse villas have not been sold yet.


----------



## Dean

BWV Dreamin said:


> When we bought resales, two separate company's DID NOT furnish the POS. Ihad to specifically request it, and I could only get it post closing.
> Purchasing direct thru Disney, I received POS for my specific resort as well as Member Benefits info, etc. Again, none of this was furnished by two different resales companys. Their response to acquiring this info..."This needs to be provided by the seller." There were only a few things that I wasn't totally aware of, and my guide really did a great job at the inital tour. This may be why many folks here seemed uninformed.


But legally if you buy resale you are blindly assuming the limitations placed on the original buyer.  And many companies won't even give you a POS if you ask as a resale buyer.  It's up to the seller, not the broker, to give it to you if they have it and see fit.


----------



## FuzzyMelton

WilsonFlyer said:


> Jeez people, this is turning into a whine-fest over 2-4 points per year (Edit: or per vacation). What is WRONG with _you people_?



2-4 points?  HUH?  More like 16-20 and that is 10% of my contract!  See again some of you don't fully understand....

I would have accepted this much better if Disney had not surprised us.  There was no notifications or advanced warnings.  A simple letter or e-mail would have been much better in breaking this news in.


----------



## ashbradnmom

It just seems to me that people are comparing buying a week at a traditional timeshare to buying points at dvc. Points are about flexibility not about i get this week at this time every year guaranteed.


----------



## Dean

ashbradnmom said:


> It just seems to me that people are comparing buying a week at a traditional timeshare to buying points at dvc. Points are about flexibility not about i get this week at this time every year guaranteed.


I didn't miss the irony here.  Many have touted DVC as being better because it was flexible and different and at times reacted negatively when I compared it to other timeshares.  Interesting to hear some saying that other timeshares are better using the same logic.  DVC remains what it always has been, a specialty product who's value is the flexibility and on property locations and only a good choice for a select subset of people.  Does it fit for everyone today that it did 48 hours ago, likely not, and the same will be true for every change that occurs and has occured.  However, it is better today for some that it was not before.


----------



## FuzzyMelton

White_Sox_Fan said:


> I did this in an excel spreadsheet. The results below are for total points for all units, 365 days with the studios/1br split as such.
> 
> 2009 Total Points = 15,017,316
> 2010 Total Points = 15,028,644
> 
> 
> 
> A total difference of +11,328 or 0.075%
> 
> I'd say it's pretty well balanced.
> 
> Edit: I should mention that this is for SSR.



DOES NOT CHANGE MEANS DOES NOT CHANGE.  That means even one point.  I would love to have those 11,328 points you are blowing off.  If the average vacation contract was 200 points, that is 56 extra contracts, or if the average person was now short by 2 points that is 5664 people that have to re-adjust their vacations.  Maybe you should think this through.

WALT WOULD BE TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE!


----------



## Disney MAINEiac

while I haven't had a chance to really compare the new charts, (if they end up being what have been posted in this thread), to the points used for past trips, I don't think it will have a huge impact to the way we travel now.  we bought enough points to do about 10-days to make the airfare worthwhile for us. we can't justify multiple trips unless we are heading down for some other reason.

we intentionally bought a few more points than we would use in a year so we bank about 10 - 20 point on average which allows us to take a full two weeks in some years


----------



## BeccaG

roelongo said:


> Why wasn't this change brought up at hte member meeting in December?  Isn't that what those meetings are for?



Now that is the million dollar question. . but could you imagine all of this (the thread) at the meeting?  They would not do this at the meeting because they would have feared for their lives!!!


----------



## DVC92

If the POS states that the total points overall must remain the same, and you are positive that this is simply not the case, you should file a complaint with the Florida Timeshare Bureau. The reallocation would still take place, but a small point adjustment would be required.  Also, since a year has 365 days, there could be an extra weekend day in 2010 which could explain the point differential. Complaining to DVC will get no response or any positive action.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

FuzzyMelton said:


> DOES NOT CHANGE MEANS DOES NOT CHANGE.  That means even one point.  I would love to have those 11,328 points you are blowing off.  If the average vacation contract was 200 points, that is 56 extra contracts, or if the average person was now short by 2 points that is 5664 people that have to re-adjust their vacations.  Maybe you should think this through.
> 
> WALT WOULD BE TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE!



Of course I was doing a rough calculation I may not be entirely accurate.  There is one variable at SSR that I'm not sure how they account for, that being the lock-offs.  A lock-off booked as a studio & 1BR commands more points than one booked as a two bedroom.  

I also posted the difference as a percentage, which is much more telling of the change than the 11,000 point difference.  The total change is less than 1/10th of one percent.  I'm sure that it would be impossible to reallocate the point charts to the point, I'm sure it wasn't reallocated to the point last time they adjusted them either.  

Since there is something like a minimum of 2% (if I remember correctly) of the total points held from sale, I'm sure the .075% difference will not be a factor.  DVD isn't making any more money off this, there are only a certain amount of points available for sale no matter how they reallocate the chart, and these have been sold (except for the new points available from the THV)


----------



## jamstew

BroganMc said:


> I fail to see how this change will make one bit of difference to weekend demand. I suspect very few people bookended a week with weekends. The point decrease on weekends does not equate to the point increase in weekdays. So even if you were able to bank a few points on your stay it is not enough to cover a full day's usage at any time. People will be flocking to the same travel patterns, just with much less enthusiasm for the company and a sense of being pressured.



I think you're exactly right about that. I'm one of the small contract, Sunday to Friday people, and the change isn't going to change my travel pattern. Weekend nights are still more points than I choose to spend, so I'll be staying in a value for 3-4 nights on one end of each trip. I'm not happy that my two 5-night trips went up a total of 15 points. I can live with it, but I'm definitely going to grumble about it.


----------



## tidefan

FuzzyMelton said:


> DOES NOT CHANGE MEANS DOES NOT CHANGE.  That means even one point.  I would love to have those 11,328 points you are blowing off.  If the average vacation contract was 200 points, that is 56 extra contracts, or if the average person was now short by 2 points that is 5664 people that have to re-adjust their vacations.  Maybe you should think this through.
> 
> WALT WOULD BE TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE!



Well, this isn't probably exactly right either because not all studios and 1-Bedrooms are counted as such, some are counted as 2 Bedroom lockoffs.  Note that a studio+1 Bedroom does not equal a 2 bedroom pointswise, so I think that those calculations are going to be off a bit as there is probably some proportional allocation between studios, one bedrooms and 2 bedroom lockoffs.


----------



## tidefan

White_Sox_Fan said:


> Of course I was doing a rough calculation I may not be entirely accurate.  There is one variable at SSR that I'm not sure how they account for, that being the lock-offs.  A lock-off booked as a studio & 1BR commands more points than one booked as a two bedroom.
> 
> I also posted the difference as a percentage, which is much more telling of the change than the 11,000 point difference.  The total change is less than 1/10th of one percent.  I'm sure that it would be impossible to reallocate the point charts to the point, I'm sure it wasn't reallocated to the point last time they adjusted them either.
> 
> Since there is something like a minimum of 2% (if I remember correctly) of the total points held from sale, I'm sure the .075% difference will not be a factor.  DVD isn't making any more money off this, there are only a certain amount of points available for sale no matter how they reallocate the chart, and these have been sold (except for the new points available from the THV)



Nevermind my previous post, you beat me to it...


----------



## SharonS

Perhaps people should think back to when DVC first started.   I believe that at the time, the minimum points to buy in was somewhere around 240??   To me, it was obvious that the original intent was that people would basically buy points for a full 1 week stay.    However, in order to increase sales, as the price per point rose, they decreased the minimum number of points required to buy in.

I think that now they have too many members who bought small contracts, planning on only 5 night stays and as a result, are not having availablility for those who want to stay a full 7 nights.   This probably came to light more when the changes to the booking policies were changed.


----------



## lugnut33

Dean said:


> LOL, there is always going to be a break point that is somewhat arbitrary.  From a company standpoint they cannot and will not call the sales staff and say something like "be careful in this areas because we're going to make changes".  The guides don't find out most things until we do or after, often after.  The reason is if you tell them, or any similar group of employees, some will pass it along and then it becomes a much bigger mess with rumors posted places like here and then people start calling and emailing MS about the rumor of whatever the topic is.  The guides are not clueless overall, it's just poor business to let such issues trickle down to such levels where it'll likely leak out.  Think if your favorite restaurant closes and you show up for dinner with a reservation only to find they closed that day with a sign on the door for employees to call X number to get their final paycheck.  I've seen this happen many time over the years though I don't agree with the approach, it's still the best one from a business standpoint.
> 
> To go a step further, this might be considered a trade secret for DVD/DVC and anyone who did let the cat out of the bag would likely have been putting their job on the line.  You get no argument that the timing was somewhat poor, that it should have been out by or before the BLT chart was available, but it simply didn't happen so DVC and the members must go forward.  Ask yourself one question, would most of the people posting saying they are upset, not be upset if DVC had done it that way.  I would bet you that every single person who has posted on this thread as being upset isn't mad because of the timing, they're mad because of the change itself.  The timing just rubs salt in the wound.  With the two AKV fiasco's, this, the wait list changes and the reservation lead time changes; one has to ask themselves whether the current (and possibly future) DVC is right for them.  The truth is they should have asked that question up front and assumed worst case scenarios.  IMO these are minor issues that should not rock the foundation of one's DVC ownership and they are things where such changes and issues should be anticipated.  Not that every specific change can be anticipated but that one should expect changes, and screw-ups, and know that most of them will not be favorable to everyone.  I think people have held DVC to too high of a standard over the years and that some of these issues are simply bringing them back closer to earth.  YMMV.




Assume worst case scenario because buyers are dealing with Slick Vito the Used Car Salesman?  Is that what DVC is?  Here I thought DVC/Disney was a standup company but now you're telling me they are no better than anybody else.  That's disappointing isn't it?  

I was at Doorway To Dreams today and got a tour of the BLT rooms they have displayed.  I subtely dropped the point reallocation thing on the tour guide and he said he hadn't heard about it until he read the e-mail from corporate and really wasn't up on it.  He also said no matter what DVC does there will always be upset members.  I didn't pursue it from there because I was there to look at the model, not badger the guy.  What I did learn was the guides were totally clueless about it.  

Again though, higer-ups were not clueless and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit or two come out of this because literally DVC is taking money (in this case it's value) right out of people's pockets before they even use the product.


----------



## lugnut33

One other thing Dean, you harp on how the buyer needs to make the most informed decision they can possibly make.  However, how could BLT/AKV buyers make an informed decision when a very important peice of information is being held classified by DVC?  Should the buyer higher a psychic?


----------



## lugnut33

SharonS said:


> Perhaps people should think back to when DVC first started.   I believe that at the time, the minimum points to buy in was somewhere around 240??   To me, it was obvious that the original intent was that people would basically buy points for a full 1 week stay.    However, in order to increase sales, as the price per point rose, they decreased the minimum number of points required to buy in.
> 
> I think that now they have too many members who bought small contracts, planning on only 5 night stays and as a result, are not having availablility for those who want to stay a full 7 nights.   This probably came to light more when the changes to the booking policies were changed.



Nice thing about the small contract like I have is we can stay the full week every other year.


----------



## Mattsmommy

FuzzyMelton said:


> DOES NOT CHANGE MEANS DOES NOT CHANGE.  That means even one point.  I would love to have those 11,328 points you are blowing off.  If the average vacation contract was 200 points, that is 56 extra contracts, or if the average person was now short by 2 points that is 5664 people that have to re-adjust their vacations.  Maybe you should think this through.
> 
> WALT WOULD BE TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE!




Maybe those 11,328 extra points are due because of the THV


----------



## bookwormde

From what I have been able to determine there is no variation in the total points allowed when they make this adjustment, not even 1 point. I suspect though that if there were less total points and DVC “retired” the difference that that would be acceptable, even though it does not meet the letter of the contract.

bookwormde


----------



## Spacedude

I have been reading some of these posts and understand this will affect everyone differently.

We purchased our initial points (250) in 1994 at OKW, (actually it was not OKW it was just DVC at the WDW resort).  It was the only property at the time (I don’t think we even had 6000 members yet).  I remember our guide telling us how the point system worked and how they could redistribute the points, from time to time, based on demand and other factors.  I also remember our guide telling us that there discussions of other vacation club properties but no guarantee that there would be other DVC properties other than OKW (now look at DVC).

At the time, 210 points were the minimum purchase, not 160 nor 150.  I asked why; and my guide told me it was primarily for two reasons:  1) it was enough points to get a week in the summer under the current point chart, and 2) it allowed an exchange for a week to RCI (yes we had RCI before II and now we are back).  (The key was to require a minimum purchase to have enough points for a full flexible week for a family, sometime, somewhere (not every time, anywhere)).

After my tour and understanding what my wife and I wanted for our family, and fully understanding the point system, we purchased 250 to have a bit of a point buffer.  We purchased the extra points knowing that DVC would (not could) at some time redistribute the points.   About two or three years after we purchased (maybe someone can help me as to when they did this), the OKW points were redistributed, a bit similar to what they did for 2010, not as much however; but they were redistributed none the less.  Not a surprise to us what so ever; and frankly expected the redistribution to be more dynamic (in other words we expected DVC to do this every few years).

As new properties were introduced, at some point in time (again maybe someone can help me); DVC lowered the threshold for the minimum point purchase to 150.   I knew, without even talking to my guide, that this would encourage new members to purchase points based only on a Sun through Thurs stay (everyone has their own situation); and I knew that the points would again get redistributed, because the reservations would predominantly be for a Sun through Thurs stays (there are a few times we do have trouble getting some weekdays and have to waitlist or shift our dates for a few of our vacations).  I did not ask my guide, “Do you think they will redistribute the points?” I asked my guide (many times over the years), “When are you going to redistribute the points?”  Why?   Because, I expected the redistribution of points to be much more dynamic, and that this would be a management tool for DVC, hence the extra points I purchased.

I don’t fault DVC for doing this, but I do fault them for:
     1.  Lowering the minimum point purchase without a redistribution at the same time (which encouraged the Sun through Thurs only stays; therefore, contributing to the redistribution need)
     2.  Not redistributing the points in a more dynamic fashion (smaller but more frequent tweaks to the point system, not waiting 10+ years since the last one; which members would have been accustomed)  (Waiting this long left a false impression that they would never do redistribute again, and frankly I did not think they would even though I kept asking)
     3.  Not letting us know of the possible redistribution of points in 2010 prior to posting the chart.  They are giving us advance notice (it is for 2010), but they could have told us of the intent, prior to posting

We have added on at OKW and have purchased at SSR since our initial purchase; so we now enough points to flex our vacation (I know not everyone is in the same boat).  We do a few stays on Fri through Sun for weekend events, for example when I run the WDW Marathon, but for the most part will continue to use our points for a full one week or more, time and points permitting.

If I can find the original OKW charts (I know I have them somewhere) I will post them for readers curiosity (maybe some else might post it before I do).

I know some of you may disagree with my comments, go ahead let me have it…I’m in the military I can take it; I have thick skin and have seen much more life changing events than this.  From my perspective, if this is one of the largest events you have to manage for your family, you are blessed (very blessed), but I understand everyone has a different perspective.


----------



## CheapMom

bookwormde said:


> From what I have been able to determine there is no variation in the total points allowed when they make this adjustment, not even 1 point. I suspect though that if there were less total points and DVC retired the difference that that would be acceptable, even though it does not meet the letter of the contract.
> 
> bookwormde



When it is put in terms 0.075% it doesn't sound so bad- but if they mathematically had to have a change of a fraction of a percent- they should have made it decrease by that amount not increase.
The problem is, if they are allowed to increse it by a fraction of a percent this year, they can do the same thing next year, and the year after that and so on.  It just isn't right.


----------



## Doug7856

jekjones1558 said:


> I am one of those who believes that Disney did what its fiduciary responsibility to members requires, although I think that it delayed this move too many years, thus making it more painful.  I also believe the short notice is totally disrespectful.  DVC booking works best when planned well in advance.
> I wish there were a way to put pressure on Disney to open a window for multiple point transfers and for small point add-ons.  Although I know that some folks are too angry to consider putting any more $$ into DVC vacations, I think that there are some who just want to solve their new point shortage dilemma.  Once the initial shock and fury have passed, there remains the task of work-arounds.  I wish I knew of an effective way of organizing an effort to facilitate solutions for those members who are most negatively impacted.



Your comments accurately reflect my opinion.  My complaint in not the change per say, it is how DVC implemented it -- the poor timing and disrespect for it members.  Disney has lost a lot of good will with many of it's members, but I suspect that over time many of us will move on and purchase what we need to correct our new imbalance.  Let's face it, Disney has created an emotional bond with it's fans and to be willing to short change us with so little concern of our view is disappointing.

With regard to Disney being a business, my feeling is that when Disney succeeds profit wise, my experience is more likely to be enhanced and enjoyable.


----------



## dcfromva

Spacedude said:


> ...  Because, I expected the redistribution of points to be much more dynamic, and that this would be a management tool for DVC, hence the extra points I purchased...
> 
> I don’t fault DVC for doing this, but I do fault them for:
> 1.  Lowering the minimum point purchase without a redistribution at the same time (which encouraged the Sun through Thurs only stays; therefore, contributing to the redistribution need)
> 2.  Not redistributing the points in a more dynamic fashion (smaller but more frequent tweaks to the point system, not waiting 10+ years since the last one; which members would have been accustomed)  (Waiting this long left a false impression that they would never do redistribute again, and frankly I did not think they would even though I kept asking)
> 3.  Not letting us know of the possible redistribution of points in 2010 prior to posting the chart.


Spacedud,
  I agree with you.  
  Based on our past travel patterns (generally over a long weekend), we will most likely benefit overall from the point reallocation.   But, I do not like the _way _it was done.   ( I will get over it, but not without a little grumbling first.  )
  We have been members since 2002 and have had an opportunity to add on some more points over the years.  If this had occurred after we first bought, it might have had a more traumatic impact. 
  I can understand the need to reallocate based on useage, but why weren't these formulas applied to the new resorts as they came on-line BCV in 2002, SSR in 2004, AKV in 2008 (?) and most of all BLT--it isn't even open.  How could they deem the need to reallocate the points in the period of 4months since sales started?   Didn't they have this historical info when they were creating the first points charts (and using them as a sales tool) ?


----------



## KLR-wlv

Dean - you keep talking about your 10% buffer - what good does that do a Vero Beach owner who's weekdays have gone up 20%? And perhaps more in 2011. And when I spoke of relative "point bargains" that is in comparison to the new resorts they are going to be selling like Grand california's 1 bedroom villas for 46 points - not the older DVC's.

So basically what all of you harping on those who "didn't read the contract" are saying is - you should have bought twice the points so as not to be affected. I don't see why you can't see that if you have a 160 point contract that this is disproportionately hitting those folks more than those who have 400 and have always stayed a week. ENd of story. It sucks. Yes they could do it. Thanks for your infinite understanding and "We told you so's". It is terrific it doesn't hurt you. According to the polls here it DOES negatively impact about 40% of us.


----------



## Dean

FuzzyMelton said:


> DOES NOT CHANGE MEANS DOES NOT CHANGE.  That means even one point.  I would love to have those 11,328 points you are blowing off.  If the average vacation contract was 200 points, that is 56 extra contracts, or if the average person was now short by 2 points that is 5664 people that have to re-adjust their vacations.  Maybe you should think this through.
> 
> WALT WOULD BE TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE!


They change every year anyway due to where the weekends fall and leap year, actually more than this.  Plus there are unsold points that are used for maintenance and points that have been bought back under ROFR.  It is unrealistic to think that it will be 1000% the same yearly, with or without re-allocation.  



> There is one variable at SSR that I'm not sure how they account for, that being the lock-offs. A lock-off booked as a studio & 1BR commands more points than one booked as a two bedroom.


I'm about 99% certain they do the calculations assuming none are locked off for this purpose as well as the purpose of how many points are needed the entire year.  There is however a worst case scenario stated in the POS that states that you can always reserve a day for at least X points for each unit size.  It does not promise which day or your day or season, only that it must be available.  Someone can check the POS for SSR but I'm guessing it's 1 day for 17 points for a studio.  



jamstew said:


> I think you're exactly right about that. I'm one of the small contract, Sunday to Friday people, and the change isn't going to change my travel pattern. Weekend nights are still more points than I choose to spend, so I'll be staying in a value for 3-4 nights on one end of each trip. I'm not happy that my two 5-night trips went up a total of 15 points. I can live with it, but I'm definitely going to grumble about it.


The question isn't whether it affects one person but how it works over the group.  The change from weekends to weekdays was quite significant so to think it won't affect weekend patters would seem  would seem counterintuitive.  It might not affects yours but it will likely mine plus it will free up a day here and there for someone else to reserve later due to the fact that you are able to reserve less weekdays with the smaller points package.  That person may indeed stay the weekend.  I think you'll see more weekend use and I think you'll see less points savings by avoiding weekend points stays but it will not be 100% nor should it be.  And if it isn't close enough, they will change it again.



SharonS said:


> Perhaps people should think back to when DVC first started.   I believe that at the time, the minimum points to buy in was somewhere around 240??   To me, it was obvious that the original intent was that people would basically buy points for a full 1 week stay.    However, in order to increase sales, as the price per point rose, they decreased the minimum number of points required to buy in.
> 
> I think that now they have too many members who bought small contracts, planning on only 5 night stays and as a result, are not having availablility for those who want to stay a full 7 nights.   This probably came to light more when the changes to the booking policies were changed.


There is even a statement in the POS to the effect that they are assuming 1 week on average per member.  The original was 230 I believe but it was an attempt to sell more to less people which give mores profit than the same number of points to a larger number of members.  They lowered the points to allow more people to be able to afford or agree to buy for one reason, more sales total and therefore more profit.


----------



## DVC Mike

Dean said:


> They change every year anyway due to where the weekends fall and leap year, actually more than this. Plus there are unsold points that are used for maintenance and points that have been bought back under ROFR. It is unrealistic to think that it will be 1000% the same yearly, with or without re-allocation.
> 
> I'm about 99% certain they do the calculations assuming none are locked off for this purpose as well as the purpose of how many points are needed the entire year.


 
The POS for BCV states that the total number of points existing within a given Unit may not be increased or decreased - it is a fixed number of points. It shouldn't matter who owns the Unit's points -- DVD or members -- as long as the Unit has been declared into the condo association.

However, since it's the total number of points to reserve a unit every single night for an entire Use Year, it would have to vary on a Leap Year. Otherwise, I would expect the total number of points to be the same year over year.

DVCMC can allocate the points for that one Unit across each Use Year night. They can then only adjust certain Use Year nights upward or downward no more than 20%, as long as the total number of points required to reserve that Unit for the entire year remains the same.

Also, a "Unit" is a bit different at each resort. It may consist of a seperate building; it may be a single 2-BR lockoff, or it may be a single Studio. I think that's what makes it difficult to add up the points and compare.

For a 2-BR lockoff, DVC could increase the points for the Studio portion and decrease the points for the 1-BR portion, or vice versa. That might make it more challenging to compare the point charts.

I don't have the time to perform a detailed analysis of this myself, so I'll leave this as an intellectual exercise for the reader.


----------



## Dean

lugnut33 said:


> Assume worst case scenario because buyers are dealing with Slick Vito the Used Car Salesman?  Is that what DVC is?  Here I thought DVC/Disney was a standup company but now you're telling me they are no better than anybody else.  That's disappointing isn't it?


It's not quite that bad but I will tell you that I have equated timeshare sales people with used car salesman on a number of occasions.  Sometimes I offer a disclaimer that DVC is a cut above (they are), sometimes I don't.  I have been taken to task for this comparison on more than one occasion, maybe not so much going forward.  I have also posted many times about not believing what the salesperson says unless you see it in writing.  It is interesting to me that this is such an issue when it is CLEARLY spelled out in the paperwork.  This is not something you need even a basic understanding of legalese to grasp, only a 6th grade education.  If one doesn't understand and read ahead of time, or after you get the papers (you have 10 days), OR if one sees it and assumes it's Disney so they won't really do that, shame on the buyer.  To be honest, I think the guides are great overall and know of very few instances that appear to be purposeful lies, I do know of many instances where they just didn't know the product quite well enough or made recommendations that might have been good for someone one but not for that person.  But you see I have knowledge and experience that can best be summed up by the saying "how do you know a timeshares salesperson is lying?  You see their lips moving".  Fortunately most aren't this bad and many are very good even outside DVC.



> One other thing Dean, you harp on how the buyer needs to make the most informed decision they can possibly make. However, how could BLT/AKV buyers make an informed decision when a very important peice of information is being held classified by DVC? Should the buyer higher a psychic?


To a degree, yes you do have to forecast the future of both yourself and the timeshare.  You had the info that said they could re-allocate the points, it was clearly spelled out.  So you did have the info that they could do it and you should have considered that they might do so.  The one group I do feel for in all of this are those that bought BLT and are having things change even before it opens, it is unfortunate.  Question though, have you ever been to a timeshare presentation other than DVC?



> the OKW points were redistributed, a bit similar to what they did for 2010, not as much however


Those affected by squabble with the idea that this is bigger.  While they didn't change the weekend/weekday mix, they changed the season mix such that for OKW adventure season a studio went from 69 to 80, 1 BR 140 to 160, 2 BR from 189 to 218 and a GV from 309 to 356.  There were minor increases in Choice season of about 3 points a week and some of those involved shifting from weekends to week days as well.  There were decreases across ALL GV weeks for the year.


----------



## Dean

DVC Mike said:


> The POS for BCV states that the total number of points existing within a given Unit may not be increased or decreased - it is a fixed number of points. It shouldn't matter who owns the Unit's points -- DVD or members -- as long as the Unit has been declared into the condo association.
> 
> However, since it's the total number of points to reserve a unit every single night for an entire Use Year, it would have to vary on a Leap Year. Otherwise, I would expect the total number of points to be the same year over year.
> 
> DVCMC can allocate the points for that one Unit across each Use Year night. They can then only adjust certain Use Year nights upward or downward no more than 20%, as long as the total number of points required to reserve that Unit for the entire year remains the same.
> 
> Also, a "Unit" is a bit different at each resort. It may consist of a seperate building; it may be a single 2-BR lockoff, or it may be a single Studio. I think that's what makes it difficult to add up the points and compare.
> 
> For a 2-BR lockoff, DVC could increase the points for the Studio portion and decrease the points for the 1-BR portion, or vice versa. That might make it more challenging to compare the point charts.
> 
> I don't have the time to perform a detailed analysis of this myself, so I'll leave this as an intellectual exercise for the reader.


Mike the points I was making is that there is some normal variation and that there is a cushion.  MOST units are a collection of multiple rooms.  The only single room units I know of are GV, I know AKV and VB do have GV single units, OKW doesn't and I'm pretty sure HH doesn't.  Not sure about SSR or BWV but given the setup at SSR, I'd be surprised if they were single room units.  I am not aware of any single room units that are smaller than a GV and confident in saying there are none, they could not have a lockoff portion as a single unit legally.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

I'm going to try this again as my last post apperently didn't get posted.



Mattsmommy said:


> Maybe those 11,328 extra points are due because of the THV



No, I accounted for the THV points in the 2009 calculation, even though they are not available I included them for an apples to apples comarison.

Interestingly one extra day every four year, February 29, adds an additional 68,628 points available.  As stated above because of leap years, total number of weekend days and possibe variables in which seasons these weekends may fall, the total number of points available per year can fluctuate and I'm sure that there is a little cushion left over for these instances.

Personally the fact that so many people are saying this will impact them because they go Sun - Thur is evidence of the need to reallocate the points as they did.  The key, as stated before, is to level demand equally across the entire spectrum of days in a week and season in a year.  If this is not done there will be a lot of people that will be unable to use there points because they will not be able to get the rooms they want, when they want.

I fully understand the feelings of the people who are going to have there vactions shortened or accomodations lowered because of the change, but overall this is for the good of the entire system and something that was always possible.  It's like those investment commercials, past performance may not be indicative of future performance.  We all have learned how true that is in the last year.


----------



## bookwormde

I am working on checking the OKW points, found an error in my spreadsheet so I am reworking them be back soon

Anyone know in what year OKW was declared.

bookwormde


----------



## drusba

Many issues have been discussed above about the change, Disney's right to do so, what buyers were told during the sale process, and whether the total points have changed. It is interesting that the views tend to be black or white -- Disney definitely had a right to do this so no one can complain or  "I was told otherwise" and this is not proper. The impact on me personally is not much -- sometimes when we go it will help, sometimes it will not. However, nothing is black and white:

1. Changing total points: They cannot change total points per year. That includes that they are not allowed to have some minor variance from year to year because of timing of weekends and leap year as suggested above. The official documents state that they determine total points based a hypothetical 365 day year having a usual number of weekends both annually and per season. That rules out having annual differences because of actual number of weekend days in any given season and year or for leap year. In other words, those new point totals have to be exactly the same as before and they cannot even vary by 1. Someone noted that possibly they could be 1 less and thus it would be proper to do it. No, they cannot be 1 less because that would mean that resort is now illegally oversold by that 1 point. However, trying to add points up based on the the old and new charts is likely not going to provide an answer to whether total points have changed. This is because of the 2BR lock-offs. In determining total points to be sold in relation to those they did not count them all as 2BR lock-offs or all as 1BR and studio (for which combined the points needed to reserve are higher than as a 2BR lock-off). They did, and were allowed to do, a reasonable estimate before starting sales as to likely demand for those lock-offs as 2BRs and likely demand as 1BRs and studios and then sell total points based on that estimate. The point charts do not tell you what the difference is between estimated use as 2BRs versus 1BRs and studios that was originally used to determine total points and, without knowing that, I do not think you can do calculations from the existing charts to see if total points have changed. I would guess they were careful not to change total points.

2. Right to Change: Your Multi-Site Public Offering Statement has a section III called "Multi-Site Public Offering Text" that has in it a section entltled "Demand Balancing and Vacation Points." That section states that Disney can adjust the points for any given use day from one year to the next up to a 20% difference (up or down) from the prior year as long as the total points remain the same (the current changes seem to indicate a change that is less than 20% per day up or down). It also states that could result in the leveling of the seasons or a maximum reallocation that could result in the leveling of the difference between the days of the week. It also says that adjustment can be made between different size vacation homes, e.g., the points needed for a 1BR could increase while a 2BR decreases. Thus, this section appears to give Disney the power to do what it has done. 

However, as I said nothing is black and white. Disney may have created an ambiguity. If you look at the documents you signed, there is one called the Product Understanding Acknowledgment. This is an important document because it is the one you actually sign and thus you may not really be able to say you did not read or understand it. Paragraph 9 reveals Disney's right to adjust points. However, it is not as absolute as the the Multi-Site document. It says: "The number of vacation points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand." Note the word "seasonal." It does not say the change can be based on changes in demand for days of the week and seasonal would indicate it is referring to changes because of demand in the different seasons Disney has established and the current change does not appear to be that kind of change. The sentence above refers to a "particular vacation home" and then a subsection says, "If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights." That is vague because it does not actually say you can raise points for a 1BR while lowering for a studio. 

Disney thus seems to have opened the door to a dispute as to whether it could do what it did  because the signed disclosure statement says its reallocation right is something different from and more limited than the Multi-Site document.

3. Recent Purchasers: Also presented as black and white is the position of recent purchasers at BLT or AKV, some of whom, at least, were apparently told the points would remain the same. The response to their concerns has been that the documents they agreed to, and perhaps did not read, rule out their complaint. As noted above the documents are not as clear as many think. Also, the recent purchaser has a different issue than others. A timeshare seller is supposed to reveal any material facts that may impact on the decision to purchase. Disney possibly through the documents revealed that it was retaining the right to make the changes it did. However, if Disney knew it was in fact going to make this change, which would go into effect before recent purchasers could even use their points, when it was selling to recent purchasers, that decision itself could be deemed a material fact that should have been revealed, and sales reps should not have been saying or implying there would be no change forthcoming. Thus, recent purchasers appear to have a better reason to complain than those who purchased in the past. Moreover, Disney raised point prices and the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing this change. That adds further fuel to the need to reveal the the new point chart changes to recent purchasers so they could possibly decide, when purchasing, to buy more points before the price and minimum add-on change took effect.


----------



## dcfromva

drusba said:


> ..... Recent Purchasers: ...... However, if Disney knew it was in fact going to make this change, which would go into effect before recent purchasers could even use their points, when it was selling to recent purchasers, that decision itself could be deemed a material fact that should have been revealed, and sales reps should not have been saying or implying there would be no change forthcoming. Thus, recent purchasers appear to have a better reason to complain than those who purchased in the past. Moreover, Disney raised point prices and the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing this change. That adds further fuel to the need to reveal the the new point chart changes to recent purchasers so they could possibly decide, when purchasing, to buy more points before the price and minimum add-on change took effect.




Right on!  Well said!   That is what I have trouble with.  If Disney has been collecting this historical data since DVC opened, why wasn't the formula applied to the 2009 BLT points chart (which was used as a sales tool)?   How could it change over the course of 4 months when it isn't even open, yet?


----------



## Dean

It's true that the 365 day base year cannot change but the reality is that not every year matches that base year mostly due to leap year effect both in terms of the extra day and in terms of when the year starts in regard to weekends vs weekdays.  The requirement to be even is only to the base year of 365 days.  Technically the product understanding check list is not a legal document and in some regards, neither is the multi site POS.


----------



## CarolMN

drusba said:


> ......(snip)....
> 3. Recent Purchasers: Also presented as black and white is the position of recent purchasers at BLT or AKV, some of whom, at least, were apparently told the points would remain the same. The response to their concerns has been that the documents they agreed to, and perhaps did not read, rule out their complaint. As noted above the documents are not as clear as many think. Also, the recent purchaser has a different issue than others. A timeshare seller is supposed to reveal any material facts that may impact on the decision to purchase. Disney possibly through the documents revealed that it was retaining the right to make the changes it did. However, if Disney knew it was in fact going to make this change, which would go into effect before recent purchasers could even use their points, when it was selling to recent purchasers, that decision itself could be deemed a material fact that should have been revealed, and sales reps should not have been saying or implying there would be no change forthcoming. Thus, recent purchasers appear to have a better reason to complain than those who purchased in the past. Moreover, Disney raised point prices and the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing this change. That adds further fuel to the need to reveal the the new point chart changes to recent purchasers so they could possibly decide, when purchasing, to buy more points before the price and minimum add-on change took effect.


This is precisely why I have been advising those who bought BLT to call their guides if they want to change the number of points they purchased.  I think DVD will allow those members to make adjustments to the number of points purchased that are less than the 25 or 100 minimum, even if they have already closed.  Perhaps the initial answer will be no,  but eventually for those who push it, I predict they will allow it.  I think they have to or at least will not want to fight about it.  

My opinion and I am not a lawyer (although IIRC, drusba is)


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

drusba said:


> 1. Changing total points: They cannot change total points per year. That includes that they are not allowed to have some minor variance from year to year because of timing of weekends and leap year as suggested above. The official documents state that they determine total points based a hypothetical 365 day year having a usual number of weekends both annually and per season. That rules out having annual differences because of actual number of weekend days in any given season and year or for leap year. In other words, those new point totals have to be exactly the same as before and they cannot even vary by 1. Someone noted that possibly they could be 1 less and thus it would be proper to do it. No, they cannot be 1 less because that would mean that resort is now illegally oversold by that 1 point. However, trying to add points up based on the the old and new charts is not going to provide an answer to whether total points have changed. This is because of the 2BR lock-offs. In determining total points to be sold in relation to those they did not count them all as 2BR lock-offs or all as 1BR and studio (for which combined the points needed to reserve are higher than as a 2BR lock-off). They did, and were allowed to do, a reasonable estimate before starting sales as to likely demand for those lock-offs as 2BRs and likely demand as 1BRs and studios and then sell total points based on that estimate. The point charts cannot tell you what the difference is between estimated use as 2BRs versus 1BRs and studios that was originally used to determine total points and, without knowing that, you cannot do calculations from the existing charts to see if total points have changed. I would guess they were careful not to change total points.



I do not see how this is the case.  Obviously the total points available per year CAN vary because of weekends, and absolutely vary when there is a leap year.  The 2008/2009 point charts were exactly the same with the exception of the the addition of Feb 29th in 2008 so there definately were more points available for booking in 2008.  I belive when you stated total points are based on a hypothetical 365 day year that this is total points available for sale, not total points available for booking each year.  Also, as you stated, a reasonable estimate is used for the lock-off units which effects the calculation is a way for which I could not account.  The calulation I did was to reaffirm that the reallocation was not entirely out of whack.  

FWIW, I went back and found that I had an error in the spreadsheet that was calculating the total amount of unit days available based on the 2009 calendar and not 2010.  When I fixed it the total change in points was 9,360 or 0.062%.  I would consider this statistically insignificant.  If I knew what percentage of lock-offs were calculated as two bedrooms the number would drop again.


----------



## Dean

CarolMN said:


> This is precisely why I have been advising those who bought BLT to call their guides if they want to change the number of points they purchased.  I think DVD will allow those members to make adjustments to the number of points purchased that are less than the 25 or 100 minimum, even if they have already closed.  Perhaps the initial answer will be no,  but eventually for those who push it, I predict they will allow it.  I think they have to or at least will not want to fight about it.
> 
> My opinion and I am not a lawyer (although IIRC, drusba is)


Some have already been told they could.


----------



## Dean

White_Sox_Fan said:


> If I knew what percentage of lock-offs were calculated as two bedrooms the number would drop again.


As I said, I'm pretty sure they calculate the totals assuming NO lockoff's.  Then the only requirements to the lockoff portions is at most the 20% change and the maximum reallocation chart.  For SSR that would be only 2 & 3 BR homes since there are no dedicated rooms.


----------



## bookwormde

Here I hat I have found out so far in figuring if total points have changed for OKW

If you figure the change based on 2009 year the points are relatively close at for all 2br + GV the difference is 576
For all lock offs split it is –4,944. If I use the number of lock offs as a variable if I set it at 24 (out of 230) the points balance at 7741236

If you figure the change based on 2010 year the points diverge significantly at for all 2br + GV the difference is -16020
For all lock offs split it is –20160.  No number of lock offs makes this year balance. If I use the number of lock offs as a variable if I set it at 24 (out of 230) the difference is –16452 with the total the points of 7760526

If you figure the change based on 2011 year the points diverge significantly at for all 2br + GV the difference is -20925
For all lock offs split it is –33805.  No number of lock offs makes this year balance. If I use the number of lock offs as a variable if I set it at 24 (out of 230) the difference is –22269 with the total the points of 7676136. One interesting note is that for this year the points for 504 2br units do balance at 7016688. This year is also equivalent to the 1994

I can not imagine that the regulations would allow DVC (or any other) timeshare to create some arbitrary year, although I could imagine being allowed to use a year which is reprehensive of the life of the contract (but with the extension that would open another issue. What we need to know is what was the base year for the initial point allocation.

I guess since I have not fallen upon any easy answer I will in addition to expressing my displeasure in how the announcement was handled, ask for the methodology that they used to comply with the POS and state regulations.


Drusba

Your post is very thoughtful and by my opinion accurate. 

One point to add is that while not effecting contracts, the apparent pattern of guides miss stating the terms of the contract (intentionally of otherwise) represents a clear violation of the deceptive sales practices laws.


bookwormde


----------



## BWV Dreamin

CarolMN said:


> This is precisely why I have been advising those who bought BLT to call their guides if they want to change the number of points they purchased. I think DVD will allow those members to make adjustments to the number of points purchased that are less than the 25 or 100 minimum, even if they have already closed. Perhaps the initial answer will be no, but eventually for those who push it, I predict they will allow it. I think they have to or at least will not want to fight about it.
> 
> My opinion and I am not a lawyer (although IIRC, drusba is)


I am one who is able to change my point amount purchased at BLT. I bought 2 days before the minimum 100pts. add-on went into effect. Disney didn't get the paperwork to me until a week later, thus I haven't turned it in yet. I spoke with my guide yesterday who said it would be "no problem" adjusting the points up. I increased from 30 to 40 pts., due to the re-allocation of points. If,purchasers have officially closed, it may be another matter in adjusting those points. Otherwise, even if paperwork has been sent in, I think there is still time if one hasn't closed.


----------



## drusba

Dean said:


> As I said, I'm pretty sure they calculate the totals assuming NO lockoff's.  Then the only requirements to the lockoff portions is at most the 20% change and the maximum reallocation chart.  For SSR that would be only 2 & 3 BR homes since there are no dedicated rooms.



There is an Exhibit in the Public Offering Statement applicable to each particular resort entitled "Real Estate Interest and Point Formulation" that indicates otherwise and that what is sold is based on estimated use demand for the various room sizes.


----------



## lugnut33

Dean said:


> It's not quite that bad but I will tell you that I have equated timeshare sales people with used car salesman on a number of occasions.  Sometimes I offer a disclaimer that DVC is a cut above (they are), sometimes I don't.  I have been taken to task for this comparison on more than one occasion, maybe not so much going forward.  I have also posted many times about not believing what the salesperson says unless you see it in writing.  It is interesting to me that this is such an issue when it is CLEARLY spelled out in the paperwork.  This is not something you need even a basic understanding of legalese to grasp, only a 6th grade education.  If one doesn't understand and read ahead of time, or after you get the papers (you have 10 days), OR if one sees it and assumes it's Disney so they won't really do that, shame on the buyer.  To be honest, I think the guides are great overall and know of very few instances that appear to be purposeful lies, I do know of many instances where they just didn't know the product quite well enough or made recommendations that might have been good for someone one but not for that person.  But you see I have knowledge and experience that can best be summed up by the saying "how do you know a timeshares salesperson is lying?  You see their lips moving".  Fortunately most aren't this bad and many are very good even outside DVC.
> 
> To a degree, yes you do have to forecast the future of both yourself and the timeshare.  You had the info that said they could re-allocate the points, it was clearly spelled out.  So you did have the info that they could do it and you should have considered that they might do so.  The one group I do feel for in all of this are those that bought BLT and are having things change even before it opens, it is unfortunate.  Question though, have you ever been to a timeshare presentation other than DVC?
> 
> Those affected by squabble with the idea that this is bigger.  While they didn't change the weekend/weekday mix, they changed the season mix such that for OKW adventure season a studio went from 69 to 80, 1 BR 140 to 160, 2 BR from 189 to 218 and a GV from 309 to 356.  There were minor increases in Choice season of about 3 points a week and some of those involved shifting from weekends to week days as well.  There were decreases across ALL GV weeks for the year.



LOL, I never did the DVC presentation.  Actually I've never been to a full blown timeshare presentation.  I can only make my judgements based on what you write.  And again, I'm not being hurt at all in this deal, matter of fact my point requirement is dropping by 1.   

However, I can also totally understand why people are upset even if the POS spells out what DVC can do in regards to points re-allocations.  There is no way to say they don't have a legitimate gripe, especially those that bought into BLT and AKL and now find themselves a couple points short in meeting their travel needs.  That very vital key bit of information that higher-ups knew was being withheld.  

And those that have been members for quite some time also can be upset, they don't have to be happy simply because the POS says it's OK.  There is no provision in the POS saying members have to be happy about everything.


----------



## DebbieB

BeccaG said:


> Now that is the million dollar question. . but could you imagine all of this (the thread) at the meeting?  They would not do this at the meeting because they would have feared for their lives!!!



That is what really upsets me about this.   Surely they knew at the time of the meeting that this was in the works.  Instead, they waited until less than 1 week before 2010 reservations are starting.   They waited until after the price increase, after the new minimum for BLT went into effect.   I think many members bought in with trust because it was "Disney", the way this was handled totally blows any trust.


----------



## bookwormde

Just to clarify the discussion of what impact oral representations have on compliance with Floridas time share statutes

721.11  Advertising materials; oral statements

(4)  No advertising or oral statement made by any seller or resale service provider shall: 
(a)  Misrepresent a fact or create a false or misleading impression regarding the timeshare plan or promotion thereof. 
(i)	Make any misleading or deceptive representation with respect to the contents of the public offering statement and the contract or the rights, privileges, benefits, or obligations of the purchaser under the contract or this chapter.


Here is the link that I pulled the info from if anyone is interested.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...tm&StatuteYear=2008&Title=->2008->Chapter 721

bookwormde


----------



## Chuck S

Dean said:


> As I said, I'm pretty sure they calculate the totals assuming NO lockoff's.  Then the only requirements to the lockoff portions is at most the 20% change and the maximum reallocation chart.  For SSR that would be only 2 & 3 BR homes since there are no dedicated rooms.



I would agree, the lockoffs at all resorts are probably all calculated as 2 bedroom units.  Any other scenario, basing it on studios and one bedrooms, in the off chance that EVERYONE in a given year booked them all as 2 bedrooms, they would have oversold the resort, and there is not way to use all the available points.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> especially those that bought into BLT and AKL and now find themselves a couple points short in meeting their travel needs. That very vital key bit of information that higher-ups knew was being withheld.
> 
> And those that have been members for quite some time also can be upset, they don't have to be happy simply because the POS says it's OK. There is no provision in the POS saying members have to be happy about everything.



And I agree with the above.  And true, nothing says we Members have to be happy all the time.  But I can honestly say, I was a much happier Member 2-3 days ago when I wasn't 30 points short every year for our vacations (not that this will matter to many).   Alot of people here are looking at this from a very clinical, business and analytical standpoint.  

But DVC Membership also, in conjunction with the business end of it, holds alot of it's strength in the emotional , feel-good dept.  Regardless of what some want to think about that.  Alot of Members are passionate about their DVC.  I work with 5 DVC'ers.  I got to speak to 2 of them last night.  Neither is happy.   

I'm sure weekend DVC'ers are happier....but they are the ones who knew all along from the beginning how many points they would need for stays.  So they budgeted all along, and then 2-3 days ago, got a point bonus.  I agree...they should be happy.  Who wouldn't ?

Rather the Sun-Thurs crowd has been hit head-on by this.   I wish I was only affected by a couple points.  
And I am a recent AKV purchaser.  And I do feel the higher-ups knew about this change 3 months ago when we bought.  They had to have.  A change of this magnitude does not happen overnight.  And this is what will cause ill-will among those of us that feel a bit duped.  I can say, from our personal perspective, DVC lost both another add-on from us as well as positive word-of-mouth to other potential Members from us.  DVC Members have always been cheerleaders for others buying DVC.  I know my dh got 2 people at work to join in the past 2 years.  Two people, who other wise, were looking at other options.  So it's most likely those of us that have a bit of a gripe (and by no means all of us), who will in turn carry ill-will for some time.  Because for us, when I have to drop a day from our vacation or downsize to a smaller villa and bring in air mattresses due to being 30 points short, I can honestly say I feel we've lost "value" in our Membership. And to repeat---I understood points could be moved around.  But 30 points short is a ALOT of moving around and is affecting us greatly.  I just never thought we'd be THIS short overnight.   So to those who ask "what's wrong with you people"....well, you are simply not seeing from the perspective of some of us who are taking the most hit from this. 
But the bottom line is.....it just doesn't matter how I "feel" in all this.  And perhaps BLT owners will eventually be allowed to add-on the necessary deficit in points----but as AKV add-on'ers......I know we would have purchased at least 10-15 more points in light of this allocation & do feel a bit more than miffed by lack of disclosure 3 months ago on this.  

Maria


----------



## tjkraz

bookwormde said:


> Just to clarify the discussion of what impact oral representations have on compliance with Floridas time share statutes
> 
> 721.11  Advertising materials; oral statements
> 
> (4)  No advertising or oral statement made by any seller or resale service provider shall:
> (a)  Misrepresent a fact or create a false or misleading impression regarding the timeshare plan or promotion thereof.
> (i)	Make any misleading or deceptive representation with respect to the contents of the public offering statement and the contract or the rights, privileges, benefits, or obligations of the purchaser under the contract or this chapter.



My initial thought is good luck winning that argument.  I believe there are many valid statements that could have been made which lead people to THINK that the points for a given night would never change.  

For instance, if someone questioned whether the points are adjusted annually, "no" would be an accurate answer since there have never been annual adjustments.  

In fact, if someone questioned whether "the points ever change", a response of "no" would also seem to be defensible since the total number of points in a resort will never change.  

Now if someone specifically asked something like "will a weekday studio at Old Key West always be 8 points per night for the first week of December from now until 2042", a positive response would now be proven to be inaccurate.  That's assuming both parties have the same recollection of a verbal conversation which occurred months or years prior.  

And in the end the only remedy would seem to be DVC buying back the contract.  They aren't going to make exceptions to the new charts for individual buyers.


----------



## ashbradnmom

bookwormde said:


> Just to clarify the discussion of what impact oral representations have on compliance with Floridas time share statutes
> 
> 721.11  Advertising materials; oral statements
> 
> (4)  No advertising or oral statement made by any seller or resale service provider shall:
> (a)  Misrepresent a fact or create a false or misleading impression regarding the timeshare plan or promotion thereof.
> (i)	Make any misleading or deceptive representation with respect to the contents of the public offering statement and the contract or the rights, privileges, benefits, or obligations of the purchaser under the contract or this chapter.
> 
> 
> Here is the link that I pulled the info from if anyone is interested.
> 
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...tm&StatuteYear=2008&Title=->2008->Chapter 721
> 
> bookwormde



While I really don't know how the changes will affect me, because i vacation at different times of the year. One time it may help me another it may hurt.
But i have no doubt that the above is stated, it will still be your word against theirs unless you had a tape recorder in your pocket.

I definetly do not agree with the notice given and I feel real sorry for the people who just bought AKV or BLT.


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> Alot of people here are looking at this from a very clinical, business and analytical standpoint.
> 
> But DVC Membership also, in conjunction with the business end of it, holds alot of it's strength in the emotional , feel-good dept.  Regardless of what some want to think about that.  Alot of Members are passionate about their DVC.  I work with 5 DVC'ers.  I got to speak to 2 of them last night.  Neither is happy



But when having to choose between decisions that determine the overall health of the program vs. making people feel good, DVC must side with the former.  

Closing Space Mountain for 9 months isn't going to thrill many Walt Disney World guests.  But the maintenance work is necessary so they have to bite that bullet.  Removing the animals from AKV's Sunset Savanna is another unpopular move, but Kidani construction demands it happen.  

I don't envision anyone sitting high in the Disney executive offices rubbing their hands together while muttering "now we have them where we want them!"  Like it or not, the current system slowly slid out of balance with how the last 15 years worth of DVC buyers have chosen to use their points.  An adjustment was the only way of fixing that imbalance.


----------



## tjkraz

More relevant info from the Florida statutes:



> (6)  Prior to offering the multisite timeshare plan, the developer shall create the reservation system and shall establish rules and regulations for its operation. In establishing these rules and regulations, the developer shall take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand of each component site that he or she intends to offer as a part of the plan and shall use his or her best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the purchasers of the plan as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the accommodations and facilities of the plan. *The rules and regulations shall also provide for periodic adjustment or amendment of the reservation system by the managing entity from time to time in order to respond to actual purchaser use patterns and changes in purchaser use demand for the accommodations and facilities existing at that time within the plan. *The person authorized to make additions and substitutions during the term of the multisite timeshare plan shall also comply with the requirements of this subsection in ascertaining the desirability of the proposed addition, substitution, adjustment, or amendment and the impact of same upon the demand for and availability of existing plan accommodations and facilities.



Link:  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes....HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0721->Section 56#0721.56

DVC is REQUIRED by law to adjust periodically based upon changes in demand patterns.


----------



## bookwormde

Since this is a regulatory complaint area it has no direct bearing on the contracts, but the basis for these types of complaints is a pattern of behavior, which can be, demonstrated when a significant number of “customers” were given the same misleading information.

I doubt that anyone will pursue it but just pointing out that from the anecdotal information here that there is an appearance that there may have been a significant problem, and that the clause in the contract about oral representation has no bearing in the regulatory area.

Now the failure to disclose material information is a much more serious issue. 

Yes timeshare are supposed to make adjustments, but those changes and the others we have seen are meant to be done in the best interests of the majority of owners.

bookwormd


----------



## jamstew

drusba said:


> If you look at the documents you signed, there is one called the Product Understanding Acknowledgment. This is an important document because it is the one you actually sign and thus you may not really be able to say you did not read or understand it. Paragraph 9 reveals Disney's right to adjust points. However, it is not as absolute as the the Multi-Site document. It says: "The number of vacation points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand." Note the word "seasonal." It does not say the change can be based on changes in demand for days of the week and seasonal would indicate it is referring to changes because of demand in the different seasons Disney has established and the current change does not appear to be that kind of change. The sentence above refers to a "particular vacation home" and then a subsection says, "If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights." That is vague because it does not actually say you can raise points for a 1BR while lowering for a studio.



Thank you. That's the language I was thinking about. Disney could have _easily_ added a reference a to a more detailed explanation in the POS. The language you've quoted above, standing alone without benefit of the more specific terms of the POS, doesn't sound particularly ambiguous to me. If no other definitions are provided, I would think a consumer could reasonably infer commonly understood definitions for "season" (Disney or calendar) and "particular vacation home". When you combine this language with the fact that many of the guides have (apparently) explained the possible changes in the same way, I think that makes it fairly misleading. Does the Product Understanding Acknowledgement require the purchaser to acknowledge that he has read and understands the POS?


----------



## baj0505

tjkraz said:


> But when having to choose between decisions that determine the overall health of the program vs. making people feel good, DVC must side with the former.
> 
> Closing Space Mountain for 9 months isn't going to thrill many Walt Disney World guests.  But the maintenance work is necessary so they have to bite that bullet.  Removing the animals from AKV's Sunset Savanna is another unpopular move, but Kidani construction demands it happen.
> 
> I don't envision anyone sitting high in the Disney executive offices rubbing their hands together while muttering "now we have them where we want them!"  Like it or not, the current system slowly slid out of balance with how the last 15 years worth of DVC buyers have chosen to use their points.  An adjustment was the only way of fixing that imbalance.



Well, call me naive in the Disney business world, but I would hope a company that tauts customer satisfaction, has a slogan of the 'Happiest Place on Earth", etc., etc. would have someone sitting high in that Disney executive office rubbing their hands together muttering "shouldn't we give the members a little more advance notice regarding these changes?", This decision didn't happen overnight and someone had the time to write up a justification to the point changes and post it on the DVC membership site:

To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays and to better manage inventory of available rooms at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, primarily reducing Vacation Point requirements for most Friday and Saturday nights.


----------



## drusba

tjkraz said:


> More relevant info from the Florida statutes:
> 
> 
> 
> Link:  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes....HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0721->Section 56#0721.56
> 
> DVC is REQUIRED by law to adjust periodically based upon changes in demand patterns.



But are you not assuming there has been a "change" in demand patterns? Disney has been saying off and on since it began DVC that demand for weekdays is significantly higher than weekends. It is the demand pattern that has always existed because weekends were always higher than weekdays and thus built into the system as originally conceived. Thus, it would appear they are trying to change the long-existing pattern rather than basing an adjustment upon changes in demand patterns that have actually occurred.


----------



## mickeymom629

will this change the way you plan your vacation days?  In other words, if you used to only stay Sun-Thurs because of the really high points, are you considering weekend stays now?

I can only see where this _might_ affect those DVC'ers who only stay Sun-Thurs - the others already book the weekends, so I can't imagine how this affects those.


----------



## Brian Noble

> 721.11 Advertising materials; oral statements


Proving this will be tricky particularly because Florida is a "two-party consent" state for recording conversations---you'd need your Guide's permission to record the sales meeting.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> But when having to choose between decisions that determine the overall health of the program vs. making people feel good, DVC must side with the former.



Never said I didn't agree with this Tim. It's a business move for them---but not every business move DVC has made has been the best one.  I dont think the switch to RCI is for the improvement of DVC's reputation.  I feel II had a much better reputation and lineup of higher quality resorts.  And I'm sure DVC made this change for what they felt was overall health.    They're not always right though.......no business is.  That is why so many go belly-up or claim bankruptcy.  Again, not saying this will happen to DVC.  But just trying to prove a point, that higher-ups are only human.  They can make wrong decisions. 
But also, to mention,  there could be some ramifications for DVC in terms of Member satisfaction, future sales....positive word-of-mouth.  I know I purchased via word-of-mouth.   There will be some impact I'm sure, but most likely not devastating to DVC.  This is just hitting people at a time when things are already bad with recession and job losses already.  Granted, I know DIS polls hold no real snapshot of the real world, but when you combine those not happy (staying less days, staying elswhere and "other"), there are quite alot of people affected adversely by this.   Granted, again, I understand it's healthy for the program.


----------



## drusba

jamstew said:


> Thank you. That's the language I was thinking about. Disney could have _easily_ added a reference a to a more detailed explanation in the POS. The language you've quoted above, standing alone without benefit of the more specific terms of the POS, doesn't sound particularly ambiguous to me. If no other definitions are provided, I would think a consumer could reasonably infer commonly understood definitions for "season" (Disney or calendar) and "particular vacation home". When you combine this language with the fact that many of the guides have (apparently) explained the possible changes in the same way, I think that makes it fairly misleading. Does the Product Understanding Acknowledgement require the purchaser to acknowledge that he has read and understands the POS?



None of the documents you sign state your acknowledgement that you have read and understood the POS; you do sign a document that acknowledges your receipt of the POS. One thing is that the POS is considered something that is supposed to be given to you before you sign anything to aid in a decision to buy. If the contract, and documents signed at the same time as the contract, actually say something different from the POS, the signed documents should control over the POS if the buyer so desires, because the signed documents represent the final terms that you actually agreed to.


----------



## tjkraz

drusba said:


> But are you not assuming there has been a "change" in demand patterns? Disney has been saying off and on since it began DVC that demand for weekdays is significantly higher than weekends. It is the demand pattern that has always existed because weekends were always higher than weekdays and thus built into the system as originally conceived. Thus, it would appear they are trying to change the long-existing pattern rather than basing an adjustment upon changes in demand patterns that have actually occurred.



My response to that would be if there were errors in balancing the points, they would appear to lie more in what we have had for the last 15 years than with these changes.

Anecdotal evidence clearly suggests that weekends are under-utilized at the resorts.  25% discounts are easy to come by (only available when sub-100% occupancy projected)...high demand for Sun - Thurs stays reported in forums like this one...demand for point rentals exclusively for Sun - Thurs...short notice reservations much easier on weekends (I myself booked a BCV studio for a Saturday in December on 3 months' notice about 3 years ago, also booked BWV Standard View for Friday on a month's notice.)  

Debating whether they are trying to change demand patterns vs. respond to changes seems like an argument over whether a glass is half full or half empty.  Demand for weekends / weekdays is not in sync with the current distribution and is therefore being adjusted.


----------



## kristenrice

I watched the DVC promo video again because I wanted to see how they worded the section about point usage.

"Patrick", the "pointologist", said....

"Here's the cool part....drum roll please....

The total number of points on this chart can never change.  There may be adjustments for *seasons and dates*, but the overall total will not change for the life of your contract."

I would find this misleading as I do not associate "weekdays" and "weekends" as "seasons" or "dates".  There is also the mention of using fewer points for weeknights and slower times.  There is no mention that the points would be adjusted among the days of the week...i.e. a weeknight is always a weeknight.  

For example, SUNDAY, April 5, 2009 is premiere season and is 41 points for a 2BR standard at AKV.  Now, MONDAY, April 5 (same DATE, same SEASON, both weeknights) 2010 is now 46 points.  There was not an adjustment for season OR date since they both remained the same.  This is what has be a little concerned.  I guess they are getting super-technical in that April 5, 2009 is not the same as April 5, 2010 and therefore they've adjusted for the "dates". 

I am not saying what they did was "wrong" or "illegal", I just think that their own promotional material is extremely misleading in light of what has happened.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> An adjustment was the only way of fixing that imbalance.



Yes Tim...but their timing was not right at all.....and I think this is the crux of what has alot of us upset (myself included).  Never said in any of my posts the imbalance shouldn't be adjusted over time.  Once again, I'll repeat, I always admitted to knowing allocation was a possibility. 

This was a BIG adjustment with very little or even no head's up for recent buyers and add-ons.   This is what in specific, has many of us quite disillusioned & feeling justified in griping a bit.


----------



## ReneeQ

mickeymom629 said:


> will this change the way you plan your vacation days?  In other words, if you used to only stay Sun-Thurs because of the really high points, are you considering weekend stays now?
> 
> I can only see where this _might_ affect those DVC'ers who only stay Sun-Thurs - the others already book the weekends, so I can't imagine how this affects those.



It won't change anything for us.  DH and I have been at our jobs a long time, and both get tons of vacation, he gets 5 weeks, I get 7.  We don't have any kids, though sometimes take the nephews, so don't usually have to deal with school schedules.  We love to go Sun-Fri because we don't have to contend with weekend park crowds.  We work Fri, have Sat to get ready, head to Disney on Sun, come home on Fri, have a weekend at home before going back to work.  Have done that for years and love it.

We own at BWV and VWL.  We often stay in a 1BR standard view at BWV in Jan, Sun-Fri, through 2009 that was 80 points.  Starting in 2010 it will be 95 points.  That's ALREADY 15 more points that I usually use.  HOW does it benefit me to add a weekend night??  (Not yelling at you, MickeyMom, just venting).

This is the thing I am missing here.  If we decide to go on Mon (instead of Sun) and stay our 5 nights, checking out on Sat instead of Fri, the trip jumps to 109 points, which is 29 more points than the 5 night trip cost me in 2009.  If I do 3 week days and add the entire weekend, I'm up to 123 points, which is 43 more points than the 5 night trip cost me in 2009.  I just don't see WHY I would want to add the weekends, it's still more points.  So no, we won't be planning to add on weekends.

But YES, I guess this might change the way I plan my vacations.  Because if I'm short on points, we will do 4 nights instead of 5, which at 19 points a night will be 76 points, just 4 less than my 5 night trip cost me in 2009.  And no, I won't consider adding on points.  I've spent enough already, and if Disney changes point charts every few years, there is no end in sight.

So, everyone says Disney doesn't care that I lessen my trip by one night and won't get my ticket and dining money that day, because someone else will fill my room that night.  I don't get that either.  The members that HAVE to travel on weekends, for 2009, using my same scenario - BWV, standard 1BR in January, for a Fri, Sat & Sun night stay would use 98 points.

Jump to 2010, that 3 night stay DOES drop to 85 points (from 98), but they would need to stay 4 nights to make up for the night I dropped, so their 4 night trip would be 104 points.  Now, yes, they might be thrilled to stay 4 nights instead of their usual 3, for just an additional 6 points, but it's the same night of rooms for Disney.

In 2009 I stay 5 nights, and the weekend family stays 3, total is 8.
In 2010 I can only afford 4 nights, and the weekend family can stay 4, total is 8.  DVC isn't filling any MORE rooms than before.  What am I missing???

Am I happy about this change?  No, not one bit.  Will I adjust and get over it?  Maybe.  Will I add on more points?  Not in a million years.  For the first time in my life I said the words outloud to my DH, "It might be time to consider selling some of our contracts."  Will I really do it? Who knows.  But I have NEVER even felt like saying those words, and now I really do.

Like others have said, everyone besides DVC gets deals, buy 4 nights, get 3 free, free dining in Sept, etc.  We get nothing.  It has been asked before, but I haven't seen it answered - where do we send a complaint letter?  Should it go to Jim Lewis, and does anyone have his direct address?  Or should it just be sent to MS?

Thanks for letting me vent!!


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> Yes Tim...but their timing was not right at all.....



You're not getting any arguments about that from me.  I've said a number of times that I agree this was poorly-implemented.  

But I think there are a lot of people here still questioning the appropriateness and motivation behind the reallocation.  Some are claiming that they feel deceived and that DVC's sole motivation is to sell more points.  I see it as something DVC was forced (obligated) to do and even they may be dreading the outcome.  

Why did they wait so long to announce it?  I have absolutely no idea.


----------



## Val

I am sure that Disney, with its massive legal department, is well within legal activities with this rearrangment of points. However, this decision in light of many other recent and quite unpopular decisions may come back to bite them. DVC has initiated a number of large building projects, and are banking on the increasing sales of DVC. The impact of the down economy is unknown, but the rate of sales is likely to decline- many in the luxury industry are seeing significant downturns, and DVC will similarly be impacted. One of the first rules of good business (oft forgetten in today's business world) is to NOT bite the hand that feeds you. Look at the major corporations that have gone under recently- many due to too fast expansion, declines in customer service, and a significant recession. I only hope that the department of future forecasting and sorcery is as good as their legal department.....I really believe that these recent business decisions are NOT a good idea for the company given the current economic climate. Unfortunately, pixie dust and thinking magical thoughts will not help sales- but bad PR and poor word of mouth from current customers, along with surge of resales (which take away from NEW sales for DVC) will hurt.

Look at the list of failed companies....many are huge surprises. I truly hope that Disney is looking at the huge, long term picture........two years ago Disney was trading around 34, today it is around 20; now around 2002-2003 it hit its low, around 15, and it came back. But, heading into a recession on the decline isn't the direction I would want disney to be going. Glad I only own DVC and not their stock!

We shall see.....we have owned for 11 years. We have seen changes, most negative, but this change in light of the several other changes (wait list, paper plates) seem to be making the proverbial camel showing some sagging. Wonder what will be the next change (internal or external to DVC) that breaks that camel's back!


----------



## CheapMom

mickeymom629 said:


> will this change the way you plan your vacation days?  In other words, if you used to only stay Sun-Thurs because of the really high points, are you considering weekend stays now?


Yes- I will be including more weekends into my trips. Even though I will be spending more points on some trips, I am happy for the new options of less costly weekend trips and Grand Villa stays.


----------



## DisFlan

mickeymom629 said:


> will this change the way you plan your vacation days?  In other words, if you used to only stay Sun-Thurs because of the really high points, are you considering weekend stays now?
> 
> I can only see where this _might_ affect those DVC'ers who only stay Sun-Thurs - the others already book the weekends, so I can't imagine how this affects those.



This is what I wondered about a few post back.  Until weekends and weeknights are closer to the same number of points, usage patterns aren't going to change much - other than a number of Sun-Thurs folks will possibly shorten a stay or skip a year.  Weekends are still high.  I can't see where this change is going to twist anyone's arm (or all that many arms) into staying a Friday or Saturday if they didn't already normally do so.

As mentioned previously, it's going to take a number of reassessments to make weekend nights more palatable to most of the folks who don't currently book them. (Maybe a "Five Year Plan"?)  But this possibility is another kettle of fish - one that they probably won't warn us about, either.


DisFlan


----------



## jekjones1558

> In 2009 I stay 5 nights, and the weekend family stays 3, total is 8.
> In 2010 I can only afford 4 nights, and the weekend family can stay 4, total is 8. DVC isn't filling any MORE rooms than before. What am I missing???



If some folks who used to go for 5 weekdays now only go for 4 weekdays then there should be more weekdays available to combine with weekend stays.  So families who would not book DVC in 2009 if only 2 expensive weekend days were available might book in 2010 if those 2 weekend days are now cheaper AND there is a day or 2 of weekdays available to add to their stay.
Somehow I think that weekdays will still be pretty much booked.  It will be interesting to see whether the new weekend rates have changed enough to fill rooms on weekends.  If not then I would expect another change in points charts down the road (hopefully with more notice to members!)


----------



## Disneyjamie

MiaSRN62 said:


> Oh....how I have often wished my job and hours would have allowed this over the years.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Montgomery County here !  So we're practically neighbors.  But I've seen drastic differences from one school district to the next.  My kids used to be in Catholic school and they seemed more understanding about absences.  And no apologies needed.....there are just so many variables besides just missing school, that I don't want to clog up this thread with.  But let it suffice that aside from the fact, vacationing in slow season is not only not a choice, it's not even a remote option for us.  I have one in college and for every 3 classes they miss, they drop 1 letter grade as per almost every professor.  When you're on a partial scholarship, this is not an option.  I just couldn't get into all the details when I first posted.......but trust me on this......and no hard feelings dd08..... *



I read your posts as negative due to your bolding of the text.  Just a friendly suggestion you may want to not bold your text (same as ALL CAPS is taken as yelling).


----------



## ReneeQ

DisFlan said:


> As mentioned previously, it's going to take a number of reassessments to make weekend nights more palatable to the folks who don't currently book them. (Maybe a "Five Year Plan"?)  But this possibility is another kettle of fish - one that they probably won't warn us about, either.
> DisFlan



But wasn't that the PROBLEM back in the beginning?  Weekends and weekdays were close to the same number of points, so locals were able to book up all the weekends, shutting out the possibility of booking an entire week to those that had to travel from far away?  Won't it be right back where it all started if they do that?


----------



## ashbradnmom

tjkraz said:


> You're not getting any arguments about that from me.  I've said a number of times that I agree this was poorly-implemented.
> 
> But I think there are a lot of people here still questioning the appropriateness and motivation behind the reallocation.  Some are claiming that they feel deceived and that DVC's sole motivation is to sell more points.  I see it as something DVC was forced (obligated) to do and even they may be dreading the outcome.
> 
> Why did they wait so long to announce it?  I have absolutely no idea.



I know you are saying the same thing i am. If a resort is sold out there is now way there only purpose is to sell points, the points are not available. 
If they wanted to do that then why not ROFR every resale on the market and then they have points available but still not enough for everyone.

Val I am just down 74 from you a little south of Champaign. You are the closest from where live that i have seen on here.


----------



## Sammie

mickeymom629 said:


> will this change the way you plan your vacation days?  In other words, if you used to only stay Sun-Thurs because of the really high points, are you considering weekend stays now?
> 
> I can only see where this _might_ affect those DVC'ers who only stay Sun-Thurs - the others already book the weekends, so I can't imagine how this affects those.



See this is the real question to ponder. Supposedly the change was made due to complaints about availablity especially after the 6 month booking window. That only weekends were available. 

So they adjusted. But, if this adjustment truly does not move some of the Sunday-Thursday crowd into the weekends they have accommplished nothing except to make the weekend crowd happy and anger the Sun-Thurs crowd.

They have not changed the booking trend and personally I don't think it will change that much. I think the members that booked Sunday-Thursday will continue to do so. 

And according to the MS agent I talked to today, the phones are ringing off the wall and people are very upset.


----------



## ReneeQ

jekjones1558 said:


> If some folks who used to go for 5 weekdays now only go for 4 weekdays then there should be more weekdays available to combine with weekend stays.  So families who would not book DVC in 2009 if only 2 expensive weekend days were available might book in 2010 if those 2 weekend days are now cheaper AND there is a day or 2 of weekdays available to add to their stay.



Okay, I hadn't thought about people not booking a weekend stay AT ALL, if a few weekdays weren't available to book with them, that does make sense.  BUT at some point that member HAD to use their points, even if all they could get was the weekends, or, of course, lose their points.

Maybe I've been lucky, and I admit we rarely go at peak times, but by calling at exactly 11 months, I have NEVER not been able to book what I wanted.  We have been members 10 years.  I just wonder when all these people that can't book what they want are calling MS.  We have stayed in studios, BWV standard view studios, 1BR and 2BRs, at all times of the year, and many times for full weeks and long weekends, in addition to our Sun-Fri stays.


----------



## Chuck S

I have a theory.  Years ago, the DVC bean counters may have figured they could sell more points annually by dropping the minimum buy-in to 150 points, selling a greater volume of new contracts than with a 210+ point minimum, as they likely saw a slight increase with the previous drops (230 to 210 to 170).

They also probably figured a fairly high percentage of new owners would "get their feet wet" with a 150 point contract, but then do add-on contracts to increase their ownership.

But the add-ons didn't materialize, and a substantial number of 150 point owners, rather than do add-ons went to a Sun to Thur only travel window, throwing resort usage out of balance, and increasing demand for Sun to Thur visits.

Now, it may not have been a big problem for a few years.  DVC could have used the weekends for CRO reservations to offset the non-DVC trade costs.  But, as the economy worsened over the last couple years, weekend cash demand may have fallen, cutting the ability of DVC to recoup those trade costs.  At the same time, DVC owners that rented points were often seeing savvy renters who only wanted weekdays on points, substantially undercutting CRO cash reservations, and at the same time people with higher point counts than 150 who were renting points were causing increasing weekday DVC demand, throwing the system further out of balance.

Surely there was a combination of factors that would lead to a re-allocation.


----------



## bookwormde

Well here is my email to member satisfaction

Member Satisfaction Team

I would like to address a few issues involving the new point allocations.

First is the timing and method of the announcement. Waiting until 2 days before members have to start there vacation reservations impacted by this change was at best inconsiderate. Many members plan their points will ahead and borrow, bank, rent and transfer to be prepared for their plans. 

The nature of the announcements of many changes in the last years, have been at best “half truths” and while at first beginning a source of some amusement, as they have involved more series issues have devolved into statements which are disingenuous at best and are perceived by some members as flat out lies.

There also is a significant perception that the changes are not base on the best interests of the majority of members as required by Florida statute, but instead come from the financial interest of DVC particularly as they relate to the sales of DVC. It is my perception that this evolves from DVC’s unwillingness to be open, honest and provide measurable information as to the challenges that DVC faces which brought about these changes and the process and information about how the decision was made and what other alternatives which turned out to be less desirable.

In this area, and with the breakdown of trust towards DVC making decisions in the best interests of the member I believe it is important to provide the calendar basis that was used for the original count of points at the time of declaration of the resorts and a demonstration that the new allocation have precisely the same number of points (both member owned and DVC retained. In so much as a member I am making a formal request for this information. 

There are also serious indications that in a significant number of cases Guides were indicating at the time of “advertisement” that the point charts would not change, while the oral presentation waiver in the contracts deals with this from a contractual viewpoint, from a regulatory situation under FL 721.11 this an issue, and just further erodes confidence in the management of DVC.

Additionally since it is clear that this have been “in the work” for some time, is material change in the timeshare offering which was being seriously considered, not disclosing it to individuals who have purchased during this time is likely a violation of the requirement to disclose any current or anticipated future event which may have a material impact (similar to the situations which have happened with non disclosure of special dues in other timeshare companies) during real estate transactions. Again these oversights diminish DVC and confidence in the management in the eyes of both the members impacted by them and the members who are aware of the situation.

DVC is quickly diminishing the good will which generates DVC’s “free” sales force of current members who have been actively promoting DVC to friends, associates and acquaintances and in some cases are turning them into a individuals who have a negative impact on anyone who queries them about DVC.

Also there is no indication that DVC management considered any methodologies to lessen the impact of this change, whether from allowing micro add ons where members current point amount were based on specific portions of the charts, or DVC starting to sell points (just for the current year) to make up shortfall created by this change, or allowing additional small transfers between members for the same purpose.

This just adds to the “one sided” perception that is growing

These and other recent issues and uncertainty continues to have the potential to significantly damage the DVC “brand” which creates a significant portion of the value of a timeshare.

As an aside, I had called about a transfer and none of the MS front line people or supervisor could find a written policy as to when points became available to be transferred or as to the policy that they cannot be borrowed. They were very helpful in referring me to what I believe was “contract administration” who again could not find the written policy. They were supposed to send me a current POS and home resort regulation documents and send them to me and have the next level up research the policy and once found forward it to me. It has been close to 2 months with no response.

Thank you for your consideration,

I have attached my spreadsheet, which I used to try to verify that the total points had not changed for OKW, but as I said I could not verify this. There are also other members, which are attempting this, unsuccessfully.
As I have with past issues, I am attaching one of the discussion threads on disBoards since it is a good way to measure members concerns. There are also some polls available as to member’s reactions and future plans based on this change, which might be enlightening.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2066946


bookwormde
xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.com
xxx-xxx-xxxx
Member #xxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Val

and on another note....ashbradnmom....how could is it and how much more snow did YOU get last night. It is 8 above here and we got 4".....I am dreaming of a preferred view BWV!


----------



## DisFlan

ReneeQ said:


> But wasn't that the PROBLEM back in the beginning?  Weekends and weekdays were close to the same number of points, so locals were able to book up all the weekends, shutting out the possibility of booking an entire week to those that had to travel from far away?  Won't it be right back where it all started if they do that?



It looks like they may well BE doing this.  We'll know in the next year or two if there's another reassessment.  I can't see where this one reassessment is going to even things out all that much.  

bookworde - nice letter.  Let us know when (if) you get a response.

DisFlan


----------



## Sammie

Chuck S said:


> I have a theory.  Years ago, the DVC bean counters may have figured they could sell more points annually by dropping the minimum buy-in to 150 points, selling a greater volume of new contracts than with a 210+ point minimum, as they likely saw a slight increase with the previous drops (230 to 210 to 170).
> 
> They also probably figured a fairly high percentage of new owners would "get their feet wet" with a 150 point contract, but then do add-on contracts to increase their ownership.
> 
> But the add-ons didn't materialize, and a substantial number of 150 point owners, rather than do add-ons went to a Sun to Thur only travel window, throwing resort usage out of balance, and increasing demand for Sun to Thur visits.
> 
> Now, it may not have been a big problem for a few years.  DVC could have used the weekends for CRO reservations to offset the non-DVC trade costs.  But, as the economy worsened over the last couple years, weekend cash demand may have fallen, cutting the ability of DVC to recoup those trade costs.  At the same time, DVC owners that rented points were often seeing savvy renters who only wanted weekdays on points, substantially undercutting CRO cash reservations, and at the same time people with higher point counts than 150 who were renting points were causing increasing weekday DVC demand, throwing the system further out of balance.
> 
> Surely there was a combination of factors that would lead to a re-allocation.



I would say based on conversations with DVC since this happened, you are very accurate. 

And I truly do not have a problem with the why, it is the HOW that is really irratating me. They have stopped treating us like Members and more like customers.


----------



## ashbradnmom

Val said:


> and on another note....ashbradnmom....how could is it and how much more snow did YOU get last night. It is 8 above here and we got 4".....I am dreaming of a preferred view BWV!



We are about 10 degrees and have about 2"


----------



## lugnut33

tjkraz said:


> But when having to choose between decisions that determine the overall health of the program vs. making people feel good, DVC must side with the former.
> 
> Closing Space Mountain for 9 months isn't going to thrill many Walt Disney World guests.  But the maintenance work is necessary so they have to bite that bullet.  Removing the animals from AKV's Sunset Savanna is another unpopular move, but Kidani construction demands it happen.
> 
> I don't envision anyone sitting high in the Disney executive offices rubbing their hands together while muttering "now we have them where we want them!"  Like it or not, the current system slowly slid out of balance with how the last 15 years worth of DVC buyers have chosen to use their points.  An adjustment was the only way of fixing that imbalance.




Of course they gave more advanced warning about the closing of space mountain than they did the reallocation.


----------



## Sammie

Bookwormde, for security reasons, I would remove my personal info especially your email and phone number from your post.


----------



## jekjones1558

> Okay, I hadn't thought about people not booking a weekend stay AT ALL, if a few weekdays weren't available to book with them, that does make sense. BUT at some point that member HAD to use their points, even if all they could get was the weekends, or, of course, lose their points.



I always used to book at 11 months.  When I was still teaching full time it really wasn't hard--I knew a year ahead of time when I needed to travel.  But we have health issues going on in our family now and I find myself canceling and trying to rebook and the pickin's are often pretty slim.  I suspect there are lots of members whose work and other factors make it impossible to book very far in advance.  Some probably trade outside of DVC.  I read once on the DIS the estimated number of points that actually expire each year and I was shocked.  I don't remember the number but it blew me away.  A lot of members are being pinched with these points chart changes.  I surely hope that there are at least an equal number who now find it a little easier to use their points.


----------



## bookwormde

sammie

I though I had changed it thanks for making me double check

Funny when I made reservation a couple of days ago I wished the very nice MS person good luck when the new charts came out. 

bookwormde


----------



## Sammie

jekjones1558 said:


> I always used to book at 11 months.  When I was still teaching full time it really wasn't hard--I knew a year ahead of time when I needed to travel.  But we have health issues going on in our family now and I find myself canceling and trying to rebook and the pickin's are often pretty slim.  I suspect there are lots of members whose work and other factors make it impossible to book very far in advance.  Some probably trade outside of DVC.  I read once on the DIS the estimated number of points that actually expire each year and I was shocked.  I don't remember the number but it blew me away.  A lot of members are being pinched with these points chart changes.  I surely hope that there are at least an equal number who now find it a little easier to use their points.



This has happened to us recently too. Our family job situation has changed, and we are not as flexible as we once were and family health issues too. Last year was the first time in many years we did not even go and the first time I had to bank points. 

I am going on a trip for the first time without any of my family to keep from losing points. 

The number I would like to see is how many members trade out of DVC to other locations. My guide told me he had nevered used his DVC membership for anything other than trades. He has no desire to stay at WDW and if he did he would use his CM discount for nonDVC resorts.   Which was a pretty interesting comment.


----------



## mickeymom629

> (Not yelling at you, MickeyMom, just venting).


  I am in the same boat as you!   

I have 200 points and usually get 2 bedrooms for my family of 6.  Banking and borrowing, I was sometimes able to do 5 nights at BWV during spring break, but I could always count on 5 nights at OKW.  Now, I will definitely be taking less trips.  

And I was really looking forward to figuring out when I could do a couple of trips in a year to justify APs again.  Now, I doubt I will find a year when I can afford to do that.    At least, not until my kids don't come with us and DH and I can get studios or 1 bedrooms, but that's not the scenario I want for every trip.    

I just don't get how it benefits Disney to do this...


----------



## drusba

Just going through the charts at BWV and wonder if this is what others are seeing with other charts. Except for a GV Sun through Thurs, if you reserve any room for five consecutive nights any time of year, regardless of which nights you choose such as weekdays only or weekdays with one or two weekend nights, the 2010 points needed for the same five consecutive nights appear to be higher than the 2009 points needed. This may also be the case for 6 night stays but I am getting "calculation" fatigue. In other words, everyone who normally goes 5 or 6 nights sees an increase regardless of which 5 or 6 consecutive nights in the week they choose.


----------



## MeeskaMamaw

Have been reading this thread for days now and ReneeQ's comments this afternoon are right on the money, at least in my situation. Also, Val is right on about Disney cutting off the hand that feeds them.  You just wanted to expect a little more from Disney. We haven't even used our first points yet and I just feel deflated. Of course one of the first things we asked our guide before buying was about the points change...I can't imagine that NOT being one of the first things you would ask.  She had a quick answer about how "oh they may take a point or two here or there but they have to add it back somewhere else....something like that. But it hardly ever happens"  Oh well. We will live with, certainly don't like it.  Really was considering a small addon too but not now.  Who knows what may be next.  Can't wait to see what the next increase might be in maintenance fees ??!!


----------



## dis-happy

Sammie said:


> See this is the real question to ponder. Supposedly the change was made due to complaints about availablity especially after the 6 month booking window. That only weekends were available.
> 
> So they adjusted. But, if this adjustment truly does not move some of the Sunday-Thursday crowd into the weekends they have accommplished nothing except to make the weekend crowd happy and anger the Sun-Thurs crowd.
> 
> They have not changed the booking trend and personally I don't think it will change that much. I think the members that booked Sunday-Thursday will continue to do so.
> 
> And according to the MS agent I talked to today, the phones are ringing off the wall and people are very upset.




I think you're getting at the crux of another $64. question....how does this fit in with the new waitlist policy and what exactly does DVC hope to accomplish?


----------



## Doctor P

Well, I don't think I am as up in arms about the change since for the most part it doesn't make much difference on the trips we take or even, in some cases, benefits us a little.  That said, I can tell you from personal experience that there has definitely been significantly lower demand on weekends and I have used that to our benefit at the 7 month mark in the past.  If I had to leave a night to be reserved at the seven month mark, I always left a weekend night as that would allow me to have fewer nights uncovered with the initial reservation AND (and this is a big AND) the demand was lower so I never have been shut out of a Friday or Saturday night at the seven month mark.  That may change in the future, and that is fine since it should hopefully free up the weekday nights a little bit.  Just based on some of the reservations we have made in the past, some of the point differentials are meaningful enough to shift demand--an OKW 2BR at Xmas time will now be 40 points less for the weekend (i.e., the maximum 20% reallocation).  In contrast, a 2BR at Hilton Head for five weeknights at Xmas will now be 120 points versus 105 points (but the weekends will be substantially less, especially Saturday nights).  So, for us, it all comes out in the wash.  We might change our trips around a little bit, but we tend to go with the flow and just take the best vacation that our points will alllow at the time we want to go.  I did have our vacation for 2011-2012 planned out before the new point charts (had to do it to make sure I used the right points and had an appropriate balance left for the next trip) and had to redo it based on the change in our 2009-2010 holiday trip points and the change in the points for the later trip.  But, it all worked out (if they don't keep changing points every year, LOL).


----------



## MiaSRN62

> So they adjusted. But, if this adjustment truly does not move some of the Sunday-Thursday crowd into the weekends they have accommplished nothing except to make the weekend crowd happy and anger the Sun-Thurs crowd.




Sammie....the above statement fits my situation to a "T".  
I am one of the Sun-Thurs crowd.  We have a total of 250 points now between OKW and AKV. 

But, we have always utilized the Sun-Thurs both due to lower points, as well as the fact that I have owned an offsite timeshare since 1994 and I MUST check-in and out on a weekend so we have always added time to our vacation by tagging on days with DVC Sun thru Thurs.  I have had no choice or flexibility with my offsite timeshare.  And I knew this at the time of siging. Occasionally we have booked weekends with DVC (but I can count on one hand the number of times)......

But by DVC inducting this allocation....sure, the weekends went down, but the weeknights went up.  So there is no way I can ever work around the fact that I am coming up short 30 points every year.  And lower weekend points will not encourage me to stay on weekends any more than before the allocation.   Because I will always be able to stretch out my points by using weeknights.....it's just harder to do that now.   I just wonder if we will see a big increase in the booking of studios and 1 bedrooms vs the 2 bedrooms from the Sun thru Thurs crowd in an attempt to retain the same length of vacation.  People like me trying to recoup the lost points ?  I wonder if this new allocation will make people downsize on a large scale.  Only time will tell. I honestly don't think I'm the only Sun-Thurs person thinking about this & I'm sure I'm not the only Sun-Thurs DVC'er who has no plans to stay weekends simply because they dropped the points.   This clearly benefits the weekend crowd the most.  And there seems to be alot of them coming forward here so I don't get how there could be so much availability on the weekends considering so many here that state they stay over weekends, that DVC was pushed in the direction it took ?  


bookwormd....very well written and thought-out post.......

Sorry about the bold type Disneyjamie and any others I have offended.   I've been on these boards for 8 years and have thousands of posts and done this quite often.  You are the first person in all that time to ever say anything to me.  I never thought it was an issue.


----------



## bookwormde

“*The total number of points on this chart can never change*. There may be adjustments for seasons and dates, but the overall total will not change for the life of your contract."

It is clear that advertising people are driving this type of marginally accurate information.

By the way this is written, if you add up the points on the chart it should not change, clearly this has happened, why not just shay that the total pints for the resort will never change but points requirements for dates, days, seasons and days assigned to seasons may change or The total number of resort points represented by this chart can never change. Oh yea being clear an honest might hurt sales.

Sorry the more I see and hear from other members the more cynical I become

bookwormde


----------



## kristenrice

After reading the last three pages, I am even more confused... 

If people bought their contracts with enough points to take a Su-Th vacation, they are now forced to go fewer days....period.  There is no way around it.  Ok, so the luck parties of 2-4 people can maybe downgrade from a 1BR to a studio, but families of 5-6 are now stuck.  I don't understand how this is supposed to increase occupancy.


----------



## jarestel

jekjones1558 said:


> I wish there were a way to put pressure on Disney to open a window for multiple point transfers and for small point add-ons.  Although I know that some folks are too angry to consider putting any more $$ into DVC vacations, I think that there are some who just want to solve their new point shortage dilemma.



The question arises whether this reallocation is a one time event or an on-going process to produce more of a points balance between weekdays and weekends. If that window were opened for you and then in 2 or 3 years the points were reallocated again, the howls would be 10 times as loud as they are today.


----------



## Inkmahm

drusba said:


> Just going through the charts at BWV and wonder if this is what others are seeing with other charts. Except for a GV Sun through Thurs, if you reserve any room for five consecutive nights any time of year, regardless of which nights you choose such as weekdays only or weekdays with one or two weekend nights, the 2010 points needed for the same five consecutive nights appear to be higher than the 2009 points needed. This may also be the case for 6 night stays but I am getting "calculation" fatigue. In other words, everyone who normally goes 5 or 6 nights sees an increase regardless of which 5 or 6 consecutive nights in the week they choose.



No, I'm not seeing that.  Our 1 bedroom BWV villa for F&W in October has decreased from 142 to 134 points for the 4 day weekend.


----------



## Chuck S

kristenrice said:


> After reading the last three pages, I am even more confused...
> 
> If people bought their contracts with enough points to take a Su-Th vacation, they are now forced to go fewer days....period.  There is no way around it.  Ok, so the luck parties of 2-4 people can maybe downgrade from a 1BR to a studio, but families of 5-6 are now stuck.  I don't understand how this is supposed to increase occupancy.



It is not, necessarily, designed to increase occupany.  It is designed to balance demand for rooms.  If 65% of members consistently wanted Sun to Thursday only, they could, in theory, block out a member who wanted a week or more, just as having too many weekend only user would block longer term travelers. Too much demand on weekdays and too little demand on weekends could also be somewhat behind the change to the 11 month plus 7 day booking window change, and the slight crack-down on commercial renting seen in recent years.  It would seem DVC was trying other methods available to them to rebalance the system before they reallocated points.


----------



## tjkraz

Sammie said:


> See this is the real question to ponder. Supposedly the change was made due to complaints about availablity especially after the 6 month booking window. That only weekends were available.
> 
> So they adjusted. But, if this adjustment truly does not move some of the Sunday-Thursday crowd into the weekends they have accommplished nothing except to make the weekend crowd happy and anger the Sun-Thurs crowd.



Emotions aside, that's pretty much the point of the points charts--to create equilibrium between demand and supply.  Making one crowd "happier" than another cannot be the only criteria for these sorts of decisions.  

I bet it would make a lot of people happy if DVC had instead cut the weekday costs in half and re-doubled the weekends.  But I hope I don't need to explain why that doesn't work.  



> They have not changed the booking trend and personally I don't think it will change that much. I think the members that booked Sunday-Thursday will continue to do so.



In the short term you are probably correct.  Many will adapt by reducing their vacation frequency or picking less-expensive room sizes or classes.  This will open up availability for people who wished to use points for weekdays that were previously blocked-out weeks or months before they could make a commitment.  

In the long term it will impact purchasing decisions.  Some people will sell their contracts--I'm not saying it will be in greater numbers than it is today--but turnover is constant.  New members will discover DVC for the first time.  The thousands of new owners DVC adds in the coming years will have a totally different perception of how points are used.  Perhaps they will still lean toward weekdays even though the costs are higher than what you and I have previously seen.  Others will simply favor the weeklong stays or weekdays plus 1.  Still more will suddenly see weekend getaways as more reasonably-priced than they have been for more than a decade.


----------



## Dean

bookwormde said:


> Here I hat I have found out so far in figuring if total points have changed for OKW
> 
> If you figure the change based on 2009 year the points are relatively close at for all 2br + GV the difference is 576
> For all lock offs split it is 4,944. If I use the number of lock offs as a variable if I set it at 24 (out of 230) the points balance at 7741236
> 
> If you figure the change based on 2010 year the points diverge significantly at for all 2br + GV the difference is -16020
> For all lock offs split it is 20160.  No number of lock offs makes this year balance. If I use the number of lock offs as a variable if I set it at 24 (out of 230) the difference is 16452 with the total the points of 7760526
> 
> If you figure the change based on 2011 year the points diverge significantly at for all 2br + GV the difference is -20925
> For all lock offs split it is 33805.  No number of lock offs makes this year balance. If I use the number of lock offs as a variable if I set it at 24 (out of 230) the difference is 22269 with the total the points of 7676136. One interesting note is that for this year the points for 504 2br units do balance at 7016688. This year is also equivalent to the 1994
> 
> I can not imagine that the regulations would allow DVC (or any other) timeshare to create some arbitrary year, although I could imagine being allowed to use a year which is reprehensive of the life of the contract (but with the extension that would open another issue. What we need to know is what was the base year for the initial point allocation.
> 
> I guess since I have not fallen upon any easy answer I will in addition to expressing my displeasure in how the announcement was handled, ask for the methodology that they used to comply with the POS and state regulations.
> 
> 
> Drusba
> 
> Your post is very thoughtful and by my opinion accurate.
> 
> One point to add is that while not effecting contracts, the apparent pattern of guides miss stating the terms of the contract (intentionally of otherwise) represents a clear violation of the deceptive sales practices laws.
> 
> 
> bookwormde


It makes a big difference if the base year includes an extra weekend or weekday.  Given OKW start of 1991/92 and that both of those years (as do MOST years) have an extra weekday rather than extra weekend day, I think it's reasonable to assume that this is the base year they used esp since it doesn't create extra points in the system.  2010 has an extra weekend day instead.  I'd suggest using 2009 or 2011 rather than 2010 for this reason.



drusba said:


> There is an Exhibit in the Public Offering Statement applicable to each particular resort entitled "Real Estate Interest and Point Formulation" that indicates otherwise and that what is sold is based on estimated use demand for the various room sizes.


I think if you read that "exhibit A" that for those resorts that do not have dedicated studio and 1 BR units, it only lists the larger units.  For OKW it only list 2 & 3 BR units (not studio or 1 BR) for determining the "demand factor" while for BWV it lists all unit sizes.  I don't have a POS from SSR but I'd be willing to bet that this section only lists 2 & 3 BR units in determining the demand factor.  I'm betting the one you looked at that lists those units sizes has dedicated smaller units.  That would specifically suggest to me that what I posted earlier IS correct, that this calculation is done assuming no lockoff's.


----------



## Dean

lugnut33 said:


> LOL, I never did the DVC presentation.  Actually I've never been to a full blown timeshare presentation.  I can only make my judgements based on what you write.  And again, I'm not being hurt at all in this deal, matter of fact my point requirement is dropping by 1.
> 
> However, I can also totally understand why people are upset even if the POS spells out what DVC can do in regards to points re-allocations.  There is no way to say they don't have a legitimate gripe, especially those that bought into BLT and AKL and now find themselves a couple points short in meeting their travel needs.  That very vital key bit of information that higher-ups knew was being withheld.
> 
> And those that have been members for quite some time also can be upset, they don't have to be happy simply because the POS says it's OK.  There is no provision in the POS saying members have to be happy about everything.


You should do one or two for the experience, might I suggest Westgate or Spinnaker.  I see why some are upset in general but other than those that bought BLT in the last few months, I don't see why they would be upset with Disney.



bookwormde said:


> Just to clarify the discussion of what impact oral representations have on compliance with Floridas time share statutes
> 
> 721.11  Advertising materials; oral statements
> 
> (4)  No advertising or oral statement made by any seller or resale service provider shall:
> (a)  Misrepresent a fact or create a false or misleading impression regarding the timeshare plan or promotion thereof.
> (i)	Make any misleading or deceptive representation with respect to the contents of the public offering statement and the contract or the rights, privileges, benefits, or obligations of the purchaser under the contract or this chapter.
> 
> 
> Here is the link that I pulled the info from if anyone is interested.
> 
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...tm&StatuteYear=2008&Title=->2008->Chapter 721
> 
> bookwormde


You signed that they did not misrepresent as part of the paperwork in buying.  Even then you'd have to prove it legally which would be tough without multiple independent witnesses or a recording of the events.


----------



## kristenrice

Chuck S said:


> It is not, necessarily, designed to increase occupany.  It is designed to balance demand for rooms.  If 65% of members consistently wanted Sun to Thursday only, they could, in theory, block out a member who wanted a week or more, just as having too many weekend only user would block longer term travelers. Too much demand on weekdays and too little demand on weekends could also be somewhat behind the change to the 11 month plus 7 day booking window change, and the slight crack-down on commercial renting seen in recent years.  It would seem DVC was trying other methods available to them to rebalance the system before they reallocated points.



OK, thanks.   I am not much of a numbers person, but this explanation does seem reasonable.  It still stinks for us 5-night travellers, but we'll deal with it.


----------



## jarestel

Doug7856 said:


> Let's face it, Disney has created an emotional bond with it's fans and to be willing to short change us with so little concern of our view is disappointing.



It's not usually a good idea to make financial decisions based on emotion... as some of us are finding out. If nothing else positive comes of this, this would have to be this cloud's silver lining. Talk of pixie dust, magic, and family fun is wonderful when one is just shooting the breeze, but when it comes down to spending $$$, a more pragmatic and realistic approach is generally the way to go.


----------



## lugnut33

Dean said:


> You should do one or two for the experience, might I suggest Westgate or Spinnaker.  I see why some are upset in general but other than those that bought BLT in the last few months, I don't see why they would be upset with Disney.




LULZ, did you really just say that you don't know why people are upset?


----------



## chalee94

BWV Dreamin said:


> I am one who is able to change my point amount purchased at BLT. I bought 2 days before the minimum 100pts. add-on went into effect. Disney didn't get the paperwork to me until a week later, thus I haven't turned it in yet. I spoke with my guide yesterday who said it would be "no problem" adjusting the points up. I increased from 30 to 40 pts., due to the re-allocation of points. If,purchasers have officially closed, it may be another matter in adjusting those points. Otherwise, even if paperwork has been sent in, I think there is still time if one hasn't closed.



make sure that increase includes an extra buffer in case the 2011 charts change again.   



mickeymom629 said:


> will this change the way you plan your vacation days?  In other words, if you used to only stay Sun-Thurs because of the really high points, are you considering weekend stays now?



more likely to stay sun-thurs and skip a year a little more often.  we'll see...


----------



## Dean

drusba said:


> But are you not assuming there has been a "change" in demand patterns? Disney has been saying off and on since it began DVC that demand for weekdays is significantly higher than weekends. It is the demand pattern that has always existed because weekends were always higher than weekdays and thus built into the system as originally conceived. Thus, it would appear they are trying to change the long-existing pattern rather than basing an adjustment upon changes in demand patterns that have actually occurred.


All they would have to demonstrate is a change to actual vs anticipated patterns, not a change from say 2000 to now.  This should have been done back in 2001 or 2002, the thing to fault DVC on is the delay.  My info suggests they were so afraid of members reaction that they let it ride somewhat off balance.  I think the smaller contracts on the secondary market, lower minimums to buy in (150, 100, 160) and the improved use (and abuse) of the options by members likely forced their hand.  Plus I suspect they were getting a fair amount of complaints by members trying to reserve S-F under the 7 day reservation rule.



MiaSRN62 said:


> It's a business move for them---but not every business move DVC has made has been the best one.


semantics maybe depending on your intention Maria.  It's a management move, not really a business move, and one required of them by state law and the POS.

From FL Statue 721





> (5)  Every filed public offering statement for a timeshare plan which is not a multisite timeshare plan shall contain the information required by this subsection. The division is authorized to provide by rule the method by which a developer must provide such information to the division.
> 
> (a)  A cover page stating only:
> 
> 1.  The name of the timeshare plan; and
> 
> 2.  The following statement, in conspicuous type: This public offering statement contains important matters to be considered in acquiring a timeshare interest. *The statements contained in this public offering statement are only summary in nature.* A prospective purchaser should refer to all references, accompanying exhibits, contract documents, and sales materials. *You should not rely upon oral representations as being correct. *Refer to this document and accompanying exhibits for correct representations. The seller is prohibited from making any representations other than those contained in the contract and this public offering statement.


----------



## TIGGERmetoo

Quote:
Originally Posted by *CarolMN* 

 
_This is precisely why I have been advising those who bought BLT to call their guides if they want to change the number of points they purchased. I think DVD will allow those members to make adjustments to the number of points purchased that are less than the 25 or 100 minimum, even if they have already closed. Perhaps the initial answer will be no, but eventually for those who push it, I predict they will allow it. I think they have to or at least will not want to fight about it. _

_My opinion and I am not a lawyer (although IIRC, drusba is) _




Dean said:


> Some have already been told they could.


 
Anyone know if they get/got to purchase at the price b4 the increase?


----------



## HookdonWDW

Here are my thoughts from another thread...



> Here's something I think that many of those who are upset by the reallocation aren't thinking about:
> 
> Part of the reason to have a reallocation is to keep things in balance, and keep bookings as close to 100% as possible.  Most of us have heard that stated here repeatedly.  But the part that hasn't really been discussed (I think because many of us think that it is intuitive), is what would happen if DVC *didn't* adjust the point charts, and weekdays continued to become more popular as rooms sit empty on weekends.
> 
> DVC sells everyone their points based on their needs.  If point values are balanced, people use their points at a variety of times during the year - those with kids/families may be willing to spend extra points to stay during school breaks, those without other commitments may travel during less popular times because they want the points savings, and those who like to travel during traditionally busy periods will spend what's required for their stays.  But now the points are out of balance.  People who would usually stay during a vacation week can get the weekend, but not weekdays.  If they live further away, given current points costs, it may not be worth going if they can't get their week.  So they bank their points for another time.  Someone who lives locally can go for long weekends, but when they look at how many points it costs, it just doesn't make sense.  So locals don't book up those extra weekends.  Members start looking at weekend points and realize that it works "better" for them to pay cash for weekends and use their points on weeknights.  The balance is set off further.
> 
> After a few years of this, what are we left with?
> 
> 
> Rooms are sitting empty on weekends
> DVC can't get rid of all of the breakage rooms available on weekends
> Members can't use all of their points, due to lack of availability
> 
> And there's the big rub - eventually people will start losing their points because they've already banked, and they still can't get the week they want.  Or even if they can get it "somewhere", they can't get in exactly where they want, when they want.  Owner satisfaction goes down.  For a while, people will probably trade to RCI or for a cruise, but we all know that you lose point value with that - if members have to do this on a regular basis to keep from losing their points, satisfaction goes down, and more people are upset.  People rent out points they can't use, and that solves some of the problem, but it probably *adds* more to the stress of weekday points than it alleviates.  Check out the Rent/Trade board and look at how many of those looking for reservations want just weekday reservations.  Now we have a whole new group messing up room availability.
> 
> If something wasn't done, this had the potential of snowballing into something that would eventually become untenable.  People simply wouldn't be able to get into DVC because although there was weekend availability, weekdays were booked up.  I'm sure it's already happening - remember, not everyone reads the Boards and know to book at 11 and 7 months out.  It's becoming near impossible to get *any* reservation at 2-3 months out at certain times of the year.  Something had to give.  Personally, I'm surprised they didn't adjust the points charts sooner.
> 
> I'm more bothered about the changes to the wait list than I am to the points chart changes.  I know that change is hard to get used to - we get comfortable with our routines.  But in this case, I think it was necessary to avoid a potentially larger problem.  I wouldn't be surprised if we see further adjustments to weekday v. weekend points until usage is evened out.  JMHO YMMV.


----------



## jekjones1558

> If that window were opened for you and then in 2 or 3 years the points were reallocated again, the howls would be 10 times as loud as they are today.



For the record, I am not even affected by this change.  We have a ton of points so lots of possibilities.  But I am concerned for the BLT and some recent AKV buyers whom I think have gotten a less than square deal.


----------



## DVC92

I think most members can agree that either through sheer incompetence or utter lack of ethical responsibilty, DVC management fails to communicate any major change to members in a timely fashion. That being said, the rationale for the point reallocation, which I believe will be the first of several until weekday and weekend points are evened out, will be the imbalance of members booking weekdays. I'm sure that is probably true. However, this situation was fostered by DVC by lowering the minimum purchase requirement, raising the points necessary to book accommodations in the newer resorts, and the allowing of small add-ons. Whether intentionally or not, they possibly deceived members who made these purchases (I am not one) into believing they could book 1-5 days, Sun-Thurs. The point differential between weekdays and weekends has always existed, and notwithstanding DVC's right to alter the point chart, there was nothing in the history of DVC that would have led anyone to fathom such a change would be made. Some members will now purchase additional points, and new purchasers will require an increase in their point purchase to derive a 4 or 5 day trip. Therefore, mission accomplished by DVC. Is legal action possible by some members who feel they were deceived? Certainly, you can sue anyone for anything. Success of such a suit is probably unlikely, but who knows. Unless one really doesn't want to have a business relationship with DVC henceforth, just go with the flow and make the reservations you are capable of booking and enjoy your vacations!


----------



## jarestel

Val said:


> I am sure that Disney, with its massive legal department, is well within legal activities with this rearrangment of points. However, this decision in light of many other recent and quite unpopular decisions may come back to bite them. DVC has initiated a number of large building projects, and are banking on the increasing sales of DVC. The impact of the down economy is unknown, but the rate of sales is likely to decline- many in the luxury industry are seeing significant downturns, and DVC will similarly be impacted. One of the first rules of good business (oft forgetten in today's business world) is to NOT bite the hand that feeds you. Look at the major corporations that have gone under recently- many due to too fast expansion, declines in customer service, and a significant recession. I only hope that the department of future forecasting and sorcery is as good as their legal department.....I really believe that these recent business decisions are NOT a good idea for the company given the current economic climate. Unfortunately, pixie dust and thinking magical thoughts will not help sales- but bad PR and poor word of mouth from current customers, along with surge of resales (which take away from NEW sales for DVC) will hurt.
> 
> Look at the list of failed companies....many are huge surprises. I truly hope that Disney is looking at the huge, long term picture........two years ago Disney was trading around 34, today it is around 20; now around 2002-2003 it hit its low, around 15, and it came back. But, heading into a recession on the decline isn't the direction I would want disney to be going. Glad I only own DVC and not their stock!
> 
> We shall see.....we have owned for 11 years. We have seen changes, most negative, but this change in light of the several other changes (wait list, paper plates) seem to be making the proverbial camel showing some sagging. Wonder what will be the next change (internal or external to DVC) that breaks that camel's back!



The problem is that if a current member grows disenchanted with DVC, he/she must find another buyer for the contract, assuming one will decide not to just walk away from the contract and simply give it up to DVC. So one disenchanted member is replaced by a new member who doesn't know things were ever any different than when the new member buys into the program.

And the same is true for any new buyers from here on out. They don't know, and probably don't care how things used to work, they simply adjust to the way things are now. Disney doesn't lose any business and the old dissatisfied customers are replaced by new, and for the moment anyway, satisfied customers.


----------



## Dean

lugnut33 said:


> LULZ, did you really just say that you don't know why people are upset?


Certainly.  I don't understand why rational people are upset with DVC that they made this change that they are obligated to do under rule and state Law and that they knew or should have known was at least a possibility.  I do understand why a subset who bought recently, esp BLT, are upset at the timing.  I can understand being disappointed if one is negatively affected.



TIGGERmetoo said:


> Anyone know if they get/got to purchase at the price b4 the increase?


Maybe someone specifically involved can say for sure but my understanding was at the price they had previously agreed to.  The rub will come when someone is upset enough to back out and out of their cancelation window, esp if the deed has already been recorded.  Even then I wouldn't be surprised to see DVC let some back out and take it back under ROFR at the price paid, we'll see.


----------



## Dean

kristenrice said:


> seasons and dates[/B], but the overall total will not change for the life of your contract."


I would not find this inconsistent with what has happen, actually the reverse.



ReneeQ said:


> But wasn't that the PROBLEM back in the beginning?  Weekends and weekdays were close to the same number of points, so locals were able to book up all the weekends, shutting out the possibility of booking an entire week to those that had to travel from far away?  Won't it be right back where it all started if they do that?


I don't think it was ever a major issue, only a worry that if the points differential were too small that it might then be an issue.  I doubt this change is enough to do that but only time will tell.  If it's not close to perfect, they may change it again and if they do, likely the same direction as this one.



kristenrice said:


> After reading the last three pages, I am even more confused...
> 
> If people bought their contracts with enough points to take a Su-Th vacation, they are now forced to go fewer days....period.  There is no way around it.  Ok, so the luck parties of 2-4 people can maybe downgrade from a 1BR to a studio, but families of 5-6 are now stuck.  I don't understand how this is supposed to increase occupancy.


The theory is that it will drive occupancy by evening out demand.  You raise the times that are higher demand (day, season, unit size) and/or lower the reverse.  This and the 7 day reservation on one call should increase both weekend occupancy and full 6-7 day stays over S-F stays.  The question is whether the change is enough to do so given the 20% limitation.  My guess is it is but we shall see.  If not, we'll have this thread again in 2-3 years if not next year.  In that sense it should increase occupancy (number of rooms reserved) but possibly decrease or be neutral to saturation (number of people in units) during the busier time.


----------



## jarestel

jekjones1558 said:


> For the record, I am not even affected by this change.  We have a ton of points so lots of possibilities.  But I am concerned for the BLT and some recent AKV buyers whom I think have gotten a less than square deal.



In that case, I would direct my same comments to them. If folks spend even more money on points based on the new charts only to find that in a few years their points are insufficient once more, then there will be howling. Much howling.


----------



## tjkraz

TIGGERmetoo said:


> Anyone know if they get/got to purchase [BLT] at the price b4 the increase?



I do not believe there has been an increase for BLT. The original offering price was $112 less $5 and that is still the price today.

As for getting the $5 discount on a small add-on necessitated by the reallocation...that remains to be seen.


----------



## LIFERBABE

jekjones1558 said:


> For the record, I am not even affected by this change.  We have a ton of points so lots of possibilities.  But I am concerned for the BLT and some recent AKV buyers whom I think have gotten a less than square deal.



Agreed!  We are in the same camp.  Lots of points lots of options.  

I did buy BLT in multiple small contracts when the announcement was made about the new mins.  

I did buy more than I needed because I had a purpose for the matching developer points as well as the BLT points.

I understand the need for the reallocation, but I still think it was shady the way they did it.  They knew it was coming and defrauded the purchasers.  Lying by omission is still lying.  They did not negotiate in good faith and that is what is wrong with this.

I was just posting last week on the SSR Guaranteed categories thread that DVC has shown us that they have no qualms about bending it's membership over when it benefits them.  THey do what they want and change the rules to suit them.  I still have great DVC vacations, but I am no fan of JL and company and hope to be rid of him soon.


----------



## Val

I agree that if a current owner walks away and someone else buys their contract, disney has another buyer- but that new buyer just bought out of OLD inventory at devalued prices, rather than from the enormous amounts of NEW inventory that Disney will have soon. Given that I have seen Vero beach listed for as low as $47.50/point with full points coming in the upcoming use year, this could be a potential downside for Disney. The resale market is likely to see the opportunity as well- and really ramp up their advertising and sales.... why buy at $110/point when we have it for 60-80/point? BWV, BCV and WLV are likely to remain popular for the near future- and resales for those my steal from BLT. Further, there is a fair amount of word-of-mouth advertising that is likely to be significantly curtailed. All of this could hurt upcoming sales for a company with a huge amount of upcoming and very pricey inventory. This will be interesting to watch.....Disney doesn't always seem to be the greatest at customer relations recently, and this could be their undoing.

I really don't think that DVC will fail- but it may be hurting, and that could mean a further reduction in the few remaining perks we have. Buying was a gamble. Up until the last 2 years it has been a good value gamble for my family. Not so now, and we need to sit and wait and watch the next 6-12 months. We may have lost on this one in the long haul, but that is the name game in the timeshare business. But Disney may also hurt in this gamble, and Disney hurting can potentially hurt all owners. 

It will be a very interesting 6-12 months!


----------



## bookwormde

Dean, 

What you sign about oral representation in the contract only applies to the contract not to oral representations related to regulatory misrepresentation. Two different worlds and areas of the law

bookwormde


----------



## jarestel

DVC92 said:


> That being said, the rationale for the point reallocation, which I believe will be the first of several until weekday and weekend points are evened out, will be the imbalance of members booking weekdays.



I wouldn't be surprised if that is DVC's ultimate goal which would then be accompanied by a minimum stay requirement to eliminate problems caused by  "locals" booking up all of the weekend days. The fun is just beginning. The next 5 years should be very interesting!


----------



## Sammie

I still think there is a point some are still missing. I seriously doubt if any that posted on this thread did not give their purchase the necessary financial focus it needed based on calm unemotional decision making. To imply otherwise, is well; insulting.

However the emotional, pixie dust loving, magic part of us did make us choose Disney to give our money to rather than some sleazy, slight of hand, time share operation.

Lately DVC is looking for like the latter and less like the house that Walt built.


----------



## jarestel

Val said:


> I agree that if a current owner walks away and someone else buys their contract, disney has another buyer- but that new buyer just bought out of OLD inventory at devalued prices, rather than from the enormous amounts of NEW inventory that Disney will have soon.



True enough, but WDW is probably close to, or at the saturation point for DVC properties. Hence the California, Hawaii, and whichever off-site properties they announce in the coming years. New buyers don't really care how things used to work, they care only about how they work now. If you were buying into DVC today, the weekday vs weekend points wouldn't be a make or break for you. Only existing members care about that.


----------



## jarestel

Unfortunately, Walt doesn't live here anymore, Sammie. I agree that things would no doubt be better if he did, but we have to deal with today's realities.


----------



## toocherie

bookwormde said:


> Dean,
> 
> What you sign about oral representation in the contract only applies to the contract not to oral representations related to regulatory misrepresentation. Two different worlds and areas of the law
> 
> bookwormde



Not sure I understand your point--could you elaborate?  Are you an attorney?


----------



## tjkraz

Sammie said:


> I still think there is a point some are still missing. I seriously doubt if any that posted on this thread did not give their purchase the necessary financial focus it needed based on calm unemotional decision making. To imply otherwise, is well; insulting.
> 
> However the emotional, pixie dust loving, magic part of us did make us choose Disney to give our money to rather than some sleazy, slight of hand, time share operation.



When it comes to something as highly regulated as a timeshare and the legal realities of property ownership, I'm not sure that DVC really has a choice.  

Yes the communications were severely lacking.  

But aside from that, you keep making references to this not being "the DVC of old" (or something to that effect.)  I'd really like to have you elaborate on that.  What things did DVD do, say, 10 years ago that set it apart from current management?  

While I'm not enough of a kool-aid drinking sycophant to laud every move that DVC makes, I still think the pros *far *outweigh the cons.  In recent years we've seen things like larger DVC rooms, more (better?) destinations, MUCH better furniture and fixtures in guest rooms, improved member perks (AP discount, attraction previews), better website, more special member events (Mixers, annual cruises, spring training games, etc.) and so on.  I became a member a short time before Jim Lewis was named to head DVC, and from my perspective there are many areas in which DVC has vastly improved over that timeframe.


----------



## MiaSRN62

jarestel said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if that is DVC's ultimate goal which would then be accompanied by a minimum stay requirement to eliminate problems caused by  "locals" booking up all of the weekend days. The fun is just beginning. The next 5 years should be very interesting!




Yep....don't think I ever thought it would go this way before 2-3 days ago.  But now I see DVC very differently.   And won't be doing any add-ons anymore.


----------



## NinaRaimonda

The points system is what makes Disney stand "Apart" from the everyday timeshare. They are not going to stray away from the points system, especially when they can use them to their advantage...


----------



## jarestel

NinaRaimonda said:


> The points system is what makes Disney stand "Apart" from the everyday timeshare. They are not going to stray away from the points system, especially when they can use them to their advantage...



They can't stray from the points system, since that would violate every contract signed from day 1. But that doesn't mean they could not regulate more strictly how those points are used.


----------



## Dean

bookwormde said:


> Dean,
> 
> What you sign about oral representation in the contract only applies to the contract not to oral representations related to regulatory misrepresentation. Two different worlds and areas of the law
> 
> bookwormde


It's on the VERY first page of the POS.  I'd interpret it as applying to anything related to the info in the POS.  Certainly if they specifically told you frankly incorrect information AND you could prove it, you might have a case.  There has been one or two successful cases in this arena with timeshares but the one I have some knowledge of involved repeated frank lies told to many many people over several years.  I don't think I've seen anything posted that one could uphold as absolutely false, not complete maybe, but not false.  For example saying "The points can never change" is not false, it just doesn't contain enough info.



jarestel said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if that is DVC's ultimate goal which would then be accompanied by a minimum stay requirement to eliminate problems caused by  "locals" booking up all of the weekend days. The fun is just beginning. The next 5 years should be very interesting!


LOL, it depends.  The problem is that we've really only seen a couple of minor issues of poor planning (AKV concierge/savannah issues), poor timing with this and changes that are clearly within DVC's right and in this case, obligation and were all reasonable.  I know there are many that disagree but these are minor issues, "mountains out of molehills" come to mind.  But what it does tell me is that they are now willing to make changes, something that has not been true in the past 12 years until more recently.  Makes you wonder, and worry, about some of the other possibilities I've posted in the past doesn't it.  Personally I don't think this is a sign that DVC is losing it and for the most part, look at the changes as positive overall.  The fooled me twice issue with AKV notifications recently is the thing that bothers me the most because not only was it avoidable, this was the second time within a few months.  Some might add the timing of these changes to that list of poor planning, I could see that interpretation but wouldn't go that far with this specific issue.



NinaRaimonda said:


> The points system is what makes Disney stand "Apart" from the everyday timeshare. They are not going to stray away from the points system, especially when they can use them to their advantage...


There are probably more resorts that work on points in the world now than do not, esp if you look at the newer and better ones.  DVC wasn't the first and some would say, not the best points system.


----------



## jarestel

tjkraz said:


> While I'm not enough of a kool-aid drinking sycophant to laud every move that DVC makes, I still think the pros *far *outweigh the cons.  In recent years we've seen things like larger DVC rooms, more (better?) destinations, MUCH better furniture and fixtures in guest rooms, improved member perks (AP discount, attraction previews), better website, more special member events (Mixers, annual cruises, spring training games, etc.) and so on.  I became a member a short time before Jim Lewis was named to head DVC, and from my perspective there are many areas in which DVC has vastly improved over that timeframe.



Good points, tjkraz! Some "enhancements" will benefit certain members while others will not. If you're on the "not" side, then things look bleak at the moment. 

I've never been one who thought I would own DVC to the bitter end, for any number of reasons. Once DVC becomes more of a nuisance than a joy, I'll sell and be done with it. For now though, all of the recent changes notwithstanding, I'm still getting a net benefit!


----------



## dcfromva

Dean said:


> All they would have to demonstrate is a change to actual vs anticipated patterns, not a change from say 2000 to now.  This should have been done back in 2001 or 2002, the thing to fault DVC on is the delay.  My info suggests they were so afraid of members reaction that they let it ride somewhat off balance.....
> ....  It's a management move, not really a business move, and one required of them by state law and the POS.


   This does not make any sense at all that the points were out of whack for so long.  
BCV came on line in 2002. They could have sold BCV with a different points schedule.  There were no pre-existing members who would have been upset by it.  
SSR came on line in 2004.  They could have sold SSR with a different points schedule.

Same goes for AKV and BLT.    So what was the basis for the previous points schedules?


----------



## Sammie

jarestel said:


> Unfortunately, Walt doesn't live here anymore, Sammie. I agree that things would no doubt be better if he did, but we have to deal with today's realities.



Then DVC needs to redo their website and quit selling their product based on Walt's values. That is my gripe.


----------



## jarestel

Dean said:


> LOL, it depends.  The problem is that we've really only seen a couple of minor issues of poor planning (AKV concierge/savannah issues), poor timing with this and changes that are clearly within DVC's right and in this case, obligation and were all reasonable.  I know there are many that disagree but these are minor issues, "mountains out of molehills" come to mind.  But what it does tell me is that they are now willing to make changes, something that has not been true in the past 12 years until more recently.  Makes you wonder, and worry, about some of the other possibilities I've posted in the past doesn't it.  Personally I don't think this is a sign that DVC is losing it and for the most part, look at the changes as positive overall.  The fooled me twice issue with AKV notifications recently is the thing that bothers me the most because not only was it avoidable, this was the second time within a few months.  Some might add the timing of these changes to that list of poor planning, I could see that interpretation but wouldn't go that far with this specific issue.



I'm always in favor of doing what benefits the DVC system as a whole rather than what benefits me as an individual. As an individual, I can bail if I decide that the the system no longer suits my needs. At this point it still does. If there comes a time when it does not, I'll sell my interests with no hard feelings.


----------



## NinaRaimonda

So the whole "dream" aspect of buying into DVC has been shattered. What a
rude awakening!!


----------



## jamstew

MiaSRN62 said:


> And lower weekend points will not encourage me to stay on weekends any more than before the allocation.   Because I will always be able to stretch out my points by using weeknights.....it's just harder to do that now.   I just wonder if we will see a big increase in the booking of studios and 1 bedrooms vs the 2 bedrooms from the Sun thru Thurs crowd in an attempt to retain the same length of vacation.  People like me trying to recoup the lost points ?  I wonder if this new allocation will make people downsize on a large scale.  Only time will tell. I honestly don't think I'm the only Sun-Thurs person thinking about this & I'm sure I'm not the only Sun-Thurs DVC'er who has no plans to stay weekends simply because they dropped the points.   This clearly benefits the weekend crowd the most.  And there seems to be alot of them coming forward here so I don't get how there could be so much availability on the weekends considering so many here that state they stay over weekends, that DVC was pushed in the direction it took ?



Same here--I won't start booking weekends because they're still too much. The difference for me is that I can't downsize since I already stay in a studio  I'll be staying the same number of nights as before and borrowing every few years when necessary, so I'm personally not freeing up week nights for anyone


----------



## Sammie

Changes that I do not like, very poor communication especially the member magazine. The DVC member magazine was a great resource the new one is a joke. They release things on the website and then email the members. The release of this adjustment, which I agree might be needed, was very poorly done.  

Larger DVC rooms, where???, none are larger than OKW  

To me the materials and products they buy are cheaper grade and do not last as long. I could care less for a small stackable washer and dryer in a tiny closet over a full size laundry room. Standardized the towels instead of having color coordinated towels like we got at OKW in the beginning.

Full Size walk-in closests got smaller and smaller to the point they disappeared at AKV.

The first member cruise was nice and focused on the members, every one since then has focused on sales. 

The AP perk is nice and I appreciate that one. 

I could go on and on but the truth of the matter is unless you were there before the current adminstration, it would be hard to realize how much has changed and very little for the better.

There used to be time when never, would a DVC member have to complain about cleaniness and the maintenance of the units. They were clean and well kept, that is not the case now.

Much of what has changed is very possible based on something less tangible. But DVC is still using that in their sales pitches and on their website.

They talk about values and traditions and heritage and they talk about how Walt would have done it. 

Well lately I don't see alot of that from them. They sold me a "Home" and a membership in a "club".

They told me specifically it would be very different from a tradtional time-share, that they were far and above that.

When you mention home, you get into an area of it being personal. Since it can be said that humans are generally creatures of habit, the state of a person's home has been known to physiologically influence their behavior, emotions, and overall mental health (wiki).

So yes to some of us it is personal and not just business, because Disney told us when we bought it would be personal with them.


----------



## toocherie

dcfromva said:


> This does not make any sense at all that the points were out of whack for so long.
> BCV came on line in 2002. They could have sold BCV with a different points schedule.  There were no pre-existing members who would have been upset by it.
> SSR came on line in 2004.  They could have sold SSR with a different points schedule.
> 
> Same goes for AKV and BLT.    So what was the basis for the previous points schedules?



If you did not have similar points distributions for each resort then I think you would have had a disparity where people who stayed on weekends only stayed where the points were less on weekends and people who stayed Sun-Thurs. would have only stayed where points were less on weekdays--would have had the same problem but would have had different "vacancy" days at different resorts.  If the points for weekends/weekdays at SSR, BLT, AKV etc. had been equalized as you suggest, you would have had those weekend only travelers crowding in those resorts--while the Sun-Thurs. travelers would book up the older resorts (where points would have been lower on weekdays).  There has to be some equality among the resorts--they can't be out of whack.


----------



## HookdonWDW

jamstew said:


> Same here--I won't start booking weekends because they're still too much. The difference for me is that I can't downsize since I already stay in a studio  I'll be staying the same number of nights as before and borrowing every few years when necessary, so I'm personally not freeing up week nights for anyone



Which is exactly why I don't think this will be the last points adjustment we see.  Points will continue to be reallocated until they reach a point where booking habits change.


----------



## NinaRaimonda

Dean,

Are you sure you're not employed by Disney???


----------



## Karamia

I haven't read all of this yet but I am surely disappointed. I always stay Sunday through Thursday and this will impact all of our vacations. I also recommended DVC to several people, two who bought this past year. I feel I cheated them.


----------



## toocherie

NinaRaimonda said:


> Dean,
> 
> Are you sure you're not employed by Disney???




I don't always agree with him, but Dean has been on these boards for a long time (much longer than me), and has always given great, sage advice in my estimation.  Just because someone defends a company's acts doesn't make them a "mole" for that company.  Since you've been on the board such a short time, perhaps you should do a search of all of the messages he has posted over the years and read all of the information Dean has imparted and you can re-phrase your question (or recant it).


----------



## HookdonWDW

NinaRaimonda said:


> Dean,
> 
> Are you sure you're not employed by Disney???



Nah... if Dean were employed by Disney, he would have found a way to have more of his ideas implemented by now.  

If you read more of his posts, you'll soon see that Dean isn't an automatic fan of all things DVC.  Like many of us, he does believe that when you buy into DVC, you are only buying the things promised in your contract - not whatever a commercial, guide or other member promises you...


----------



## jarestel

NinaRaimonda said:


> Dean,
> 
> Are you sure you're not employed by Disney???



Nah! Dean's one of the good guys that you can count on for a rational, unemotional, opinion whether you want it or not!


----------



## dcfromva

toocherie said:


> If you did not have similar points distributions for each resort then I think you would have had a disparity where people who stayed on weekends only stayed where the points were less on weekends and people who stayed Sun-Thurs. would have only stayed where points were less on weekdays--would have had the same problem but would have had different "vacancy" days at different resorts.  *If the points for weekends/weekdays at SSR, BLT, AKV etc. had been equalized as you suggest, *you would have had those weekend only travelers crowding in those resorts--while the Sun-Thurs. travelers would book up the older resorts (where points would have been lower on weekdays).  There has to be some equality among the resorts--they can't be out of whack.



Reality check: There is no equality between the points at other resorts and the BLT point schedule that you are suggesting.   Further, BLT has not even opened and points are being changed.  Based on what? Occupancy patterns?  No one here has a good explanation for what has changed in 4 months?
  Also, the lower weekend point values would only be open to owners during the7- 11month booking advantage, so the weekend points would not exist in a vacuum.


----------



## BeccaG

Sammie said:


> I still think there is a point some are still missing. I seriously doubt if any that posted on this thread did not give their purchase the necessary financial focus it needed based on calm unemotional decision making. To imply otherwise, is well; insulting.
> 
> However the emotional, pixie dust loving, magic part of us did make us choose Disney to give our money to rather than some sleazy, slight of hand, time share operation.
> 
> Lately DVC is looking for like the latter and less like the house that Walt built.



Thanks Sammie, I said something similar a (like around page twelve, but its so buried I don't even know where it is!).  And I love what you say in post #1156.  I would wager, like you, that most of us did our due diligence before we purchase.  On the other hand, most of us bought DVC over another timeshare, or even considered DVC in the first place because we have warm fuzzy feelings towards Disney.  Quite frankly, since I am traveling from the west coast, this change will probably be beneficial to me, however the way it was rolled out and the timing of it was poorly done at best, and appears to be the kind of carny trickery which Walt despised and inspired him to build Disneyland in the first place.  That's why I said this feels unfair in my previous post, although it is probably a smart financial move and will benefit the majority of members.  For many of us, we simply expect better from the house that Walt built.


----------



## lugnut33

jarestel said:


> Nah! Dean's one of the good guys that you can count on for a rational, unemotional, opinion whether you want it or not!




Rational and unemotional?  Umm, last time I checked he still doesn't feel anybody should be unhappy with losing value in their membership.  It was all the buyers fault for not padding their points purchase by 20% or more.


----------



## canals68

We used to go Sun to Thursday 3 times a year. N/o more.


----------



## PSC

Its taken me quite some time to read through the entire thread.  Like most of the responders, I've always stayed Sunday through Thursday and these changes amount to something of a price increase for me.  The changes will mostly affect my extended family as we won't be able to invite guests as often as we previously had.  

My biggest concern is that this will delay the much awaited release of CaskBills Planner and Tracker tools.  Long term planning and dreaming isn't as much fun when you have to do the arithmetic yourself.


----------



## lisareniff

Excellent post Kat!  

I also wonder about the less controversial waitlist change.  Just so people know, 2 waitlists may mean that 2 bedroom lock-off and 2 bedroom dedicated will be two different waitlists.  BWYWTS.



KAT4DISNEY said:


> For the record I am negatively impacted even though I didn't try and avoid weekend stays.  But I'll work with what is given and am not crying unfair.  I'm lucky enough to be able to choose various times to vacation so I'll adjust.  But I have had a few thoughts about this change.
> 
> 
> I think this was poorly handled and that DVC is making too many sweeping changes.  From a business standpoint I think this alone has been a bad decision and is creating ill will.
> 
> I think DVC probably should have done season date adjustments and that they are now creating other allocation problems.  I'm specifically referring to Adventure season in early Dec. which I felt was a real bargain.  It may make the other adventure seasons a bit more difficult to fill and cause another gap in occupancy.  After all isn't that the time people have really been complaining about not being able to get reservations?
> 
> We don't have DVC's information so it is all supposition that weekends were not filling up.  Personally we are and were going to continue to be weekend/week stayers.  The DIS group is great at maximizing DVC value (and there's nothing at all wrong with that).  But I don't think it's a typical representation.  Ths jist is that I haven't been convinced that weekend/weekday points were so out of whack.  In fact I'm now fully expecting to have difficulty in getting weekends.  This change is a BIG plus for people who live close to WDW.
> 
> The change to BLT points is just plain unfair and unacceptable.  There is no way that they didn't know this change was coming.  This is where Disney really brought themselves down more than a few pegs to the level of bad-mouthed timeshares.
> 
> I do understand about people's complaints in being told to pick out your season and unit size to determine what you buy.  I was told the same thing.  And even though the paperwork negates anything your told I have never bought the idea that just because a business covers their behinds in the legal paperwork that it is ethical to feel they can say anything for a sale.  I hope that people will contact DVC and complain about how they were sold this product.  I disagree with posters that say it's how it's done and just accept it.  I won't get political but that's so much at the root of the problems we're experiencing in the country today.  It actually is possible to be correct and honest and make a sale b/c hopefully there is enough to the product that makes it worthwhile in selling.
> 
> *More than the point charts the thing that gives me greater pause is the much less discussed change to waitlisting.  I think Dean is 100% on track that DVC is certainly encouraging and may be setting up for a change to longer stays.  Limiting to 2 waitlists and starting to even out weekday/weekend points leads me to that conclusion.  *


----------



## The DIS-DVC Team

We have had an enormous outpouring of threads on this topic over the past several days.  We have decided that we will need to consolidate the topic into one thread in order to more efficiently moderate it.

So feel free to continue your discussion here.  We encourage all points of view and will ensure that the discussion continues respectfully and without argument.

Thanks everyone!


----------



## jarestel

lugnut33 said:


> Rational and unemotional?  Umm, last time I checked he still doesn't feel anybody should be unhappy with losing value in their membership.  It was all the buyers fault for not padding their points purchase by 20% or more.



If everybody lost value I would agree you have a point. But individual losses are matched against other individual gains. If the net benefits for the membership is a "plus" then the losses are justified. Surely you wouldn't want your individual desires to take precedence over the membership as a whole?


----------



## dcfromva

lisareniff said:


> I also wonder about the less controversial waitlist change.  Just so people know, 2 waitlists may mean that 2 bedroom lock-off and 2 bedroom dedicated will be two different waitlists.



 I'm not so sure folks are going to like it when reality sets in.  The rules say 2 WL's per membership per UY.  So, what if you have the same UY and multiple home resorts?  You are not allowed to have more than 2 WLs going?   Hardly seems fair.


----------



## toocherie

dcfromva said:


> Reality check: There is no equality between the points at other resorts and the BLT point schedule that you are suggesting.   Further, BLT has not even opened and points are being changed.  Based on what? Occupancy patterns?  No one here has a good explanation for what has changed in 4 months?
> Also, *the lower weekend point values would only be open to owners during the7- 11month booking advantage, so the weekend points would not exist in a vacuum*.



First of all--I wasn't implying that all of the points were equal across the resorts.  I was saying that a certain ratio between the weekend vs. weekday points had to be equally maintained at each resort--not that a one bedroom in one resort would be equal to a one bedroom in another resort.  (For example, a one-bedroom at WL will be more than a one-bedroom at SSR presumably because SSR is a larger resort and WL is next to the Magic Kingdom.  But you couldn't (shouldn't) make weekend rates at WL much higher and have the rates at SSR equal on weekdays and weekends--because people will then tend to book SSR on the weekends and shut out those who want to stay across weekdays and weekends.)

Secondly, yes, the "lower" point values would only be available to owners at that particular resort until the 7 month point.  But if you had a number of people trying to book lower values for either the weekend or S-Th (as the case may be) at 6 1/2 months out those lower point days would likely be gone once booking opens for everyone.  Leaving some "orphaned" days which would be unlikely to be filled because someone wanting to book for a week would not be able to fill their week at one resort (or worst of all worlds--have to book higher point days during the week at one resort and then move to a higher point resort for the rest of their visit).  Look back at the number of posts on this board about what a "bargain" OKW is point-wise compared to some of the other resorts--the only thing that saves it from being a total booking disaster is that it is a large resort.  Otherwise, you can bet people who are trying to maximize the use of their points would have it booked  up soon after 7 months passed (and please understand, I do not think it is a bad thing for someone to want to maximize use of their DVC membership).

My biggest fear in this whole points reallocation is that "locals" will book up the weekends now making it difficult for those of us traveling a long way (West Coast) to be able to book 7+ days at one resort.  Time will tell.

I do not know why the BLT chart was changed four months later.  Maybe based on sales demand?  Maybe based on the number of calls into MS wanting to book it already (you know that had to happen).  I do know that the points for VGC are pretty hefty, so presumably DVC is anticipating heavy demand for those units too.  As I believe someone else said--it's "supply and demand."


----------



## tjkraz

Sammie said:


> Changes that I do not like, very poor communication especially the member magazine. The DVC member magazine was a great resource the new one is a joke. They release things on the website and then email the members.



So you think that the generic, unchaging website (what was the old password EVERYONE used to log-in..."welcomehome"?) combined with a quarterly member mag that had more day-to-day info is an IMPROVEMENT over the website/mag we have now?  

Not sure I can agree with that one.  



> The release of this adjustment, which I agree might be needed, was very poorly done.



I think we are all in agreement with that one...



> Larger DVC rooms, where???, none are larger than OKW



I didn't realize that your ire dated back more than a decade to when VB/HHI/BWV opened with the smaller floorplans.  

*Current DVC/DVD management *appears to have reversed course on that with the noticeably larger AKV, BLT and VGC.  



> To me the materials and products they buy are cheaper grade and do not last as long.



If you're referring to BCV, then I wholeheartedly agree with you.  SSR was an improvement (granite counter tops, name-brand furniture and fixtures)  over BCV and--to me, at least--it's clear the materials used in the latest wave of resorts another step up.  Again it would seem to be another feather in the cap of current management.



> I could care less for a small stackable washer and dryer in a tiny closet over a full size laundry room. Standardized the towels instead of having color coordinated towels like we got at OKW in the beginning.



I'll grant you those two.  But again if we are focusing on current management, the stackable W/D became a villa staple long before current management came on the scene.  And of all the things people talk about changing in DVC villas, having a full laundry room ranks pretty far down on the list from what I have read.  

When were the old towels phased-out?



> Full Size walk-in closests got smaller and smaller to the point they disappeared at AKV.



The amount of closet space doesn't appear to have taken a hit and most people seem to think having the second (or third) bathroom is a better use of space than having a dedicated room for hanging clothes.  



> The first member cruise was nice and focused on the members, everything else has focused on sales.



Could you elaborate on this one?  I've never been on a cruise but they sure do seem to have an impressive array of special guests (Disney Legends, Imagineers, actors/actresses) and gifts for attendees.  They seem quite popular, too.  I wasn't aware that folks were subjected to unending sales pitches throughout the voyage.  



> I could go on and on but the truth of the matter is unless you were there before the current adminstration, it would be hard to realize how much has changed and very little for the better.



Or perhaps things never really were the way you perceived them.   




> There used to be time when never, would a DVC member have to complain about cleaniness and the maintenance of the units. They were clean and well kept, that is not the case now.



"Never?"  I know I've been reading cleanliness threads dating back to before I was even a member.  So if there is a problem, it certainly pre-dates Jim Lewis or any other current DVC management.  

Perhaps standards have slipped a bit.  But IMO the most obvious change over the last decade has been the growth of the Internet as a forum for every poor experience.  

10-15 years ago people who had problems on their vacation would get it resolved with the manager and (maybe) write a letter to complain.  Now we often hear about these issues in real-time as people post the blow-by-blow from their guest room over free Internet service (another new member perk.)

I believe that there was a time when we would "never" hear about complaints--mostly because there was no forum for those complaints.  

Through all of this I guess I have two points to make:

1.  If we're going to fairly evaluate management on the things that have been taken away, it must be balanced with the new features that have been delivered, and

2.  Just because something has *changed * over the last 15 years (floorplans, perks, furnishings) doesn't necessarily mean that it is now *inferior* to the original.


----------



## dcfromva

toocherie said:


> I do not know why the BLT chart was changed four months later.  Maybe based on sales demand?  Maybe based on the number of calls into MS wanting to book it already (you know that had to happen).  I do know that the points for VGC are pretty hefty, so presumably DVC is anticipating heavy demand for those units too.  As I believe someone else said--it's "supply and demand."


   But, the basis for point reallocation was supposed to be on occupancy patterns unless you are suggesting that the sales department is driving the point allocations.....

  If you look at 2010 VGC point values, you will see the weekend values are _still _quite heavily weighted.


----------



## MommaX03

Chuck S said:


> I have a theory.  Years ago, the DVC bean counters may have figured they could sell more points annually by dropping the minimum buy-in to 150 points, selling a greater volume of new contracts than with a 210+ point minimum, as they likely saw a slight increase with the previous drops (230 to 210 to 170).
> 
> They also probably figured a fairly high percentage of new owners would "get their feet wet" with a 150 point contract, but then do add-on contracts to increase their ownership.
> 
> But the add-ons didn't materialize, and a substantial number of 150 point owners, rather than do add-ons went to a Sun to Thur only travel window, throwing resort usage out of balance, and increasing demand for Sun to Thur visits.
> 
> Now, it may not have been a big problem for a few years.  DVC could have used the weekends for CRO reservations to offset the non-DVC trade costs.  But, as the economy worsened over the last couple years, weekend cash demand may have fallen, cutting the ability of DVC to recoup those trade costs.  At the same time, DVC owners that rented points were often seeing savvy renters who only wanted weekdays on points, substantially undercutting CRO cash reservations, and at the same time people with higher point counts than 150 who were renting points were causing increasing weekday DVC demand, throwing the system further out of balance.
> 
> Surely there was a combination of factors that would lead to a re-allocation.




I completely agree with this analysis.  

Among the many bothersome issues brought up by the reallocation of points is that DVC did not publish this information* prior to *the increase in the minimum add-on points at BLT and the price per point increases at various resorts in mid-January.    I received two mailings and various emails on the January offer.  It was not like they did not have the time or the forum to mention the reallocation of points.  

As these new charts were published so shortly after that offer's deadline, it really gives one a bad feeling that not all the information out there for consideration was revealed.  Of course, point reallocation can and does occur.  It just seems very odd that such a major point reallocation would be published *right after *the price increases and the substantial increase in the minimum BLT add-on contract.


----------



## baj0505

jarestel said:


> If everybody lost value I would agree you have a point. But individual losses are matched against other individual gains. If the net benefits for the membership is a "plus" then the losses are justified. Surely you wouldn't want your individual desires to take precedence over the membership as a whole?



I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate? Did Disney release information indicating how this change would be a net benefit for the overall membership?  We are new members and haven't started receiving email information and just now received our membership number so that we can log into the membership site. Other than the small introduction included with the announcement the new point charts were available, I haven't been able to find anything. 

(And yes were are Sun-Thurs night members and were forthcoming when we purchased that would be our travel habit--it had nothing to do with 'higher' weekend point values, we arrive Sunday mornings and leave on Fridays to be home for the weekend before going back to work so this change did affect us.)


----------



## Chuck S

tjkraz said:


> When were the old towels phased-out?




I think the coral colored towels were phased out from OKW around the time that BWV opened, though the two are unrelated.

I thought the coral towels did "dress up" the units and were a nice touch, but I fully understand the decision to go to white.  I would imagine that the white towels have a much longer use life, and every little bit helps our dues.

I'm sure the washing cycles and commercial sterilization chemicals used faded those towels, and thus made them look much older than they really were.  If the white towel still only need to be replaced 2/3 as often, that is still a big savings.


----------



## tjkraz

dcfromva said:


> But, the basis for point reallocation was supposed to be on occupancy patterns unless you are suggesting that the sales department is driving the point allocations.....



I think DVC just followed the same formula for new resorts as the old.  After all, they wouldn't have had a true basis for calculations at a brand new resort so they probably give higher priority to consistency than anything else.  

Consider this:  If AKV had opened with lower weekend costs right from the start, it would have had a very damaging effect on weekend occupancy throughout the program.  AKV would potentially run up to 100% occupancy (at 7 mos) while the other resorts' occupancy would drop further.  

Similarly weekday WDW guests would undoubtedly have flocked to resorts OTHER than AKV in order to save a few points.  



> If you look at 2010 VGC point values, you will see the weekend values are _still _quite heavily weighted.



That may be with good reason.  The demographic of the typical Disneyland guest is much different from Walt Disney World.  Disneyland is a smaller resort complex and it attracts a much higher percentage of locals than WDW.

I haven't seen any finalized VGC charts for 2010 but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a greater disparity between weekday/weekend at DL than at WDW.


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

drusba said:


> Just going through the charts at BWV and wonder if this is what others are seeing with other charts. Except for a GV Sun through Thurs, if you reserve any room for five consecutive nights any time of year, regardless of which nights you choose such as weekdays only or weekdays with one or two weekend nights, the 2010 points needed for the same five consecutive nights appear to be higher than the 2009 points needed. This may also be the case for 6 night stays but I am getting "calculation" fatigue. In other words, everyone who normally goes 5 or 6 nights sees an increase regardless of which 5 or 6 consecutive nights in the week they choose.



I was getting the same feeling so after updating my spreadsheet with the new charts I added a few comparisons.  

1. With very few exceptions what I see is that if you you were a 4-6 day person and only included 1 weekend day you will now be charged more points in all seasons for your stays.  
2. If you already did 2 weekend days in a 6 day or less stay then you come out ahead in all seasons (once again - with a few exceptions - most notably GV's)  (which season and unit size were you comparing drusba?)
3. And, as we all know, if you only did weekdays then your paying the highest price for the reallocation.

My supposition is that the people that are happy about this either already stayed 2 weekend days or they stayed 3 days or less which included 1 weekend day.  Everyone else is now "paying" more - assuming I have typed numbers correctly into my spreadsheet that is the fact.  Now it's just a matter of dealing with that fact.





tjkraz said:


> In the long term it will impact purchasing decisions.  Some people will sell their contracts--I'm not saying it will be in greater numbers than it is today--but turnover is constant.  New members will discover DVC for the first time.  The thousands of new owners DVC adds in the coming years will have a totally different perception of how points are used.  Perhaps they will still lean toward weekdays even though the costs are higher than what you and I have previously seen.  Others will simply favor the weeklong stays or weekdays plus 1.  Still more will suddenly see weekend getaways as more reasonably-priced than they have been for more than a decade.



New purchasers will have the benefit both in seeing the new charts and in being more expectant of the changes.  Unfortunately this should have included all BLT owners and probably new purchasers of AKV.  By doing this to a resort that isn't even open it was at best incompetent or shortsighted and at worst it was not full disclosure of a known material change that was scheduled to occur.  DVC ought to make right on this account whether the BLT sale has closed or is just in the works.

For current owners I don't think this change is enough to really cause a shift in patterns - weekends are still too much of a disparity if you didn't specifically purchase planning to stay then.  What this might do is get new purchasers buying more but will that be enough?  I doubt it.  I hope that all the guides have adjusted their spiel and how they go about recommending points.


----------



## toocherie

dcfromva said:


> But, the basis for point reallocation was supposed to be on occupancy patterns unless you are suggesting that the sales department is driving the point allocations.....
> 
> If you look at 2010 VGC point values, you will see the weekend values are _still _quite heavily weighted.



Agreed, in many cases the VGC weekend points approach double the amount of points needed for weekdays.  But that is how I would expect it to be--although the area around WDW has certainly grown up in the last 30 years VGC is in the middle of a very densely populated area.  Add to that that most trips to DLR are shorter than trips to WDW (with "only" two parks) and unless the weekend days were a higher point value those days would be booked immediately at the 11 month mark.  (And I'm not so sure that this is not going to be the case anyway.)  Hence--"supply and demand."

Weekdays at VGC are going to be visitors from out of town who are coming in on vacation--not "casual" visitors coming in for a day or two in the parks.  I think it is going to be difficult for someone wanting to stay a week to be able to book a full 7-day stay other than at the 11 month mark.

I suspect the occupancy rates in Florida did not bear out that weekend visitors were so prominent--something that the original point charts seemed to be predicated upon (the "locals" booking up weekends rationale for the original point charts having higher point values for weekends).  It remains to be seen if this problem will now arise because of the re-allocation.


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

lisareniff said:


> Excellent post Kat!
> 
> I also wonder about the less controversial waitlist change.  Just so people know, 2 waitlists may mean that 2 bedroom lock-off and 2 bedroom dedicated will be two different waitlists.  BWYWTS.



Yes - isn't that nice?  There are several scenarios for the same size unit that would require more than one waitlist in order to give you the best chance.  Just AKV with Jambo or Kidani option would be 2 waitlists - and what if you just really need a 2 bedroom and are willing to take standard, value or savanna in either building?  It's now up to you to guess at what will give you the best chance of the waitlist fulfilling.

At the very least - if they're going to take more points from me then I'd like to be able to try and get the unit I would most need or would like to stay in if it's not an option at the time I'm booking.


----------



## wendyinoc

I wish weekends were close in line with weekdays. I think this makes sense but I can understand for people who go the same week every year.


----------



## photobob

While I understand the reasoning for the change, I am surprised how big the changes are. I guess though if they didn't make the changes as significant as they did then it wouldn't change the situation. 

I was aware from our guide that some slight point changes could be made and they would have to balance out, if one thing went up something else would go down. I never dreamed that the changes could be this drastic. They may not be drastic to those who always stay an entire week, but for those of us who don't it is a significant change.

I still am happy we bought into DVC and am glad we are members. We love going so much, but the changes will not allow us to stay as many days as we did before. My sole reasoning for being upset is that we can't stay as long and we do enjoy it so.


----------



## jamstew

jarestel said:


> If everybody lost value I would agree you have a point. But individual losses are matched against other individual gains. If the net benefits for the membership is a "plus" then the losses are justified. Surely you wouldn't want your individual desires to take precedence over the membership as a whole?



But, but, but...if the change _doesn't_ alter the booking patterns, what is accomplished? As a Sun-Thurs traveler, I'll still stay Sun-Thurs, spend the extra points, and continue to avoid weekends. So the cost has gone up for me and down for the weekender (which is fair), but the weekender _still _doesn't get my week nights. Don't know if this will be typical or not, but I guess time will tell. In my case and probably many others, the week night points didn't go up _enough_ to warrant my spending less days, and the weekends didn't go _down_ enough to interest me in staying longer.


----------



## toocherie

KAT4DISNEY said:


> Yes - isn't that nice?  There are several scenarios for the same size unit that would require more than one waitlist in order to give you the best chance.  Just AKV with Jambo or Kidani option would be 2 waitlists - and what if you just really need a 2 bedroom and are willing to take standard, value or savanna in either building?  It's now up to you to guess at what will give you the best chance of the waitlist fulfilling.
> 
> At the very least - if they're going to take more points from me then I'd like to be able to try and get the unit I would most need or would like to stay in if it's not an option at the time I'm booking.



 Kathy:  I just love the doggy-rear in your signature!  Is that a Corgi you have?  I saw two "huge" Corgi's at the vet yesterday and they were sooo cute.


----------



## canals68

This really is horrible. What a joke. Now as I'm looking more at it, it really hurts those who were able really stretch their points with Sun through Thursday stays.


----------



## toocherie

jamstew said:


> But, but, but...if the change _doesn't_ alter the booking patterns, what is accomplished? As a Sun-Thurs traveler, I'll still stay Sun-Thurs, spend the extra points, and continue to avoid weekends. So the cost has gone up for me and down for the weekender (which is fair), but the weekender _still _doesn't get my week nights. Don't know if this will be typical or not, but I guess time will tell. In my case and probably many others, the week night points didn't go up _enough_ to warrant my spending less days, and the weekends didn't go _down_ enough to interest me in staying longer.



I think that's the fear some posters have mentioned--that this isn't the end of the changes (just the changes that could be made for THIS year).  At some point it will affect the booking patterns.  We just don't know what that point is.


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

toocherie said:


> Kathy:  I just love the doggy-rear in your signature!  Is that a Corgi you have?  I saw two "huge" Corgi's at the vet yesterday and they were sooo cute.


 Yep - that's a "bunny butt"!  We actually have two cardigan corgi's so the wiggles are just a bit different!   They're very fun dogs and I love 'em to pieces.


----------



## tjkraz

jamstew said:


> But, but, but...if the change _doesn't_ alter the booking patterns, what is accomplished? As a Sun-Thurs traveler, I'll still stay Sun-Thurs, spend the extra points, and continue to avoid weekends. So the cost has gone up for me and down for the weekender (which is fair), but the weekender _still _doesn't get my week nights.



But those "extra" points of yours have to come from somewhere.  If you keep your current holdings and take fewer trips, then you are freeing up weekdays for other people which would not have been available under the old charts.

Meanwhile someone who uses points for weekend stays will find their points go further.  

Or DVC will be more attractive to people who favor the more reasonably-priced weekends.  

However you slide it, the weekday nights now have capacity to absorb a larger number of all DVC points that have been issued.


----------



## photobob

jamstew said:


> But, but, but...if the change _doesn't_ alter the booking patterns, what is accomplished? As a Sun-Thurs traveler, I'll still stay Sun-Thurs, spend the extra points, and continue to avoid weekends. So the cost has gone up for me and down for the weekender (which is fair), but the weekender _still _doesn't get my week nights. Don't know if this will be typical or not, but I guess time will tell. In my case and probably many others, the week night points didn't go up _enough_ to warrant my spending less days, and the weekends didn't go _down_ enough to interest me in staying longer.



You make a great point. I too am a Sun-Thurs traveler and the point change will not change that. I will continue to go Sun-Thurs. I am looking at either less days in a years time or staying in studios more.


----------



## goldilocks_63

I used to do longer weekends.... but then the cost of flying made my travel habits change, to where we would do atleast 1 week, and sometimes 10 days, because of the cost of airfare.

I wonder if this also factored in the decision.  I think I was told once that the average trip was 5 days... (which coincides with the SUn - THursday).... so maybe this is an effort to keep people onsite longer.

Raise revenue on the Sun - THurs Studio crowd (has to be a lot of those), and also free up space so people could book a week.  Also, encouraging those weekends to be at wdw, verses universal (Isn't harry potter coming there soon).

Just my thoughts.... GOldi


----------



## drusba

dcfromva said:


> But, the basis for point reallocation was supposed to be on occupancy patterns unless you are suggesting that the sales department is driving the point allocations.....
> 
> If you look at 2010 VGC point values, you will see the weekend values are _still _quite heavily weighted.



You are on to something. The section in the POS in which Disney reserves the right to make a change in allocation of points expressly limits the excercise of that right "to respond to actual Club Member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand," "to meet the Club Members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by [Disney] during a given calendar year," and the right to allocate can be exercised "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Reservation Component to accommodate Club Member demand." Moreover it states that in setting up the initial chart for a resort that the DVD entities "have taken into account the location and anticipated relative use demand" for the resort. In other words, the very section that creates the power to reallocate declares the initial point chart to be valid and to have already accounted for estimated demand and states that it can only be changed based on actual experience at the resort during at least a calendar year. 

Frankly, I think the BLT owners have a solid case that the chart changes are improper because the very section upon which Disney relies to justify its actions does not allow it to be done before there has been an actual pattern of occupancy at a resort.


----------



## disworldnum1

i know its whipping a dead horse,but the point changes will stop my every year use and make it an every other year use.I always rented sun to fri at bwv standard view for 160 points.Now the same rental is 170 points.So Disney will lose out on my spending every other year.You would think they would want a family down there sun to fri instead of just friday and saturday..way to go


----------



## jdg345

Not sure if this has been posted, but I just found a link to it (I'm not going through 80 pages of fun) ... 

http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081

It's a side-by-side comparison of the changes.

I just chalk it up to another enhancement brought on by overwhelming member request.


----------



## jamstew

goldilocks_63 said:


> Raise revenue on the Sun - THurs Studio crowd (has to be a lot of those), and also free up space so people could book a week.  Also, encouraging those weekends to be at wdw



I'm one of the Sun-Thurs studio people. I do stay at least a week at WDW, onsite, just not all at DVC. My money doesn't go anywhere else (although my Dsis & niece really want to see Harry Potter).


----------



## tjkraz

drusba said:


> You are on to something. The section in the POS in which Disney reserves the right to make a change in allocation of points expressly limits the excercise of that right "to respond to actual Club Member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand," "to meet the Club Members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by [Disney] during a given calendar year," and the right to allocate can be exercised "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Reservation Component to accommodate Club Member demand." Moreover it states that in setting up the initial chart for a resort that the DVD entities "have taken into account the location and anticipated relative use demand" for the resort. In other words, the very section that creates the power to reallocate declares the initial point chart to be valid and to have already accounted for estimated demand and states that it can only be changed based on actual experience at the resort during at least a calendar year.
> 
> Frankly, I think the BLT owners have a solid case that the chart changes are improper because the very section upon which Disney relies to justify its actions does not allow it to be done before there has been an actual pattern of occupancy at a resort.



You may well be correct, but it's also something you could cautiously file under the heading of "be careful what you wish for..."

Bear with me for a moment.  Let's assume that BLT would actually get a reprieve from the 2010 increases.  That sets up the following scenario:

Two bedroom Villa
Friday-Saturday Stay
Dream Season

Beach Club Villas:  58 points
BWV Preferred:  58 points
OKW:  52 points
AKV Savanna:  59 points
*BLT Lake View:  70 points
BLT MK View:  86 points*

While the weekday points at BLT will remain at their lower variants, the weekends will be much higher.  This disparity will be high enough to convince some guests to move from BLT on the weekdays to other resorts.  

That would lead to an even greater disparity between weekday/weekend occupancy at BLT.  And in 1-2 years when DVC has enough data to reallocate the BLT charts, the weekday prices may be even higher than what is currently posted for 2010.  

(In my mind it's undeniable that some people would make this move--the only point open to debate is the severity of the shift and whether it's significant enough to alter the point chart further.)


----------



## toocherie

tjkraz said:


> You may well be correct, but it's also something you could cautiously file under the heading of "be careful what you wish for..."
> 
> Bear with me for a moment.  Let's assume that BLT would actually get a reprieve from the 2010 increases.  That sets up the following scenario:
> 
> Two bedroom Villa
> Friday-Saturday Stay
> Dream Season
> 
> Beach Club Villas:  58 points
> BWV Preferred:  58 points
> OKW:  52 points
> AKV Savanna:  59 points
> *BLT Lake View:  70 points
> BLT MK View:  86 points*
> 
> While the weekday points at BLT will remain at their lower variants, the weekends will be much higher.  This disparity will be high enough to convince some guests to move from BLT on the weekdays to other resorts.
> 
> That would lead to an even greater disparity between weekday/weekend occupancy at BLT.  And in 1-2 years when DVC has enough data to reallocate the BLT charts, the weekday prices may be even higher than what is currently posted for 2010.
> 
> (In my mind it's undeniable that some people would make this move--the only point open to debate is the severity of the shift and whether it's significant enough to alter the point chart further.)



My thoughts too--even if that argument would stand up for the initial points chart, even after a year of occupancy (or maybe even less?) DVC could change the point chart based on occupancy--so the BLT members would get a reprieve for a year.  But honestly, per my prior post, do any of us know where these point chart changes are leading?  Would anyone at this point be surprised to see additional changes next year?  or maybe the year after that?  I wouldn't.

Edited to add:  I seem to remember that prior threads talking about BLT several people indicated that they would stay one a night or two at BLT because of the higher point costs (especially for the Magic Kingdom view) and then move to a "cheaper" resort (point-wise) for the remainder of their stay.  I would suspect they would time those short stays on a weekday to save even more on points (at least, that's what I would do in that situation!)  So, it may be that when an occupancy pattern is determined after a year there may be even more of a disparity between weekend and weekday stays than at other resorts.  In which event the weekday points at BLT would have to be raised even more and the weekend stays reduced.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Frankly, I think the BLT owners have a solid case that the chart changes are improper because the very section upon which Disney relies to justify its actions does not allow it to be done before there has been an actual pattern of occupancy at a resort.



And just out of curiosity.....3 months ago we purchased an add-on at Kidani Village and I have not yet been able to use my points there until after May when it opens ?  No pattern of use has been tested at Kidani ?
I would love to have a case to purchase an extra 10-15 points..........and at the price before the increase on Jan 15.  Do u think Kidani owners have any case on the grounds that BLT owners would ?
Maria


----------



## toocherie

jdg345 said:


> Not sure if this has been posted, but I just found a link to it (I'm not going through 80 pages of fun) ...
> 
> http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081
> 
> It's a side-by-side comparison of the changes.
> 
> I just chalk it up to another enhancement brought on by overwhelming member request.



Thank you--this was very helpful--it looks like the changes are all over the board.



disworldnum1 said:


> i know its whipping a dead horse,but the point changes will stop my every year use and make it an every other year use.I always rented sun to fri at bwv standard view for 160 points.Now the same rental is 170 points.So Disney will lose out on my spending every other year.You would think they would want a family down there sun to fri instead of just friday and saturday..way to go



So, every two years you will have 320 points--how are you going to use the extra points over 170?  will you stay longer?  get a different sized unit?  invite family to join you?


----------



## jarestel

baj0505 said:


> I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate? Did Disney release information indicating how this change would be a net benefit for the overall membership?



No, they did not release any such information. Which makes any conclusions one draws on either side of the issue strictly conjecture. If we choose to believe that DVC made this decision with the knowledge that it would be detrimental to the majority of it's members, then quite frankly, why would either of us want to belong to a club like that.

On the other hand, it makes sense from a logical perspective that the change was implemented to benefit members as a whole. Believing otherwise would make us seem like chumps for continuing to do business with an entity we have deemed untrustworthy.


----------



## Dean

dcfromva said:


> This does not make any sense at all that the points were out of whack for so long.
> BCV came on line in 2002. They could have sold BCV with a different points schedule.  There were no pre-existing members who would have been upset by it.
> SSR came on line in 2004.  They could have sold SSR with a different points schedule.
> 
> Same goes for AKV and BLT.    So what was the basis for the previous points schedules?


Why they waited so long is a fair question.  My info suggests it's been out of balance since about 1999 but with the ending of the free passes they didn't want to make any changes.  Also they were so shell shocked after the reaction they got from the 1996 change which cost some snowbirds a whole week or more BTW.  2001-2002 was when it likely should have happened.  My guess, and it's simply a guess, is there was a combo of factors.  Mild worsening of the issue due to smaller contracts, more people complaining related to availability due to the 7 day reservation rule and more people vacationing closer to hope complaining about weekend costs.  



NinaRaimonda said:


> Dean,
> 
> Are you sure you're not employed by Disney???


LOL, I'm sure.  For most things I'm usually taking them or at least aspects of the system, to task.  But I am a very practical person and I go into timeshares considering the worst case scenarios and planning for most things that could hurt me personally.  I did this with DVC and the others I own.  Of course taken to the absolute end point, no one would buy timeshares if they assumed only the worst.  DVC is still a good product, there has been NO change there.  What has changed is that it is no longer right for a small subset of owners or potential owners.  Other than some questionable timing issues, DVC has done nothing wrong.

I would like to thank those that (I think) defended me and my honor.  



lugnut33 said:


> Rational and unemotional?  Umm, last time I checked he still doesn't feel anybody should be unhappy with losing value in their membership.  It was all the buyers fault for not padding their points purchase by 20% or more.


That's not quite what I said.  What I said was I didn't think you could be unhappy with DVC for doing what they are obligated and have the right to do.  You can simply be unhappy if you want and it seems a lot of people have chosen to do so.


----------



## TSMIII

tjkraz said:


> But those "extra" points of yours have to come from somewhere.  If you keep your current holdings and take fewer trips, then you are freeing up weekdays for other people which would not have been available under the old charts.
> 
> *Meanwhile someone who uses points for weekend stays will find their points go further.  *
> Or DVC will be more attractive to people who favor the more reasonably-priced weekends.
> 
> However you slide it, the weekday nights now have capacity to absorb a larger number of all DVC points that have been issued.



This will be us.  

Due to airfare costs we seek to maximize our # of days on vacation since we typically only take one "flying" vacation per year.  Thus far that has meant a minimum of 7 days and a desire to stay longer.

With weekend points now lower it will be more cost effective than it was previously for us to add days on to either the beginning or end of our 7 day stays.


----------



## jarestel

jamstew said:


> But, but, but...if the change _doesn't_ alter the booking patterns, what is accomplished? As a Sun-Thurs traveler, I'll still stay Sun-Thurs, spend the extra points, and continue to avoid weekends. So the cost has gone up for me and down for the weekender (which is fair), but the weekender _still _doesn't get my week nights. Don't know if this will be typical or not, but I guess time will tell. In my case and probably many others, the week night points didn't go up _enough_ to warrant my spending less days, and the weekends didn't go _down_ enough to interest me in staying longer.



Suppose this is not the final adjustment if booking patterns remain essentially the same. It's not beyond the realm of possibility (anymore) that further reallocations will occur in the coming years until the goal is, in fact accomplished. (This is entirely a what-if & suppose scenario)


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

tjkraz said:


> You may well be correct, but it's also something you could cautiously file under the heading of "be careful what you wish for..."
> 
> Bear with me for a moment.  Let's assume that BLT would actually get a reprieve from the 2010 increases.  That sets up the following scenario:


In my mind it's not about a reprieve but that fact that buyers were shown a point chart that is already out of date and now people may need a few more points to accomplish the stay they were purchasing for.
I wouldn't ask for a reprieve but rather a chance to have the proper number of points.  Of course, that's still a guess for the future but at least you wouldn't already be short before it even opened and you wouldn't be required to purchase an additional 100 pts (or even 25 pts if they decided to make an exception for a short time).


----------



## Disneyjamie

Subscribing


----------



## Lexxiefern

I know I am probably in the minority here, but this adjustment will probably work well for us. We take about 3 weekend trips per year (thurs - mon) and so we will save a few points. My January 8 night trip will cost me a few more however. Really this doesn't impact me much.


----------



## Dean

dcfromva said:


> I'm not so sure folks are going to like it when reality sets in.  The rules say 2 WL's per membership per UY.  So, what if you have the same UY and multiple home resorts?  You are not allowed to have more than 2 WLs going?   Hardly seems fair.


It depends on how they implement it, has anyone gotten additional info from DVC?  Is each resort counted as a separate WL?  Certainly adds value to separate master contracts.



canals68 said:


> This really is horrible. What a joke. Now as I'm looking more at it, it really hurts those who were able really stretch their points with Sun through Thursday stays.


I think that was their intent.  Not to hurt people but to decrease the stretching of points for weekdays and encourage more weekend usage by both longer stays and weekend stays.  Some will cont S-F, we likely will for part of our trips.  If we do, we'll likely spend more points which will leave us less to spend later.  That frees up space for someone else who might not have been able to get what they wanted otherwise.  

All points systems I know of where stays shorter than a full week are an option weight them for weekends vs weekdays.  They all vary with as little as a 1.5 to 1 rations up to some with a 5 to 1 ratio.  In addition other systems sometime do things like requiring full week stays for higher demand times or allowing shorter reservations at a later date than 7 days or more.


----------



## toocherie

KAT4DISNEY said:


> In my mind it's not about a reprieve but that fact that buyers were shown a point chart that is already out of date and now people may need a few more points to accomplish the stay they were purchasing for.
> I wouldn't ask for a reprieve but rather a chance to have the proper number of points.  Of course, that's still a guess for the future but at least you wouldn't already be short before it even opened and you wouldn't be required to purchase an additional 100 pts (or even 25 pts if they decided to make an exception for a short time).



Personally, I would have no problem (and think it would be fair) for DVC to allow those members who bought in the past few months at BLT or Kidani to add on a few points (even less than 25 frankly) to their original contracts in order to satisfy a shortfall, since I'm sure if they bought 200 points and now need 215 to satisfy their anticipated vacation need they would have bought the 215 to begin with.  But, as Dean has previously suggested, I would also think given what has happened that those members might be well advised to "pad" their purchase in anticipation that there may be future adjustments.


----------



## tjkraz

KAT4DISNEY said:


> In my mind it's not about a reprieve but that fact that buyers were shown a point chart that is already out of date and now people may need a few more points to accomplish the stay they were purchasing for.
> I wouldn't ask for a reprieve but rather a chance to have the proper number of points.  Of course, that's still a guess for the future but at least you wouldn't already be short before it even opened and you wouldn't be required to purchase an additional 100 pts (or even 25 pts if they decided to make an exception for a short time).



I understand the dissatisfaction over the way this was released.  And I've stated multiple times that I agree BLT owners were not treated properly here.  

But setting that commentary aside, this would very much be a reprieve.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that the point charts have been skewed for quite a few years now.  BLT will be no different.  And if BLT were to be the only resort to keep its 2009 chart for another year or two, the imbalance could be even worse.  As I demonstrated it would be much cheaper to move to BCV, BWV, AKV Savanna or any other DVC resort/class on the weekends and still save points.  IMO, it's not too far-fetched for BLT to be a virtual ghost town on those weekends, with only the die-hards that refuse to move sticking it out.  

And then when the inevitable reallocation for BLT did occur, you may be paying even MORE on the weekdays.  

You may see it as an opportunity to set the charts correctly for BLT, but know that the values would ultimately be skewed by the existence of cheaper options at other resorts.  And BLT owners would ultimately pay the price for the data being skewed.


----------



## flyerron

When we bought it ws made clear that DVC could change the point structure from year to year. But the total points per year cannot be changed. It seems that DVC is trying to even out the days of stay. Apparnetly there has been lopsided usage Sun-Thurs. This makes the weekend stays a bit more attractive at certain times. Change is most often viewed negatively at first but actually this may work out well as time goes on. Then again maybe not. I would bank on changes again in a few years.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Originally Posted by tjkraz
> But those "extra" points of yours have to come from somewhere. If you keep your current holdings and take fewer trips, then you are freeing up weekdays for other people which would not have been available under the old charts.



But was there some other issue besides ?  I have NEVER had an issue getting OKW (weekday or weekend) for them to put me in a 30 point deficit ?  OKW rarely books up solid except busy seasons (and I'm not even counting summer because we've been able to book there 30-40 days out during summer months).  So I can't imagine people at OKW were unable to get weekdays ? 

And besides.....dh and I worked out how we can maximize our 150 points there during the week every year.  
Night 1:  2 studios = 24 points
Nights 2-3 : 1 bedroom = 52 points
Nights 4-5 : 2 bedroom = 72 points

This will be 148 (plus extra housekeeping costs for DVC that they ordinarily wouldn't have incurred with us).  I'll probably use the extra 2 points towards AKV where I am also coming up short----but much less so---for week days. 

Maria


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> I have NEVER had an issue getting OKW (weekday or weekend) for them to put me in a 30 point deficit ?  OKW rarely books up solid except busy seasons (and I'm not even counting summer because we've been able to book there 30-40 days out during summer months).  So I can't imagine people at OKW were unable to get weekdays ?


For a sold out resort it should end up booking pretty solid most of the year.  So if there is excess inventory, that is a major problem and one that should be addressed by all means possible.  It means there are excess points some where.  DVC has addressed it somewhat by using a disproportionate amount of excess points (exchanges and the like) at SSR and OKW along with cash rental inventory slanted to those 2 resorts.  The problem is there is only so much they can do.  It's possible we'll see re-allocation that's disproportionate to certain resorts just for this reason.  I wonder what the percentage of points are owned and lost due to this issue, it's got to be substantial across the membership.


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> But was there some other issue besides ?  I have NEVER had an issue getting OKW (weekday or weekend) for them to put me in a 30 point deficit ?  OKW rarely books up solid except busy seasons (and I'm not even counting summer because we've been able to book there 30-40 days out during summer months).  So I can't imagine people at OKW were unable to get weekdays ?



Assuming 100% weekday occupancy is probably not the best approach.  But even if it's 90% weekday and 70% weekend on average, it shows that the points are skewed.  

DVC is legally obligated to adjust for historical trends.  So I guess we have to take it for granted that these adjustments are commensurate with member bookings in recent years.  

If these changes do not correspond to demand shifts, then DVC is breaching its fiduciary responsibility to members and violating Florida law.  I doubt any of us have evidence to suggest that is the case.


----------



## ashbradnmom

Disneyjamie said:


> Subscribing





MiaSRN62 said:


> Sammie....the above statement fits my situation to a "T".
> I am one of the Sun-Thurs crowd.  We have a total of 250 points now between OKW and AKV.
> 
> But, we have always utilized the Sun-Thurs both due to lower points, as well as the fact that I have owned an offsite timeshare since 1994 and I MUST check-in and out on a weekend so we have always added time to our vacation by tagging on days with DVC Sun thru Thurs.  I have had no choice or flexibility with my offsite timeshare.  And I knew this at the time of siging. Occasionally we have booked weekends with DVC (but I can count on one hand the number of times)......
> 
> But by DVC inducting this allocation....sure, the weekends went down, but the weeknights went up.  So there is no way I can ever work around the fact that I am coming up short 30 points every year.  And lower weekend points will not encourage me to stay on weekends any more than before the allocation.   Because I will always be able to stretch out my points by using weeknights.....it's just harder to do that now.   I just wonder if we will see a big increase in the booking of studios and 1 bedrooms vs the 2 bedrooms from the Sun thru Thurs crowd in an attempt to retain the same length of vacation.  People like me trying to recoup the lost points ?  I wonder if this new allocation will make people downsize on a large scale.  Only time will tell. I honestly don't think I'm the only Sun-Thurs person thinking about this & I'm sure I'm not the only Sun-Thurs DVC'er who has no plans to stay weekends simply because they dropped the points.   This clearly benefits the weekend crowd the most.  And there seems to be alot of them coming forward here so I don't get how there could be so much availability on the weekends considering so many here that state they stay over weekends, that DVC was pushed in the direction it took ?
> 
> 
> bookwormd....very well written and thought-out post.......
> 
> Sorry about the bold type Disneyjamie and any others I have offended.   I've been on these boards for 8 years and have thousands of posts and done this quite often.  You are the first person in all that time to ever say anything to me.  I never thought it was an issue.




not to disrespect you but i do believe you stated earlier that you could only go over spring break because of your kids school schedule. but you are talking about adding sun-thur at disney after your other week. i dont get it.  i am just a little confused


----------



## baj0505

jarestel said:


> No, they did not release any such information. Which makes any conclusions one draws on either side of the issue strictly conjecture. If we choose to believe that DVC made this decision with the knowledge that it would be detrimental to the majority of it's members, then quite frankly, why would either of us want to belong to a club like that.
> 
> On the other hand, it makes sense from a logical perspective that the change was implemented to benefit members as a whole. Believing otherwise would make us seem like chumps for continuing to do business with an entity we have deemed untrustworthy.



Thanks, my sole purpose in asking was to be sure I hadn't overlooked or not received some information. The fact that so far they have chosen not to provide prior notice to these changes nor make any additional information available showing how it benefits the majority of the members is enough  reason for my DH to question continuing to do business with such an entity.


----------



## toocherie

baj0505 said:


> Thanks, my sole purpose in asking was to be sure I hadn't overlooked or not received some information. The fact that so far they have chosen not to provide prior notice to these changes nor make any additional information available showing how it benefits the majority of the members is enough  reason for my DH to question continuing to do business with such an entity.



Here's a question for those of you who know the contracts better than I do--do we as members have the right to request the 'back-up' which supports the point chart changes? (i.e., the occupancy rates for the various resorts showing the disparity between weekdays and weekends)?  I would assume Disney would not like to give out that info as being proprietary but am wondering if we have the right to get it.


----------



## dis-happy

Dean said:


> It depends on how they implement it, has anyone gotten additional info from DVC?  Is each resort counted as a separate WL?  Certainly adds value to separate master contracts.




What do you think about the reallocation in conjuction with the new waitlist?  One person has already been told no w/l if there is an existing reservation.  Not sure if that is true information or not (MS has been known to give out incorrect information before).  But if that is the case, there is going to be one heck of a game of chicken at the 7 month window for those wishing to stay someplace besides their home resort.

Say even half of the previous Sun-Thurs. people continue their travel pattern (it will still maximize point usage), those same stays are using up more points, and at some point extra nights will be opening up as a result.  Combined with the new restrictions on the W/L and I think the end result is more rooms open for booking after 7 months.  I still wonder if an intended consequence of these two new combined "member enhancements" is to aid the sales team, that the incentives which include developer points are going to go way up and that there needs to be a way to use them (nothing says "Welcome Home" like no room at the inn you've just been promised).

Just trying to see why it behooves DVC to make these two changes at the same time and it seems there should be a logicistical connection.


----------



## baj0505

toocherie said:


> Here's a question for those of you who know the contracts better than I do--do we as members have the right to request the 'back-up' which supports the point chart changes? (i.e., the occupancy rates for the various resorts showing the disparity between weekdays and weekends)?  I would assume Disney would not like to give out that info as being proprietary but am wondering if we have the right to get it.



Well, I don't know if DH had the right to ask when he sent his email this morning. But along with stating his dissatisfaction of not being notified of the change when we attended presentations 3 months ago and made it very clear we are Sun-Fri stayers. He asked for the reason they did not send advance notification to members or notify guides, he also asked for their rational in making the changes.  If the response comes back 'none of your business' I'm afraid I best start learning to like Harry Potter, Jaws, and the Hulk.


----------



## toocherie

dis-happy said:


> What do you think about the reallocation in conjuction with the new waitlist?  One person has already been told no w/l if there is an existing reservation.



Has it been confirmed that this is the policy?  Because how do they (MS) not know that you aren't booking a room (or trying to, by using the waitlist) for someone else (friends/family).  Maybe you are staying at SSR but want your Mom to stay at BWV at the same time.

I am still pondering this waitlist change--not sure what it really means for me since I usually book at 11 months and get what I've wanted anyway.


----------



## dd08

Nevermind


----------



## toocherie

baj0505 said:


> Well, I don't know if DH had the right to ask when he sent his email this morning. But along with stating his dissatisfaction of not being notified of the change when we attended presentations 3 months ago and made it very clear we are Sun-Fri stayers. He asked for the reason they did not send advance notification to members or notify guides, he also asked for their rational in making the changes.  If the response comes back 'none of your business' I'm afraid I best start learning to like Harry Potter, Jaws, and the Hulk.



Please let us know how they respond!


----------



## MiaSRN62

> For a sold out resort it should end up booking pretty solid most of the year. So if there is excess inventory, that is a major problem and one that should be addressed by all means possible. It means there are excess points some where. DVC has addressed it somewhat by using a disproportionate amount of excess points (exchanges and the like) at SSR and OKW along with cash rental inventory slanted to those 2 resorts. The problem is there is only so much they can do. It's possible we'll see re-allocation that's disproportionate to certain resorts just for this reason. I wonder what the percentage of points are owned and lost due to this issue, it's got to be substantial across the membership.



Thanks for your insight on this Dean.  This all doesn't come easy to me.  Thanks to Tim as well............



> not to disrespect you but i do believe you stated earlier that you could only go over spring break because of your kids school schedule. but you are talking about adding sun-thur at disney after your other week. i dont get it. i am just a little confused


ashbradnmom....
Actually we never go over spring break.  It's over the summer we go (usually beginning of Aug which is Magic season).  We have always added our OKW Sun through Thurs days on to our offsite timeshare week.  So we usually check out of Vistana on Sunday morning and check into OKW.   

We like to take a nice long summer trip.  This past Aug, we were in FL for 3 weeks.  Part of that was time moving one of my kids into their freshman year at college so we had family orientation and all.  But 10-14 nights is about our average to vacation and usually during the month of August. We also have lots of family in the general Orlando area or not more than a 90 min drive away and we visit them while we're in FL too.    So no disrespect taken.  I hope my explanation helped to make it a little better to understand.  

Maria


----------



## ashbradnmom

MiaSRN62 said:


> But was there some other issue besides ?  I have NEVER had an issue getting OKW (weekday or weekend) for them to put me in a 30 point deficit ?  OKW rarely books up solid except busy seasons (and I'm not even counting summer because we've been able to book there 30-40 days out during summer months).  So I can't imagine people at OKW were unable to get weekdays ?
> 
> And besides.....dh and I worked out how we can maximize our 150 points there during the week every year.
> Night 1:  2 studios = 24 points
> Nights 2-3 : 1 bedroom = 52 points
> Nights 4-5 : 2 bedroom = 72 points
> 
> This will be 148 (plus extra housekeeping costs for DVC that they ordinarily wouldn't have incurred with us).  I'll probably use the extra 2 points towards AKV where I am also coming up short----but much less so---for week days.
> 
> Maria



I am glad that you found a way to stay 5 nights still and i am sorry if i disrespected you in any way. I stated earlier i still do not know how it is going to affect me because i can be flexible. 

I still do not like the notice they gave all of us.


----------



## ashbradnmom

MiaSRN62 said:


> Thanks for your insight on this Dean.  This all doesn't come easy to me.  Thanks to Tim as well............
> 
> 
> ashbradnmom....
> Actually we never go over spring break.  It's over the summer we go (usually beginning of Aug which is Magic season).  We have always added our OKW Sun through Thurs days on to our offsite timeshare week.  So we usually check out of Vistana on Sunday morning and check into OKW.
> 
> We like to take a nice long summer trip.  This past Aug, we were in FL for 3 weeks.  Part of that was time moving one of my kids into their freshman year at college so we had family orientation and all.  But 10-14 nights is about our average to vacation and usually during the month of August. We also have lots of family in the general Orlando area or not more than a 90 min drive away and we visit them while we're in FL too.    So no disrespect taken.  I hope my explanation helped to make it a little better to understand.
> 
> Maria



I was there also in aug for 10 days at the begining of the month boy it was hot. but that is what you get for AUG in FL. We were there for my sons 3rd birthday and he loved it i cant beleive he is still talking about it today.


----------



## Scott

t





T-i-double-g-err said:


> I think for some of the room categories the 20% cap on point change per night would limit the point changes to 1-2 points.  On others, my guess is that someone was picking an increase that would be a "step in the right direction" to reduce instances of hitting people with a 4-5 pt/night increase.  So, over the next few years, we may see the points differential between week nights and weekend nights erode further.  I've speculated elsewhere that this may be part of a multi-year reallocation process with 2010 being the first one towards some goal point charts created based upon prior occupancy/demand usage data.
> 
> If that's the case, management's perspective may be that they are phasing the reallocation into the system over time in a way that does not make the whole change they believe is necessary in one big leap.  I'm not defending them, and I certainly think that the lack of communication and notification to current and new members was awful.  I'm just stating that DVC management may have actually believed that these charts minimized the planning impact on membership rather than going in one jump to where they think the point charts should ultimately reach.  If so, going back to communication, I would certainly appreciate knowing what that point is so that I can plan accordingly now, rather than scramble every time an incremental change is made along the path.



Very interesting perspective   I hope you're wrong though! I would still love to know why the charts were originally set up to favor weekday stays, and what has changed to create an impetus for the change?Certainly, DVC knew the discounted weekday structure would affect occupancy patterns.   At this point I've heard two explanations: 1. To keep locals from filling up weekend availability, and 2. To keep the parks filled during the week. The cynic in me wants to add a third: to make DVC membership appear much more affordable to those who would otherwise not purchase. Perhaps this is part of a strategy to shift their sales focus away from budget minded families and travelers?


----------



## MiaSRN62

> I am glad that you found a way to stay 5 nights still and i am sorry if i disrespected you in any way. I stated earlier i still do not know how it is going to affect me bucause i can be flexible.



No harm ashbradnmom.....I'm glad u can be flexible.  I hope to be in that situation one day........I could really stretch my points if I could travel in Adventure season.  But by the time I find myself able to do that, I'm sure DVC would have done the point charts all over again......  
Maria


----------



## ashbradnmom

MiaSRN62 said:


> No harm ashbradnmom.....I'm glad u can be flexible.  I hope to be in that situation one day........I could really stretch my points if I could travel in Adventure season.  But by the time I find myself able to do that, I'm sure DVC would have done the point charts all over again......
> Maria



I totally agree. You can never tell what the future will bring.  Hopefully it will be more days at WDW with my kids and some day with the grandkids.


----------



## drusba

tjkraz said:


> You may well be correct, but it's also something you could cautiously file under the heading of "be careful what you wish for..."
> 
> Bear with me for a moment.  Let's assume that BLT would actually get a reprieve from the 2010 increases.  That sets up the following scenario:
> 
> Two bedroom Villa
> Friday-Saturday Stay
> Dream Season
> 
> Beach Club Villas:  58 points
> BWV Preferred:  58 points
> OKW:  52 points
> AKV Savanna:  59 points
> *BLT Lake View:  70 points
> BLT MK View:  86 points*
> 
> While the weekday points at BLT will remain at their lower variants, the weekends will be much higher.  This disparity will be high enough to convince some guests to move from BLT on the weekdays to other resorts.
> 
> That would lead to an even greater disparity between weekday/weekend occupancy at BLT.  And in 1-2 years when DVC has enough data to reallocate the BLT charts, the weekday prices may be even higher than what is currently posted for 2010.
> 
> (In my mind it's undeniable that some people would make this move--the only point open to debate is the severity of the shift and whether it's significant enough to alter the point chart further.)



As I look at it, BLT owners need fuel to make Disney realize it has acted improperly and faces the risk of having its change successfully challenged. These members have literally been screwed. Concealed from them when they bought is that the change was going to be made. They bought relying on the chart they saw, and now they are SOL because Disney raised the minimum to 100 points for an add-on. Disney not only did wrong but added insult to the injury. It is the epitome of a series of stupid management decisions that failed to consider the interests of those purchasing at BLT and it is so bad that it looks intentional. At the very least Disney should permit those members to have the option of either purchasing a 10 point or more add-on at the discounted price originally paid or to rescind the entire transaction and get their money back.


----------



## La2kw

TSMIII said:


> This will be us.
> 
> Due to airfare costs we seek to maximize our # of days on vacation since we typically only take one "flying" vacation per year.  Thus far that has meant a minimum of 7 days and a desire to stay longer.
> 
> With weekend points now lower it will be more cost effective than it was previously for us to add days on to either the beginning or end of our 7 day stays.



Not necessarily.  We always have stayed more than 7 days.  If we check in on Sunday for a week and stay Sun-Thurs of the following week, we have 12 nights for 328 points at OKW in a 1BR in July.  With the new point chart, that same stay will cost us 350 points.  The weekdays now cost more points, so we have to stay fewer nights than we have been able to for the past _13 years_.  Now we can only stay 11 nights for 324 points.  This reallocation  benefits people who stay only 7 days or who stay primarily weekends.


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

tjkraz said:


> I understand the dissatisfaction over the way this was released.  And I've stated multiple times that I agree BLT owners were not treated properly here.
> 
> But setting that commentary aside, this would very much be a reprieve.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that the point charts have been skewed for quite a few years now.  BLT will be no different.  And if BLT were to be the only resort to keep its 2009 chart for another year or two, the imbalance could be even worse.  As I demonstrated it would be much cheaper to move to BCV, BWV, AKV Savanna or any other DVC resort/class on the weekends and still save points.  IMO, it's not too far-fetched for BLT to be a virtual ghost town on those weekends, with only the die-hards that refuse to move sticking it out.
> 
> And then when the inevitable reallocation for BLT did occur, you may be paying even MORE on the weekdays.
> 
> You may see it as an opportunity to set the charts correctly for BLT, but know that the values would ultimately be skewed by the existence of cheaper options at other resorts.  And BLT owners would ultimately pay the price for the data being skewed.



You have an excellent point on how BLT owners can maximize their points but I don't think we'll ever see an evening out, say for example, between BLT MK view and BCV 2 bedrooms (or others) on weekends.  BLT has too many points and they have to be "charged" somewhere.  And the actual cost to a BLT owner to stay in the 2 bedroom MK view is almost identical to a BCV owner in a 2 bedroom if you only look at maintenance fees.  I think it's far more likely for the deserting of BLT on weekends if they don't allow current BLT owners to buy the number of points now needed.  And, they should encourage an added cushion.

I also haven't said that they should leave the 2009 chart.  Just that they never should have sold with it in the 1st place and now they need to correct that mistake and allow BLt owners to "correct" their purchase.  I'd even go so far as to say they should even buy back purchases if the buyer now feels it's out of their reach for the stay they wanted.  This was total misrepresentation.

As far as reprieve I think that everyone is just getting a year or two until the next change if the goal truely is to shift weekday to weekend useage.

Other resort have had up to 12 years of knowing exactly what they needed for their stay.  I just think that BLT (and maybe new Kidani) owners deserve at least 1 year before their told they need to start borrowing b/c they don't have enough points.

If I were asked, my recommendation for new BLT owners would be to buy a cushion b/c it probably will change again - but to require a 100 pt cushion b/c they didn't provide information of the change before opening?  That borders on fraudulent or something similar IMO.


----------



## lugnut33

So, can we come up with a catchy name for this DVC scandal, you know like those cool names that CNN and Fox News come up with?

Here's my entry:  "DVC Re-allogate"

How about:  "Jim Lewis, Weapon Of Mass Destructiongate"

Or:  "My name is not Lou Mongello eventhough I now come up shortgate"

What about this one for the guides:  "I know nothinggate". 

Lastly:  "Welcome Owned"


----------



## BroganMc

lugnut33 said:


> So, can we come up with a catchy name for this DVC scandal, you know like those cool names that CNN and Fox News come up with?



I like the simple yet accurate: "DVC Pointgate"

And yes, I'm more firmly in the camp of DVC is trying to mess with me. I'm in that category of having an existing SSR ownership (that my evidence is pointing toward some very hinky point increases) and sitting on papers for a BLT add-on.

I've been looking at those papers pretty closley this weekend. This is what I found concerning point re-allocation:

BLT CONTRACT

_9. Each DVC Resort Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation Point value, which varies depending upon the season of use, location and the size of the Vacation Home. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand. Except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year:

- The *total number of Vacation points *required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2060 *can never increase*.
-If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights.
- Reallocation cannot exceed 20% per calendar year, except under limited circumstances._

END CONTRACT EXCERPT

So this makes me pause on two accounts. First, how can there be a demonstrated "seasonal demand" to warrant such change when the resort isn't even open for occupancy yet. (How do we know more people won't be staying weekends, in 1bedrooms or using Grand Villas? Heck, how do we know there won't be a greater demand for Standard View rooms over Magic Kingdom View, or Lake View over all of them? There have been absolutely NO bookings yet.)

Second, if the total number of points are not allowed to increase then why the blazes is my 2010 point chart out of balance with my 2009? Granted BLT hasn't seen as much a swing as SSR, but the increase is there.

I'm very interested to see what answers we get from upper management this week.


----------



## lugnut33

Brogan, as a protest you should send the contract back to them all shredded up.  It's not like they are going to ban you from buying at a later time, plus you get the satisfaction of sticking it to the man a little bit.  

Besides, maybe the incentives will be better in a few months.


----------



## toocherie

lugnut33 said:


> So, can we come up with a catchy name for this DVC scandal, you know like those cool names that CNN and Fox News come up with?
> 
> Here's my entry:  "DVC Re-allogate"
> 
> How about:  "Jim Lewis, Weapon Of Mass Destructiongate"
> 
> Or:  "My name is not Lou Mongello eventhough I now come up shortgate"
> 
> What about this one for the guides:  "I know nothinggate".
> 
> Lastly:  "Welcome Owned"



I vote for the first one!  Very funny post lugnut!




BroganMc said:


> I like the simple yet accurate: "DVC Pointgate"
> 
> And yes, I'm more firmly in the camp of DVC is trying to defraud me. I'm in that category of having an existing SSR ownership (that my evidence is pointing toward some very hinky point increases) and sitting on papers for a BLT add-on.
> 
> I've been looking at those papers pretty closley this weekend. This is what I found concerning point re-allocation:
> 
> _9. Each DVC Resort Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation Point value, which varies depending upon the season of use, location and the size of the Vacation Home. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand. Except for normal variations which occur in the calendar from year to year:
> 
> - The *total number of Vacation points *required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2060 *can never increase*.
> -If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights.
> - *Reallocation cannot exceed 20% per calendar year, except under limited circumstances.*_
> 
> So this makes me pause on two accounts. First, how can there be a demonstrated "seasonal demand" to warrant such change when the resort isn't even open for occupancy yet. (How do we know more people won't be staying weekends, in 1bedrooms or using Grand Villas? Heck, how do we know there won't be a greater demand for Standard View rooms over Magic Kingdom View, or Lake View over all of them? There have been absolutely NO bookings yet.)
> 
> Second, if the total number of points are not allowed to increase then why the blazes is my 2010 point chart out of balance with my 2009? Granted BLT hasn't seen as much a swing as SSR, but the increase is there.
> 
> I'm very interested to see what answers we get from upper management this week.



Brogan--I am more concerned about the language bolded above.  What "limited circumstances"?  It's rather vague, frankly.  Does "limited circumstances" only mean for a short period of time?  Or does it mean that if there are only one or two villa types that are affected?


----------



## kerickson

toocherie said:


> Brogan--I am more concerned about the language bolded above.  What "limited circumstances"?  It's rather vague, frankly.  Does "limited circumstances" only mean for a short period of time?  Or does it mean that if there are only one or two villa types that are affected?



I believe the SSR contract states there has to be a 60% membership approval to make a change greater than 20% in a given year.  If they did change it to this vague language, it is concerning.  I'm interested to know what VGC states...


----------



## toocherie

kerickson said:


> I believe the SSR contract states there has to be a 60% membership approval to make a change greater than 20% in a given year.  If they did change it to this vague language, it is concerning.  I'm interested to know what VGC states...




Yes, I think when I get my VGC contract I'm going to have to scan and convert my SSR contract and the VGC contract and run a comparison to see what is different . . . .


----------



## BroganMc

lugnut33 said:


> Brogan, as a protest you should send the contract back to them all shredded up.  It's not like they are going to ban you from buying at a later time, plus you get the satisfaction of sticking it to the man a little bit.
> 
> Besides, maybe the incentives will be better in a few months.



Aye but there's the rub. I never intended my BLT add-on to be anything more than a 3-day a year studio stint. My add-on is for 60 pts (not really affected by the change since it included a 15 point buffer) and in this game of chicken DVC has decided to change the rules and force me to either buy this now or pony up $4000 more for 100 pts.

I fully expect we'll see some sort of resolution by the end of this week. The next move is DVC's. They need to come up with either a re-evaluation of the points, a damn good detailed explanation to members, and/or some reprieves for those minimum add-on windows.

As it stands now, the timing of the new point charts released on a website less than a week AFTER the minimum add-on window closes... well let's just say that's not the sort of behavior I'd expect from an honorable timeshare company. It smells like a shellgame.

So I look at these contract papers and ask myself whether I can trust their honor enough to enter into another binding, legal agreement with them.

One thing I absolutely refuse to do is play their game of increasing my add-on to allot for another point increase. If I can't get some information this week that reassures me they aren't willfully messing with me (just being exceptionally dimwitted in communication skills), I won't complete the contract.

I do hate to say all that. I have had a lot of respect for the company up till now. It means a lot when they can shake my trust this profoundly.

Unlike what has been alleged, I have attended and overheard many a sales presentation at SSR over the last 3 years. I've often heard the explanation that while point charts can be reallocated they are not likely and are done so only in a way that balances out their use for the year within the chart. So when buyers had been advised how many points to purchase it was done with a consideration for the highest amount needed. No 20% point buffer or some such. And Guides were fond of saying that the point charts "never change" unlike room rentals. Note, I do think the Guides were duped here as much as the buyers. Trouble is, I think it's the Guides who could be in legal trouble for that according to Florida Law.


----------



## BroganMc

toocherie said:


> Brogan--I am more concerned about the language bolded above.  What "limited circumstances"?  It's rather vague, frankly.  Does "limited circumstances" only mean for a short period of time?  Or does it mean that if there are only one or two villa types that are affected?



Good question. FYI, I bolded it because that's how it appears in my BLT papers - bolded. I just added the italics to differentiate from my post.

My best guess is that they mean certain room categories, assuming there are so few of them they need to adjust more radically. Like perhaps the 15 concierge rooms at AKV.

The trouble I have with this point chart math is that we do not get changes in charts for every year. 2009 are the same charts we've gotten since I owned in '06, for all the resorts. I do a running tally of charts so know what the schedules were outside my home resort.

But if the point chart math is supposed to reflect some number of all possible point totals for a resort in a particular calendar year (with a different mix of weekend days and weekdays), then why ever have a replicated chart year after year? These clauses seemed to address the balance of points within the chart. I'm betting a lot of people listened or read that caveat and thought "well if it's more expensive to go for Christmas then it'll be less expensive to go for Summer if they change things".

Not many buyers (I overheard or talked to) were considering points only enough for some weekdays or weekends. They usually debated room sizes, seasons and weekly costs. There's a lot of chatter here, but I'm guessing the membership at large will find a good number equally upset about it. These new weekly totals have made a lot of ownership contracts unusable for their intended purpose.

What stood out most to me was the jump in Choice season at SSR for studios. They went from a weekly rate under 100 pts to just over. If you planned a studio for Christmas week at BLT (Lake View), and bought the even number (200 pts) you'd now be 1 pt short.

Caveat: It does seem to me BLT's point shifts are less. SSR's shifts are far more dramatic.


----------



## PeteNCathy

When I purchased BCV I bought 252 points for 1 week stay and was told it could never go up,only minor date changes.Now it will be 254 points for 1 week.It seems that they are doing something illegal..unless they give me 2 free points a year.The way the dues are going up its almost not worth it anymore might have to dump my points on the next sucker.


----------



## Inkmahm

PeteNCathy said:


> When I purchased BCV I bought 252 points for 1 week stay and was told it could never go up,only minor date changes.Now it will be 254 points for 1 week.It seems that they are doing something illegal..unless they give me 2 free points a year.The way the dues are going up its almost not worth it anymore might have to dump my points on the next sucker.



Did you read any of the 83 pages of this thread? We've been discussing that vary topic in detail for about 50 of those pages.

Solution for you:  Borrow 2 points each year, progressively.  With 252 points, it will take you 126 years before you'll have a problem booking your same vacation as before.  

Year one borrow 2 points.  Year two borrow 4 points.  Year 3 borrow 6 points.  And on and on and on.  You'll be dead before you run out of points.


----------



## PeteNCathy

The point is not how to do it but why should I have to "borrow" my own points to pay for a vacation that I was told would ALWAYS cost me 252 points.And No I didn't read all 83 pages of posts ..I didn't know it was required.


----------



## LIFERBABE

PeteNCathy said:


> The point is not how to do it but why should I have to "borrow" my own points to pay for a vacation that I was told would ALWAYS cost me 252 points.And No I didn't read all 83 pages of posts ..I didn't know it was required.



Agreed!  Its a discussion board, not a job!  

I agree, why should one be forced to borrow as a solution.  Totally unsat!

Brogan, I also agree with much of what you posted.  I believe SSR went up because it will be used as a point burner.  SSR is the last to fill due to its size.  Those that plan later or need to use expiring, holding points are being penalized because they will be forced to use their points at SSR.  With the increases, they will get less SSR for the points.  If DVC can use SSR to burn off those points instead of being a point saver, there are less points in the system.

I love SSR, but they are making us pay to help them balance out the smaller size of the other resorts.  It's like a point incinerator.

My stance is, what DVC did to the BLT owners was shady and underhanded, bordering on fraud, because they did not negotiate with us in good faith.  They knew what they knew and withheld that information until they could benefit even more from it.  How do you announce the point min increase without disclosing the fact that you are "actively" adjusting the point charts?


----------



## BroganMc

PeteNCathy said:


> The point is not how to do it but why should I have to "borrow" my own points to pay for a vacation that I was told would ALWAYS cost me 252 points.And No I didn't read all 83 pages of posts ..I didn't know it was required.



Don't sweat it. I've been following this thread for 3 days and even I haven't been able to fully digest all of it. It's a bit of a stew around here. Lots of analysis, viewpoints and suggestions floating about.

Bottomline is, none of us really understand exactly the math used to make these adjustments. There is language in our contracts to allow for point allocation. There's also some lively debate an analysis as to whether DVC has followed its own contract limitations. And there's a lot of opinion about how fair they dealt with new and prospective buyers in the last 4 months, certainly the last month.

I called my Guide earlier this month to add-on at BLT. Never was I informed their might be a point increase on the horizon. It seems the Guides were as clueless as we were.

And Member Services has been inundated with phone calls and e-mails concerning this issue. If you wish to voice your concern, then call or e-mail DVCMemberSatisfactionTeam@dvcmember.com. Stay tuned to see how it unfolds.

Meanwhile you'll find some on the boards who have concentrated more on how to handle the change while others are still questioning its legitimacy. The former strategy allows you to concentrate on planning your future vacations; the latter has you obsessing over contracts, mathematical equations and lawsuits. You have to decide which is the better thing to let occupy your mind.


----------



## BroganMc

LIFERBABE said:


> Brogan, I also agree with much of what you posted.  I believe SSR went up because it will be used as a point burner.  SSR is the last to fill due to its size.  Those that plan later or need to use expiring, holding points are being penalized because they will be forced to use their points at SSR.  With the increases, they will get less SSR for the points.  If DVC can use SSR to burn off those points instead of being a point saver, there are less points in the system.



Before I get into the whys, I still need to establish the whats. Like I've said before my point math doesn't seem to support a balanced chart. But then I may be wrong and need to get an explanation from management about how they calculated.

I just didn't expect to see weekly rates changed, or if changed then swapped in other seasons. The Choice increase for studios has me the most flummoxed. (An increase of 8 points per week.)

But it looks like VWL owners have just as big a beef. For them it's the 1bedrooms that fluctuated wildly in Adventure and Choice. (An increase of 6 points per week.)

Most other resorts saw changes of only 1-3 points.

There is another way to look at this. Perhaps DVC has given up more of its point ownership at SSR with the new THV sales and that's where these extra points are coming from. Yet more owners competing for rooms with less developer points available for incentives. Maybe on the bright side we'll see fewer Free Dining Plan upgrades to studios and 1bedrooms.

No matter what I grumble, I still love SSR best. This just means I'll be shaving a weekday off my May stays to better afford October.


----------



## bookwormde

This is the best that I can do to explain the difference between contract law and regulatory law. If the regulatory law says that the seller will make no misrepresentations in comparison to the written documents. The seller cannot have the buyer “sign away” the seller’s regulatory responsibility in this area buy the verbal representation waiver clause. The sales practices that said one thing and had the written document say something else were the exact reason the regulation was put in place and is “outside” and separate from the actual contract. Again a individual can not waive for a seller the regulatory requirements of the government. Even if the individual read and understood the possibility of changes in the contract the verbal misrepresentation of the contract is still a regulatory violation.

No I am not an attorney but am well read and familiar with the concepts of contract law from my business and regulatory law from my disabilities advocacy.

bookwormde


----------



## bookwormde

This is much more restrictive on DVC than any of the Other POS statements I have seen, once a change is made they are going to have to change the allocations each year due to the variance in the total number of weekends and the season they are in since this clearly states that the points for each calendar year (which are variable) can not change. I think they have made themselves quite a nightmare.

The total number of Vacation points required to use all Vacation Homes during *each calendar year *through January 31, 2060 can never increase.
-If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights.
- Reallocation cannot exceed 20% per calendar year, except under limited circumstances.

bookwormde


----------



## MiaSRN62

> When I purchased BCV I bought 252 points for 1 week stay and was told it could never go up,only minor date changes.Now it will be 254 points for 1 week.It seems that they are doing something illegal..
> No I didn't read all 83 pages of posts ..I didn't know it was required.



Welcome *PeteNCathy *to the DIS.   

And no, you don't have to read this whole thread---though there is some very helpful information in and among the pages.   Some of it is just too technical for me, but I've been able to digest and process some of it and every day I "get" a little more.  

You will see some harshness and unfair judging here too from certain posters, so please just let it roll off your back.  I know I was eventually able to do that.  But the past 3 days have been a real shock to the system---and dealing with my own emotions at the drastic change in my Membership in addition to dealing with snide comments from some posters---let's just say, it's been a rough few days on the DIS for me.  I know others are feeling this way too because you can tell by the tone of their posts.  But some here feel no emotions should be involved in this issue and that's just not me.  

You are 2 points short and would do best to just continuously borrow.  Unfortunately, it's either that, drop a day from your vacation or downsize you accomodations (if that's even possible).   Some suggested visiting in lower point seasons---but again, despite being a choice according to some---it, in realty is not.    If it's any consolation, some of us are many more points short over 1 or 2 or even 10 and are having to drop days or downsize accomodations because borrowing is just out of the question due to a deficit of too many points.  And unfortunately, this is all not illegal.  Though it's looking like with the BLT folks it might be----and I'm still miffed as a recent Kidani owner since my resort has not yet opened either and I purchased an addon within the past 90 days or so.  

But if you're able to understand some of the more technical/analytical info here, look for posts by Dean, Tjkraz, bookwormd and several others.   The emotions you're going through are a totally normal process though some here will call you out on "why" you're so upset and accuse you of things that just have no place on this thread.  Just skip over their posts and go to the meat and potato posts for some very good DVC /timeshare lessons.  

So feel free to vent like alot of us....brainstorm for ways to make this work or whatever.  Sorry a thread containing such disappointing news such as this one is for alot of is, was your first time posting.   This allocation is just alot for some of us to chew.....but is pretty much spelled out as something DVC reserves the right to do in the smaller print.  Alot of us were given somewhat misleading info by guides or DVC promo material when we purchased.  I know I was informed 8.5 years ago the points could move around "a little".  Never would I have imagined a 30 point deficit for booking our vacations in 2010 and beyond essentially overnight.   And some say DVC could be pushing for longer stays.  I find even more offense with that, because I am sure I can pull up some DVC promo videos and such that flat out say, "use your points for as little as one night" and which also tout Membership as being so flexible........but I guess there is some fine print buried somewhere deep down about that too........so hang in there PeteNCathy.............


----------



## bookwormde

I would open up a new thread but it sound like we are to keep all allocation discussions here.

There has been talk about future changes, here are my thoughts.

I do not think DVC will limit the length of stays, maybe this is wishful thinking since I like to move around a lot and 2 or 3 day stay are my “norm”. This would also be counterproductive to the goal of high occupancy rates since you end up with stranded days unless they go to the sat to sat model.

Since some points moved the “maximum” I see additional point changes in general.

If the goal is to “balance demand” these are also items which I see changing; a much more dramatic rise in AKV concierge point requirements and some additional rises in savanna view. Changing Presidents weekend and the 3 days around Thanksgiving to Premier, event driven changes such as moving F&W at BCV and BWV to a higher season, moving the beginning of December to Choice season raising seasons at  “Christmas decoration” time at VWL and so forth. Of course this will reduce points on average for other times. 

bookwormde


----------



## toocherie

LIFERBABE said:


> Agreed!  Its a discussion board, not a job!
> 
> I agree, why should one be forced to borrow as a solution.  Totally unsat!
> 
> Brogan, I also agree with much of what you posted.  I believe SSR went up because it will be used as a point burner.  SSR is the last to fill due to its size.  Those that plan later or need to use expiring, holding points are being penalized because they will be forced to use their points at SSR.  With the increases, they will get less SSR for the points.  If DVC can use SSR to burn off those points instead of being a point saver, there are less points in the system.



Are you meaning that people will more likely go (and use more points) in the higher seasons, thereby reducing overall point inventory that could be used at the other resorts?  Because otherwise the overall number of points for the resort haven't gone up (putting Brogan's questions aside for the moment) so overall there could not be an increased use of points?


----------



## WilsonFlyer

I don't think I've seen this mentioned...

In the category: Stupid Business Moves

You would have thought they would have released the BLT charts in October like they are now. There would be a lot less for us BLT owners to gripe about had they done that. It wouldn't have deviated from the norm enough to catch anyone's attention probably since we had no existing standard for BLT anyway.

Doesn't this sort of go against the thinking that this was a well thought out and executed plan to change the charts? It almost makes it sound like somebody got a hair up 3 weeks ago and just decided (after a few drinks), "Hey ya'll. Watch them squirm when we do this."

The same thing could be said for AKV but at least that one's been on sale for so long that those sales may have actually begun before the conspiracy started. I got screwed on that one too.

I'm 2 for 2. My charts are changing all over the place and neither of my home resorts is even open yet. Ain't it great!!!


----------



## toocherie

Actually, I agree with you wilson.  Both this and the studio glassware issue seem to me more reactionary than well-thought out moves.  Ditto for the waitlist issue.  I'm sure there have been many many multi-person meetings over the last few weeks "tweaking" the charts, but I don't think this is a long-term strategy move.  I think someone identified a problem (there have been many possible scenarios discussed in this thread) and they said--"here's the fix."  And I think that partly because I agree with Brogan that I think the guides were clueless about the reallocation until recently.  God knows you wouldn't want to include your front-line troops in any decision that might affect how they market your product.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

Conspiracy theory.. Don't you love it!

But had the BLT charts not changed when all the others did, all members would have had a legitimate argument that "They knew all this when the minimum add-on for BLT was headed to a deadline to be raised to 100 and intentionally released them afterwards." 

I'm pretty sure that argument would stick anyway but it does make for interesting discussion.


----------



## jodifla

I was at WDW when this news broke out! I'm so sorry to hear that it will affect some people so negatively.

 For us, we do all sorts of different unit sizes, lengths of stays and DVC clubs, so I'll be able to adjust.

 It was the 4 month rule that really screwed me over! I'm still angry about that.

  The problem is, DVC wants you to make a commitment for 50 years, then tinkers enough with the details that it's tough to have made the RIGHT commitment.


----------



## Inkmahm

PeteNCathy said:


> The point is not how to do it but why should I have to "borrow" my own points to pay for a vacation that I was told would ALWAYS cost me 252 points.And No I didn't read all 83 pages of posts ..I didn't know it was required.



What you were "told" is in the written paperwork that you signed when you bought your DVC points.  As has been discussed for page after page after page.  You were "told" that points could be reallocated.   And guess what?  They were!

I can understand the person who needs an additional 30 points being somewhat upset with the new charts.  But 2 points so you need 254 instead of 252?  Like I said, borrow 2 points more each year, keep your same vacation you've always had, and you'll be dead before you run out of points  to borrow in 126 years.


----------



## Starr W.

bookwormde said:


> I would open up a new thread but it sound like we are to keep all allocation discussions here.
> 
> There has been talk about future changes, here are my thoughts.
> 
> I do not think DVC will limit the length of stays, maybe this is wishful thinking since I like to move around a lot and 2 or 3 day stay are my norm. This would also be counterproductive to the goal of high occupancy rates since you end up with stranded days unless they go to the sat to sat model.
> 
> Since some points moved the maximum I see additional point changes in general.
> 
> If the goal is to balance demand these are also items which I see changing; a much more dramatic rise in AKV concierge point requirements and some additional rises in savanna view. Changing Presidents weekend and the 3 days around Thanksgiving to Premier, event driven changes such as moving F&W at BCV and BWV to a higher season, moving the beginning of December to Choice season raising seasons at  Christmas decoration time at VWL and so forth. Of course this will reduce points on average for other times.
> 
> bookwormde



Like you I thought when reallocation came, that early December would move from Adventure to Choice season for all resorts.

Now I don't know if they can up point requirments for onsite resorts for a certain time period(VWL for Xmas decorations, BCV/BWV for F&W). From a standpoint of MS and the owners I could see that being a bit . 
As you know how many new owners come on here clueless about the 1st 2 weeks of December or October at the Epcot resorts. Not every owner is totally up on the various park events and how they can drive DVC resort demand.


----------



## tjkraz

BroganMc said:


> So this makes me pause on two accounts. First, how can there be a demonstrated "seasonal demand" to warrant such change when the resort isn't even open for occupancy yet. (How do we know more people won't be staying weekends, in 1bedrooms or using Grand Villas? Heck, how do we know there won't be a greater demand for Standard View rooms over Magic Kingdom View, or Lake View over all of them? There have been absolutely NO bookings yet.)



There may be some weight to that argument.  However, as I posted a couple of pages ago, even getting a 1-2 year reprieve may not benefit BLT owners in the long run.

It appears DVC made very minor adjustments to BLT.  The first charts were guesswork and the second set is also--apparently based upon trends at other resorts.

If BLT were to keep its 2009 chart through, say, 2011, there will be a wide disparity between weekend prices at BLT and all other resorts.  BLT owners could save 15-20 points per night by moving from a BLT Lake View room to a BoardWalk View or AKL Savanna View.  Not all would choose to make that move, but you better believe some would.

So for 2 years BLT would (theoretically) have an even lower weekend occupancy rate than what was used as the basis for this adjustment.  And as soon as DVC had enough data to reallocate charts based upon actual history (2 years max), the weekdays would rise even higher than the published 2010 rates we see now.  

I think that's a legitimate scenario that will play out if members are successful in getting DVC to push-back the 2010 BLT points for a couple of years.  



> Second, if the total number of points are not allowed to increase then why the blazes is my 2010 point chart out of balance with my 2009? Granted BLT hasn't seen as much a swing as SSR, but the increase is there.



There are always variances from year-to-year in total points due to when weekends fall.  The Christmas Premier season runs from Christmas Eve until New Year's Eve (8 nights.)  In 2009 those two days are both on weekdays, meaning that block of Premier has only two weekend nights.  In 2010 they are both Fridays which brings the weekend total to three nights.  

Other variations occur throughout years as seasonal change dates fall on weekdays vs. weekends.  

The POS makes mention of using a "Base Year" to compute the point charts.  There is also mention of using expected booking patterns in counting lockoffs under either the two bedroom or Studio + 1B charts.  Without knowing the exact structure of the Base Year and the lockoff ratio, it is going to be really tough to do any direct before/after comparisons.


----------



## tjkraz

Starr W. said:


> Like you I thought when reallocation came, that early December would move from Adventure to Choice season for all resorts.



It's probably due to the 20% cap on increases.  I don't think they could have both raised the weekday rates AND moved Dec 1-14 to a higher season while staying under the 20% increase limit.  

I agree that change is probably next.  Could be 2011...2 years...5 years...but demand for early-December clearly dictates that it is priced too low.


----------



## WolfpackFan

tjkraz said:


> I agree that change is probably next.  Could be 2011...2 years...5 years...but demand for early-December clearly dictates that it is priced too low.



So if early-December is priced too low and DVC increases the points, they would need to lower points during some other period of time. What period would they do that I wonder?


----------



## WilsonFlyer

I'm going to make a statement that's going to certainly open up Pandora's box but I think it needs to be said.

I'm starting to think a lot of the complainers fall into the category below and it's starting to tick me off. I spent a LOT of money on DVC and I don't have to take advantage of the system. Let me explain.

I see thread after thread week after week here with people talking about buying just enough points to bank and borrow so they can vacation every 2 or 3 years (this mostly happens with the 3 year folks).

In my humble opinion, those are the folks that are really getting screwed in this deal. Or ARE they really? By definition, these people are using the banking and borrowing windows to extend points beyond their intended purpose. *You're suppose to have enough points in any given year to take the vacation you intend to take!*

The banking and borrowing windows were created to help us avoid wasting points in years we couldn't use them and to borrow in years for a "special" circumstance or special vacation.

The B&B rules were not put in place for someone to take a very deliberate and exact number of points (that were only 1/3 enough to begin with) for a very deliberate number of days at a very deliberate season and tweak and twine them so you could get exactly 5 days in exactly this room at this resort on these days every 3 years. Now you may not like hearing that because it doesn't suit your purpose but it's the truth. If you are doing this, *you* are taking advantage of a system that was *designed* to protect _me_.

More power to ya if it's worked for you up until now but I have very little sympathy for you if you're one of the these people and these changes adversely affected you.

*The DVC system was designed for people who want to vacation at Disney at least once per year.* That was explained clearly in my presentation. That's the reason the resorts have a minimum buy-in for new members and why I bought 160 at AKV and 160 at BLT.

I, personally, have NO sympathy for anyone that used the system to their own advantqage as I have outlined above. Again, for emphasis, more power to ya if you got away with it to this point but if you figured it all so tightly that you can't abuse it anymore, too bad. That wasn't the way the system was designed to be used.

To those that bought little 50 point resales to try to do the "3 year trick" and never bothered to learn what they were getting into, sell out or buy more. There are plenty of people out there like me that could use your 50 point contracts without abusing the system.

I don't like the changes either but I own enough points that with banking and borrowing, there is very little chance that this change (this round, at least) will ever adversely affect me because I also own enough points to use the system as it was designed to be used.

Flame away but don't stand on a soapbox if you own 53 points and not expect me to kick your box....


----------



## WilsonFlyer

tjkraz said:


> It's probably due to the 20% cap on increases.  I don't think they could have both raised the weekday rates AND moved Dec 1-14 to a higher season while staying under the 20% increase limit.
> 
> I agree that change is probably next.  Could be 2011...2 years...5 years...but demand for early-December clearly dictates that it is priced too low.



The verbage I've seen says the 20% cap isn't even real, just for argument's sake. There's a provision for overriding even the 20% cap. Check out the last line.


----------



## WolfpackFan

WilsonFlyer said:


> The B&B rules were not put in place for someone to take a very deliberate number of points (that were only 1/3 enough to begin with) for a very deliberate number of days at a very deliberate season and tweak and twine them so you could get exactly 5 days in exactly this room at this resort on these days every 3 years. Now you may not like hearing that because it doesn't suit your purpose but it's the truth. If you are doing this, *you* are taking advantage of a system that was *designed* to protect _me_.



Baloney. Who said the B&B rules were put into place as you describe them and what does it matter how you use them? I have never heard this rule before that you can only use B&B for certain conditions. How would it remotely matter to  you how I use the rules. This is absurd.


----------



## tjkraz

WolfpackFan said:


> So if early-December is priced too low and DVC increases the points, they would need to lower points during some other period of time. What period would they do that I wonder?



If it were my call I'd look at late-April (after Easter) and into May.  May is currently all Dream Season (third highest) which is just ridiculous, IMO.  

To over-simplify, I'd probably look at bumping Dec 1-14 up a category (from Adventure to Choice) and May 1-14 down a category (from Dream to Choice.)  That may not be a precise adjustment but it's a fair starting point.  

Seems like the last 2 weeks of August may also be overpriced given the "free dining" offers that are typically available during that period.

I guess it depends upon how things really fluctuate and how much DVC wants to fragment the calendar.  For instance, all of January is Adventure seasons but traffic varies wildly that month between the end of the holiday guests, WDW Marathon and even MLK weekend.


----------



## WolfpackFan

tjkraz said:


> If it were my call I'd look at late-April (after Easter) and into May.  May is currently all Dream Season (third highest) which is just ridiculous, IMO.



I have to say, i wouldn't mind that at all.


----------



## tjkraz

WilsonFlyer said:


> The verbage I've seen says the 20% cap isn't even real, just for argument's sake. There's a provision for overriding even the 20% cap. Check out the last line.



True, but I'm not sure DVC wanted to open that Pandora's Box by exceeding the 20% cap.  I understand there are instances where they went right up to 20% in these adjustments but nowhere did they go over.  

Even without the 20% cap, I do think it makes statistical sense to wait a few years to gauge the impact before applying additional changes.  As much as I think Dec is under-priced, I hope they wait several years before adjusting again.


----------



## KLR-wlv

But if early december has been booked - due to lower points - isn't that a GOOD thing if the whole idea is to keep occupancy up year round for the good of the timeshare system? So you raise the points there - and people stop coming then. I thought they wanted occupancy high? And I would think hurricane season would be low at VB - but points went up then too. I think this has a little to do with rentals - if the weekdays start causing renters to pay closer to CRO prices that will drive that down - and the high points for new resorts. So 40 points per night for a 1 br at VGC doesn't seem so out of whack.


----------



## Chuck S

KLR-wlv said:


> But if early december has been booked - due to lower points - isn't that a GOOD thing if the whole idea is to keep occupancy up year round for the good of the timeshare system? So you raise the points there - and people stop coming then. I thought they wanted occupancy high? And I would think hurricane season would be low at VB - but points went up then too. I think this has a little to do with rentals - if the weekdays start causing renters to pay closer to CRO prices that will drive that down - and the high points for new resorts. So 40 points per night at VGC doesn't seem so out of whack.



You are confusing occupancy with demand.  The are separate, and both need to be in balance.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

WolfpackFan said:


> Baloney. Who said the B&B rules were put into place as you describe them and what does it matter how you use them? I have never heard this rule before that you can only use B&B for certain conditions. How would it remotely matter to  you how I use the rules. This is absurd.




If you own less than the minimum required by DVC as a new member (I don't know if you do or not), you probably never attended the presentation because you obviously didn't buy directly from DVC.

This is the way the B&B rules were presented to me at my meeting. It doesn't mean they can't be used in other ways but that was the way they were presented to me as their intended purpose.

If you never saw the presentation, you wouldn't have heard this and granted, my guide may have presented this differently than other guides may. 

May I ask did you buy resale without ever attending a sales presentation? Just curious.


----------



## WolfpackFan

WilsonFlyer said:


> May I ask did you buy reasle without ever attending a sales presentation? Just curious.



Actually I have 290 points, all bought directly from DVC and I've been to several sales presentation. During none of them did they ever say you couldn't use B&B on a regular planned basis to extend your points to stay in non-consecutive years. In fact, on the contrary they told me that people do it all the time to extend their points and there is nothing wrong with doing it at all. In fact we plan on doing this with our AKV contract. We have 60 pts. on that contract and plan to borrow every other year to book our stays there.


----------



## jekjones1558

Can't banking and borrowing rules be changed?  If so, we could REALLY hear screams!


----------



## jekjones1558

> But if early december has been booked - due to lower points - isn't that a GOOD thing if the whole idea is to keep occupancy up year round for the good of the timeshare system? So you raise the points there - and people stop coming then.



I, for one, would continue to book early December even if it changed to a much higher season.  I like the events and decorations and low crowd levels (though it has seemed to be getting busier lately) but don't want to be there during Christmas/New Years.  I'll bet that I'm not the only one.


----------



## Chuck S

jekjones1558 said:


> Can't banking and borrowing rules be changed?  If so, we could REALLY hear screams!



Actually, we've already seen a somewhat minor adjustment.  The "rule of 4" from the previous 100%-50%-25% banking windows.



> I, for one, would continue to book early December even if it changed to a much higher season. I like the events and decorations and low crowd levels (though it has seemed to be getting busier lately) but don't want to be there during Christmas/New Years. I'll bet that I'm not the only one.



We also enjoyed early December the last few years, but there were just so many pople this year, we're going back to January, at least for a few years.


----------



## toocherie

Wilson:  I am in the same situation as you--have enough points to take at least one vacation a year and if I want to add additional people can then or borrow from the following year.  But remember earlier this year that in some limited circumstances DVC lowered the point minimum to 100?  I'm sure those people came into this needed to borrow and bank.  And I did attend the presentation and don't recall borrowing and banking being limited as you describe in my presentation.  I don't see anything wrong with someone having a small contract and then borrowing and banking--but also am not one who bought a contract to just barely cover my needs and now find myself up the creek.  However, I do recall in my presentation (after I indicated that I would not likely go to Florida EVERY year) that banking and borrowing were available so that I could rack up points and do a large vacation (or get a large villa if I wanted to take friends and family).


----------



## WilsonFlyer

toocherie said:


> Wilson:  I am in the same situation as you--have enough points to take at least one vacation a year and if I want to add additional people can then or borrow from the following year.  But remember earlier this year that in some limited circumstances DVC lowered the point minimum to 100?  I'm sure those people came into this needed to borrow and bank.  And I did attend the presentation and don't recall borrowing and banking being limited as you describe in my presentation.  I don't see anything wrong with someone having a small contract and then borrowing and banking--*but also am not one who bought a contract to just barely cover my needs and now find myself up the creek.*  However, I do recall in my presentation (after I indicated that I would not likely go to Florida EVERY year) that banking and borrowing were available so that I could rack up points and do a large vacation (or get a large villa if I wanted to take friends and family).



I fear I've been misinterpreted here as I didn't do as good of a job explaining myself as I had thought. My post was more directed at the folks depicted in the bolded text above than at the ones that bought in at the recommended DVC minimums.


----------



## tjkraz

KLR-wlv said:


> But if early december has been booked - due to lower points - isn't that a GOOD thing if the whole idea is to keep occupancy up year round for the good of the timeshare system? So you raise the points there - and people stop coming then. I thought they wanted occupancy high?



Right now demand is such that people are on the phone at 9am exactly 11 months out in order to (virtually) guarantee a room for early-December.  Switching resorts at 7 months is practically impossible because ALL of the resorts are often booked-up before the 7-month window arrives.  

Raising the costs a few points per night is NOT going to lead to vacancies.  It means that the rooms may fill up slower, or that members will have to use a greater share of their ownership in order to visit during that period.  

The purpose of the charts is to balance demand...pure and simple.  The periods which folks generally consider to be undesirable should be priced the lowest to encourage visits.  September is a prime example.  September deserves to be in the lowest season.  Schools are just returning to session...hurricane season...nasty weather.  We NEED the low points in September to encourage folks to use their points for those dates.  

Early-December is the polar opposite.  You could easily argue for moving those dates all the way up to Dream season--if not Magic season.  I don't have access to DVC's reservation information but it sure seems like there is greater demand for early-December reservations than there is for the middle of the summer (June, July, August) which are in Magic season.  

Raising the points would immediately impact demand so I don't think it would actually be proper to move early-December to Magic season.  But I think a 1 or 2 category increase is more than warranted.


----------



## KLR-wlv

Disney has been selling add-ons of 25 points - how do they expect people to use them? I think the smaller add-ons are MEANT for B&B and I don't see how someone using those points once every 3 years - points they paid for and are paying dues for "hurts" any other member? THis is a point system. One that is sold on flexibility of different size units/different times of year. I just don't see how that is a detriment to anyone else's enjoyment of their purchase. That is the system disney has been selling - and if it wasn't - they wouldn't allow any purchases smaller than a week's worth of points - which - granted - seems to be their aim with the recent changes - but they should start a DVC2 for the newer resorts then if that is their goal.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

WolfpackFan said:


> Actually I have 290 points, all bought directly from DVC and I've been to several sales presentation. During none of them did they ever say you couldn't use B&B on a regular planned basis to extend your points to stay in non-consecutive years. In fact, on the contrary they told me that people do it all the time to extend their points and there is nothing wrong with doing it at all. In fact we plan on doing this with our AKV contract. We have 60 pts. on that contract and plan to borrow every other year to book our stays there.



My apologies then. My "long" post was certainly not directed to an owner like you.

Are these changes really going to adversely affect your travel plans to DVC? Seriously, maybe I need to sharpen my pencil and re-evaluate what it will do to my own if that's the case.

I think worst case with me is that I drop a day next year and bank'em and borrow a few the next year and add a day. I just don't see it as a life-altering kinda thing and I think that's kinda my point. If you bought in at the RECOMMENDED DVC minimums, it just doesn't seem to be a life-changing thing. Maybe the 100 point folks are in a little different boat but even then, they obviously didn't intend on going for a week every year in a one BR because if they did, they didn't buy enough points to begin with.

You get what you pay for. Don't you agree? Bargain shoppers sometimes get exactly what they pay for too. I think that's my point.


----------



## cpdwiz

Ok, I did the math...I thought I posted this somewhere, but, maybe its lost?? 

The days do not matter to us, whether weekend or weekday...thats a good thing....Also, I understand peoples frustrations at this change, esp when you pay so much money for it....Thankfully, we do not pay, or I would probably be up in arms...I researched our trips....

In 2009 we are going May 13th through May 17th....Studio, 4 nights....

1 night at AKV Savanna and 3 nights at BWV, regular view...for 2009 this will be 76 points....Now...2010, same scenario, rooms and days is 70 total points....That would save me 6 points...Not shabby.....

This past Dec, we went from the 1st through the 8th....2 BR at SSR...Cost me 270 points...Now, with the 2010 chart, same scenario....272...so the 6 points I save from may, I need 2 more for december......Again, not too bad.....

Hopefully it works out for everyone.....


----------



## toocherie

WilsonFlyer said:


> I fear I've been misinterpreted here as I didn't do as good of a job explaining myself as I had thought. My post was more directed at the folks depicted in the bolded text above than at the ones that bought in at the recommended DVC minimums.



But, and this is just an example, I believe Maria bought OKW at 150 points when that was the minimum--and it worked out that those points satisfied her family's vacations needs for Sun-Thurs.  Now with the point increase that is not the case.  So, she bought the recommended DVC minimum, but is now in a dilemma.  So I don't think you can tie it to buying the DVC minimum.  But I also think Maria got a lot of years using her membership to the max (whereas someone who also bought 150 points, but had to travel on weekends, didn't get as much usage).  I understand the frustration of someone in Maria's position that they are no longer getting the usage they did before--but the person who previously went only three days, because their trip included a weekend, may now be able to go four days.  It is really no different--in my mind--from your favorite restaurant that raises the price on your favorite dish--not the value it was before--but if they raise the price and you love the dish will you never ever go there again?


----------



## chrisd596

Don't like the changes AT ALL. Since the adjustments don't really change the overall points used for a full week stay, why make this change?

I guess I originally remember being told that the weekend points were higher so that the local people would have a chance to stay at these resorts.

So in my own case, I don't like both the change in points for the weekend and also don't like that you can call in and reserve an entire week. For someone who wants to reserve for Xmas week and has saved up the amount of points needed but doesn't want to reserve the Sat- Fri, now if you call in on Sunday all the members who have reserved Sat-F are all set. 

Wow you can call in and reserve Sat-F and then cancel the Sat and have you entire week booked before I even get a chance to call for Sun-F.

For a Disney lover, these are really disappointing decisions. 

Chris


----------



## WilsonFlyer

KLR-wlv said:


> Disney has been selling add-ons of 25 points - how do they expect people to use them? I think the smaller add-ons are MEANT for B&B and I don't see how someone using those points once every 3 years - points they paid for and are paying dues for "hurts" any other member? THis is a point system. One that is sold on flexibility of different size units/different times of year. I just don't see how that is a detriment to anyone else's enjoyment of their purchase. That is the system disney has been selling - and if it wasn't - they wouldn't allow any purchases smaller than a week's worth of points - which - granted - seems to be their aim with the recent changes - but they should start a DVC2 for the newer resorts then if that is their goal.



DVC has never intended for anyone to "get in" for less than the minimum buy-in they require for new owners. 

The resale market and add-ons at less than the recommended buy-in size created the after-market availability of such deeds. It is real estate and it's mine to sell if Disney doesn't want to buy it back through ROFR. I don't think anyone would reasonably expect DVC to buy back all after-market contracts at < the required buy-in size for new members (but maybe they should but that's another topic for another thread).

I'm sorry if you interpreted what I said as I feel adversely affected by the way some are using B&B. I do not feel that way at all. I simply said that if someone had a small contract and couldn't use it to their own advantage anymore, I didn't have any sympathy for them (and I don't).


----------



## Chuck S

KLR-wlv said:


> Disney has been selling add-ons of 25 points - how do they expect people to use them? I think the smaller add-ons are MEANT for B&B and I don't see how someone using those points once every 3 years - points they paid for and are paying dues for "hurts" any other member? THis is a point system. One that is sold on flexibility of different size units/different times of year. I just don't see how that is a detriment to anyone else's enjoyment of their purchase. That is the system disney has been selling - and if it wasn't - they wouldn't allow any purchases smaller than a week's worth of points - which - granted - seems to be their aim with the recent changes - but they should start a DVC2 for the newer resorts then if that is their goal.



I agree Disney has been selling small add-ons at non-home resorts, and I think that also is part of the problem that has led to the re-allocation.

Many factors, including lower initial buy-in requirements, low add-ons at non-home resorts, and savvy renters wanting only Sun to Thurs stays have all contributed.  The system likely could have absorbed the effects of one of two of these, but the sum total effect has necessitated the need for a re-allocation to balance demand.  

And I think we are seeing evidence of that with the changing rules, like the 100 point minimum add-ons.  I really wouldn't be surprised to see that rule modified to allow owners at BLT add-on 25+ points, but owners at other resorts would need to buy at least 100.  I also wouldn't be surprised to see that type of rule go system wide, even at the older resorts.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

tjkraz said:


> Right now demand is such that people are on the phone at 9am exactly 11 months out in order to (virtually) guarantee a room for early-December.  Switching resorts at 7 months is practically impossible because ALL of the resorts are often booked-up before the 7-month window arrives.
> 
> Raising the costs a few points per night is NOT going to lead to vacancies.  It means that the rooms may fill up slower, or that members will have to use a greater share of their ownership in order to visit during that period.
> 
> The purpose of the charts is to balance demand...pure and simple.  The periods which folks generally consider to be undesirable should be priced the lowest to encourage visits.  September is a prime example.  September deserves to be in the lowest season.  Schools are just returning to session...hurricane season...nasty weather.  We NEED the low points in September to encourage folks to use their points for those dates.
> 
> Early-December is the polar opposite.  You could easily argue for moving those dates all the way up to Dream season--if not Magic season.  I don't have access to DVC's reservation information but it sure seems like there is greater demand for early-December reservations than there is for the middle of the summer (June, July, August) which are in Magic season.
> 
> Raising the points would immediately impact demand so I don't think it would actually be proper to move early-December to Magic season.  But I think a 1 or 2 category increase is more than warranted.



Here is my speculation about changes in Season, based on nothing but personal booking experience and reports on these Baords:

Early Dec moves up 2 to Dream Season and is replaced by late August moving down 2 to Adventure.  There are 2 more days in late Aug than early Dec, so I see Jan 1 & 2 also making the move with early Dec for balance.

October moves up 1 to Dream and May moves down 1 to Choice.

With the 20% limitation (which I think DVC thinks is real), there needs to be a further interim adjustment to points before this Season swapping can be accomplished.  An early Dec weekday studio at OKW can only go up 1 point to 10 points and it is likely that Dream Season will require it to be at 12.

Just my guesses -- Suzanne


----------



## tjkraz

KLR-wlv said:


> Disney has been selling add-ons of 25 points - how do they expect people to use them?



Smaller add-ons were probably intended for people whose vacation needs had changed since the initial purchase.  For example if the family grew and folks needed to move up from a One Bedroom to a Two Bedroom, they could acquire the additional points.  Or if people were forced to vacation during a more expensive season.  Or if they wanted to extend their trips by an extra night per year.  

Perhaps DVC should have mandated a minimum ownership to buy a new Home.  Perhaps they will in the near future.


----------



## tjkraz

SuzanneSLO said:


> Here is my speculation about changes in Season, based on nothing but personal booking experience and reports on these Baords:
> 
> Early Dec moves up 2 to Dream Season and is replaced by late August moving down 2 to Adventure.  There are 2 more days in late Aug than early Dec, so I see Jan 1 & 2 also making the move with early Dec for balance.
> 
> October moves up 1 to Dream and May move s down 1 to Choice.
> 
> With the 20% limitation (which I think DVC thinks is real), there needs to be a further interim adjustment to points before this Season swapping can be accomplished.  An early Dec weekday studio at OKW can only go up 1 point to 10 points and it is likely that Dream Season will require it to be at 12.
> 
> Just my guesses -- Suzanne



Sound guesses.  I would agree with all of those.


----------



## Cmbar

toocherie said:


> It is really no different--in my mind--from your favorite restaurant that raises the price on your favorite dish--not the value it was before--but if they raise the price and you love the dish will you never ever go there again?



The only problem is that most were told that the points wouldn't change....(hence the "prices wouldn't change")  I know it was in the fine print somewhere that it could change, but a large majority of people were told (and believed) that the points would only changed based on dates and seasons.  It was not made clear to us in our many presentations that the points per accomodation would change.  In fact on our DCL just 2 months ago in Nov at the presentations the Guide asked someone to look up how much it would cost in points to stay in a 1 bedroom, AKV. Savanah view on a Sunday in November ... etc.  Then when I answered him (and got a free DCL bag!!) he said that would never change for the life of the contract.  He said it could only change based on the Holiday season changes.  So while in small print it is legally there that Disney can "raise their prices"  it really clearly wasn't what was represented to most DVC people. 

 We wanted to buy BLT 160 point minimum, but now that I look at the new chart for a resort that hasn't even opened up yet, it appears I will need 170 points to do the same vacation.  Luckily we haven't bought yet, but if I had I would have been furious.  It seems what used to be the minimum for a 160 purchase (say a one bedroom for six days at BCV in Dream season) is now 170 points.  So I feel like while I might want to go back for my favorite food at the Restaraunt, it feels more like I have to go back to that Restaraunt because I have committed a great deal of money to continue to go to that Restaraunt, but now I can't buy my favorite dish anymore.  Yes I will still probably go, but I really think this is unfair to people who bought the minimum that Disney was recommending and saying that we could get those accomodations for the life of our contract.  And to top it off they did this after the minimum add on was upped.


----------



## bobbiwoz

We have been buyers of small add ons, primarily at VWL.  We began with 50 which was our first direct add on and now own 200 points there.  The smaller addons were easier for us to afford at a time.  We have accumulated these over a period of 5 years.  

I truly hope that DVC offers some help to BLT owners and if it means that they allow current owners smaller add ons for a limited time, at BLT, I would be happy for them.  

Bobbi


----------



## WilsonFlyer

Chuck S said:


> I agree Disney has been selling small add-ons at non-home resorts, and I think that also is part of the problem that has led to the re-allocation.
> 
> Many factors, including lower intial buy-in requirements, low add-ons at non-home resorts, and savvy renters wanting only Sun to Thurs stays have all contributed.  The system likely could have absorbed the effects of one of two of these, but the sum total effect has necessitated the need for a re-allocation to balance demand.
> 
> And I think we are seeing evidence of that with the changing rules, like the 100 point minimum add-ons.  I really wouldn't be surprised to see that rule modified to allow owners at BLT add-on 25+ points, but owners at other resorts would need to buy at least 100.  I also wouln't be surprised to see that type of rule go system wide, even at the older resorts.



I agree, Chuck and I expressed this to my Guide during our December visit. My suggestion was similar to, if not exactly the same as yours.

Simple.

*Home resort: add-ons of 25, 50+ allowed
Non-Home resorts: Add-ons of only 100+ allowed*

I could even argue that add-ons for non-home resorts be set to the minimum buy-in to DVC at the time. I wouldn't like it but it would make sense.

They're almost certainly going to _have_ to allow 25 point add-ons to current BLT owners given the changes to the charts for 2010. Surely.

The bolded above seems like a logical answer to the problem to me. It fixes the problem for everyone concerned (DVC and owners) IMHO.


----------



## DeeCee735

I think alot of people will be dumping their smaller add on contracts that are not at the resort where most of their points are at. I'm thinking it's better to get rid of the 50 points we have at AKV and buy 50 at BWV since BW is where we own most of our points. Even with the decrease in weekend points, they are still more than weekday points, and now with increased weekday points, adding a weekend night regardless of it's points being dropped still make it more. There's no way around paying more for a stay, so I don't see us getting the use out of 50 points they way I hoped, and I don't see adding on more at AKV, because we'd really only add another 25 to 50, and it's certainly not worth it now. Just MHO


----------



## DeeCee735

WilsonFlyer said:


> I agree, Chuck and I expressed this to my Guide during our December visit. My suggestion was similar to, if not exactly the same as yours.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> *Home resort: add-ons of 25, 50+ allowed*
> *Non-Home resorts: Add-ons of only 100+ allowed*
> 
> I could even argue that add-ons for non-home resorts be set to the minimum buy-in to DVC at the time. I wouldn't like it but it would make sense.
> 
> They're almost certainly going to _have_ to allow 25 point add-ons to current BLT owners given the changes to the charts for 2010. Surely.
> 
> The bolded above seems like a logical answer to the problem to me. It fixes the problem for everyone concerned (DVC and owners) IMHO.


 
According to my guide, No they don't have to and they aren't going to. Their take, according to my guide, is that with the banking and borrowing options it would take years for the member to have a problem staying where they want when they want if it's just a few points difference. I did ask if they would allow small add on's and that was the answer I got.


----------



## KLR-wlv

DeeCee735 said:


> I think alot of people will be dumping their smaller add on contracts that are not at the resort where most of their points are at. I'm thinking it's better to get rid of the 50 points we have at AKV and buy 50 at BWV since BW is where we own most of our points. Even with the decrease in weekend points, they are still more than weekday points, and now with increased weekday points, adding a weekend night regardless of it's points being dropped still make it more. There's no way around paying more for a stay, so I don't see us getting the use out of 50 points they way I hoped, and I don't see adding on more at AKV, because we'd really only add another 25 to 50, and it's certainly not worth it now. Just MHO



That is true: we have 285 points and this reallocation effects us negatively. We have 150 WL points and I added 135 points at VB - specifically to get a BC every other year. I had a 35 point cushion for Thanksgiving stays - I am now short 10 points since they increased the BC in every season the maximum 20%. I had planned a family reunion for my parents 50 anniversary next summer that I can no longer do. I MIGHT add on another 40 points there to cover the difference - but I do not trust that they won't continue to fidget with the points - so I am not going to play that game of adding on a few more thousand every couple of years. It seems the only way you are safe is to buy enough for a week - which for a beach cottage would be ridiculously expensive. And my 2 bedroom WL reservation for 2010 which I had enough point for is now out of range (35 more points for the week) due to borrowing for 2 nights in nov 09. Had I known - I wouldn't have done those 2 nights this year. So even with 285 points - this has eliminated two planned trips in 2010.


----------



## Kmango

DeeCee735 said:


> According to my guide, No they don't have to and they aren't going to. Their take, according to my guide, is that with the banking and borrowing options it would take years for the member to have a problem staying where they want when they want if it's just a few points difference. I did ask if they would allow small add on's and that was the answer I got.



We recently added-on at BLT (180 pts for a week EOY MK View in Adventure) and AKV (135 pts for a week EOY Sav View in Adventure). Those stays have now gone up 1 and 2 points respectively. So we'll borrow a point or two a year, maybe lose a day one year (which happens naturally sometimes anyway) and cope. Buying an extra 5 or 10 points would really be overkill. However, it seems like they should do a temporary return to the 25pt minimum add-on for BLT owners only, so that people with a much larger shortfall can remedy it.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

DeeCee735 said:


> According to my guide, No they don't have to and they aren't going to. Their take, according to my guide, is that with the banking and borrowing options it would take years for the member to have a problem staying where they want when they want if it's just a few points difference. I did ask if they would allow small add on's and that was the answer I got.



Interesting. I think there's going to be a lot more pressure on them to do this for AKV (who don't currently have the minimum 100 point add-on, I know) and BLT owners than they may have anticipated.

They're going to have to do something to pacify us BLT owners and my bet is that *they've planned to do this all along*. "Look. We're doing this to help you all!" 

We shall see. I'll be VERY surprised if you don't see part of my add-on plan implemented (the 25 exception for BLT owners) and probably the whole thing before it's all over. I still say it is the fair and obvious solution.

As I told my guide in December (we bought at BLT in Oct when the rules were the same for everybody, intending even then, to add-on 25-50 points when we got the note paid off), *it's not fair that BLT owners live under a different set of rules than owners at other resorts* but that's another topic for another thread, I guess. I don't care what the game is but we should all have to play by the same rules or it isn't a fair fight.


----------



## pakhowe

I think it is a little presumptive to state dvc's intended use of banking and borrowing based upon what ones' guide told them.  If we have learned anything from this thread, it is that some guides will twist the truth if it suits their sale.  Although we purchased enough points for our annual vacaton plans, our guide absolutely covered the use of banking and borrowing for the purpose of vacationing every two or three years, which would have required the purchase of fewer points.  

I don't believe a condescending attitude towards people who purchased in this manner (which is well within the rules) is appropriate.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

pakhowe said:


> I think it is a little presumptive to state dvc's intended use of banking and borrowing based upon what ones' guide told them.  If we have learned anything from this thread, it is that some guides will twist the truth if it suits their sale.  Although we purchased enough points for our annual vacaton plans, our guide absolutely covered the use of banking and borrowing for the purpose of vacationing every two or three years, which would have required the purchase of fewer points.
> 
> I don't believe a condescending attitude towards people who purchased in this manner (which is well within the rules) is appropriate.




So you think it's condescending to remind people that bought 50 points with the expressed intention of banking and borrowing for a visit exactly every 3 years to remind them that's what they bought for and to not feel any sympathy that they cannot do that anymore? Really?

I really hope I haven't offended anybody that tender-hearted. (OK, maybe that was a little condescending. LOL) I haven't even *begun* being condescending yet.


----------



## tjkraz

WilsonFlyer said:


> We shall see. I'll be VERY surprised if you don't see part of my add-on plan implemented (the 25 exception for BLT owners) and probably the whole thing before it's all over. I still say it is the fair and obvious solution.



I will be, too.  DVC tends to be customer-friendly when it comes to sales issues.  Witness the Developer's Points retroactively given to folks who bought BLT 2 months before that incentive was introduced.  

They may not allow sub-100 pt add ons to everyone, but it would be reasonable to allow those who already bought at BLT to add a few more points.


----------



## KLR-wlv

I have 285  - and it's screwed up future reservations.

A 50 point contract for a couple with no kids would get 5 nights in a studio in some seasons. Or if they want to take friends - bank and borrow. How is that purchase - which is a per point dollar amount tied to the same maintenance fees per point - offensive to some? I have more than 50 points because we're a family of 5 - but 50 points would be sufficient for some members. And this effects members with 50 points - or with close to 300 like me. I like 5-6 night vacations. I don't really want to spend more than 6 nights at disney...


----------



## WilsonFlyer

pakhowe said:


> I think it is a little presumptive to state dvc's intended use of banking and borrowing based upon what ones' guide told them.  If we have learned anything from this thread, it is that some guides will twist the truth if it suits their sale.  Although we purchased enough points for our annual vacaton plans, our guide absolutely covered the use of banking and borrowing for the purpose of vacationing every two or three years, which would have required the purchase of fewer points.
> 
> I don't believe a condescending attitude towards people who purchased in this manner (which is well within the rules) is appropriate.



Then we just agree to disagree. We have to both concede that neither of us knows, nor will we ever know, What DVC's intentions were with respect to banking and borrowing when the rule was put in place.

My belief is that is was so members could save during the rainy season and borrow during the sunny season. 

I don't believe the system was ever put in place with the expressed intention of affording someone the opportunity to buy 1/3 of a year's points to bank and borrow to use exactly that number of points every 3 years. Sorry. I just don't buy it. Can it be used that way? Certainly. But when it doesn't work anymore, I think it's safe to say that wasn't what DVC designed it into the system for but that's just my opinion.


----------



## WolfpackFan

WilsonFlyer said:


> DVC has never intended for anyone to "get in" for less than the minimum buy-in they require for new owners.



I just love the way you keep speaking for DVC. Are you sure you're from Eastern NC (my home)? You sure don't seem very friendly.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

KLR-wlv said:


> I have 285  - and it's screwed up future reservations.
> 
> A 50 point contract for a couple with no kids would get 5 nights in a studio in some seasons. Or if they want to take friends - bank and borrow. How is that purchase - which is a per point dollar amount tied to the dame maintenance fees per point - offensive to some? I have more than 50 points because we're a family of 5 - but 50 points would be sufficient for some members. And this effects members with 50 points - or with close to 300 like me. I like 5-6 night vacations. I don't really want to spend more than 6 nights at disney...



The system was never designed to work for anyone that buys in at less than the minimum purchase level required by DVC (currently 160?). *That's why they have a minimum buy-in requirement*.

People shouldn't get mad when they can't work the system anymore when they didn't buy in at the *recommended* minimum levels. That's all I've ever said.


----------



## KLR-wlv

WilsonFlyer said:


> Then we just agree to disagree. We have to both concede that neither of us knows, nor will we ever know, What DVC's intentions were with respect to banking and borrowing when the rule was put in place.
> 
> My belief is that is was so members could save during the rainy season and borrow during the sunny season.
> 
> I don't believe the system was ever put in place with the expressed intention of affording someone the opportunity to buy 1/3 of a year's points to bank and borrow to use exactly that number of points every 3 years. Sorry. I just don't buy it. Can it be used that way? Certainly. But when it doesn't work anymore, I think it's safe to say that wasn't what DVC designed it into the system for but that's just my opinion.




I don't think any of us can presume to know WHY DVC did this - I choose to believe it's to "inflate" the older resorts points to come in line with current resorts for sale and to discourage competition from the rental market. That's my opinion - not 50 point b&b'ers "destroying" the system. 

But of course - all we're being told is "To enhance the system for members"


----------



## KLR-wlv

WilsonFlyer said:


> The system was never designed to work for anyone that buys in at less than the minimum purchase level required by DVC (currently 160?). *That's why they have a minimum buy-in requirement*.
> 
> People shouldn't get mad when they can't work the system anymore when they didn't buy in at the *recommended* minimum levels. That's all I've ever said.



People ADD-ON after the minimum in order to have an 11 month window for reservations. This effects anyone with a less-than-week's worth of points at any added on resort. So you're saying as an owner of WL - if I wanted to add-on at BLT to make reservations there at New Year's every other year or so - adding on 145 points to do that which now doesn't work and why I cancelled my add-on - shouldn't be allowed because that B&B is hurting the system?? How?


----------



## WilsonFlyer

WolfpackFan said:


> I just love the way you keep speaking for DVC. Are you sure you're from Eastern NC (my home)? You sure don't seem very friendly.



I'm not here for friendship.

Having said that, I'm not here to be anybody's enemy either. None of this is personal with me. 

It's all about the design intentions of a business model and to me it's obvious what the intentions of the model were. If I'm wrong, then I am sincerely wrong because it's the only way the model makes sense to me.

Why do they have minimum buy-in levels? Do you think 160 is arbitrary and random?


----------



## figment795

SharonS said:


> Perhaps people should think back to when DVC first started. I believe that at the time, the minimum points to buy in was somewhere around 240?? To me, it was obvious that the original intent was that people would basically buy points for a full 1 week stay. However, in order to increase sales, as the price per point rose, they decreased the minimum number of points required to buy in.
> 
> I think that now they have too many members who bought small contracts, planning on only 5 night stays and as a result, are not having availablility for those who want to stay a full 7 nights. This probably came to light more when the changes to the booking policies were changed.


 
I total agree with your coments. I feel DVC is not happy with all these small contracts and this is their way of adjusting the house in their favor again. I do not know how many more changes will occur before we sell.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

KLR-wlv said:


> People ADD-ON after the minimum in order to have an 11 month window for reservations. This effects anyone with a less-than-week's worth of points at any added on resort. So you're saying as an owner of WL - if I wanted to add-on at BLT to make reservations there at New Year's every other year or so - adding on 145 points to do that which now doesn't work and why I cancelled my add-on - shouldn't be allowed because that B&B is hurting the system?? How?



Why "a week"? Where did that come from? Did you decide that?

Please quote me (in context, please) where I said B&B hurt the system and I'll try to clarify my intended dialog.


----------



## WolfpackFan

WilsonFlyer said:


> Why do they have minimum buy-in levels? Do you think 160 is arbitrary and random?



Sorry, I'm out of this debate. Have a nice day.


----------



## tjkraz

KLR-wlv said:


> I don't think any of us can presume to know WHY DVC did this - I choose to believe it's to "inflate" the older resorts points to come in line with current resorts for sale and to discourage competition from the rental market. That's my opinion - not 50 point b&b'ers "destroying" the system.
> 
> But of course - all we're being told is "To enhance the system for members"



No, we have also been told that the move was "to better [reflect] the changes in Members' vacationing patterns."  It has also been illustrated repeatedly that DVC is required to periodically reallocate in compliance with Florida timeshare law.  

You seem to only be hearing what you want to hear.


----------



## jdg345

toocherie said:


> Thank you--this was very helpful--it looks like the changes are all over the board.



I thought it was a pretty slick chart too.  I didn't put it together, I borrowed that from another forum and another poster.  (MO).  I don't know if I can link there though, so ...

But here's another quick link to the chart, again, not my work:

http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081


----------



## jecpva

WilsonFlyer said:


> The system was never designed to work for anyone that buys in at less than the minimum purchase level required by DVC (currently 160?). *That's why they have a minimum buy-in requirement*.
> 
> People shouldn't get mad when they can't work the system anymore when they didn't buy in at the *recommended* minimum levels. That's all I've ever said.




But what about someone who did buy in at the minimum, say 210 points, so they could afford a Grand Villa every 3 years.  This is the same thing as saving your 50 point contract for 3 years so you can afford a studio.  Just a different room choice.  Would they both be "working the system".  This is the way the points were set up and promoted by DVC and is not anything wrong.  Just because you view it this way doesn't make it so.  Regardless, now anyone who took advantage of the S-F points differential has to rethink how they will utilize their points whether they have a small contract or a large one.  We always took advantage of the S-F points, sometimes booking rooms off property for the weekends so we could stretch our vacation.  By the way, I have 210 OKW and an add on of 120 @ SSR so I'm not one of "those" people".


----------



## KLR-wlv

tjkraz said:


> No, we have also been told that the move was "to better [reflect] the changes in Members' vacationing patterns."  It has also been illustrated repeatedly that DVC is required to periodically reallocate in compliance with Florida timeshare law.
> 
> You seem to only be hearing what you want to hear.



Sorry to paraphrase - didn't realize that was ignorance on my part - I will be sure to quote from the scripture of DVC announcements from now on...


----------



## bobbiwoz

The one place that the charts are negative for us is with the Beach Cottage.  The points for weekends were so out-of-sight-high, 143, vs 53 if my memory is correct, that we never considered booking one for a weekend stay.  There will probably be more evening out, so we will be buying more VB points.  After only 1 BC stay, my DH is hooked.  We don't want to go every 3years, but at least every other year, for 3-4 nights. I was very happy with OVIR's until we stayed in a BC, too..it's not all his fault!

Bobbi


----------



## KLR-wlv

My entire reason for purchasing VB points was for a Beach Cottage every now and then - I've never had a difficult time booking any other room category at VB at 5 months out even at spring break. ANd I am not about to purchase more points now because I think there will be further adjustments since they hit their max in 2010 for the BC increases. We are staying for T-Giving this year for the first time. I kind of feel like cancelling since I don't want to get hooked...


----------



## jdg345

drusba said:


> As I look at it, BLT owners need fuel to make Disney realize it has acted improperly and faces the risk of having its change successfully challenged. These members have literally been screwed. Concealed from them when they bought is that the change was going to be made. They bought relying on the chart they saw, and now they are SOL because *Disney raised the minimum to 100 points for an add-on*. Disney not only did wrong but added insult to the injury. It is the epitome of a series of stupid management decisions that failed to consider the interests of those purchasing at BLT and it is so bad that it looks intentional. At the very least Disney should permit those members to have the option of either purchasing a 10 point or more add-on at the discounted price originally paid or to rescind the entire transaction and get their money back.



Come now, I'm sure that was just a coincidence.   

I shredded my most recent BLT add-on contracts.  I'm keeping the founding points for now and will see how it plays out.


----------



## jdg345

TSMIII said:


> This will be us.
> 
> Due to airfare costs we seek to maximize our # of days on vacation since we typically only take one "flying" vacation per year.  Thus far that has meant a minimum of 7 days and a desire to stay longer.
> 
> With weekend points now lower it will be more cost effective than it was previously for us to add days on to either the beginning or end of our 7 day stays.



Are you sure about this?  Weekday's can now be more expensive than the savings given on the Fri/Sat stay.  IOW: The week can actually be a bit more expensive now.  If you're extending by adding weekdays, then it's likely to be even more expensive than that.  It might work out depending on what resort/season you're talking about [for now], but you might want to check the charts to confirm.


----------



## hellerjw

Personally I was never comfortable with splitting my points between multiple resorts because I wanted enough at one resort to get 2 or 3 stays a year there with the 11-month booking window. If we could switch at the 7-month mark great, if not I knew I had a reservation somewhere we loved. We started with 200 at AKV and last year did two 100 pt add-ons so we now have 400 pts at one resort. This gives us the flexibility of planning multiple yearly trips without having to worry about seasons or weekend points so much. 

Having all my current points at our home resort is what makes me comfortable within the system DVC has put in place, it doesn't mean its the only way to utilize the system they deemed would govern our stays. 

I was never comfortable with the idea of buying smaller contracts just so I could stay somewhere a night or two (and have to move during a stay) or that I would have to bank/borrow just to get a stay there every three years. However, that's just my personal feeling and how I was most at ease with how we would use the system that's in place. Obviously there are many others that are perfectly fine with owning multiple resorts or smaller contracts that require banking/borrowing and that is how they want to use the system that's in place. Neither approach is wrong.

I think DVC understimated the ingenuity of owners and the "inside" knowledge that's available to owners and newbies alike via places like these boards. They probably never intended their system to be used in the creative ways it has been so they used whatever avenue they had available to try to correct the disparity. Hence, the recent drastic changes to the point charts. 

I'm sure the US never intended for its tax code to grow to thousands of pages either, but when taxpayers find clever ways to legally "use" the system, regardless of what the system's original intentions were, they have to make adjustments. That's how I see this, a simple adjustment to try to reign in use of the system that may have been headed in a direction DVC was uncomfortable with. It hurts some, it benefits others. It doesn't mean they are punishing us for using the system in ways they couldn't imagine when they orginally created it. If anything, it means DVC underestimated how quickly it would grow and the ingenuity of its members.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

KLR-wlv said:


> My entire reason for purchasing VB points was for a Beach Cottage every now and then - I've never had a difficult time booking any other room category at VB at 5 months out even at spring break. ANd I am not about to purchase more points now because I think there will be further adjustments since they hit their max in 2010 for the BC increases. We are staying for T-Giving this year for the first time. I kind of feel like cancelling since I don't want to get hooked...


As a Vero Beach owner, this is where I suffered the most. I had two seasons where my 50 pts were enough Sun-Thurs. With banking and borrowing, I could at least get 3 nights in a beach cottage and switch to an OVIR for the remaining two nights. Well, the point re-allocation shut me out of any beach cottage night, except for banking and borrowing, only to get TWO nights! My BLT add-on was to give me a chance of 5 nites in a BC at 7 mos. Soooo.....at least I was able to increase my BLT pts. enough to retain this strategy. No way am I going to purchase more VB points. Otherwise, I just lose a year banking and borrowing for an OVIR, so not too much of a deal with the OVIR's.


----------



## TSMIII

jdg345 said:


> Are you sure about this?  Weekday's can now be more expensive than the savings given on the Fri/Sat stay.  IOW: The week can actually be a bit more expensive now.  If you're extending by adding weekdays, then it's likely to be even more expensive than that.  It might work out depending on what resort/season you're talking about [for now], but you might want to check the charts to confirm.



You misundertand - we're adding additional *weekend* nights which are now cheaper than before and thus we are more likely to go for longer than 7 nights.


----------



## LIFERBABE

jdg345 said:


> I thought it was a pretty slick chart too.  I didn't put it together, I borrowed that from another forum and another poster.  (MO).  I don't know if I can link there though, so ...
> 
> But here's another quick link to the chart, again, not my work:
> 
> http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081



Great Chart!  Thank you to the OP!  Is there a way to increase the size and print?
Sure will save me some work!


----------



## DebbieB

jekjones1558 said:


> Can't banking and borrowing rules be changed?  If so, we could REALLY hear screams!



I believe there is a clause in the contract that says banking and borrowing can be suspended to keep the system in balance.


----------



## zorro77

Just got back from Thailand and saw the post about the point charts. Took a quick look at a time we are going in oct in 09 and 10. We will use 1 less point at OKW for a 1 bedroom in 10. Not sure about all the issue that are being brought up. We have a good number of points and i can not see any big issues at this time. We spend most of our 750 every year at varies time and no big concern. I think that all business are going to do whatever than can to make the profits they need to and yet stay within their limits available. I think their will be changes to many things over the next year and that is what it will take to stay profitable.


----------



## LIFERBABE

DebbieB said:


> I believe there is a clause in the contract that says banking and borrowing can be suspended to keep the system in balance.



There is a clause that allows it, you are correct.  Yes it could get real ugly, fast with all they can do.  

Always knew they had a bag of hammers, just didnt think they would break them out all at once.  That was until they took the mugs away and extended OKW.  Then I knew they were not concerned about current members, only getting new ones to replace us.


----------



## jdg345

BroganMc said:


> Before I get into the whys, I still need to establish the whats. Like I've said before my point math doesn't seem to support a balanced chart. But then I may be wrong and need to get an explanation from management about how they calculated.
> 
> I just didn't expect to see weekly rates changed, or if changed then swapped in other seasons. The Choice increase for studios has me the most flummoxed. (An increase of 8 points per week.)
> 
> But it looks like VWL owners have just as big a beef. For them it's the 1bedrooms that fluctuated wildly in Adventure and Choice. (An increase of 6 points per week.)
> 
> Most other resorts saw changes of only 1-3 points.
> 
> There is another way to look at this. Perhaps DVC has given up more of its point ownership at SSR with the new THV sales and that's where these extra points are coming from. Yet more owners competing for rooms with less developer points available for incentives. Maybe on the bright side we'll see fewer Free Dining Plan upgrades to studios and 1bedrooms.
> 
> No matter what I grumble, I still love SSR best. This just means I'll be shaving a weekday off my May stays to better afford October.



But if they increased Choice by 8, didn't they also have to decrease another season by the same?  Or multiple seasons?  

It seems like they're trying to lessen the disparity between seasons and weekends/weekdays.  What's funny is that these disparities existed to keep the resorts at occupancy.  Deter locals from staying during the weekends and get people to stay during the week to keep traffic in the parks.

Perhaps with this economy, they're trying to entice locals back in?


----------



## disneymayz

There is a lot of post here and I did not read all but my thoughts on it are.....

For them to add points they have to take some away. The total points "SHOULD" stay the same for the year. 

It will help some and it will hurt some. It is like they are balancing the point to make it fair for all.


----------



## Scott

tjkraz said:


> Right now demand is such that people are on the phone at 9am exactly 11 months out in order to (virtually) guarantee a room for early-December.  Switching resorts at 7 months is practically impossible because ALL of the resorts are often booked-up before the 7-month window arrives.
> 
> Raising the costs a few points per night is NOT going to lead to vacancies.  It means that the rooms may fill up slower, or that members will have to use a greater share of their ownership in order to visit during that period.
> 
> The purpose of the charts is to balance demand...pure and simple.  The periods which folks generally consider to be undesirable should be priced the lowest to encourage visits.  September is a prime example.  September deserves to be in the lowest season.  Schools are just returning to session...hurricane season...nasty weather.  We NEED the low points in September to encourage folks to use their points for those dates.
> 
> Early-December is the polar opposite.  You could easily argue for moving those dates all the way up to Dream season--if not Magic season.  I don't have access to DVC's reservation information but it sure seems like there is greater demand for early-December reservations than there is for the middle of the summer (June, July, August) which are in Magic season.
> 
> Raising the points would immediately impact demand so I don't think it would actually be proper to move early-December to Magic season.  But I think a 1 or 2 category increase is more than warranted.



Perhaps it makes financial sense for DVC to change the point structure during peak periods (e.g., christmas, F & W)  to make it virtually unaffordable for DVC members to use their points, or at least limit these seasons to those of us who don't like to rub elbows with the low point peasants  . Worst case scenario would be vacant villas during peak seasons which is not a worst case scenario at all for Disney. I would imagine that these vacancies will be easy and lucrative to fill via central reservations.

Also, just curious about the season designations. Are these subject to change? That is, would it be possible for DVC to create an ultra-dream season?

Scott


----------



## MiaSRN62

> believe Maria bought OKW at 150 points when that was the minimum--and it worked out that those points satisfied her family's vacations needs for Sun-Thurs. Now with the point increase that is not the case. So, she bought the recommended DVC minimum, but is now in a dilemma. So I don't think you can tie it to buying the DVC minimum. But I also think Maria got a lot of years using her membership to the max (whereas someone who also bought 150 points, but had to travel on weekends, didn't get as much usage). I understand the frustration of someone in Maria's position that they are no longer getting the usage they did before--but the person who previously went only three days, because their trip included a weekend, may now be able to go four days.



True toocherie.....
We did buy in Aug 2000 when it was just BWV or OKW (as far as WDW DVC's) at 150 min.   And yes....I was able to maximize my 150 points.  Never had to bank or borrow.  5 nights in a 2 bedroom every year.  But, I'm getting 9 years out of a 42 year contract.  So really, I haven't been able to use it all that much when you look at the life of the loan ?  And it's great someone else gets to get an extra day ----but I still say they had the advantage.  They knew they were going to be staying over weekends and mostly likely accomodated for that.  So they're possibly getting an EXTRA added bonus of another day for MANY more years than I was ever able to maximize my points.   The Sun-Thurs person feels a distinct loss or taking away of something----a devalue of their Membership.  Dh and I are SO pleased we did not do the OKW extension........WHEW !


----------



## tjkraz

jdg345 said:


> It seems like they're trying to lessen the disparity between seasons and weekends/weekdays.  What's funny is that these disparities existed to keep the resorts at occupancy.  Deter locals from staying during the weekends and get people to stay during the week to keep traffic in the parks.
> 
> Perhaps with this economy, they're trying to entice locals back in?



It's one thing to have a disparity--but quite another when that disparity is essentially a hard barrrier to entry.  Looking at the 2009 values, I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind buying DVC points for use as a weekend getaway.  Locals can do much better via AP rates and other FL resident discounts.  

Over the last dozen years people began buying DVC in greater numbers for exclusive use on the weekdays.  And the points available on the charts for those weekday stays can no longer absorb the number of points people have available.

The weekends ARE STILL higher.  But the reduction should be sufficient to encourage some existing members to change their vacation habits.  Meanwhile DVC will also attract a different demographic of buyer.  They may well be losing the deep bargain hunters as customers (since weekdays went up), but others may emerge to fill the gap.  

Was the shift in points too dramatic?  Will weekends now fill-up at the expense of weekdays?  We'll certainly find out.  I'd say the only certainty is that this won't be the last reallocation in DVC points.


----------



## Scott

WilsonFlyer said:


> The system was never designed to work for anyone that buys in at less than the minimum purchase level required by DVC (currently 160?). *That's why they have a minimum buy-in requirement*.
> 
> People shouldn't get mad when they can't work the system anymore when they didn't buy in at the *recommended* minimum levels. That's all I've ever said.



They have a minimum buy-in to increase profits...period. Why on earth would they let someone add-on 25 points if it wasn't to bank and borrow? This method is promoted extensively by DVC is sales promotions? Though I am not one of those small contract manipulators you speak of, I am offended by your tone and accusations nonetheless...well, ok, maybe offended is too strong of a word. Let's just say that I found it baseless and denigrating. \
Scott


----------



## tjkraz

Scott said:


> Perhaps it makes financial sense for DVC to change the point structure...



DVC cannot make these changes based upon what is to their financial advantage.  They are required by Florida law to base reallocations on historical booking trends.  

Given the outcry this is likely to generate, it is entirely possible that Disney will be asked to demonstrate the rationale behind the point changes.  And I have every expectation they will be able to do that.  



> Also, just curious about the season designations. Are these subject to change? That is, would it be possible for DVC to create an ultra-dream season?



Yes, the seasons can change.  

The POS even goes so far as to illustrate how seasons could be eliminated completely and a single point value charged for every night of the year.


----------



## Scott

tjkraz said:


> DVC cannot make these changes based upon what is to their financial advantage.  They are required by Florida law to base reallocations on historical booking trends.
> 
> Given the outcry this is likely to generate, it is entirely possible that Disney will be asked to demonstrate the rationale behind the point changes.  And I have every expectation they will be able to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the seasons can change.
> 
> The POS even goes so far as to illustrate how seasons could be eliminated completely and a single point value charged for every night of the year.



Thank you! I would be thrilled to see the rationale.


----------



## tjkraz

Scott said:


> They have a minimum buy-in to increase profits...period. Why on earth would they let someone add-on 25 points if it wasn't to bank and borrow? This method is promoted extensively by DVC is sales promotions? Though I am not one of those small contract manipulators you speak of, I am offended by your tone and accusations nonetheless...well, ok, maybe offended is too strong of a word. Let's just say that I found it baseless and denigrating. \
> Scott



There are a lot of baseless comments flying back and forth at this point. 

Among the reasons for low add-on thresholds:

* Growing family - need to start booking larger rooms
* Need to vacation during more expensive seasons
* Desire to extend vacation duration (say, from 5 nights to 6 nights.) 
* Increase frequency of vacations
* Stay in more expensive room class (Standard to Savanna view; Standard to BoardWalk View)

I think it's reasonable to conclude that small add-ons have contributed to the need for a reallocation.  Whether things have gong counter to how DVC intended is certainly open to debate.  

But the reality is we have (had) more people using points for weekday stays than the point charts would support.  Reallocation was the only fix.  

(Actually it wasn't the ONLY fix.  A minimum stay would have also had some impact but I think people would have liked that change even less.)


----------



## Scott

tjkraz said:


> There are a lot of baseless comments flying back and forth at this point.
> 
> Among the reasons for low add-on thresholds:
> 
> * Growing family - need to start booking larger rooms
> * Need to vacation during more expensive seasons
> * Desire to extend vacation duration (say, from 5 nights to 6 nights.)
> * Increase frequency of vacations
> * Stay in more expensive room class (Standard to Savanna view; Standard to BoardWalk View)
> 
> I think it's reasonable to conclude that small add-ons have contributed to the need for a reallocation.  Whether things have gong counter to how DVC intended is certainly open to debate.
> 
> But the reality is we have (had) more people using points for weekday stays than the point charts would support.  Reallocation was the only fix.
> 
> (Actually it wasn't the ONLY fix.  A minimum stay would have also had some impact but I think people would have liked that change even less.)



Your reasons for the low-add on apply to add-ons at your current home resort. Since they allow me to add 25 points at another resort, wouldn't that implicitly promote the B & B method?


----------



## tjkraz

Scott said:


> Thank you! I would be thrilled to see the rationale.



I doubt you or I would ever see justification for the changes.  But if there are sufficient complaints to the Florida Bureau of Timeshares, Attorney General, etc. they will investigate.  

The one thing that seems a little shady right now is the BLT reallocation since it has no booking history to use as the basis for a point chart change.  I do think Disney is making a good-faith effort on the BLT reallocation since trends are likely to mirror other resorts--but it's questionable as to whether they followed the letter of the law.  

As for the other resorts, I would be quite surprised if Disney is found to have erred in their recalculations.


----------



## DVC92

The administration of DVC should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the members. DVD and DVC are separate entities for legal reasons. Unfortunately, I believe both organizations are headed by Mr. Lewis, which creates a conflict of interest. I believe this conflict always falls on the side of DVD to increase revenue. Therefore, IMHO, the reallocation was done to promote the additional sale of add-on points and/or require new buyers to purchase more points for shorter stays. Was there an imbalance on weekends? I'm sure there was, but does that really matter to DVC? I don't believe DVC actually cares if members can't make reservations after the points are purchased. Further, weekend nights are probably easier to rent.


----------



## Chuck S

Scott said:


> Your reasons for the low-add on apply to add-ons at your current home resort. Since they allow me to add 25 points at another resort, wouldn't that implicitly promote the B & B method?



Not necessarily, as non-home points can be used in conjunction with your home use points at the 7 months window for extending the vacation.  There are other reasons to purchase non-home points.  For instance, someone may want to add points at a resort with lower maintenance fees, feeling if they _can_ find availability at their home resort at 7 months, great, if not, then they will stay at OKW.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Was the shift in points too dramatic? Will weekends now fill-up at the expense of weekdays? We'll certainly find out. I'd say the only certainty is that this won't be the last reallocation in DVC points.



This is where I wish I had that crystal ball Tim  
For us, this allocation will actually deter us even more from staying weekends because we're already in a big deficit with just weekday points and will be in a continum circle of borrowing.  So the 4-5 times I have stayed over a weekend in the past 8 years, that will as of this year become zero.  Well...I actually have VWL booked over a full weekend in May and don't want to cancel and adjust at this point.  But that's going to be the last weekend for us for sure. 

But I'm sure there are many that will take advantage of it.  Will the people like me, who totally shy away from weekends now, cancel out the amount that does decide to stay with the lower points ?  I mean, if what you said in the below quote is correct (and I'm not doubting it), then there are lots like me out there who not only definitely cannot stay over weekends now, but are having to actually drop vacation *weekdays*.  



> tjkraz :Over the last dozen years people began buying DVC in greater numbers for exclusive use on the weekdays.


Maria


----------



## Kmango

DVC92 said:


> The administration of DVC should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the members. DVD and DVC are separate entities for legal reasons. Unfortunately, I believe both organizations are headed by Mr. Lewis, which creates a conflict of interest. I believe this conflict always falls on the side of DVD to increase revenue. Therefore, IMHO, the reallocation was done to promote the additional sale of add-on points and/or require new buyers to purchase more points for shorter stays. Was there an imbalance on weekends? I'm sure there was, but does that really matter to DVC? I don't believe DVC actually cares if members can't make reservations after the points are purchased. Further, weekend nights are probably easier to rent.



As it has been said several times, Disney is clearly not doing this to sell more points, as 1) the only add-ons that would really be helpful would be at the same resort you currently own and 2) with the exception on AKV and BLT (and as of this week SSR), those resorts are currently sold out.


----------



## KLR-wlv

I too would love to see rationale - if it's all based on demand - then Vero Beach must have been one of the highest demand since the weekday points ALL went up close to 20% - every room category - every season. That has not been my booking experience with Vero...


----------



## MELSMICE

hellerjw said:


> Personally I was never comfortable with splitting my points between multiple resorts because I wanted enough at one resort to get 2 or 3 stays a year there with the 11-month booking window. If we could switch at the 7-month mark great, if not I knew I had a reservation somewhere we loved. We started with 200 at AKV and last year did two 100 pt add-ons so we now have 400 pts at one resort. This gives us the flexibility of planning multiple yearly trips without having to worry about seasons or weekend points so much.
> 
> Having all my current points at our home resort is what makes me comfortable within the system DVC has put in place, it doesn't mean its the only way to utilize the system they deemed would govern our stays.
> 
> I was never comfortable with the idea of buying smaller contracts just so I could stay somewhere a night or two (and have to move during a stay) or that I would have to bank/borrow just to get a stay there every three years. However, that's just my personal feeling and how I was most at ease with how we would use the system that's in place. Obviously there are many others that are perfectly fine with owning multiple resorts or smaller contracts that require banking/borrowing and that is how they want to use the system that's in place. Neither approach is wrong.
> 
> I think DVC understimated the ingenuity of owners and the "inside" knowledge that's available to owners and newbies alike via places like these boards. They probably never intended their system to be used in the creative ways it has been so they used whatever avenue they had available to try to correct the disparity. Hence, the recent drastic changes to the point charts.
> 
> I'm sure the US never intended for its tax code to grow to thousands of pages either, but when taxpayers find clever ways to legally "use" the system, regardless of what the system's original intentions were, they have to make adjustments. That's how I see this, a simple adjustment to try to reign in use of the system that may have been headed in a direction DVC was uncomfortable with. It hurts some, it benefits others. It doesn't mean they are punishing us for using the system in ways they couldn't imagine when they orginally created it. If anything, it means DVC underestimated how quickly it would grow and the ingenuity of its members.


Same here.  All our points are OKW.  We have done 4 add ons (I believe) & did them at OKW.  

It is much easier for us.  If we want to stay somewhere else we try for the 7-month window.  If it works, great.  If not, we'll try again another time.


----------



## Chuck S

KLR-wlv said:


> I too would love to see rationale - if it's all based on demand - then Vero Beach must have been one of the highest demand since the weekday points ALL went up close to 20% - every room category - every season. That has not been my booking experience with Vero...



All they'd need to demonstrate is that there was "higher" demand for weekdays over weekends, not that weekdays were fully booked.

In other words, they only need to show that a higher percentage of point reservations were made for a Sunday than for a Friday.  And we've certainly seen evidence of that, as many people check-out Friday and back-in on Sunday.  And many posters on this thread, apparently, are Sunday to Thursday only guests.

Again, demand and occupancy are two different things.


----------



## jdg345

tjkraz said:


> It's probably due to the 20% cap on increases.  I don't think they could have both raised the weekday rates AND moved Dec 1-14 to a higher season while staying under the 20% increase limit.
> 
> I agree that change is probably next.  Could be 2011...2 years...5 years...but demand for early-December clearly dictates that it is priced too low.



I don't know ... the reason the points are so low during this period is to get the DVC folks in to keep the parks active during this period where just about all the other resorts are ghost towns.  They may look to tweak a bit here, trying to achieve some 'point burn', but if they tweak too much, they're defeating the reason for having the season to begin with.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Chuck S said:


> Not necessarily, as non-home points can be used in conjunction with your home use points at the 7 months window for extending the vacation. There are other reasons to purchase non-home points. For instance, someone may want to add points at a resort with lower maintenance fees, feeling if they _can_ find availability at their home resort at 7 months, great, if not, then they will stay at OKW.


This is my scenario. I need more points at Vero Beach, but don't want the associated MF's. So, I bought points at BLT, that have the lowest MF's. I will book what I can with my VB points, and at 7 mos. book the rest with my BLT points. Push come to shove, I'll just do a split stay.


----------



## jdg345

KLR-wlv said:


> But if early december has been booked - due to lower points - isn't that a GOOD thing if the whole idea is to keep occupancy up year round for the good of the timeshare system? So you raise the points there - and people stop coming then. I thought they wanted occupancy high? And I would think hurricane season would be low at VB - but points went up then too. I think this has a little to do with rentals - if the weekdays start causing renters to pay closer to CRO prices that will drive that down - and the high points for new resorts. So 40 points per night for a 1 br at VGC doesn't seem so out of whack.



I think they're trying to balance it out so that they can get more 'point burn', yet still keep the resorts full during that period.  What is the most you're willing to pay to stay during that period?  That's the question they're trying to find the answer to, imo.


----------



## jdg345

Chuck S said:


> We also enjoyed early December the last few years, but there were just so many pople this year, we're going back to January, at least for a few years.



We noticed that as well ... but part of the issue, imo, is all the developers points that have been handed out.  Many had to be used within the year, and the Holidays are a time where people are on vacation anyways, and points are cheap, so ... it only made sense.

We went in January too, and found it crowded.  There are a lot of events during the month between NYD, the Marathon, and MLK.  Before you know it, it's February.


----------



## DisFlan

Wow - I just ran to Walmart to stock up for the nasty ice storm that's due to hit us ( a half to an inch+ expected) and get the fireplace insert stoked up - and now I've got a bunch more pages to catch up on.  We're definitely a loquacious group when our wind is up!  If (when) the power goes out, I'll have to tackle a book's worth of stuff when I get back online.

I hate ice storms.


DisFlan  (dragging out the big cooler, the catalytic heater and filling oil lamps - and dreaming of a nice, warm WDW, no matter HOW many points it takes)


----------



## jdg345

Chuck S said:


> I agree Disney has been selling small add-ons at non-home resorts, and I think that also is part of the problem that has led to the re-allocation.
> 
> Many factors, including lower initial buy-in requirements, low add-ons at non-home resorts, and savvy renters wanting only Sun to Thurs stays have all contributed.  The system likely could have absorbed the effects of one of two of these, but the sum total effect has necessitated the need for a re-allocation to balance demand.
> 
> *And I think we are seeing evidence of that with the changing rules, like the 100 point minimum add-ons.*  I really wouldn't be surprised to see that rule modified to allow owners at BLT add-on 25+ points, but owners at other resorts would need to buy at least 100.  I also wouldn't be surprised to see that type of rule go system wide, even at the older resorts.



100 pt add-ons can still be accomplished via multiple 25 and 50 pt contracts though ... so ... they'd have to somehow put a stop to that as well.


----------



## Chuck S

jdg345 said:


> We noticed that as well ... but part of the issue, imo, is all the developers points that have been handed out.  Many had to be used within the year, and the Holidays are a time where people are on vacation anyways, and points are cheap, so ... it only made sense.
> 
> We went in January too, and found it crowded.  There are a lot of events during the month between NYD, the Marathon, and MLK.  Before you know it, it's February.



Yes, but even full DVC resorts could not account for the number of people that seemed to be in the parks this year.


----------



## lugnut33

WilsonFlyer said:


> I'm not here for friendship.
> 
> Having said that, I'm not here to be anybody's enemy either. None of this is personal with me.
> 
> It's all about the design intentions of a business model and to me it's obvious what the intentions of the model were. If I'm wrong, then I am sincerely wrong because it's the only way the model makes sense to me.
> 
> Why do they have minimum buy-in levels? Do you think 160 is arbitrary and random?




We bought a small 120 point resale contract, what is wrong with that?  We will use it every other year to stay for a week in a one bedroom at SSR or OKW.  So really I'll have 240 points every other year.  It works great for us, we didn't have to blow a ton of extra money on points by buying through DVC direct.  Win win if you ask me.


----------



## Chuck S

jdg345 said:


> 100 pt add-ons can still be accomplished via multiple 25 and 50 pt contracts though ... so ... they'd have to somehow put a stop to that as well.




Yes, but you still have to add on 100 points all at once at BLT, whether they allow multiple contracts to reach that total or not, the buyer is still buying 100 points.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Chuck S said:


> Yes, but you still have to add on 100 points all at once at BLT, whether they allow multiple contracts to reach that total or not, the buyer is still buying 100 points.


Last I was told, nothing less than a 100 pt. contract...no multiples to equal 100.


----------



## Karamia

To condense a bit. What is the ballpark increase in the number of points per night, Sunday through Thursday? 
Thank you.


----------



## Chuck S

lugnut33 said:


> We bought a small 120 point resale contract, what is wrong with that?  We will use it every other year to stay for a week in a one bedroom at SSR or OKW.  So really I'll have 240 points every other year.  It works great for us, we didn't have to blow a ton of extra money on points by buying through DVC direct.  Win win if you ask me.



There is nothing "wrong" with that.  Except, let us say that 65% of members want to do the same thing, for the same week or season.  

For instance, say that out of 100,000 members 65,000 only have enough points to book weekdays in adventure season.  That then throws demand for those rooms out of balance with the rest of the year.

The problem isn't that you, as an individual happen to be booking that way.  The problem is the sheer number of other individuals as compared to the overall membership that are booking that way.


----------



## Sammie

I was really hoping we could keep this dicussion away from insulting each other over the haves and the have nots as to point ownership. 

For the record I have enough points to cover the change with little affect on my vacations. However I am upset that DVC has taken it upon themselves once again, to basically totally disregard treating members ethically.

They should be hiding behind closed doors today for what they have done to the BLT owners and they truly should be ashamed of the way they treated the rest of the membership that is going to very soon be booking upcoming trips.

They can justify all they want, "why" they did it and I might even agree with them, but they can never justify, "how" they did it. My concern is that this is how they do things now, with no regard to the effect on the membership.  

I personally think just once when they screw up, they need to come out from behind the curtain and quit acting like the Great and Powerful Oz and simply admit they made a mistake and do some explaining.

I think it would go a long way in improving the way members feel about the change and DVC in general.


----------



## Chuck S

BWV Dreamin said:


> Last I was told, nothing less than a 100 pt. contract...no multiples to equal 100.




That's what I thought to, but maybe the other poster heard differently.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

This thread is hard to keep up with!



BroganMc said:


> Before I get into the whys, I still need to establish the whats. Like I've said before my point math doesn't seem to support a balanced chart. But then I may be wrong and need to get an explanation from management about how they calculated.



You won't be able to tell if the whole chart is balanced just by looking at it.  Since there are a different number of days in each season, you have to calculate the total number of room days for each type of room for both weekdays and weekend for each season.  That must be multiplied by the booking points for that room for that particular day & season, the whole thing must then be summed to find the total available room points for the entire resort.  Thank goodness for Excel.



chrisd596 said:


> I guess I originally remember being told that the weekend points were higher so that the local people would have a chance to stay at these resorts.



I think this is becoming less of an issue with the large increase in DVC rooms over the last few years.  With the expansion the percentage of local owners has probably dropped enough to make this less significant.



DebbieB said:


> I believe there is a clause in the contract that says banking and borrowing can be suspended to keep the system in balance.



I remember reading this also. If too many people borrowed or banked there could be an imbalance between points that had to be used and supply.

I am somewhat surprised at the number of people who had their point usage down to the point when they purchased.  I have no idea when or for how long I will be going in the future which is what makes the point system work so well for me.


----------



## jdg345

hellerjw said:


> Personally I was never comfortable with splitting my points between multiple resorts because I wanted enough at one resort to get 2 or 3 stays a year there with the 11-month booking window. If we could switch at the 7-month mark great, if not I knew I had a reservation somewhere we loved. We started with 200 at AKV and last year did two 100 pt add-ons so we now have 400 pts at one resort. This gives us the flexibility of planning multiple yearly trips without having to worry about seasons or weekend points so much.
> 
> Having all my current points at our home resort is what makes me comfortable within the system DVC has put in place, it doesn't mean its the only way to utilize the system they deemed would govern our stays.
> 
> I was never comfortable with the idea of buying smaller contracts just so I could stay somewhere a night or two (and have to move during a stay) or that I would have to bank/borrow just to get a stay there every three years. However, that's just my personal feeling and how I was most at ease with how we would use the system that's in place. Obviously there are many others that are perfectly fine with owning multiple resorts or smaller contracts that require banking/borrowing and that is how they want to use the system that's in place. Neither approach is wrong.
> 
> I think DVC understimated the ingenuity of owners and the "inside" knowledge that's available to owners and newbies alike via places like these boards. They probably never intended their system to be used in the creative ways it has been so they used whatever avenue they had available to try to correct the disparity. Hence, the recent drastic changes to the point charts.
> 
> I'm sure the US never intended for its tax code to grow to thousands of pages either, but when taxpayers find clever ways to legally "use" the system, regardless of what the system's original intentions were, they have to make adjustments. That's how I see this, a simple adjustment to try to reign in use of the system that may have been headed in a direction DVC was uncomfortable with. It hurts some, it benefits others. It doesn't mean they are punishing us for using the system in ways they couldn't imagine when they orginally created it. If anything, it means DVC underestimated how quickly it would grow and the ingenuity of its members.




The issue is that they will continue having to tweak then, because people will continue to find the best ways to use their memberships: walking, DBD calling, manual waitlist fills, etc, etc.  Many of these changes have been made under the guise of reducing MS costs ... but MS is part of the 12%, so it's not like reducing their costs gets us anything -- and this is likely to increase volumes, just like the other changes.  imo, of course.


----------



## jdg345

LIFERBABE said:


> Great Chart!  Thank you to the OP!  Is there a way to increase the size and print?
> Sure will save me some work!



I can ask, perhaps we can get the original Excels.


----------



## bookwormde

One thing to remember is that they not only have to make this decision based on booking patterns , but it must also pass the “in the best interests of the majority of members” test

boowkormde


----------



## tjkraz

jdg345 said:


> I think they're trying to balance it out so that they can get more 'point burn', yet still keep the resorts full during that period.  What is the most you're willing to pay to stay during that period?  That's the question they're trying to find the answer to, imo.



Actually I'd say it's more of a question of what is a fair amount to charge for any given night.  DVC cannot gouge anyone in particular since there are a finite number of points.  But they have to balance the night point charges with the number of individuals willing to vacation on that night.

Perhaps we should be viewing Dream season (the middle one) as the baseline.  That's equivalent to average demand levels.  Specific dates are then priced downward to Choice or Adventure season when demand is lower.  Other dates are priced upward to Magic or Premier when neutral demand exceeds supply.  

For early December, the point charts are working counter to how they should.  A discount is offered, yet there's no need for a discount. 

There are dates (even weeknights under the current system) where rooms are sitting vacant.  At the same time people are tripping over their feet trying to book 11 months out for December.  That's why an adjustment is necessary.  

I agree with Starr's previous post that late-August should probably be shifted to Adventure season in favor of early December.  Disney has been offering the "free dining" deals starting around the 3rd week of August for quite some time now.  That suggest late-August to September has emerged as the slowest time of the year for WDW.

With the popularity of early-December growing (and not just among DVC members), it may be time to change some of these old perceptions about when Disney is and is not busy.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

White_Sox_Fan said:


> I am somewhat surprised at the number of people who had their point usage down to the point when they purchased. I have no idea when or for how long I will be going in the future which is what makes the point system work so well for me.


Well don't be surprised. Why pay more in MF's if you don't need to? Economically, purchasing smaller contracts, banking and borrowing, and having 11 home resort advantage is pretty savy. If I wanted 7 days at one resort, well I would have bought a Marriott.


----------



## jdg345

Chuck S said:


> Yes, but even full DVC resorts could not account for the number of people that seemed to be in the parks this year.



I dunno, the parks seemed a little less full this year than last in December.  January definitely felt busier though.

Funny though, hasn't Disney been complaining that attendance is down?


----------



## jdg345

BWV Dreamin said:


> Last I was told, nothing less than a 100 pt. contract...no multiples to equal 100.



When did you hear this?  I just shredded up 4x50's that I received last week.


----------



## dd08

Scott said:


> Your reasons for the low-add on apply to add-ons at your current home resort. Since they allow me to add 25 points at another resort, wouldn't that implicitly promote the B & B method?



Actually it's interesting you brought this up because if these reallocations are due to what PART (IMO it's multi-factorial) of the problem MAY be, i.e. the B&B going on with small contracts, then I think this will be a change we will see in the future:

_In order to enhance member services, DVC/DVD has decided that if you want to do an add-on at a resort that you don't currently own, you will need to purchase the same amount of minimum points that a new DVC member would for that resort.  You may still add on at 25 points and above at your home resort, with the exception of BLT where you may add-on at 100 points or more.  If you add-on to your home resort, those points will be added-on to your master contract, to let you have only one contract to manage in order to make your life more stress-free_


(BTW - not trying to criticize the B&B'ers out there, just stating a change that I think will happen in the future)


----------



## lugnut33

Chuck S said:


> There is nothing "wrong" with that.  Except, let us say that 65% of members want to do the same thing, for the same week or season.
> 
> For instance, say that out of 100,000 members 65,000 only have enough points to book weekdays in adventure season.  That then throws demand for those rooms out of balance with the rest of the year.
> 
> The problem isn't that you, as an individual happen to be booking that way.  The problem is the sheer number of other individuals as compared to the overall membership that are booking that way.



We plan on staying the whole week, with one weekend included, so something like sunday through sunday.  I never really thought I wanted to stay for 5 days only, eventhough we are doing precisely that this year so I can take my mother and in-laws, who wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise.  In that sense, the Sunday through Friday stay worked out great and I'm really glad we are getting that done in 09.  Then next trip will be in 2011 for a full week.  

I still say people don't have a big problem with points re-allocation so much as they do with how it was executed by DVC.   Of course some do have a big problem with re-allocation because it killed their value.  And for others it was a dirty move (BLT owners in particular).


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

BWV Dreamin said:


> Well don't be surprised. Why pay more in MF's if you don't need to? Economically, purchasing smaller contracts, banking and borrowing, and having 11 home resort advantage is pretty savy. If I wanted 7 days at one resort, well I would have bought a Marriott.



I'm just saying that to have it down to the point you have pretty much locked yourself into a set number of days in a certain season. Most people I know, including myself, just don't vacation that way.  I like the point system because of the flexibility I get from it to stay fewer or more days and at different times of the year.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

jdg345 said:


> When did you hear this? I just shredded up 4x50's that I received last week.


Did you purchase before Jan 15th, even though you just received the paperwork?


----------



## jdg345

Chuck S said:


> There is nothing "wrong" with that.  Except, let us say that 65% of members want to do the same thing, for the same week or season.
> 
> For instance, say that out of 100,000 members 65,000 only have enough points to book weekdays in adventure season.  That then throws demand for those rooms out of balance with the rest of the year.
> 
> The problem isn't that you, as an individual happen to be booking that way.  The problem is the sheer number of other individuals as compared to the overall membership that are booking that way.



But the idea with B&B is that things should balance out ... Person-A would take their third-year trip in a year where person's B and C were banking or had borrowed out.  The only time it would have been a problem, I'd think, was like 1999/2000 for the NYE and Holiday Celebrations.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

White_Sox_Fan said:


> I'm just saying that to have it down to the point you have pretty much locked yourself into a set number of days in a certain season. Most people I know, including myself, just don't vacation that way. I like the point system because of the flexibility I get from it to stay fewer or more days and at different times of the year.


I have that same flexibility...I can choose when I want to bank and borrow, how long I want to stay, what seasons my points will allow to bank and borrow. I could go every year for 3 days, or everyother for 5 to 6 days. With my 50 pt. VB contract, I could go every year for 2 seasons Sun-Th. If I wanted bigger accomodations, I would bank or borrow. Don't see any problem with this. I like certainty....so I know at 11 mos. every other or third year, I have home resort advantage. To some, that doesn't matter.


----------



## jdg345

Sammie said:


> I was really hoping we could keep this dicussion away from insulting each other over the haves and the have nots as to point ownership.
> 
> For the record I have enough points to cover the change with little affect on my vacations. However I am upset that DVC has taken it upon themselves once again, to basically totally disregard treating members ethically.
> 
> They should be hiding behind closed doors today for what they have done to the BLT owners and they truly should be ashamed of the way they treated the rest of the membership that is going to very soon be booking upcoming trips.
> 
> *They can justify all they want, "why" they did it and I might even agree with them, but they can never justify, "how" they did it. My concern is that this is how they do things now, with no regard to the effect on the membership.  *
> 
> I personally think just once when they screw up, they need to come out from behind the curtain and quit acting like the Great and Powerful Oz and simply admit they made a mistake and do some explaining.
> 
> I think it would go a long way in improving the way members feel about the change and DVC in general.



I agree with you wholeheartedly here.   

And this has been the trend with all their annoucements, and it's not getting better -- if anything, it's worse.  Booking Policy Based on Check In Date, Glass Removal, WL Changes, etc, etc.  There's absolutely no accountability, they just make the change, say 'Deal with it', and hide behind it being an 'enchancement' based on overwhelming member requests.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Disney has always promoted the banking and borrowing concept. I think now they have created a monster. The B&B is fundamental to their "flexibility" angle. If this were to cease, they would be greatly altering their product.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

lugnut33 said:


> We bought a small 120 point resale contract, what is wrong with that?  We will use it every other year to stay for a week in a one bedroom at SSR or OKW.  So really I'll have 240 points every other year.  It works great for us, we didn't have to blow a ton of extra money on points by buying through DVC direct.  Win win if you ask me.



And that's GREAT... but you're not complaining about how badly you got screwed either.


----------



## Chuck S

jdg345 said:


> But the idea with B&B is that things should balance out ... Person-A would take their third-year trip in a year where person's B and C were banking or had borrowed out.  The only time it would have been a problem, I'd think, was like 1999/2000 for the NYE and Holiday Celebrations.



Even if 65% of the members travel every 3rd year, that still could create an imbalance if they only book weeknights.


----------



## lugnut33

WilsonFlyer said:


> And that's GREAT... but you're not complaining about how badly you got screwed either.



No, but I was really upset by how I felt others were getting bent over, especially those who just bought BLT and AKV.


----------



## jdg345

tjkraz said:


> Actually I'd say it's more of a question of what is a fair amount to charge for any given night.  DVC cannot gouge anyone in particular since there are a finite number of points.  But they have to balance the night point charges with the number of individuals willing to vacation on that night.
> 
> Perhaps we should be viewing Dream season (the middle one) as the baseline.  That's equivalent to average demand levels.  Specific dates are then priced downward to Choice or Adventure season when demand is lower.  Other dates are priced upward to Magic or Premier when neutral demand exceeds supply.
> 
> *For early December, the point charts are working counter to how they should.  A discount is offered, yet there's no need for a discount. *
> 
> There are dates (even weeknights under the current system) where rooms are sitting vacant.  At the same time people are tripping over their feet trying to book 11 months out for December.  That's why an adjustment is necessary.
> 
> I agree with Starr's previous post that late-August should probably be shifted to Adventure season in favor of early December.  Disney has been offering the "free dining" deals starting around the 3rd week of August for quite some time now.  That suggest late-August to September has emerged as the slowest time of the year for WDW.
> 
> With the popularity of early-December growing (and not just among DVC members), it may be time to change some of these old perceptions about when Disney is and is not busy.



While I agree with you overall here, I think we have a disagreement in a 'chicken/egg' scenario.  For example, you think there is no need for a discount in this period because it sells out.  I think it sells out because there is a discount.  

How many people would vacation in that period if it was Magic Season?  Shifting August/September down could ultimately run that into being sold out at 11 months in the same way December is.

In the end, I think DVC will tweak the points upward so that they can burn through more points ... they can then tweak down some of the more expensive periods to entice folks to extend and book there.

I don't know about you, but I have an easier time booking Magic/Premier season than I do Choice/Adventure the closer we get to it.


----------



## jdg345

BWV Dreamin said:


> Did you purchase before Jan 15th, even though you just received the paperwork?



Nope, it was last Tuesday I believe.  20-something.


----------



## Starr W.

jdg345 said:


> While I agree with you overall here, I think we have a disagreement in a 'chicken/egg' scenario.  For example, you think there is no need for a discount in this period because it sells out.  I think it sells out because there is a discount.
> 
> How many people would vacation in that period if it was Magic Season?  Shifting August/September down could ultimately run that into being sold out at 11 months in the same way December is.
> 
> In the end, I think DVC will tweak the points upward so that they can burn through more points ... they can then tweak down some of the more expensive periods to entice folks to extend and book there.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I have an easier time booking Magic/Premier season than I do Choice/Adventure the closer we get to it.



I don't think that August/September is ever going to be as popular as early December for DVC members. 

School starts then, the weather is way too hot and you are in prime hurricane season. Plus you don't have Xmas decorations, only Free Dining resort folks who hog up all the ADR's(they are masters of holding more than one ADR per meal time).


----------



## WilsonFlyer

lugnut33 said:


> No, but I was really upset by how I felt others were getting bent over, especially those who just bought BLT and AKV.



Heck, I'M upset about THAT. I fall under BOTH categories for Christ's sake. 

I think I got screwed because I purchased based on a chart that will only exist for 8 months for one resort and only 4 for another. I'm sure that's the "gotcha". The '09 numbers will exist, at least to some extent, to likely justify the 2010 charts even if they don't right now.

What I'm not upset about is that I can easily manage my vacations via B&B. I just cannot see it changing my vacation habits very much at all over the long haul.

Does anybody know if the history to rationalize change under FL law is per resort declared or on DVC as an entity (manager of X resorts)? Does that make sense?

I'm still trying to wrap my arms around how they CAN even change AKV and BLT now. That's why I ask.


----------



## bobbiwoz

I truly do not think that DVC could poll ALL of it's members and act accordingly to majority rule.  I don't like the banking rules, but I am not as unhappy with the point allocation as some of you are. When it will no longer be fun for me to own DVC, I will try to sell.  

Do most of you who are unhappy think that you can have this point allocation reversed?  Is that the aim of this post? Do you think this is something the administrators will overturn the way the mugs and glasses in studio decision was?

Bobbi


----------



## jdg345

Chuck S said:


> Even if 65% of the members travel every 3rd year, that still could create an imbalance if they only book weeknights.



But if we're talking every third year, aren't we dealing with numbers in the 30-40% range?


----------



## jdg345

Starr W. said:


> I don't think that August/September is ever going to be as popular as early December for DVC members.
> 
> School starts then, the weather is way too hot and you are in prime hurricane season. Plus you don't have Xmas decorations, only Free Dining resort folks who hog up all the ADR's(they are masters of holding more than one ADR per meal time).



If it's cheap enough, it will be popular ... people will extend their stays.  They might take a trip every few Decembers to see the decorations -- but let's face it, they don't change that often.  The thing with DVC is getting the most of the membership.  The cheapest periods (point wise) are going to be the hardest to get into imo.  School may start during that period, but school is in session during December as well.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Starr W. said:


> School starts then, the weather is way too hot and you are in prime hurricane season. Plus you don't have Xmas decorations, *only Free Dining resort folks who hog up all the ADR's(they are masters of holding more than one ADR per meal time*).


Finally, some humor here!!!


----------



## MiaSRN62

> I dunno, the parks seemed a little less full this year than last in December. January definitely felt busier though.



I was there in Dec 2007 and can say we felt Dec 2008 was definitely more crowded !  A group of my friends who were there all said the same thing.  The dates both years were approx Dec 4-12.  So we have a different perception of the Dec crowds than you.  I can't speak for Jan....but I'll be there in about 10 days so curious to see how busy Feb will be with the "buy 4 get 3". 

Maria


----------



## jdg345

bobbiwoz said:


> I truly do not think that DVC could poll ALL of it's members and act accordingly to majority rule.  I don't like the banking rules, but I am not as unhappy with the point allocation as some of you are. When it will no longer be fun for me to own DVC, I will try to sell.
> 
> Do most of you who are unhappy think that you can have this point allocation reversed?  Is that the aim of this post? Do you think this is something the administrators will overturn the way the mugs and glasses in studio decision was?
> 
> Bobbi



Unfortunately, I don't think they're going to change anything.  With the changes over the last few years, the universal complaint has been communication of the changes.  While some may be for and some may be against, they can almost always agree that the way things were communicated was poor.  And what has changed?  Nothing.  Communication is still poor.  

If they can't get that part fixed -- which should be easy because their changes are still being instituted -- then I don't expect them to fix or back out of anything else.

To borrow a phrase from Dean, I think the only solution left is to 'Vote with your feet'.  And I think DVC is fine with that too, as they feel they'll just sell your points to someone else.

Part of the issue is we've been in the system for a long time, so we know what we're missing.  New owners ... they still view it as a good deal.


----------



## jdg345

MiaSRN62 said:


> I was there in Dec 2007 and can say we felt Dec 2008 was definitely more crowded !  A group of my friends who were there all said the same thing.  The dates both years were approx Dec 4-12.  So we have a different perception of the Dec crowds than you.  I can't speak for Jan....but I'll be there in about 10 days so curious to see how busy Feb will be with the "buy 4 get 3".
> 
> Maria



I've been there the last few Decembers though, pretty much during the same periods (4-15) ... though one year we did go a little later (15-23) but it was *way* busier during that period.

I dunno, maybe I just hit a lucky bubble/window this December.  :

Overall, Disney does seem to be complaining about attendance though ... so ...


----------



## BroganMc

jdg345 said:


> and hide behind it being an 'enchancement' based on overwhelming member requests.



In that case, I suggest we start a new round of "overwhelming member requests" like: vouchers for X number of Frozen Mickeys per trip, and Members get all the Mickey-shaped towel animals (CRO guests get only Donald).

How about "members request up to 5 point transfers a year up to 25 pt increments" or "no studio Choice or Adventure week over 100 pts".

Or better yet, "Due to overwhelming member requests all proposed rule changes will be submitted in writing to the membership at least 30 days before implementation for review and approval."


----------



## Starr W.

MiaSRN62 said:


> I was there in Dec 2007 and can say we felt Dec 2008 was definitely more crowded !  A group of my friends who were there all said the same thing.  The dates both years were approx Dec 4-12.  So we have a different perception of the Dec crowds than you.  I can't speak for Jan....but I'll be there in about 10 days so curious to see how busy Feb will be with the "buy 4 get 3".
> 
> Maria



I was just down for MLK weekend, checked in Thursday before. Definately less people than last year. Went to MK on 1/16, the smallest crowd I have ever encountered there.


----------



## tjkraz

jdg345 said:


> And this has been the trend with all their annoucements, and it's not getting better -- if anything, it's worse.  Booking Policy Based on Check In Date, Glass Removal, WL Changes, etc, etc.  There's absolutely no accountability, they just make the change, say 'Deal with it', and hide behind it being an 'enchancement' based on overwhelming member requests.



Seems to be two separate issues being addressed:

1.  Validity of procedural changes.  On this topic, I don't really have any quarrels.  I have yet to see ANY evidence to suggest that the booking policy was a mistake (despite the hundreds of posts also devoted to that subject.)  This reallocation is long overdue.  

The other two are moderate service issues at best.  The glassware issue was poorly-conceived and quickly rectified.  And I happen to think the waitlist limits are at least reasonable.  Others will disagree and that's fine.  

Of course, what we're missing in these complaint comments are ANY sort of mention of the positive changes DVC in recent years.  Where is acknowledgment of free internet, AP discounts, adding an extra bathroom and sleeper chair to newer resorts, the higher quality furniture and fixtures, better patio furniture, better sofabeds and mattresses, longer hours a member services, enhancements to the member website, and so on.  

Pointing to two or three negatives strikes me a sour grapes or suggests that the poster has and axe to grind.  

2.  As for the issue of communications, I agree it has been lacking at times.  But I'm not inclined to let it sour me on the entire product.  

In the notice regarding realloction, they didn't just chalk it up to an "enhancement"...they plainly said that it was driven by "the changes in Members' vacationing patterns."

Sammie says that they need to "come out from behind the curtain and quit acting like the Great and Powerful Oz and simply admit they made a mistake and do some explaining."  Isn't that EXACTLY what they did on the studio glassware issue?   

I'm all for calling-out DVC when they screw-up...and the lack of communications with BLT owners is a *prime *example.  But a little balance among some of the rants would certainly be welcome.


----------



## lisareniff

Bobbi, KLR-wlv and BWVDreamin',  
We need a VB owners and BC reservers group hug!!   Where's MG and Mahusky?

A 20% increase on our President's week Sun-Thurs Every-other year plan really stinks.  It makes sense (there's a reason why a BC was a great deal during the week)   ...but it still stinks.

We will still do the Sun-Thurs. night trips but will have to skip an extra year every 5th trip.  So after 10 years we will skip two years instead of one.  It will work.




bobbiwoz said:


> The one place that the charts are negative for us is with the Beach Cottage.  The points for weekends were so out-of-sight-high, 143, vs 53 if my memory is correct, that we never considered booking one for a weekend stay.  There will probably be more evening out, so we will be buying more VB points.  After only 1 BC stay, my DH is hooked.  We don't want to go every 3years, but at least every other year, for 3-4 nights. I was very happy with OVIR's until we stayed in a BC, too..it's not all his fault!
> 
> Bobbi





KLR-wlv said:


> My entire reason for purchasing VB points was for a Beach Cottage every now and then - I've never had a difficult time booking any other room category at VB at 5 months out even at spring break. ANd I am not about to purchase more points now because I think there will be further adjustments since they hit their max in 2010 for the BC increases. We are staying for T-Giving this year for the first time. I kind of feel like cancelling since I don't want to get hooked...





BWV Dreamin said:


> As a Vero Beach owner, this is where I suffered the most. I had two seasons where my 50 pts were enough Sun-Thurs. With banking and borrowing, I could at least get 3 nights in a beach cottage and switch to an OVIR for the remaining two nights. Well, the point re-allocation shut me out of any beach cottage night, except for banking and borrowing, only to get TWO nights! My BLT add-on was to give me a chance of 5 nites in a BC at 7 mos. Soooo.....at least I was able to increase my BLT pts. enough to retain this strategy. No way am I going to purchase more VB points. Otherwise, I just lose a year banking and borrowing for an OVIR, so not too much of a deal with the OVIR's.


----------



## tjkraz

jdg345 said:


> While I agree with you overall here, I think we have a disagreement in a 'chicken/egg' scenario.  For example, you think there is no need for a discount in this period because it sells out.  I think it sells out because there is a discount.



Then we'll have to agree to disagree.  

Demand for that period is currently so high that I don't see bumping it up one or two seasons as driving demand from the current "95% booked 10 months in advance" to the point where there are vacancies.  

September deserves to be in the lowest season because there are resorts which do not fill even after 11 months of reservations.  Demand is just too low.  

Early-December should not be in the same season.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

lisareniff said:


> Bobbi, KLR-wlv and BWVDreamin',
> We need a VB owners and BC reservers group hug!! Where's MG and Mahusky?
> 
> A 20% increase on our President's week Sun-Thurs Every-other year plan really stinks. It makes sense (there's a reason why a BC was a great deal during the week) ...but it still stinks.
> 
> We will still do the Sun-Thurs. night trips but will have to skip an extra year every 5th trip. So after 10 years we will skip two years instead of one. It will work.


Group Hug!!!


----------



## bobbiwoz

lisareniff said:


> Bobbi, KLR-wlv and BWVDreamin',
> We need a VB owners and BC reservers group hug!!   Where's MG and Mahusky?
> 
> A 20% increase on our President's week Sun-Thurs Every-other year plan really stinks.  It makes sense (there's a reason why a BC was a great deal during the week)   ...but it still stinks.
> 
> We will still do the Sun-Thurs. night trips but will have to skip an extra year every 5th trip.  So after 10 years we will skip two years instead of one.  It will work.




Yes, a VB goupies hug!!!  Definitely called for! 

Bobbi


----------



## hellerjw

tjkraz said:


> Seems to be two separate issues being addressed:
> 
> 1.  Validity of procedural changes.  On this topic, I don't really have any quarrels.  I have yet to see ANY evidence to suggest that the booking policy was a mistake (despite the hundreds of posts also devoted to that subject.)  This reallocation is long overdue.
> 
> The other two are moderate service issues at best.  The glassware issue was poorly-conceived and quickly rectified.  And I happen to think the waitlist limits are at least reasonable.  Others will disagree and that's fine.
> 
> Of course, what we're missing in these complaint comments are ANY sort of mention of the positive changes DVC in recent years.  Where is acknowledgment of free internet, AP discounts, adding an extra bathroom and sleeper chair to newer resorts, the higher quality furniture and fixtures, better patio furniture, better sofabeds and mattresses, longer hours a member services, enhancements to the member website, and so on.
> 
> Pointing to two or three negatives strikes me a sour grapes or suggests that the poster has and axe to grind.
> 
> 2.  As for the issue of communications, I agree it has been lacking at times.  But I'm not inclined to let it sour me on the entire product.
> 
> In the notice regarding realloction, they didn't just chalk it up to an "enhancement"...they plainly said that it was driven by "the changes in Members' vacationing patterns."
> 
> Sammie says that they need to "come out from behind the curtain and quit acting like the Great and Powerful Oz and simply admit they made a mistake and do some explaining."  Isn't that EXACTLY what they did on the studio glassware issue?
> 
> I'm all for calling-out DVC when they screw-up...and the lack of communications with BLT owners is a *prime *example.  But a little balance among some of the rants would certainly be welcome.



I completely agree. We have only been members for a few years now and I've felt most of the changes we have seen in this short period of time have been for the better. I do understand the problems that these point reallocations have caused for some but believe it will be best for the membership as a whole over time. I keep having to remind myself that we are the vocal minority on these DVC boards and our usage as a group doesn't necessarily  reflect the overall usage or sentiment of the membership at large.


----------



## Starr W.

tjkraz said:


> Then we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Demand for that period is currently so high that I don't see bumping it up one or two seasons as driving demand from the current "95% booked 10 months in advance" to the point where there are vacancies.
> 
> September deserves to be in the lowest season because there are resorts which do not fill even after 11 months of reservations.  Demand is just too low.
> 
> Early-December should not be in the same season.



, Now I used to do II sightings of DVC units on the TUG board(I have an RCI week, but I'm using it this year so I've been out of the DVC watching game). You would find a lot of Aug/Sept weeks being deposited in II, which tells me it's not a prime time for DVC'ers to book. Don't remember ever seeing a DVC deposit of any size for Dec1-14, but have seen a couple of studios for checkout Xmas day or the 26th.


----------



## lisareniff

Sammie said:


> .... they need to *come out from behind the curtain and quit acting like the Great and Powerful Oz *and simply admit they made a mistake and do some explaining.



   I love it!


----------



## ckmoore

I understand the allocation, but am sad because I am one of those who bought a small contract (100 pts) in order to go every other year, stay in a 2 bdrm at BCV Sun-Thurs.  Well, that is blown for me now.  Not everyone has loads of points or can even afford it.  I wish they would have given us a heads up and an opportunity to talk to a rep in order to fix the situation if it does indeed impact ourtravel needs.  

Now I'm guessing I will just stay on property one less night.  I never thought it was smart for the weekends to be so much more expensive - did they not think we would avoid staying on the expensive nights!  I'm just really, really sad because I love staying at the Beach Club, and one less night feels awful!


----------



## TSMIII

jdg345 said:


> But if we're talking every third year, aren't we dealing with numbers in the 30-40% range?



Yes, but you're still putting the increased demand on weeknights only.  
I doubt that there has been a corresponding increase in weekend demand every third year to mitigate that weeknight increase.  As such the system was out of balance and needed to be adjusted in the hope that demand flattens across all days of the week.


----------



## Chuck S

ckmoore said:


> I wish they would have given us a heads up and an opportunity to talk to a rep in order to fix the situation if it does indeed impact ourtravel needs.



You do have the opportunity to fix the situation if it impacts you, simply add points between now and your 2010 travel dates.  I'm truly not trying to be snarky, but really, how else would you expect to fix the situation?  Is there another solution?  I don't know of any. 

I agree the announcement was handled very poorly, but no matter how it was handled, the end result would likely be the same.


----------



## Carl Aird

I agree with you Chuck S ! But the problem was we were promised the points would never go up and some did
I being the savey New Yorker knew it was a lie and impossible but I was assured by my salesman and on this board that points never went up in the past and will never go up in the future
but they did


----------



## bookwormde

There are lots of ideas how DVC could have lessen the impact of this change. I have posted a few as have others.


boowkormde


----------



## Chuck S

Carl Aird said:


> I agree with you Chuck S ! But the problem was we were promised the points would never go up and some did
> I being the savey New Yorker knew it was a lie and impossible but I was assured by my salesman and on this board that points never went up in the past and will never go up in the future
> but they did




Points have gone up in the past, just not at all resorts at the same time.  OKW in 1996 had a full re-allocation.  We also used to have a lottery system for Christmas week stays.  They could return to that, also, if needed.  It was a mess, though.

You submitted your name, if you were chosen, you could reserve the dates.  If you did not reserve the dates after you were chosen. you could go back on the list for next year.  If you declined the following year, you were removed from the list.  Like I said, it was a mess, and I'm glad I didn't travel that time of year.

There was also no reference to home resort priority for the lottery, Hilton Head and Vero Beach users had the same priority in the lottery as OKW owners.


----------



## ckmoore

I understand that, and I'm considering it.  I hate whiners, but understand,  I just need a place to express my disappointment.  Our budget is tight (thus the small contract and every other year trip), so adding on isn't as easy as picking up the phone.  I was really looking forward to our 2010 trip and showing the grandparents around our new "home away from home" and now I have to change our plans or figure out a solution.  All I am saying is I'm sad and feel a bit sucker punched, because I was clueless until a couple minutes ago.  Sue me.


----------



## Chuck S

bookwormde said:


> There are lots of ideas how DVC could have lessen the impact of this change. I have posted a few as have others.
> 
> 
> boowkormde




Do you really expect DVC to allow more than one transfer per year, and re-open that opportunity to transfer points to commercial renters?  We know that isn't likely at all. 

The only thing I see them seriously considering is allowing current BLT owners to add-on smaller contracts than 100 points.  And there really is no reason to not make that exception, IMO.


----------



## bobbiwoz

Chuck S said:


> ...
> 
> The only thing I see them seriously considering is allowing current BLT owners to add-on smaller contracts than 100 points.  And there really is no reason to not make that exception, IMO.



Not a BLT owner but I do hope that this comes to pass. I've asked MS to allow that.
Bobbi


----------



## Chuck S

ckmoore said:


> I understand that, and I'm considering it.  I hate whiners, but understand,  I just need a place to express my disappointment.  Our budget is tight (thus the small contract and every other year trip), so adding on isn't as easy as picking up the phone.  I was really looking forward to our 2010 trip and showing the grandparents around our new "home away from home" and now I have to change our plans or figure out a solution.  All I am saying is I'm sad and feel a bit sucker punched, because I was clueless until a couple minutes ago.  Sue me.



I do understand your frustration, and feel it was very, very badly handled by DVC.  Unfortunately, there really aren't any solutions.  An apology from DVC on the _way_ the announcement was handled would be nice, but still we'd all be in the same boat without any real, long term solution, other than adding points, or if it is only a couple of points difference, either always borrowing from the next year, or getting a decent sized point transfer from another member that you can draw on for several years.


----------



## MrsG

I guess we were lucky that we got a good guide.  When we purchased our original contract, he told us that the points can fluctuate.  What goes down in one spot goes up in another.  He made that very clear to us.  It is unfortunate that some people were so unaware of this.


----------



## Sammie

> Isn't that EXACTLY what they did on the studio glassware issue?



I will give them that one, but they are past due for a few more explanations, heck I don't really want to them to have to back track and make an explanation, I want them to get it right in the first place. 

If they truly need to make adjustments then handle it professionally, explain the reason and do it. It will go over a whole lot better than the slip shod way they have been doing things lately. 

Other than housekeeping and maintenance issues I am satisfied with the product on the resort level, however I very disappointed lately in the way changes are presented to the membership. I might not agree with the changes all of the time and that is fine, but their delivery stinks.


----------



## Sammie

ckmoore said:


> I understand the allocation, but am sad because I am one of those who bought a small contract (100 pts) in order to go every other year, stay in a 2 bdrm at BCV Sun-Thurs.  Well, that is blown for me now.  Not everyone has loads of points or can even afford it.  I wish they would have given us a heads up and an opportunity to talk to a rep in order to fix the situation if it does indeed impact ourtravel needs.
> 
> Now I'm guessing I will just stay on property one less night.  I never thought it was smart for the weekends to be so much more expensive - did they not think we would avoid staying on the expensive nights!  I'm just really, really sad because I love staying at the Beach Club, and one less night feels awful!



Before I would give up a day, I would check availability at OKW. Rooms are so much larger and with the new slide the pool is really awesome.


----------



## puntagordabob

Chuck S said:


> The only thing I see them seriously considering is allowing current BLT owners to add-on smaller contracts than 100 points.  And there really is no reason to not make that exception, IMO.



Yes....I think that would be a good plan on their part.... In a short while (year or so) I can see a desire to add 25 more points to offset the point chart change they just made....having to add 100 points after already ownin 160 at BLT seems a bit excessive. I think the 100 point buy-in for exisiting DVC Members who are currently NON-BLT owners is acceptable however.


----------



## bookwormde

Chuck S

Somehow I do not think that “commercial renters” are going to gain much advantage from say limit of 40 points in the additional 4 transfers per year since they deal in thousands

bookwormde


----------



## Sabor

MrsG said:


> I guess we were lucky that we got a good guide.  When we purchased our original contract, he told us that the points can fluctuate.  What goes down in one spot goes up in another.  He made that very clear to us.  It is unfortunate that some people were so unaware of this.



No, you just paid attention and listened, instead of hearing what you wanted to hear.

I would wager that no guide ever told a buyer, that points for a specific room in a given season would never go up.


----------



## pyrxtc

Quoted from "tarzanman" - For the AKV point chart it is all good news. The points went down for weekly stays in all categories except Concierge level 1 Bedroom villas which had no change.

That is not true ! My week in a savannah view 2 bed went from 270 to 272 for the week. It definately screws up some of my vacation plans !


----------



## gonzalj1

Chuck S said:


> Points have gone up in the past, just not at all resorts at the same time.  OKW in 1996 had a full re-allocation.  We also used to have a lottery system for Christmas week stays.  They could return to that, also, if needed.  It was a mess, though.
> 
> You submitted your name, if you were chosen, you could reserve the dates.  If you did not reserve the dates after you were chosen. you could go back on the list for next year.  If you declined the following year, you were removed from the list.  Like I said, it was a mess, and I'm glad I didn't travel that time of year.
> 
> There was also no reference to home resort priority for the lottery, Hilton Head and Vero Beach users had the same priority in the lottery as OKW owners.



Points have not, and never will, go up. Points have been, and probably will be again, reallocated. The entire number of points to stay in the same room at the resort for the year has not changed. Nor will it. Period. End of Story. 

I understand people are upset that they're preferred vacatin times may have gone up. I get it. However, please do not spread misinformation. For every increase there was a corresponding decrease. Guaranteed.

My planned 2010 and 2011 vacations just got less expensive and I can now book another night with my exisiting points. How could I do that if points went up?

Disney was well within their rights to make this change. They gave us ample notice (a year). I agree there could have been a little more communication around it. But all in all they did what they could legally. They never broke of even bent the contract we signed.


----------



## CheapMom

Sabor said:


> I would wager that no guide ever told a buyer, that points for a specific room in a given season would never go up.


I am also surprised at the number of people who are saying that their guides were untruthful about the possibility of the points changing. Before I bought I asked my guide and I got the truth about the possibility of reallocation.


----------



## photobob

MrsG said:


> I guess we were lucky that we got a good guide.  When we purchased our original contract, he told us that the points can fluctuate.  What goes down in one spot goes up in another.  He made that very clear to us.  It is unfortunate that some people were so unaware of this.



I think it isn't that we weren't aware, I was aware. I was told by my guide that there can be slight adjustments made. I was given an example of if one category of rooms at a resort went up slightly in points, another category would go down slightly to balance out. 

Given that example I expected SLIGHT adjustments to be made now and then, I never dreamed they would make such wholesale changes. I don't consider a room costing me 25 more points next year for a five night stay to be a slight adjustment.


----------



## Chuck S

bookwormde said:


> Chuck S
> 
> Somehow I do not think that “commercial renters” are going to gain much advantage from say limit of 40 points in the additional 4 transfers per year since they deal in thousands
> 
> bookwormde



But what would be gained by increasing the number of transfers?  And, how would it be practical to say you can have ONE transfer of unlimited number of points, or 4 small transfers of points?  2009 UY transfers are just starting, and 2010 transfers haven't begun, so there is plenty of time for one larger transfer rather than 4 small transfers, I don't see this as an advantage.  And can you imagine the MS calls "You never told me I was limited on the size of each of the transfers, you told me I could do 4 per year."  I still think it opens a window that is best left closed.


----------



## CheapMom

gonzalj1 said:


> Points have not, and never will, go up. Points have been, and probably will be again, reallocated. *The entire number of points to stay in the same room at the resort for the year has not changed.* Nor will it. Period. End of Story.


I think this is not accurate- some rooms did increase in their annual allotment of points- because in some cases they took points from on room type and applied it to another, isn't that so?

It was still legal, the way they did it (assuming the charts are actually balanced) but I wanted to clarify or get clarification on that point. Some rooms did go up, I think.


----------



## Sandisw

I feel bad for those people who did not understand the point allocation system with Disney but I know in talking with my DVC guide, she explained this very specifically. What she told me was that while things could change, in most cases, the points for the resort would always stay the same.  She even went as far and said that changes were rare but could happen so to plan on some flucuation, especially around holidays and such.  I talked to her several times over the course of 6 months and she always told me the same thing--of course, I asked a ton of questions to make sure I understood.

I ended up going resale and don't have my closing documents yet, but I have heard from other people that this information is also clearly stated in those papers.  If I had been told there could not be a change and then read in the papers that there could, I would have called my guide immediately to ask for clarification.  Is it possible that people just didn't read the paperwork closely?

Of course, I am one who will benefit from the lower cost of weekends because I am a teacher and can only travel on long weekends or summer.  I live in NY and with the old point allocation it pretty much ruled out my ever going for a short weekend trip.  Now, it makes it feasible every few years.


----------



## Kmango

pyrxtc said:


> Quoted from "tarzanman" - For the AKV point chart it is all good news. The points went down for weekly stays in all categories except Concierge level 1 Bedroom villas which had no change.
> 
> That is not true ! My week in a savannah view 2 bed went from 270 to 272 for the week. It definately screws up some of my vacation plans !



We have planned around the same week, but we'll just borrow or bank 2 points each time around, and we'll be fine. You'll be too.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Sabor :No, you just paid attention and listened, instead of hearing what you wanted to hear.


That is just so unfair.  I fully believe that some people did not have this information devulged to them as clearly as it could have.  With tens of thousands of Members do u really think all transactions gave FULL disclosure of the rules ?  Heck....tons of people on this thread are even saying they highly doubt the guides even thought an allocaton of this magnitude would happen.  Because if they did, why don't they suggests "cushions" to all potential Members ?  

And besides, we were also told about point fluctuations at time of signing and that they could happen.  It was made out to be as if they would be small allocations.  I'm coming up (between OKW and AKV), *30-36 points short per year every year*.   I could adjust alot better if it were 2, 5, 7 points........but our guide knew full well what we had planned to do with our OKW points.  She knew we had an offsite timeshare and we clearly told her we would use OKW to supplement our stay in Orlando with weeknight points.....so for you to make a statement like the above Sabor....you are clearly chastising alot of us who knew about allocation but never expected such a drastic one or those that may not have received full disclosure.  Do you really think every single guide over the past decade was totally forthright with all information ?




> Given that example I expected SLIGHT adjustments to be made now and then, I never dreamed they would make such wholesale changes. I don't consider a room costing me 25 more points next year for a five night stay to be a slight adjustment.



Precisely photobob !


----------



## bookwormde

Chuck S

You open another issue; some have reported that 2009 transfers have been happening for quite a while. The correct small number of points is not always available this just maximizes the flexibility for those effected. Yes I know you can always borrow or bank extras but this bring on its own set of issues and problems and if a member has points at multiple resorts and makes multiple reservations this is important.

bookwormde


----------



## Chuck S

gonzalj1 said:


> Points have not, and never will, go up. Points have been, and probably will be again, reallocated. The entire number of points to stay in the same room at the resort for the year has not changed. Nor will it. Period. End of Story.



True, and I mis-spoke, I should have said that points for adventure season studio increased at OKW from the original point charts, just as there have been seasonal changes to room types with this re-allocation.

For instance, studios in Adventure season increased in 1996 from 7/17 or 69 per week to 8/20 or 80 per week under the current chart, but there was a weekly decrease to 9/16 or 77 per week for 2010.

Estimating maximum reallocation at OKW, as the POS lists "use days" not points at the maximum for a 230 point contract for all seasons would be:

Studio - 15 use days = about 15 points per night - 105 per week
1 Bedroom - 7 use days = about 32 points per night - 224 per wek
2 Bedroom - 5 use days = about 46 points per night - 322 per week
Grand Villa - 3 use days = about 76 points per night - 532 per week

There are some fractions, since it is a legal definition of full "use days" and not a maximum point chart.

You should be able to pull similar info for other resorts from their respective POSs.


----------



## manning

As a matter of real estate law, anything spoken means nothing. Everything must be spelled out in the contract and is enforcable.

Everything that has taken place is legal and it is the responsibility of the purchaser to read and understand everything that is in the contract.

There are only three options an owner has here.

1. complain and hope there is an outside chance  DVC will change their mind. And  it will be a very outside chance if at all. (think if at all)

2. Continue as a member

3. Sell.

And to future buyers...read and understand the contract before signing. Anyone who tells you anything verbally means nothing. It is up to you to verify anything told you is covered in the contract before signing. There are only two options. Sign the contract or walk away.


----------



## disneynutz

I just computed the new point chart difference on our typical reservations. The point requirements increased by 33 points. That doesn't seem like much but at rental rate that's $363.00.  

Multiply that, or any increase by 150,000 members and that's a big impact. 

Many will want to buy more points, which substantiates my belief that Disney's reason for the change is to increase revenue.


----------



## ashbradnmom

CheapMom said:


> I think this is not accurate- some rooms did increase in their annual allotment of points- because in some cases they took points from on room type and applied it to another, isn't that so?
> 
> It was still legal, the way they did it (assuming the charts are actually balanced) but I wanted to clarify or get clarification on that point. Some rooms did go up, I think.



I believe you are right, it should be the points for the entire resort can not increase, not a specific room. I might be wrong though but that was the way it was explained to me.


----------



## toocherie

disneynutz said:


> I just computed the new point chart difference on our typical reservations. The point requirements increased by 33 points. That doesn't seem like much but at rental rate that's $363.00.
> 
> Multiply that, or any increase by 150,000 members and that's a big impact.
> 
> Many will want to buy more points, which substantiates my belief that Disney's reason for the change is to increase revenue.



But that reasoning doesn't take into account that for someone else the number of points required has gone down . . . . .


----------



## disneynutz

toocherie said:


> But that reasoning doesn't take into account that for someone else the number of points required has gone down . . . . .



Not for someone else, for other weekday/weekend patterns other than mine.


----------



## dd08

disneynutz said:


> I just computed the new point chart difference on our typical reservations. The point requirements increased by 33 points. That doesn't seem like much but at rental rate that's $363.00.
> 
> *Multiply that, or any increase by 150,000 members and that's a big impact. *
> 
> Many will want to buy more points, which substantiates my belief that Disney's reason for the change is to increase revenue.



What makes this off is that not all members required points to vacation will go up.

For example our 2010 trip is now going to be ~7 points less than what it would have been via the old charts,  I've seen other posts from members here who will have a smaller increase than 33 points and some who are like us and will have a decrease.....

The people hit hardest, as stated numerous times before, are the Sun-Thurs travelers.


----------



## Dean

dis-happy said:


> What do you think about the reallocation in conjuction with the new waitlist?  One person has already been told no w/l if there is an existing reservation.  Not sure if that is true information or not (MS has been known to give out incorrect information before).  But if that is the case, there is going to be one heck of a game of chicken at the 7 month window for those wishing to stay someplace besides their home resort.
> 
> Say even half of the previous Sun-Thurs. people continue their travel pattern (it will still maximize point usage), those same stays are using up more points, and at some point extra nights will be opening up as a result.  Combined with the new restrictions on the W/L and I think the end result is more rooms open for booking after 7 months.  I still wonder if an intended consequence of these two new combined "member enhancements" is to aid the sales team, that the incentives which include developer points are going to go way up and that there needs to be a way to use them (nothing says "Welcome Home" like no room at the inn you've just been promised).
> 
> Just trying to see why it behooves DVC to make these two changes at the same time and it seems there should be a logicistical connection.


I think we need more info as to how this will be implemented.  I see no conspiracy theory looking at the two issues, I doubt they are related in any way.  



jdg345 said:


> To borrow a phrase from Dean, I think the only solution left is to 'Vote with your feet'.  And I think DVC is fine with that too, as they feel they'll just sell your points to someone else.


Brings up some very interesting visuals doesn't it.  Seriously, I hate the approach that if you don't like everything about DVC, sell.  There was a very obnoxious DVC members on the OLD prodigy list who would blast you with that if you even questioned anything about DVC.  However, this change may be negative enough that DVC no longer makes sense for them.  It would be hard for me to envisions a situation where simply this change alone would cause that to be a valid approach but it could be the item that pushed some over the top.

I'm going to repeat a concept I said a couple of times on the long thread about the 7 day reservation change a few months ago.  The same is true on this thread as on that one.  You have a group of people who drank the koolade and wore the rose colored glasses that now have the jilted lover complex.  They feel they've been betrayed and can no longer trust DVC.  As the old timers know, I've not given DVC a pass on many things but I've never questioned their honesty and integrity as a company or timeshare that I recall and certainly not intentionally.  I may have questioned the approach of certain individuals along the way including employees.  IMO all these changes in the last year or two are reasonable though not necessarily preferable.  The lapses in judgement (this timing, AKV unit assignment issues) are forgivable on a limited basis as long as corrective action is taken.  However, the bottom line is that if you no longer feel you can trust DVC, it is time to get out and move on.  It's one thing to disagree with the decisions but the element of character and trust is a much more important and fundamental issue, IMO.


----------



## Dean

ashbradnmom said:


> I believe you are right, it should be the points for the entire resort can not increase, not a specific room. I might be wrong though but that was the way it was explained to me.


Technically the requirement is a "unit" which is a collection of rooms.  The ONLY single room units I'm aware of are GV at VB and AKV, not sure about BLT.


----------



## Maelstrom_

I'm a Sun-Thur traveler...so I'm not liking this change.  Yes, I know what the contract says...I just wish they didn't make this change.  Oh well, just gotta move on.  I think I now have to go a full week to get the max value out of my points.  So I will just go less often, and stay a couple of days longer when I do go.  I guess I'll save on airfare anyway...


----------



## bobbiwoz

Did the large discrepancy between weekend days and weekdays originate with the OKW point chart changes or were weekend points always nearly double weekday points?  

Bobbi


----------



## Chuck S

bobbiwoz said:


> Did the large discrepancy between weekend days and weekdays originate with the OKW point chart changes or were weekend points always nearly double weekday points?
> 
> Bobbi




In the original, pre-1996, OKW charts the weekend points were much than double the weekdays.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

Dean said:


> . . .  However, the bottom line is that if you no longer feel you can trust DVC, it is time to get out and move on.  It's one thing to disagree with the decisions but the element of character and trust is a much more important and fundamental issue, IMO.



I think the real test on selling your DVC after these changes is two fold: first, with these changes, is DVC still the best way for your family to vacation at WDW?  If not and you don't think that will change in the near future, you should sell.

Second, even if DVC still works for you, if you no longer trust DVC to do the right thing and you have a real concern that this will mean you cannot sell you points in the future at a reasonable price, then you should evaluate whether you will be adequately compensated in "vacation value" for the risk on selling later.  By that, I mean that if DVC still works for you and it costs you $1000 less than any other acceptable vacation alternative, then you may want to sell if you think the value of your points will go down by $2000 a year and not sell if the value of your points will only go down by $500 a year.

This analysis only applies for someone who already owns at DVC.  For a perspective buyer, I think the trust issue is more important and may trump the quesiton of whether owning at DVC is the best way for your family to vacation at WDW.

-- Suzanne


----------



## Muushka

We bought at VWL with the intention of always going at a certain time each year.  Not only have the points gone up for the 1 BR, the season went up also.  Great.  We will now have to pay an additional 40 points for our vacation habits.  And no way will we give DVC another dime for more points.

Cutting off my nose to spite my face?  Probably.  

Ticked?  Yes, definitely.

Recommend DVC to others?  No way.


----------



## jekjones1558

Muushka,
Way OT but LOVE, LOVE, LOVE your new signature!


----------



## tjkraz

Sammie said:


> I will give them that one, but they are past due for a few more explanations, heck I don't really want to them to have to back track and make an explanation, I want them to get it right in the first place.
> 
> If they truly need to make adjustments then handle it professionally, explain the reason and do it. It will go over a whole lot better than the slip shod way they have been doing things lately.
> 
> Other than housekeeping and maintenance issues I am satisfied with the product on the resort level, however I very disappointed lately in the way changes are presented to the membership. I might not agree with the changes all of the time and that is fine, but their delivery stinks.



Sorry if it seems like I'm riding you Sammie 'ole boy, but...well....maybe I am.  

So what changes have occurred where communications were lacking?  This 2010 reallocation was certainly lacking.  The studio glass issue was a big FUBAR but DVC did admit fault on that one.  What else?

I know some folks were openly cynical about the "due to member demand" comments regarding the booking windows...but look what happened.  It actually *worked *and people really DO seem satisfied with the change!

I don't recall any big blips with the RCI change.  Some were disappointed but if we're just looking at the manner in which things are presented, I don't recall any noteworthy issues.  

Most announcements seem pretty routine:  free Internet, expanded MS hours, booking windows for new resorts, new member discounts, booking categories at OKW, etc.  We probably get a half-dozen new notices on the member website each month.

The policy changes that were made about 18 months ago (banking changes, $95 fee) were handled quite well with a full write-up in the member mag.  

The roll-out of BLT sales was handled VERY well, IMO.  

I still think there have been far more "hits" than "misses" if we want to keep score.  

I think we also need to acknowledge that people's concept of "communications" has changed a lot over the last decade.  Back in 1999 the website was never used for news releases (if it even existed.)  Ten years ago, DVC's only avenue for "communicating" with members was a quarterly issue of Vacation Magic.  

Fast-forward to 2009.  Now if we aren't given answers to every intricate procedural question in the initial policy announcement, the immediate outcry is "communications are SORELY lacking!"


----------



## Karamia

My vacation is usually Sunday through Thursday at a villa and the weekends at a Value with free dining. I will still do that, and spend maybe one less day at DVC. To bring the whole family we need two rooms, so these increases are quite upsetting and I still won't stay at a villa on the weekends. I am going to watch the market now and consider selling.


----------



## Inkmahm

tjkraz said:


> Then we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Demand for that period is currently so high that I don't see bumping it up one or two seasons as driving demand from the current "95% booked 10 months in advance" to the point where there are vacancies.
> 
> September deserves to be in the lowest season because there are resorts which do not fill even after 11 months of reservations.  Demand is just too low.
> 
> Early-December should not be in the same season.



I have to agree with you. I can't travel in September due to my work schedule but  I wouldn't travel then anyway, it is just too HOT in Florida for me at that time of year.  I do travel in early December because I love the decorations and MVMCP.  I would agree, even though it would hurt me, that December should be higher points than September.  I'd still travel then.


----------



## Muushka

jekjones1558 said:


> Muushka,
> Way OT but LOVE, LOVE, LOVE your new signature!



Yeah, I thought it was pretty funny, and stole it! 

Yours for the taking!


----------



## ashbradnmom

Dean said:


> Technically the requirement is a "unit" which is a collection of rooms.  The ONLY single room units I'm aware of are GV at VB and AKV, not sure about BLT.



I agree with that Dean the way the OP put it was that a specific room could not increase in point over the year. The way that i took his comment was, for instance that this studio at ssr has to have the same point allocation as it did last year.


----------



## Sammie

TJ, I really do not want to get into a back and forth between just us, as we obviously disagree. I have already voiced my complaint to DVC.



> Most announcements seem pretty routine: free Internet, expanded MS hours, booking windows for new resorts, new member discounts, booking categories at OKW, etc. We probably get a half-dozen new notices on the member website each month.



See to me the things they do that they know will be well recieved by the membership they do a good job of letting us know about it.

They definitely do a good job about anything that involves spending money with them.

But things that might not be well received by the membership, the $95 fee change, the banking changes, the removal of glassware, the lowering of water temps in pools, and this one, and I am sure there are others, that have slipped my tired mind, they seem to try to just slide it past us and hope we don't notice and put out that disclaimer of "due to member feedback". 

I would suggest anyone that is unhappy with the change for whatever reason, be it the actual change or the manner in which it was presented, contact them. 

I know they are reading here, but they really need to hear from us personally.

The one thing that I don't understand in this thread is that it does not bother me that some are glad about the change or don't even care one way or the other, but it does seem it bothers some that others are not happy with the change.


----------



## jekjones1558

> Yeah, I thought it was pretty funny, and stole it!
> Yours for the taking!



Thanks!  I added it to my home e-mail signature!     Now I have to make up an excuse to send out a group e-mail!


----------



## Dean

ashbradnmom said:


> I agree with that Dean the way the OP put it was that a specific room could not increase in point over the year. The way that i took his comment was, for instance that this studio at ssr has to have the same point allocation as it did last year.


The truth is we have no way of knowing how they've done this correctly for each unit or if the technicalities balance out.  And it really doesn't matter from a practical point as long as it balances as a resort unless you're trying to look for a place to put one's ax.  But the gyrations trying to pin it to each unit size and each season is somewhat amusing.


----------



## La2kw

LIFERBABE said:


> There is a clause that allows it, you are correct.  Yes it could get real ugly, fast with all they can do.
> 
> Always knew they had a bag of hammers, just didnt think they would break them out all at once.  That was until they took the mugs away and extended OKW.  Then I knew they were not concerned about current members, only getting new ones to replace us.



Well said.  This makes the mug issue seem downright silly- even though I was livid about that at the time.  DVC seems to be all about finding new ways to screw with its members lately.


----------



## LIFERBABE

DVC has miscommunicated plenty.

Remember they lowered pool temps in the winter months and then tried to cite some non existent Red Cross requirement?  Many of us wrote in and were flat out lied to before they changed their mind.

As recent as booting members from AKV Concierge and offering SSR and a gift basket.  I told them to call me back when they came to their senses and to their credit, they did.  That was "communicated" less than a week to check in.

The OKW extension.  They sold 2042 contracts to the announcement and then turned around and charged those people $15 ppt to extend or sign more paper work to opt out.  Threatened us with leins and then said they didnt when it was clearly spelled out in the paperwork.


All their announcements have been nothing short of raggedy, but some like to take the "alls well that ends well" view.  DVC costs too much money to be such a raggedy, disorganized, disrespectful organization it has evolved to.  I can be disrespected for free!

I would sell, but 1, Im borrowed out and 2, the resale market has enough contracts.  So im 21 contracts and holding.  The good news is, my massive investment affords me to roll with whatever they throw our way.  

I'm sorry for all the families this negatively affects and not everyone thinks you should have a third eye and deep pockets to enjoy what you purchased and depended on.   

We should all buy stock in Vaseline


----------



## Muushka

I read about 20 pages ago that there might be a mistake in the 2010 points chart.  Has this been resolved?

If not, who exactly is everyone complaining to?  Their guide?  Member services?  Thanks


----------



## PMDR59

Sabor said:


> No, you just paid attention and listened, instead of hearing what you wanted to hear.
> 
> I would wager that no guide ever told a buyer, that points for a specific room in a given season would never go up.



Couldnt have said that better myself.  We fall in to both of those catergories. Luckily, my husband and I always balance each other out. ---

I was agreeing with alot of people since I remember our guide telling us that points for a week dont change  yada yada yada........I did recall the changes if some dates fell into a different season

As I was discussing this thread with my husband.....he said our guide fully explained the possibilty of allocation to us (guess I wasnt paying attention at that point, the decision was already made to purchase, and we were on the Magic at the time, so I was probably wanting to go back to the Quiet Cove) 


The point change affects is in no way that I can see.....we purchased enough to do what we wanted (our "normal" vacation pattern and accomodations) and knew we dont ALWAYS go the SAME time and knew that some years we would either bank (dont need to do Disney every year, no matter how much we love them) or borrow, or both to share with family and friends. 

Also regarding the early December booking problems people keep posting about, I had no problem--we are going the end of this year from 11/28 to 12/5.......I booked this on  1/15.   Since we are new to DVC and have been reading alot about changes in the booking to the check in-date + 7, frankly if it had been any other way I would have been annoyed. ANYTHING I have ever booked, hotel, timeshare, or cruise is by check in to departure. So this was just something I expected, it wasnt until I came on the Dis that I found out this was "new".   Since the Dec trip is still a maybe it was not my priority (otherwide I guess I would have been on with MS on 12/28)  I called on 1/15 to book 8/15 at SSR with out developer points.  Again I had no problem making that reservation.


----------



## ashbradnmom

Dean said:


> The truth is we have no way of knowing how they've done this correctly for each unit or if the technicalities balance out.  And it really doesn't matter from a practical point as long as it balances as a resort unless you're trying to look for a place to put one's ax.  But the gyrations trying to pin it to each unit size and each season is somewhat amusing.



Yes, and by reading all of the post that is what some people want to do. Not alot of them but some.


----------



## LIFERBABE

Sammie said:


> TJ, I really do not want to get into a back and forth between just us, as we obviously disagree. I have already voiced my complaint to DVC.
> 
> 
> 
> See to me the things they do that they know will be well recieved by the membership they do a good job of letting us know about it.
> 
> They definitely do a good job about anything that involves spending money with them.
> 
> But things that might not be well received by the membership, the $95 fee change, the banking changes, the removal of glassware, the lowering of water temps in pools, and this one, and I am sure there are others, that have slipped my tired mind, they seem to try to just slide it past us and hope we don't notice and put out that disclaimer of "due to member feedback".
> 
> I would suggest anyone that is unhappy with the change for whatever reason, be it the actual change or the manner in which it was presented, contact them.
> 
> I know they are reading here, but they really need to hear from us personally.
> 
> The one thing that I don't understand in this thread is that it does not bother me that some are glad about the change or don't even care one way or the other, but it does seem it bothers some that others are not happy with the change.



I agree Sammie.  I would never presume to tell someone they should not be upset that their dream is now out of reach.  For many DVC was a dream, something they waited for, saved for and even begged their DH for 

I try to put people first and it has served me well.  People have a valid right to be upset if they are, and it is insulting to tell them otherwise.  Im glad for those it helps (me included) but I also realize that many of my fellow members did not fare so well and were unfairly treated, or downright ripped off with BLT.


----------



## MELSMICE

I never understood why DVC didn't just give point values to specific "seasons" (ie. value, dream, etc.) per week & then just divide them by 7, meaning each night would be worth the same amount of points. 

Scenario:  2BR at OKW during Dream Season = 210 points or 30 points per day.  

That would be too easy though.


----------



## kimberh

Well, it has taken 3 days but I have read this entire Thread! We travel both ways, Sun-Thur in a Studio and Thur-Mon in a 2 bedroom villa. The weekend points just kill me. I usually have to except a major transfer for my Home Resort for this trip... for me to take my Married Children, I had to do this. In this instance (2 bedroom) I am glad some relief has come. For the studio trips, I have to say that I am shocked at how much the points have went up. They are now more in line with BLT (which I had no interest in because they were high to me.) 

I am disappointed with the Lack of Communication. If we ran our business this way, we would be Bankrupt! DVC really needs to work on this skill or they really just do not care how it affects us. I am really starting to wonder about this. 

For those that have pointed out all the Guide has said, I bought 3 resale contracts, then 2 contracts over the phone through Disney. I have never met my Guide. I signed all my paperwork, one sheet after the other, then boxed it up and FedExed it right back. My guide never said anything to me, but excepted my CC infor. My information has come off of this Board. 

I will say that I am through buying. I have just seen too many changes in the few years that I have owned. I didn't drink the koolaid, We are business minded, I think the best should be done, but I think DVC management is doing what is best for them. They really don't care if we use our points or not. We have bought and paid for those points. 

50,000 jobs were lost today from Major companies. The economy is in a downward turn, money is tight. I don't think this was a good move for this time frame in our economy right now. Disney's stock is right at $20.00... the yearly high was $35.00. I think the last thing DVC management needs to do is make it where DVC owners are having a harder time using their points to make their vacations. JMHO. 

I get that they have the right, It's just where is the fact that we should matter, we are in a horrible economy, tickets, meals, etc...


----------



## Dean

MELSMICE said:


> I never understood why DVC didn't just give point values to specific "seasons" (ie. value, dream, etc.) per week & then just divide them by 7, meaning each night would be worth the same amount of points.
> 
> Scenario:  2BR at OKW during Dream Season = 210 points or 30 points per day.
> 
> That would be too easy though.


Without a priority for booking a full week, the weekends would get taken and the weekdays left fairly empty.  EVERY points system I know of that allows shorter bookings has a higher total for weekends vs weekdays, some more than others.


----------



## disneynutz

tjkraz said:


> I know some folks were openly cynical about the "due to member demand" comments regarding the booking windows...but look what happened.  It actually *worked *and people really DO seem satisfied with the change!



Are they really satisfied or are they doing what all us DISers should do? Accept what DVC dishes out and move on because we have no other choice.  

I guess we could sell, but in todays market, who wants to take the loss.


----------



## Chuck S

Someone inquired earlier about the original 1991 OKW point chart.  I scanned it, but it was over a Mb, and I didn't want people on slower connection to have to wait to load it, so I did a spreadsheet.  Look at the weekday to weekend differences.


----------



## BeccaG

WilsonFlyer said:


> We have to both concede that neither of us knows, nor will we ever know, What DVC's intentions were with respect to banking and borrowing when the rule was put in place.
> 
> My belief is that is was so members could save during the rainy season and borrow during the sunny season.
> 
> I don't believe the system was ever put in place with the expressed intention of affording someone the opportunity to buy 1/3 of a year's points to bank and borrow to use exactly that number of points every 3 years. Sorry. I just don't buy it. Can it be used that way? Certainly. But when it doesn't work anymore, I think it's safe to say that wasn't what DVC designed it into the system for but that's just my opinion.




Underline is mine. . Why I see what your point is, I think the fact that they  used the banking and borrowing thing as a sales pitch, a pitch I have heard repeated on this board as a suggestion numerous times, would indicate that it was at some point part of their plan/intention.  Just like it was part of some guide's sales pitches to dance around the whole "your points will never change" bit.  I am guessing the banking and borrowing was probably part of the plan to make DVC, "not the typical timeshare" but the bottom line is we will never know.


----------



## BeccaG

LIFERBABE said:


> I agree Sammie.  I would never presume to tell someone they should not be upset that their dream is now out of reach.  For many DVC was a dream, something they waited for, saved for and even begged their DH for
> 
> I try to put people first and it has served me well.  People have a valid right to be upset if they are, and it is insulting to tell them otherwise.  Im glad for those it helps (me included) but I also realize that many of my fellow members did not fare so well and were unfairly treated, or downright ripped off with BLT.



I second and third!


----------



## jecpva

Muushka said:


> I read about 20 pages ago that there might be a mistake in the 2010 points chart.  Has this been resolved?
> 
> If not, who exactly is everyone complaining to?  Their guide?  Member services?  Thanks




DVC has a Satisfaction Team, you can send them an Email.  The address is:  DVCMEMBERSATISFACTIONTEAM@DISNEYVACATIONCLUB.COM
Not that they will do anything, but the more formal complaints/comments they get, the more that they will realize there is a problem with part of the group that "bought a piece of the magic".


----------



## ashbradnmom

Chuck S said:


> Someone inquired earlier about the original 1991 OKW point chart.  I scanned it, but it was over a Mb, and I didn't want people on slower connection to have to wait to load it, so I did a spreadsheet.  Look at the weekday to weekend differences.



Good post in most cases it was 2.5 x the weekday rate so it there was no reason not to change it. If i bought in then i too would not go on weekends.

But i am pretty sure if i did buy in then i to would be complaining when they changed the charts in 96 the same way they are complaining now. I do remember one post saying that the disboards did not even exist then. i wolud imagine that if it did it would be just as busy if not more.

So i totally understand that some people are upset and they have every right to be, especially BLT owners.


----------



## Chuck S

ashbradnmom said:


> Good post in most cases it was 2.5 x the weekday rate so it there was no reason not to change it. If i bought in then i too would not go on weekends.
> 
> But i am pretty sure if i did buy in then i to would be complaining when they changed the charts in 96 the same way they are complaining now. I do remember one post saying that the disboards did not even exist then. i wolud imagine that if it did it would be just as busy if not more.
> 
> So i totally understand that some people are upset and they have every right to be, especially BLT owners.




Maybe, maybe not.  Minimum buy-in was 230 points, so most of us had a buffer. And we early purchasers got free park admission for 1/2 the capacity of the room (2 passes Studio/1 bedroom,  4 in a 2 bedroom and 6 in a GV) until the year 2000...we didn't have a lot to complain about. 

I think the biggest mistake DVC made was dropping the minimum buy in to 150, and encouraging people to buy "just enough" pints for their travel habits.  Our guide in '92 explained that the charts could change, and suggest we purchase more points in case that happened. And we did do 3 add-ons at OKW during the first few years.


----------



## tjkraz

Sammie said:


> TJ, I really do not want to get into a back and forth between just us, as we obviously disagree. I have already voiced my complaint to DVC.



You're right--it's probably not worth discussing further.

I will admit that others brought up a few things that I had forgotten.  DVC communications certainly are not the best.  I'm pretty certain that I beat you to the punch in sending off some negative feedback regarding the manner in which this latest announcement occurred.  

Still I do think some posters are wildly unfair when they paint DVC management in broad strokes.  A couple of days ago you held current management responsible for changes that occurred 10-12 years ago!  (stackable washer/dryers, rooms smaller than OKW, plain bathtowels, etc.)  Even you have to admit that's a bit extreme.  And setting aside the issue of communications, I hope we can agree that current management has done a LOT of very good things for members in recent years.  

My sense is that there is actually a rather small number of regulars here who really have a bone to pick with management, but it's also a vocal contingent.  And in many cases, the anger seems to be more personal than really based on specific facts or policy changes--almost of the "Jim Lewis ran over my dog" vein.   

I picked on you because I was trying to see what sort of facts lie behind your own ire.  And I do to a certain extent.  

I'll concede that DVC communications (probably Disney as a whole) are not the greatest.  Although I'm still unclear as to how it has deteriorated from the days when members got their news every 3 months from Vacation Magic.  *That *model certainly wouldn't fly in 2009.  



> The one thing that I don't understand in this thread is that it does not bother me that some are glad about the change or don't even care one way or the other, but it does seem it bothers some that others are not happy with the change.



I can only speak for myself but I don't see posters frequently attacking each-others feelings.    Personally I've approached this thread from a very analytical standpoint--trying to relay my understanding of the basis for the changes.  I don't see anyone saying "you are wrong to be upset about this--you should be happy!"  People's emotions will obviously come into play, but that shouldn't prevent us from having intellectual discussions about the nature of the changes.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> tjkraz : I can only speak for myself but I don't see posters frequently attacking each-others feelings.
> I don't see anyone saying "you are wrong to be upset about this--you should be happy!"



Unfortunately Tim...I've not only seen this frequently (and I have read this entire thread), but in fact, I've been the brunt of some of it (you not included in this comment).  

I've gotten several PM's over the past couple days of people saying they notice it and feel some are quite snarky in their replies.   I've heard from some DIS'ers that they are reading this thread and honestly, shying away from posting because of the rudeness or snideness of some posting here.  So it's definitely noticeable to me and others (some who just won't bother posting because of it).    

Honestly, in general, it's those that aren't being too affected by this whole thing whether it's because they have enough points or they have alot more flexibility than some,  that just don't get or want to understand why *some* of us are running high on emotions.   I've actually seen from a couple posters here over the past few day, a touch of "nah, nah na na nah" attitude towards those of us taking a blow.  

And I've seen some posters pretty much chastise some of us for our emotional vents.  Actually insinuating that we're dense or something for not reading the fine print---or not paying attention.   I can assure u, the majority of us I am sure did.     We're entitled to this for pete's sake....this is all brand new and hitting us square in the face.   For some, it's affecting the way we have been able to vacation for almost a decade.   I think alot of us deserve a few hours, days, weeks whatever to digest all of this.  

So respectfully Tim....I guess I'm seeing and experiencing things a tad differently than you.


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> So respectfully Tim....I guess I'm seeing and experiencing things a tad differently than you.



Fair enough.  I must be skimming those comments then.  

Just wasn't sure where Sammie was coming from by including those comments in a reply largely directed at me.


----------



## javamom

Because I am a glutton for punishment, I thought that I would throw the 2010 pts charts for Boardwalk into an Excel spreadsheet.  It has made me a bit cross-eyed trying to key the pts values in, so I make no guarantees that I didn't flub in somewhere.

Anyway, if you want to use it too, you may.  You could always key over mine for your resort, and just use the shell of the sheet.

Or you can just ignore this post, as the ravings of a spreadsheet geek that needs to go to sleep instead.
 
here is the link

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pp4vFYjVAPv7JYICzpxFBRQ


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

Muushka said:


> I read about 20 pages ago that there might be a mistake in the 2010 points chart.  Has this been resolved?
> 
> If not, who exactly is everyone complaining to?  Their guide?  Member services?  Thanks



Somehow I missed that Muushka.   

What is the possible mistake?  Please tell me it's VWL 1 Bedrooms!


----------



## DVC Mike

tjkraz said:


> DVC communications certainly are not the best.


 
I think pretty much everyone can agree with this.



tjkraz said:


> Still I do think some posters are wildly unfair when they paint DVC management in broad strokes. A couple of days ago you held current management responsible for changes that occurred 10-12 years ago! (stackable washer/dryers, rooms smaller than OKW, plain bathtowels, etc.) Even you have to admit that's a bit extreme. And setting aside the issue of communications, I hope we can agree that current management has done a LOT of very good things for members in recent years.


 
I feel that there have been more positive changes than negative ones, but others feel differently. I think there's probably a bit more emotion coming from those upset with the points reallocation -- but understandably so.



tjkraz said:


> My sense is that there is actually a rather small number of regulars here who really have a bone to pick with management, but it's also a vocal contingent. And in many cases, the anger seems to be more personal than really based on specific facts or policy changes--almost of the "Jim Lewis ran over my dog" vein.


 
Well, there is a certain amount of sarcasm about "enhancements" from DVC. A few people do seem outright hostile to Jim Lewis. When I read posts like that, it's fairly obvious what is behind the post; however, it makes it difficult to have a logical conversation on a topic when there is so much negative emotion running through it and behind it. That said, there have been thoughtful, reasonable posts from people on both sides of this issue. I just wish all posts were that way!


----------



## DVC Mike

MiaSRN62 said:


> Honestly, in general, it's those that aren't being too affected by this whole thing whether it's because they have enough points or they have alot more flexibility than some, that just don't get or want to understand why *some* of us are running high on emotions. I've actually seen from a couple posters here over the past few day, a touch of "nah, nah na na nah" attitude towards those of us taking a blow.
> 
> And I've seen some posters pretty much chastise some of us for our emotional vents. Actually insinuating that we're dense or something for not reading the fine print---or not paying attention. I can assure u, the majority of us I am sure did. We're entitled to this for pete's sake....this is all brand new and hitting us square in the face. For some, it's affecting the way we have been able to vacation for almost a decade. I think alot of us deserve a few hours, days, weeks whatever to digest all of this.


 
Yes, I can see how some of the posts that state the points reallocation is perfectly reasonable have come across as having no compassion or care for those that are negatively impacted by the change (i.e., those that typically stay Sun-Thu). I've seen some pretty upset people talking about class action lawsuits, selling their membership, etc. I think that emotion will die down, either to a slow burn or perhaps acceptance. People that are negatively impacted are venting their anger at the change. I accept that.


----------



## njmeisje

I've tried to read the entire thread, but....not possible - WOW.

I have been thinking about this for a few days, and I tend to agree with Chuck.  I think the problem stems from DVC lowering the initial buy-in from 230 to 150 and then to 100.   Not to mention folks buying 50 point contracts via resale, and staying at that level.  I think Disney was hoping folks would buy-in incrementally and did not expect people to remain at these small point levels - occupying rooms for 2-3 days, then moving again, etc.  I'm not criticizing that vacation style (NOT AT ALL) , I'm just saying that you can see how this would be financially difficult for a company (any hotel, timeshare) that needs to maximize occupancy.

I suppose I am willing to see these changes over time, so DVC remains viable - I'd like to enjoy my little slice of BCV and HHI for years to come.  

PS - tjkraz - your comments have always been thoughtful and helpful to me.... I appreciate your insight.


----------



## maminnie

Quote from Dean - Don't know why it is no longer highlighted. Sorry.


Dean said:


> However, this change may be negative enough that DVC no longer makes sense for them.  It would be hard for me to envisions a situation where simply this change alone would cause that to be a valid approach but it could be the item that pushed some over the top.



********

Dean:  This says it perfectly.  The point allocation COUPLED with the reservation policy change, and the waitlist change is absolutely enough for me to believe that DVC is no longer right for our family and I would have seriously considered selling. Combining two contracts to accomplish a week's stay (without moving) is just too hard to manage with these three changes that occurred in the past 6 to 8 months. (I have never had a problem over the years in combining these two contracts.)  Without proper and fair notification from DVC about the point reallocation, I borrowed points from 2010 (even letting a family member use some) and now my one contract would be considered undesireable on the resale market.

So now I just have to sit back, keep paying those condo fees on something that no longer works for me and my family and see what happens. Even if I had wanted to hold onto both contracts and travel in 2010, that is messed up too because of the number of points I borrowed for travel in 2009.  Proper and fair notification of the point reallocation would have allowed me to make better decisions. 

maminnie

EDIT: - I fixed the quote for you - Chuck S


----------



## tjkraz

DVC Mike said:


> That said, there have been thoughtful, reasonable posts from people on both sides of this issue. I just wish all posts were that way!



Very true, Mike!   



DVC Mike said:


> I've seen some pretty upset people talking about class action lawsuits, selling their membership, etc. *I think that emotion will die down, either to a slow burn or perhaps acceptance.* People that are negatively impacted are venting their anger at the change. I accept that.



I think that's a really great description, particularly the part I bolded.  I was pretty shell-shocked the first night I found out about this.  But once I had time to truly analyze the situation, things became a lot clearer.  

No matter how logical the move may seem, many of us are in varying stages of grief over something that has been lost (...or at least reduced.)  You can't necessarily have a rational discussion when you get all of these people in the same room together:       

As I've said, I think it's clear that DVC was forced to make this move...and I say that as someone who is definitely impacted in a negative way.  Still DVC continues to work for my family.  All 4 of us enjoy Walt Disney World and DVC is still the best balance of cost/benefit in terms of the accommodations.  I hope most people are able to make peace with their DVC future--whatever path they decide to follow.


----------



## LVSWL

Well, after several days of trying to read through this thread, I just want to say that my heart really goes out to those that are struggling with this change. DVC has been such a blessing for our family over the years. From the moment that we purchased in 2002 we have spent countless hours planning our multiple yearly vacations and then anticipating them. While our vacation habits have changed some over the last 6 years, as our kids have grown and gone from year round schools to high school, this present change will make us have to look at our vacations in a new light again. It also will change those thoughts that we had about how we might travel when the kids were out of the house and we would go down together.  I frankly am shocked at the lack of compassion I have seen on this thread recently. We are all DVC members, who bought in, and bought what we felt like were enough points to travel when "we thought that we would travel the most" whatever season it was and whether it was a weekend or not. Berating other members just seems mean to me. Anyway, like I said, my heart really aches for those who are trying to sort out what to do, who have plans that are put on hold now. If you are like our family, your trips to WDW and the planning and anticipation of those trips mean a lot to you so I know how upsetting this can be. Hopefully we will all figure out a way to weather this.


----------



## keishashadow

DVC Mike said:


> Well, there is a certain amount of sarcasm about "enhancements" from DVC. A few people do seem outright hostile to Jim Lewis. When I read posts like that, *it's fairly obvious what is behind* *the post*; however, it makes it difficult to have a logical conversation on a topic when there is so much negative emotion running through it and behind it. That said, there have been thoughtful, reasonable posts from people on both sides of this issue. I just wish all posts were that way!


 
not a direct flame to u, yet imo one person's idea of an enhancement can easily be another's detraction to an already stellar product. 

one cannot assume to know how people feel about change to anything, let alone DVC; nor fairly chastize them for the same. Emotions tend to run high when people care so much about something.

i thought this board was supposed to be informational & a respectful exchange of ideas/opinions. Everybody is not going to be on the same page...if we were it would be a boring read indeed 

fact that i don't like many of the changes under Mr Lewis' helm (yet think others - DP, BLT & AKV r fantastic) doesn't make me hostile (@ least not towards him ) i'll cop to 'conflicted & confused' as im not sure what ur getting @ re 'fairly obvious' post?

 perhaps, just wondering if anybody has contacted MS & gotten anything other than a standard reply?


----------



## KLR-wlv

LVSWL said:


> Well, after several days of trying to read through this thread, I just want to say that my heart really goes out to those that are struggling with this change. DVC has been such a blessing for our family over the years. From the moment that we purchased in 2002 we have spent countless hours planning our multiple yearly vacations and then anticipating them. While our vacation habits have changed some over the last 6 years, as our kids have grown and gone from year round schools to high school, this present change will make us have to look at our vacations in a new light again. It also will change those thoughts that we had about how we might travel when the kids were out of the house and we would go down together.  I frankly am shocked at the lack of compassion I have seen on this thread recently. We are all DVC members, who bought in, and bought what we felt like were enough points to travel when "we thought that we would travel the most" whatever season it was and whether it was a weekend or not. Berating other members just seems mean to me. Anyway, like I said, my heart really aches for those who are trying to sort out what to do, who have plans that are put on hold now. If you are like our family, your trips to WDW and the planning and anticipation of those trips mean a lot to you so I know how upsetting this can be. Hopefully we will all figure out a way to weather this.




Thanks for your very kind post. I think this is a hard thing to swallow due to everything else happening with world and the economy - stocks and 401ks depreciating - and now our vacations too! Planning is almost half the fun, and this change just throws a monkey wrench in the works which is frustrating.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> njmeisje : I think the problem stems from DVC lowering the initial buy-in from 230 to 150 and then to 100. Not to mention folks buying 50 point contracts via resale, and staying at that level. I think Disney was hoping folks would buy-in incrementally and did not expect people to remain at these small point levels - occupying rooms for 2-3 days, then moving again, etc. I'm not criticizing that vacation style (NOT AT ALL) , I'm just saying that *you can see how this would be financially difficult for a company (any hotel, timeshare) that needs to maximize occupancy.*



So I suppose I'm still confused with how this new allocation is going to help to occupy so many more rooms ?   Because I'm looking at polls that are saying a huge chunk of people are decreasing their stays or the amount of days they stay. Some are saying will go every other year or even every 3rd year....some are dropping 1-3+ days every year.   So how is this helping occupancy rates ?  I honestly don't get it.   The only thing I can come up with, is perhaps DVC is hoping to push people into seasons with low occupancies.  IOW, some Members will shy away from the Magic and Dream season points and get gently pushed into Adventure and Choice ?  If not this, I don't know.  As I said, this allocation certainly is NOT going to push any measurable amount of the Sun-Thurs crowd into weekend stays.  I could see requests for smaller units going up across the board ?

With DVC raising the points, it's making it harder for ALOT of Members to continue to maintain the length and amount of stays they have been.  And sure, I "get" that it opens up reservations for some who might not have been able to stay prior to the allocation.  But I feel rarely is DVC sold out.  Almost on a regular basis, there is vacancy at SSR or OKW.  So how big a problem was it with people not able to get rooms I wonder except for very high occupancy times (i.e. early Dec, holidays).  
I'm not trying to be argumentative or debate....I'm simply trying to figure this out ?



> I've seen some pretty upset people talking about class action lawsuits, selling their membership, etc. I think that emotion will die down, either to a slow burn or perhaps acceptance. People that are negatively impacted are venting their anger at the change. I accept that.


I agree Mike...it will die down.  I have stated repeatedly, that people who are impacted ---especially those left with a rather large deficit of points----need time to digest and process it all.  Some of the snarky remarks made by some, were done at the worst time to those of us who are going through this.  Come on....when someone is feeling down, someone else is gonna kick sand in their face ?   

I said to someone else here on DIS on another thread, some of the remarks I've read directed at me and others were like putting salt in an open wound.  I fully believe, overall, most of us will accept the allocation and adjust.   I do think there is a smaller percentage that will want to get out all together.  I have a feeling DVC lost a good amount of add-ons and positive word-of-mouth from some of us as well.  It's like saying to DVC : fool me once...shame on you.....fool me twice......

There have just been alot of changes in a relatively short amount of time at a very bad time in our economy.  Perhaps if the economy weren't as bad as it is, people might swallow this pill a bit easier.  But a large percentage of this country feels like we're just losing so much and struggling much more than we have in past years.....so poor timing on DVC's part for some of these changes.  






> Anyway, like I said, my heart really aches for those who are trying to sort out what to do, who have plans that are put on hold now. If you are like our family, your trips to WDW and the planning and anticipation of those trips mean a lot to you so I know how upsetting this can be. Hopefully we will all figure out a way to weather this.


Nice of you to say this LVSWL.....it means alot to me and I'm sure others who are having a bit of a rough go right now......


----------



## Starr W.

Wow, I thought the tone of this thread was rather unsnarky(I have a high tolerance for snarkiness) compared to the discussion on the change in reservation thread. 

In the long run, I'll deal with the changes as it hasn't really impacted me that much. My VB Easter week will cost me 3 more points(and I really should go EOY, but I'll just probably borrowing and keep going EY) and our Thanksgiving trip at SSR stayed the same!  Ran the numbers multiple times between DH and myself and came up with the same # of points needed for 2010 as 2008. 


But I do find it amusing that some who went ballistic on the change in the reservation format are very calm with the point allocation.


----------



## bobbiwoz

keishashadow said:


> ...
> 
> perhaps, just wondering if anybody has contacted MS & gotten anything other than a standard reply?




I haven't even gotten a standard reply...well, just the initial one that says "Thank you!, we'll get to your concerns withing 3 business days."
Bobbi


----------



## tjkraz

How about a little discussion of the positive aspects of this move?   

I think the most immediate result will be a dramatic improvement in availability at all resorts.  For years now it has been getting harder and harder to book outside of one's Home resort.  Before the booking change, people were calling day-by-day out of fear of being blocked by hundreds of others trying to get the same dates.

This phenomenon has most often been attributed to things like a change in booking patterns by members (calling much earlier than they had previously) or "those SSR owners" booking other resorts at 7 months.  

This reallocation sheds new light on the situation.  The movement of points suggests that perhaps the biggest change which occurred in recent years was more and more people buying points for weekday use.  One of the primary reasons for folks being unable to get reservations is excessive demand for the same Sun - Thurs periods...with a disproportionately small number willing to use their points for weekends.  

Come 2010 we should see an immediate positive impact on resort availability--both in that 11-8 month priority window and at 7 months.  

We should also see greater success of short notice bookings.


----------



## bobbiwoz

MiaSRN62 said:


> So I suppose I'm still confused with how this new allocation is going to help to occupy so many more rooms ?   Because I'm looking at polls that are saying a huge chunk of people are decreasing their stays or the amount of days they stay. Some are saying will go every other year or even every 3rd year....some are dropping 1-3+ days every year.   So how is this helping occupancy rates ?  I honestly don't get it.   The only thing I can come up with, is perhaps DVC is hoping to push people into seasons with low occupancies.  IOW, some Members will shy away from the Magic and Dream season points and get gently pushed into Adventure and Choice ?  If not this, I don't know.  As I said, this allocation certainly is NOT going to push any measurable amount of the Sun-Thurs crowd into weekend stays.  I could see requests for smaller units going up across the board ?
> 
> ..



Well, for us, it means I can ask my DSis to come for the Marathon weekend at VWL.  We'll have a 2 bedroom...our UY is March...so it's still in '09 UY.  I didn't have enough to borrow VWL to borrow for both the 2 bedroom stay, which includes 2 weekend + 2 weekday days...for a 4 nights stay, as well as have my DSis stay.  Now, I can invite DS for a 3 night VWL studio stay...Thursday to Sunday morning.  She's going to run in the Family run with DH.  Without the change, I couldn't have DS with us. That's just the start... but yes, it's helping us, right from the get-go.  Now, the BC/VB...that's another story altogether, but we've already had our Group Hug! 

Bobbi


----------



## MELSMICE

Starr W. said:


> Wow, I thought the tone of this thread was rather unsnarky(I have a high tolerance for snarkiness) compared to the discussion on the change in reservation thread.


What is the change in the reservation system?  I am having a hard time finding time to keep up with everything right now.  Can someone direct me to this thread?


----------



## photobob

I will say that though I am really unhappy with the change, I am still very happy to be a DVC member. I do appreciate those who aren't impacted negatively understanding those of us who are. The reason I am upset is that it means I can stay there as long and I love going! Since I can't afford an add-on at this time I'll just have to adjust my future planning. I may have to get a 1BDR instead of a 2bdr or get a studio instead of a 1bdr. and I'll still have a great time!


----------



## Muushka

jecpva said:


> DVC has a Satisfaction Team, you can send them an Email.  The address is:  DVCMEMBERSATISFACTIONTEAM@DISNEYVACATIONCLUB.COM
> Not that they will do anything, but the more formal complaints/comments they get, the more that they will realize there is a problem with part of the group that "bought a piece of the magic".



Thank you! 



KAT4DISNEY said:


> Somehow I missed that Muushka.
> 
> What is the possible mistake?  Please tell me it's VWL 1 Bedrooms!



That would be nice.  I didn't read the entire thread, but many pages ago a few people talked about a possible error with the 2010 point schedule.  Has this been addressed yet?



tjkraz said:


> How about a little discussion of the positive aspects of this move?
> 
> I think the most immediate result will be a dramatic improvement in availability at all resorts.  For years now it has been getting harder and harder to book outside of one's Home resort.  Before the booking change, people were calling day-by-day out of fear of being blocked by hundreds of others trying to get the same dates.
> 
> This phenomenon has most often been attributed to things like a change in booking patterns by members (calling much earlier than they had previously) or "those SSR owners" booking other resorts at 7 months.
> 
> This reallocation sheds new light on the situation.  The movement of points suggests that perhaps the biggest change which occurred in recent years was more and more people buying points for weekday use.  One of the primary reasons for folks being unable to get reservations is excessive demand for the same Sun - Thurs periods...with a disproportionately small number willing to use their points for weekends.
> 
> Come 2010 we should see an immediate positive impact on resort availability--both in that 11-8 month priority window and at 7 months.
> 
> We should also see greater success of short notice bookings.



While I admire your attempt to find the bright side, it is a reminder for me of why it is not good.  Being the dope that bought at VWL for early December, I imagine that between myself not using as many days there in a 1 BR as well as other VWL owners, there probably won't be any problem for non-owners to get a 1 BR now.  

I may as well own points at HH or Vero.


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> So I suppose I'm still confused with how this new allocation is going to help to occupy so many more rooms ?   Because I'm looking at polls that are saying a huge chunk of people are decreasing their stays or the amount of days they stay. Some are saying will go every other year or even every 3rd year....some are dropping 1-3+ days every year.   So how is this helping occupancy rates ?  I honestly don't get it.   The only thing I can come up with, is *perhaps DVC is hoping to push people into seasons with low occupancies*.  IOW, some Members will shy away from the Magic and Dream season points and get gently pushed into Adventure and Choice ?  If not this, I don't know.  As I said, this allocation certainly is NOT going to push any measurable amount of the Sun-Thurs crowd into weekend stays.  I could see requests for smaller units going up across the board ?



First I'll say that this really IS a difficult thing to explain--unless someone smarter than me can come up with a more simplistic manner.   But I'll give it a shot.

The statement I bolded above in your quote is the most significant one of all.  The entire purpose of the point chart is to balance supply with demand.  DVC isn't doing this out of some selfish need--they are doing it for the benefit of the membership.  

The entire idea behind DVC is that the resorts be at 100% occupancy *every single day of the year*.  (Some points are withheld for maintenance, but I'm going to ignore that fact for the purposes of this discussion.)  

Really take a moment to think about that 100% occupancy.  If you eliminate banking and borrowing, that means the ONLY WAY for every owner to use his/her points is for a resort to be full every night of the year.  Every room---every night!  All 800+ rooms at SSR would have to be filled 365 days / year.  All 400+ rooms at the BoardWalk, and so on.  

So whenever there is a room that does NOT contain a guest, it means someone is not using their points.  If a single SSR Grand Villa sits empty on a Fri/Sat in Magic season, that is 234 unused DVC points for that single room (under the old/current charts.)  If there are 10 empty Savanna View 2Bs on a weekend during Dream season, that's 1400 unused points!

...and so on.

Now there are some reasons why rooms could sit empty.  The banking/borrowing rules mean that some of the points may have been banked into the next Use year.  But ideally you want those numbers to be close to balancing out.  When the total number of points banked and borrowed is similar, again there should be ZERO VACANCIES.  

If there is an imbalance in favor of banked points, we have a problem.  Let's say that in 2006 there were 2 million points borrowed and 4 million banked.  No good.  That means 2007 has more points than it can reasonably accommodate.  And if the same disparity occurs in 2007, 2008 and so on, we're really headed for trouble.  

DVC doesn't disclose any data so it's hard to put real numbers to that.  But I'm just circling around to the point that *every room *should be filled *every night of the year*.  

Another way that rooms could sit empty is if people allow points to expire unused.  I'm sure that does happen--but it should cause us to question the "why."  Did the points go unused out of apathy?  (Some do.)  Or was it because the member wasn't able to find a reservation which fit their travel needs?  If so, that's another red flag.  

People can also trade their points out to DCL, RCI, etc.  In those cases rooms are handed-over to CRO.  I'm sure that some of the vacancies are CRO rooms.  But the rooms available for points bookings should be COMPLETELY booked.  No 25% member cash discount.  No rooms given to CRO 60 days out under the breakage rules.  Zero vacancies.  Zilch!

So how do we get to 100% occupancy?  We try to balance supply with demand.  And that's what the point reallocation does.  

Under the old (current) charts, about 60% of the week's points were spread over Sun - Thurs.  The other 40% of a weekly point cost was in Fri & Sat.  If that is commensurate to demand, members should collectively be using 60% of their points for weekdays and 40% for weekends.  

With more and more people buying into DVC as a "bargain vacation", I suspect the scales tilted to the point where something like 75-80% of points were earmarked for weekdays while the weekends were severely under-booked.  That sets up a situation where people cannot get the room they want, short notice bookings are impossible, points go unused, members are dissatisfied, etc.  

The idea is to find equilibrium.  Instead of 60% supply and 80% demand for the weekdays, perhaps things will balance out better at 70% for both supply AND demand.  And in DVC terms, the means for increasing supply is to raise the points each night.  

Supply and demand...it's all supply and demand.  And we members determine the demand...NOT DVC.

Maybe this is even more simplistic:  Let's say you own enough points to visit 5 nights per year.  The point charts changed and now you can only afford 4 nights per year.  That's one night freed-up for someone else who wants to spend points on a weekday.  Multiply that one night by the thousands of members similarly effected and what you're doing is creating the capacity to absorb the points that other members have previously been unable to use.  

At the same time weekend costs are slashed.  Those who visit on the weekends can stretch their points a little further and it will encourage other folks to start visiting on the weekends when they previously would not have done so.  

DVC's goal should always be to balance supply with demand to get as close as possible to the 100% year-round occupancy.


----------



## Muushka

I just found a bright side!!

*You don't need to buy where you want to stay anymore!!!*

How is that for optimistic!!!


----------



## tamclan

tjkraz said:


> How about a little discussion of the positive aspects of this move?
> 
> I think the most immediate result will be a dramatic improvement in availability at all resorts.  For years now it has been getting harder and harder to book outside of one's Home resort.  Before the booking change, people were calling day-by-day out of fear of being blocked by hundreds of others trying to get the same dates.
> 
> This phenomenon has most often been attributed to things like a change in booking patterns by members (calling much earlier than they had previously) or "those SSR owners" booking other resorts at 7 months.
> 
> This reallocation sheds new light on the situation.  The movement of points suggests that perhaps the biggest change which occurred in recent years was more and more people buying points for weekday use.  One of the primary reasons for folks being unable to get reservations is excessive demand for the same Sun - Thurs periods...with a disproportionately small number willing to use their points for weekends.
> 
> Come 2010 we should see an immediate positive impact on resort availability--both in that 11-8 month priority window and at 7 months.
> 
> We should also see greater success of short notice bookings.




I agree with your suggested outlook 100%


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

TJ,  I think you pretty well nailed it.  Remember that when rooms sit empty we, as DVC owners, are losing our benefit of membership.  As explained above someone may not be using their points which would be a loss in benefit to that person or a room may not be rented by CRO which is a loss to all of us as members due to loss of income which means an increase in dues.

I agree that communication of change may not be as good as it could be, but I feel that most changes are made with the mindset that it is for the good of everyone.  The glassware removal, while raising a huge stink, did make sense.  Would you like to use the glassware if you knew the person that used it before you was sick and it had been washed in lukewarm water?  DVC changed their decision but with the addition of glasswashers so that the glassware could be properly cleaned.

This is also one of those decisions that is for the greater good and health of the system overall.  As with most "greater good" changes, most of the people will be adversely effected.


----------



## tjkraz

Muushka said:


> Being the dope that bought at VWL for early December, I imagine that between myself not using as many days there in a 1 BR as well as other VWL owners, there probably won't be any problem for non-owners to get a 1 BR now.



For a high-demand period like December, I doubt that is true.  More likely it means that other VWL owners will have access to the resort in early December when they previously would have been blocked.  And where the resort may have previously been 100% booked 10 1/2 months out, now it may not happen until 9 months out (purely theoretical, of course.)  

But I do agree that if DVC had reallocated several years ago as Dean suggests, there are many situations where owning at a specific resort would not be as important as it has become in 2009.  I'm the owner of a 40pt contract myself so I can appreciate this phenomenon first-hand.  Still it's hard for me to look at the possible future and be critical of it.  I hope most would agree that having improved access to all resorts is favorable to buying small add-ons at a half-dozen different locations.


----------



## Muushka

tjkraz said:


> For a high-demand period like December, I doubt that is true.  More likely it means that other VWL owners will have access to the resort in early December when they previously would have been blocked.  And where the resort may have previously been 100% booked 10 1/2 months out, now it may not happen until 9 months out (purely theoretical, of course.)
> 
> But I do agree that if DVC had reallocated several years ago as Dean suggests, there are many situations where owning at a specific resort would not be as important as it has become in 2009.  I'm the owner of a 40pt contract myself so I can appreciate this phenomenon first-hand.  Still it's hard for me to look at the possible future and be critical of it.  I hope most would agree that having improved access to all resorts is favorable to buying small add-ons at a half-dozen different locations.



You are probably right in that VWL owners who figured they would go to VWL early Dec at say, 8 months out rather than right at 11 months would now have a better shot at it.

My biggest problem with this is that I am a planner and counted on the point schedule basically staying the same.  I figured if they ever changed it, it may be a point or 2 difference, but 4!  Plus WL is more expensive than the other DVC resorts for that time period, which really irritates me.  I loathe surprises (well, this kind anyway).


----------



## MiaSRN62

Thanks very much Tim for taking the time to try and help me understand the whole occupancy goal and plan of DVC.  I understood most of it, and I think I may have to read it a couple more times to fully grasp it.  I'm no anaylytical person for sure....


----------



## dis-happy

tjkraz said:


> How about a little discussion of the positive aspects of this move?
> 
> I think the most immediate result will be a dramatic improvement in availability at all resorts.  For years now it has been getting harder and harder to book outside of one's Home resort.  Before the booking change, people were calling day-by-day out of fear of being blocked by hundreds of others trying to get the same dates.
> 
> This phenomenon has most often been attributed to things like a change in booking patterns by members (calling much earlier than they had previously) or "those SSR owners" booking other resorts at 7 months.
> 
> This reallocation sheds new light on the situation.  The movement of points suggests that perhaps the biggest change which occurred in recent years was more and more people buying points for weekday use.  One of the primary reasons for folks being unable to get reservations is excessive demand for the same Sun - Thurs periods...with a disproportionately small number willing to use their points for weekends.
> 
> Come 2010 we should see an immediate positive impact on resort availability--both in that 11-8 month priority window and at 7 months.
> 
> We should also see greater success of short notice bookings.





Totally agree on this point.  BUT, I still think we're going to see an unprecedented amount of DP's flood the reservation system as incentives for new sales (to go with the unprecented four new properties for sale at one time, as the website puts it).  

And what if they give those people, say, an 8 month window instead?  Didn't they just do this with the THV and those who purchased in CA or something?  Surprised there wasn't more animosity towards that, btw.

I guess time will tell.


----------



## granmanh603

Ok just from a personal point of view....I stay at BWV and SSR in Oct and March for 3 weeks at a time and it is obvious that the amount of traffic in cars and at check in, pick up to a huge extent on Thurs late afternoon/night.....and I do mean incoming...I think the people on Dis boards are more point "thrifty" than many DVCers....I think Disney does what is best for Disney especilly in the last 3 or 4 years or so.....and I don't think we need to Rah Rah for them.
This change doesn' hurt me but them doing it this way does bother me for all the other people it does hurt.


----------



## Karamia

I totally agree that the people who vacation weekends would want some change. On the other hand DVC has been around for years and people have made their purchases, in many many cases, with the plan to spend Sunday to Thursday. I probably will be able to get by, but many will actually not be able to optimize their vacation now. In this economy they also may not be able to add on. What do they do? Terrible decision, especially right now IMO.
The last thing Disney wants is more undervalued sales, I would think.


----------



## chalee94

Muushka said:


> That would be nice.  I didn't read the entire thread, but many pages ago a few people talked about a possible error with the 2010 point schedule.  Has this been addressed yet?



the "error" was that the charts were posted too early.  DISers found the charts that were posted by accident and blew up - and DVC removed the charts, saying that an error was made.  (some posters assumed that the charts may have been wrong...most of us assumed that DVC just posted the information too early.)

DVC then posted the _new_ 2010 charts, which were, in fact, the same as the _old_ 2010 charts.


----------



## Karamia

chalee94 said:


> the "error" was that the charts were posted too early.  DISers found the charts that were posted by accident and blew up - and DVC removed the charts, saying that an error was made.  (some posters assumed that the charts may have been wrong...most of us assumed that DVC just posted the information too early.)
> 
> DVC then posted the _new_ 2010 charts, which were, in fact, the same as the _old_ 2010 charts.




Ah! That is too bad because with a proper explanation, people may not be so angry.


----------



## bookwormde

Here are my thoughts on Mr Lewis, He is the boss and either by the senior people he has around him or actual decision he makes everything ultimately is his responsibility, anyone who has been “the boss” understands this. I was happy to give him time to get settled and try some thing (my management style is to always be trying new things). My issue is that the changes are poorly communicated, appear to be very poorly thought through, Lack of candor and honesty is something that I cannon abide and DVC’s announcements and there sales bias and disingenuous nature tell me he is not an good manager for the members of DVC. 

I am willing to bet when the 2009 customer satisfaction timeshare survey comes out, and as I expect it is significantly lower you will never hear it quoted again.

My perception is that under Mr. Lewis’s tenure that there has been an increase level of incompetence, which has been acceptable to push forward poorly and somewhat myopic changes. 

With the redemonstration of this through the most recent set of changes I am comfortable with calling for significant management change from the top down. Quite honestly I do not think mismanaging the operation section DVC will ever cause this to happen but the impact on sales that lower member satisfaction created likely have on sales will, particularly during these challenging time

One note I will make is that 100% occupancy is not the legal standard that DVC operations has to meet it is just one tool in the box to keep fees down. The standard is to manage DVC in the best interests of the majority of owners.

bookwormde


----------



## tjkraz

Karamia said:


> I totally agree that the people who vacation weekends would want some change. On the other hand DVC has been around for years and people have made their purchases, in many many cases, with the plan to spend Sunday to Thursday. I probably will be able to get by, but many will actually not be able to optimize their vacation now. In this economy they also may not be able to add on. What do they do? Terrible decision, especially right now IMO.



Consider the alternative.  

Under the current charts, the 60% of points on weekdays is a known quantity.  And just for the sake of argument, let's say that I'm close in guessing that people want to use 80% of their points for weekdays.  

If we stick with weekends costing twice as much, most of the new members coming on board will continue to see DVC as this discount vehicle and plan for the Sun - Thurs stays.  So what happens when we reach the point that 82% of all points are earmarked for weekdays?  How about 85%?  88%?  

How about when 90% of all members plan to use their points exclusively for weekdays which only have the capacity to absorb 60%?  When that happens, a full 1/3 of members will simply be unable to secure a room.  DVC becomes a game of musical chairs--for every 3 players there are only two chairs (rooms.)  The first ones to sit (reserve) get their chair and the other is left with nothing.  

We don't have the luxury of looking at the same data that DVC has available (and I wouldn't expect them to release much given the competition's interest in Disney statistical data), but in retrospect it's clear we are headed down that road.  There is a *ton *of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the DVC resorts are severely under-booked on weekends (high arrival crowds on Sundays, departures on Friday, point rentals are almost always Sun-Thurs, 25% member discounts are freely available for weekends, short notice bookings very easy--even for peak demand periods, etc.)  

Yes, I believe that DISBoards members are among those with the greatest success in securing reservations.  Folks know to call 11 months out, have purchased points at multiple home resorts, know the busy and slow periods, etc.  But that level of understanding almost certainly contributes to our slanted viewpoint of the system's overall health.


----------



## gonzalj1

MiaSRN62 said:


> That is just so unfair.  I fully believe that some people did not have this information devulged to them as clearly as it could have.  With tens of thousands of Members do u really think all transactions gave FULL disclosure of the rules ?  !



Yes. I do believe full disclosure happens on every transaction. The disclosure is in the contract we all signed. It is not hidden. 

Speak to any lawyer and they will tell you fully read any document you sign. If people didn't read the documents they signed then the surprise they feel fault NOT DISNEY'S.

It's time we stop blaming others for our own ignorance. We want others to take the blame for following the rules we agreed to. This is exactly the type of behavior we say we are teaching our children to avoid. Only when we are the ones who shoul dtake responsibility we do not. 

If we didn't read the documents and agreed to something without a complete understanding of the terms and conditions then SHAME ON US. We are the ones who made a mistake. We need to take responsibility for our actions (or inaction) and deal with it.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

One thing that surprised me in this thread is that several S-Th regulars (or maybe it was the same poster more than once, given the length of this thread!) said that they enjoyed the fact that the PArks were less busy during the week.

I was surprised at this since the UG has said for years that weekends (esp Sat) tended to be less crowded than weekdays.  Of course, there is some variation based on EMH, parade schedules and special events ( F&W and Weekend only Flower Power concerts come to mind).  Anyone else feel that weekdays are quieter in general at the Parks?  -- Suzanne


----------



## tjkraz

bookwormde said:


> One note I will make is that 100% occupancy is not the legal standard that DVC operations has to meet it is just one tool in the box to keep fees down. The standard is to manage DVC in the best interests of the majority of owners.



I would agree with that--with the key being "in the best interests" of owners.  This isn't a situation where a majority vote should decide policy for DVC.  If we put it to a vote, I bet we could get more than 50% to vote in favor of weekdays costing 3 points and weekends 200 points per night.  But that is clearly not in the best interest of the program as a whole.  

I never said that 100% occupancy was a legal standard.  But it is a goal which serves the best interests of the program and its members.


----------



## Muushka

chalee94 said:


> the "error" was that the charts were posted too early.  DISers found the charts that were posted by accident and blew up - and DVC removed the charts, saying that an error was made.  (some posters assumed that the charts may have been wrong...most of us assumed that DVC just posted the information too early.)
> 
> DVC then posted the _new_ 2010 charts, which were, in fact, the same as the _old_ 2010 charts.



Ahhh.  Thanks.  As Ricky would say: "That 'splains that"


----------



## tedhowe

I read much of this thread, but not all.

Has anyone pointed out one potential consequence of this change:

since it takes effect 1/1/2010, I predict that we may see a surge in borrowing point INTO 2009 for additional/extended stays when the general membership learns of this.

The people in DISBoards are typically much more up to date than the membership in general. When the updated point charts are sent out and people see that their points will be "worth less" next year, I predict that a lot of people will use 2010 points in 2009 for more room nights.

This is similar to what was seen at OKW when 12/31/1999 was looming and more people wanted to get in a final stay with the free park passes - even if that meant they borrowed more points than usual.

This could contribute even more to easing room availability in 2010.


----------



## Sammie

tjkraz said:


> Fair enough.  I must be skimming those comments then.
> 
> Just wasn't sure where Sammie was coming from by including those comments in a reply largely directed at me.



I just included the last comment as a general reflection of some remarks, sorry if you took it to be your remarks it was not meant to be. 

I am not upset about the change due to the affect on our vacation planning, it won't affect us enough to be upset. I am upset that it affects others. Something that some members here seem to not care about, how it affects others.

As to changes in the current adminstration Liferbabe did a better job of summing them up. I just do not feel that current management cares about the membership and the exisiting resorts on the same level as they do sales and expansion. 

I think at Annual meetings they are evasive about discussing real concerns of the membership.

I will be glad if this situation helps but personally I don't see it happening. I think it was a move to help DVC on a level we will probably never know about and I think we will not see any improvment on a level where it affects the membership. And that is my complaint with the current management team.


----------



## DVC92

tjkraz said:


> How about a little discussion of the positive aspects of this move?
> 
> I think the most immediate result will be a dramatic improvement in availability at all resorts.  For years now it has been getting harder and harder to book outside of one's Home resort.  Before the booking change, people were calling day-by-day out of fear of being blocked by hundreds of others trying to get the same dates.
> 
> This phenomenon has most often been attributed to things like a change in booking patterns by members (calling much earlier than they had previously) or "those SSR owners" booking other resorts at 7 months.
> 
> This reallocation sheds new light on the situation.  The movement of points suggests that perhaps the biggest change which occurred in recent years was more and more people buying points for weekday use.  One of the primary reasons for folks being unable to get reservations is excessive demand for the same Sun - Thurs periods...with a disproportionately small number willing to use their points for weekends.
> 
> Come 2010 we should see an immediate positive impact on resort availability--both in that 11-8 month priority window and at 7 months.
> 
> We should also see greater success of short notice bookings.



I disagree. The members who have fewer points will now book 4 days in lieu of 5, or borrow to keep it at 5 days, buy a few extra points to keep it at 5 days, or try to book OKW which requires fewer points. These members aren't suddenly going to use their points on weekends which still (at least currently) require more points.

As I previously stated, this problem was a direct result of DVD lowering the minimum point purchase. At the onset of the club when I joined in 1992, DVD had a clear vision of point usage. The minimum purchase was 230 points which allowed a member to get a 1 bedroom unit for a week in any season except premier season or a 2 bedroom for a week during at least 5 months of the year. Sales recommended 270 points for even greater flexibility. Since the minimum point purchase allowed such options, I believe the early members never begrudged using their points on weekends to get weekly stays. Having 310 points, I always stay over a weekend and will continue to do so.

Unfortunately, such flexibility and usage patterns were destroyed because of the lowering of the minimum point purchase. This was compounded with the increase in points necessary to book stays at the newer resorts. When people purchase, they look at the point charts, assess their future needs as best they can at the time, and purchase the necessary points. I don't blame these members for being upset at such a drastic change, with further changes in the future being likely. OKW altered the points once, but it was merely to correct true imbalance in Adventure season. This is different.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Yes. I do believe full disclosure happens on every transaction. The disclosure is in the contract we all signed. It is not hidden.


Please go back and read the post I was responding to gonsalj1......we were discussing verbal communication....face-to-face conversations with our guides.  Sure it's in the tiny print and I fully believe there are some guides who hope their potential catches miss this at signing.  So again, we were referring to verbal.  DVC timeshare people are generally better than the lot out there, but I don't think even all of them are 100% upstanding sales people.  You interpreted my quote and the one I was responding to incorrectly.  



> It's time we stop blaming others for our own ignorance.


And once again gonzalj1....I was not doing that.  In every single one of my posts, I state I was aware of the right to allocate.  BUT.....maybe you're skipping through posts or something ......I  said this was a very drastic allocation and that was not clearly conveyed in conversations with my guide.  Because I recall the discussions we had while we stayed at VB that year.  Took dh and myself 3 days to discuss/read and ask questions before we signed.   Never was an allocation of this magnitude hinted at as a possibility.  She made it sound like small changes could be made over time.  OKW 2 bedrooms jumped 6 points per night in Magic season....and more than that in Premiere.  I am coming up 30 points short for a 5 night stay.  My guide explained it to be small incremental allocations.    This allocation is big enough that I can't even consider borrowing and still being able to stay every year.   I consider that quite significant and drastic.  So I am blaming noone and I certainly don't feel IGNORANT in this case.  If you choose to feel that way about yourself, then that is on you.  But please don't speak for me or others who were referring the verbal communication between guides and potential customers.


----------



## Scott

tjkraz said:


> How about a little discussion of the positive aspects of this move?
> 
> I think the most immediate result will be a dramatic improvement in availability at all resorts.  For years now it has been getting harder and harder to book outside of one's Home resort.  Before the booking change, people were calling day-by-day out of fear of being blocked by hundreds of others trying to get the same dates.
> 
> This phenomenon has most often been attributed to things like a change in booking patterns by members (calling much earlier than they had previously) or "those SSR owners" booking other resorts at 7 months.
> 
> This reallocation sheds new light on the situation.  The movement of points suggests that perhaps the biggest change which occurred in recent years was more and more people buying points for weekday use.  One of the primary reasons for folks being unable to get reservations is excessive demand for the same Sun - Thurs periods...with a disproportionately small number willing to use their points for weekends.
> 
> Come 2010 we should see an immediate positive impact on resort availability--both in that 11-8 month priority window and at 7 months.
> 
> We should also see greater success of short notice bookings.



This is the problem with the logic IMO. I don't how this will improve occupancy or how it will spread occupancy from weekdays to weekends. Those who currently travel sunday-thursday will be forced to use more points for their reservations. With fewer points left over, I don't see how a majority of these folks will be in a position to switch from a weekday to a weekend. Thus, most sunday-thursday travelers will still be sunday-thursday travelers. Those who benefit are those booking weekend stays. These people now have enough points left over to add a weekday stay, thus increasing demands for weekday travel. 

Having said that, let's assume that the change WILL balance occupancy...what is the motivation for doing so? (This is an attempt to fully understand the re-allocation). Some have suggested that it hurts DVC/Disney financially to have empty rooms. I don't understand how empty rooms hurt DVC or Disney financially. Those rooms are already paid for via the points we purchase. Whether I choose to use my points or let them die, should not affect DVC/Disney financially (putting aside other lost revenue on dining, theme parks, etc. which should not affect DVC decision making). 

So this reallocation is simply about balancing occupancy, yes? To make it easier for us to find reservations at our home resorts?  I had no idea it is a major problem. Have numerous DVC folks been unable to find a room at their home resorts and on their chosen dates within the 11 month window?  Is this more of an issue of finding rooms at other resorts during the 7 month window? If so, could this be more a function of the season rather than the sunday-thursday demand? 

Scott


----------



## tjkraz

DVC92 said:


> I disagree. The members who have fewer points will now book 4 days in lieu of 5, or borrow to keep it at 5 days, buy a few extra points to keep it at 5 days, or try to book OKW which requires fewer points. These members aren't suddenly going to use their points on weekends which still (at least currently) require more points.



Even if people do what you describe (borrow / add to maintain duration of reservations) the reallocation will still help.  With higher points on the weekdays the system has greater capacity to absorb those points.  

There are a finite number of points for sale at each resort.  So a member buying more points to maintain their trip duration doesn't necessarily shift demand patterns.  The points are simply moving from one owner to another.  

Another major influence on these trends will be the attitudes of new buyers.  They will only have the 2010 weekday charts to use as the basis for a buy/don't buy decision.  The close proximity of weekend to weekday point costs will make trips of longer than 5 nights more palatable to new buyers.

And some current owners will certainly change their patterns.  I am already considering it.  We have historically kept to the weekdays.  But now I envision a scenario where 3 trips of 5 nights each may be combined into 2 trips of 6-7 nights each.  We wouldn't necessarily buy more points to do that.  It just depends upon how far we can stretch what we have.  Overall it will mean fewer days at WDW, but the trade-off is less $$ spent on transportation and less vacation time used over 2 weeks instead of 3.  

Whatever shift is going to occur will be a gradual one.  From this point forward I think (hope) the charts are reevaluated every 8-10 years.  If done properly, future adjustments should be much, much smaller.  If DVC had reallocated about 5 years ago, I doubt we would have seen weekday values as extreme as we have today.  It would have begun a greater trend toward weekend stays which may have staved-off the need for such an extreme adjustment.


----------



## bobbiwoz

If the guides had to say that a 20% change in point allocation is allowed, would people still think "well, 20% isn't that much."  My guess is yes.  

I think that what people hear is open to so much interpretation based on expectations, and what they are seeing.  They are seeing the chart at the time and I am not sure that given the limit (subject to certain conditions) it would have registered that what has happened would happen.

Bobbi


----------



## Scott

tjkraz said:


> First I'll say that this really IS a difficult thing to explain--unless someone smarter than me can come up with a more simplistic manner.   But I'll give it a shot.
> 
> The statement I bolded above in your quote is the most significant one of all.  The entire purpose of the point chart is to balance supply with demand.  DVC isn't doing this out of some selfish need--they are doing it for the benefit of the membership.
> 
> The entire idea behind DVC is that the resorts be at 100% occupancy *every single day of the year*.  (Some points are withheld for maintenance, but I'm going to ignore that fact for the purposes of this discussion.)
> 
> Really take a moment to think about that 100% occupancy.  If you eliminate banking and borrowing, that means the ONLY WAY for every owner to use his/her points is for a resort to be full every night of the year.  Every room---every night!  All 800+ rooms at SSR would have to be filled 365 days / year.  All 400+ rooms at the BoardWalk, and so on.
> 
> So whenever there is a room that does NOT contain a guest, it means someone is not using their points.  If a single SSR Grand Villa sits empty on a Fri/Sat in Magic season, that is 234 unused DVC points for that single room (under the old/current charts.)  If there are 10 empty Savanna View 2Bs on a weekend during Dream season, that's 1400 unused points!
> 
> ...and so on.
> 
> Now there are some reasons why rooms could sit empty.  The banking/borrowing rules mean that some of the points may have been banked into the next Use year.  But ideally you want those numbers to be close to balancing out.  When the total number of points banked and borrowed is similar, again there should be ZERO VACANCIES.
> 
> If there is an imbalance in favor of banked points, we have a problem.  Let's say that in 2006 there were 2 million points borrowed and 4 million banked.  No good.  That means 2007 has more points than it can reasonably accommodate.  And if the same disparity occurs in 2007, 2008 and so on, we're really headed for trouble.
> 
> DVC doesn't disclose any data so it's hard to put real numbers to that.  But I'm just circling around to the point that *every room *should be filled *every night of the year*.
> 
> Another way that rooms could sit empty is if people allow points to expire unused.  I'm sure that does happen--but it should cause us to question the "why."  Did the points go unused out of apathy?  (Some do.)  Or was it because the member wasn't able to find a reservation which fit their travel needs?  If so, that's another red flag.
> 
> People can also trade their points out to DCL, RCI, etc.  In those cases rooms are handed-over to CRO.  I'm sure that some of the vacancies are CRO rooms.  But the rooms available for points bookings should be COMPLETELY booked.  No 25% member cash discount.  No rooms given to CRO 60 days out under the breakage rules.  Zero vacancies.  Zilch!
> 
> So how do we get to 100% occupancy?  We try to balance supply with demand.  And that's what the point reallocation does.
> 
> Under the old (current) charts, about 60% of the week's points were spread over Sun - Thurs.  The other 40% of a weekly point cost was in Fri & Sat.  If that is commensurate to demand, members should collectively be using 60% of their points for weekdays and 40% for weekends.
> 
> With more and more people buying into DVC as a "bargain vacation", I suspect the scales tilted to the point where something like 75-80% of points were earmarked for weekdays while the weekends were severely under-booked.  That sets up a situation where people cannot get the room they want, short notice bookings are impossible, points go unused, members are dissatisfied, etc.
> 
> The idea is to find equilibrium.  Instead of 60% supply and 80% demand for the weekdays, perhaps things will balance out better at 70% for both supply AND demand.  And in DVC terms, the means for increasing supply is to raise the points each night.
> 
> Supply and demand...it's all supply and demand.  And we members determine the demand...NOT DVC.
> 
> Maybe this is even more simplistic:  Let's say you own enough points to visit 5 nights per year.  The point charts changed and now you can only afford 4 nights per year.  That's one night freed-up for someone else who wants to spend points on a weekday.  Multiply that one night by the thousands of members similarly effected and what you're doing is creating the capacity to absorb the points that other members have previously been unable to use.
> 
> At the same time weekend costs are slashed.  Those who visit on the weekends can stretch their points a little further and it will encourage other folks to start visiting on the weekends when they previously would not have done so.
> 
> DVC's goal should always be to balance supply with demand to get as close as possible to the 100% year-round occupancy.



I still don't get why 100% occupancy is imperative  The points have already been paid for. How does me staying in my villa (or not) affect DVC (not disney) financially? Please don't read any sarcasm here...this is one of the issues I can't get my brain around. 
Thanks,
Scott


----------



## Muushka

bobbiwoz said:


> *If the guides had to say that a 20% change in point allocation is allowed, would people still think "well, 20% isn't that much."  My guess is yes. *
> 
> I think that what people hear is open to so much interpretation based on expectations, and what they are seeing.  They are seeing the chart at the time and I am not sure that given the limit (subject to certain conditions) it would have registered that what has happened would happen.
> 
> Bobbi


You hit the nail on the head.  20% increase is what we are having to pay for our stay.  

And what I do not understand is that the point increase for studios at the same time was only 1 point and the 2 BR was the same as the 1 BR, 4 additional points per night.  Who the heck thinks up these schedules?  
Oh yeah, I am so very happy.  And I love my DVC.


----------



## tjkraz

Scott said:


> This is the problem with the logic IMO. I don't how this will improve occupancy or how it will spread occupancy from weekdays to weekends. Those who currently travel sunday-thursday will be forced to use more points for their reservations. With fewer points left over, I don't see how a majority of these folks will be in a position to switch from a weekday to a weekend. Thus, most sunday-thursday travelers will still be sunday-thursday travelers. Those who benefit are those booking weekend stays.



As I just said in another post, this isn't going to be an immediate shift.  Some members will add weekends to their patterns.  New members coming into the program will view weekends as being more attractive.  Change is inevitable.  



> These people now have enough points left over to add a weekday stay, thus increasing demands for weekday travel.



Or they book another weekend...



> Having said that, let's assume that the change WILL balance occupancy...what is the motivation for doing so? (This is an attempt to fully understand the re-allocation). Some have suggested that it hurts DVC/Disney financially to have empty rooms. I don't understand how empty rooms hurt DVC or Disney financially. Those rooms are already paid for via the points we purchase. Whether I choose to use my points or let them die, should not affect DVC/Disney financially (putting aside other lost revenue on dining, theme parks, etc. which should not affect DVC decision making).



Well, you're going to get a lot of (IMO) wild conspiracy theories one the "why" part.  

The bottom line is that this should NOT be a financial "why".  Disney Vacation Club Management Corp exists to manage our timeshare ownership and to do so in the best interest of members.  They have a fiduciary responsibility to run a system that treats members fairly and to correct any fundamental flaws within the structure.  

As I said elsewhere, I bet you could get a lot of members to vote in favor of 3 points per weekday / 200 points per weeknight.  But I hope we can agree that system would not be in our best interests.  

It would be naive to ignore the fact that The Walt Disney Company benefits when the resorts are full.  Bodies in beds means people spending money on park tickets, dining, t-shirts and so on.  But that fact alone does not suggest to me some grand conspiracy is afoot.  

If anything, DVC has mis-managed the program over the last few years by NOT reallocating.  



> So this reallocation is simply about balancing occupancy, yes? To make it easier for us to find reservations at our home resorts?  I had no idea it is a major problem. Have numerous DVC folks been unable to find a room at their home resorts and on their chosen dates within the 11 month window?  Is this more of an issue of finding rooms at other resorts during the 7 month window? If so, could this be more a function of the season rather than the sunday-thursday demand?



In the grand scheme, yes it is all about balancing occupancy.  As I said in the other post you quoted, DVD (and every other timeshare developer in the world) sells enough points/ownership such that the property is at 100% occupancy (less maintenance allocations) year-round.  And when rooms go empty, someone is not using their ownership--either willingly or unwillingly.  The timeshare manager's duty is to create a system which gives all owners the best opportunity to use their ownership.  That means helping to balance demand over certain seasons that are more popular than others and days of the week that are more or less in demand.  

There are certainly people who have posted on the DIS about problems using their points.  Usually they are shrugged off as "well, you shouldn't have waited so long to book!"  Certainly supply and demand will always come into play, but this reallocation is one element of balancing supply and demand.  

Overall DIS members tend to be more knowledgable than your run-of-the-mill DVC owner, which suggests that booking experiences outside of this group are probably quite different.


----------



## Scott

tjkraz said:


> As I just said in another post, this isn't going to be an immediate shift.  Some members will add weekends to their patterns.  New members coming into the program will view weekends as being more attractive.  Change is inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> Or they book another weekend...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're going to get a lot of (IMO) wild conspiracy theories one the "why" part.
> 
> The bottom line is that this should NOT be a financial "why".  Disney Vacation Club Management Corp exists to manage our timeshare ownership and to do so in the best interest of members.  They have a fiduciary responsibility to run a system that treats members fairly and to correct any fundamental flaws within the structure.
> 
> As I said elsewhere, I bet you could get a lot of members to vote in favor of 3 points per weekday / 200 points per weeknight.  But I hope we can agree that system would not be in our best interests.
> 
> It would be naive to ignore the fact that The Walt Disney Company benefits when the resorts are full.  Bodies in beds means people spending money on park tickets, dining, t-shirts and so on.  But that fact alone does not suggest to me some grand conspiracy is afoot.
> 
> If anything, DVC has mis-managed the program over the last few years by NOT reallocating.
> 
> 
> 
> In the grand scheme, yes it is all about balancing occupancy.  As I said in the other post you quoted, DVD (and every other timeshare developer in the world) sells enough points/ownership such that the property is at 100% occupancy (less maintenance allocations) year-round.  And when rooms go empty, someone is not using their ownership--either willingly or unwillingly.  The timeshare manager's duty is to create a system which gives all owners the best opportunity to use their ownership.  That means helping to balance demand over certain seasons that are more popular than others and days of the week that are more or less in demand.
> 
> There are certainly people who have posted on the DIS about problems using their points.  Usually they are shrugged off as "well, you shouldn't have waited so long to book!"  Certainly supply and demand will always come into play, but this reallocation is one element of balancing supply and demand.
> 
> Overall DIS members tend to be more knowledgable than your run-of-the-mill DVC owner, which suggests that booking experiences outside of this group are probably quite different.



I appreciate your explanation...sorry to make you repeat some information. It is hard to wait until the end of the thread before responding to an individual post, especially on this thread.
Scott


----------



## Belle & Ariel

WilsonFlyer said:


> Then we just agree to disagree. We have to both concede that neither of us knows, nor will we ever know, What DVC's intentions were with respect to banking and borrowing when the rule was put in place.
> 
> My belief is that is was so members could save during the rainy season and borrow during the sunny season.
> 
> I don't believe the system was ever put in place with the expressed intention of affording someone the opportunity to buy 1/3 of a year's points to bank and borrow to use exactly that number of points every 3 years. Sorry. I just don't buy it. Can it be used that way? Certainly. But when it doesn't work anymore, I think it's safe to say that wasn't what DVC designed it into the system for but that's just my opinion.



Not everyone goes to Disney every year.  Some people buy half what they need to stay every other year.  This should have no effect on your reservation. You can do what works for you and respect people who use DVC differently.


----------



## KLR-wlv

Scott said:


> This is the problem with the logic IMO. I don't how this will improve occupancy or how it will spread occupancy from weekdays to weekends. Those who currently travel sunday-thursday will be forced to use more points for their reservations. With fewer points left over, I don't see how a majority of these folks will be in a position to switch from a weekday to a weekend. Thus, most sunday-thursday travelers will still be sunday-thursday travelers. Those who benefit are those booking weekend stays. These people now have enough points left over to add a weekday stay, thus increasing demands for weekday travel.
> 
> Having said that, let's assume that the change WILL balance occupancy...what is the motivation for doing so? (This is an attempt to fully understand the re-allocation). Some have suggested that it hurts DVC/Disney financially to have empty rooms. I don't understand how empty rooms hurt DVC or Disney financially. Those rooms are already paid for via the points we purchase. Whether I choose to use my points or let them die, should not affect DVC/Disney financially (putting aside other lost revenue on dining, theme parks, etc. which should not affect DVC decision making).
> 
> So this reallocation is simply about balancing occupancy, yes? To make it easier for us to find reservations at our home resorts?  I had no idea it is a major problem. Have numerous DVC folks been unable to find a room at their home resorts and on their chosen dates within the 11 month window?  Is this more of an issue of finding rooms at other resorts during the 7 month window? If so, could this be more a function of the season rather than the sunday-thursday demand?
> 
> Scott



I'm with you - don't understand how empty rooms that have been paid for with points and maint fees are costing disney - esp since they get to rent them. And I have never in 8 years had difficulty getting a reservation. 

Does disney think with the economy and gas prices likely to rise again that the longterm health of sales is to appeal to people within a few hours' drive? So entice them with cheaper weekends? I still can't get over the GCV point chart - 75 points for a 2br in premier season weekday- a full 20 points more than WL...that's 375 points for sun-thursday! and $1500 in maint. fees alone. Wonder what Hawaii's gonna be?!


----------



## gonzalj1

MiaSRN62 said:


> Please go back and read the post I was responding to gonsalj1......we were discussing verbal communication....face-to-face conversations with our guides.



As others have pointed out, and I will again, verbal communications are *irrelevant*. Only what is in writing matters. 




MiaSRN62 said:


> Never was an allocation of this magnitude hinted at as a possibility.  QUOTE]
> 
> Again, verbal communications, to which you seem to be refferring, are *irrelevant*. Since the contract, to my knowledge, places no limit on the potential reallocations one can not assume what they may consist of.
> 
> I stand behind my statements. If the new point allocations are not to your liking it is your right to sell. Likewise, if the potential of further point reallocations is not to your liking you can, and should, sell.
> 
> It is also your right to speak your mind, as you are doing on this board. Likewise, it is my right to disagree with those who insist on portraying Disney's actions as wrong, greedy, illegal or who just spread misinformation.


----------



## Chuck S

KLR-wlv said:


> I'm with you - don't understand how empty rooms that have been paid for with points and maint fees are costing disney - esp since they get to rent them. And I have never in 8 years had difficulty getting a reservation.
> 
> Does disney think with the economy and gas prices likely to rise again that the longterm health of sales is to appeal to people within a few hours' drive? So entice them with cheaper weekends? I still can't get over the GCV point chart - 75 points for a 2br in premier season weekday- a full 20 points more than WL...that's 375 points for sun-thursday! and $1500 in maint. fees alone. Wonder what Hawaii's gonna be?!



An imbalance of occupancy/demand costs members, not Disney.

They have to maintain a basic number of housekeepers, maintenance staff, etc. at the resorts,even in low occupancy.  They have to increase that staff on the high demand days, like Friday and Sundays.  More units than average to be cleaned means more housekeeping staff on those days, or overtime.  

Improving demand by evening out even some of the Friday check-outs and Sunday check-ins can reduce operating costs by reducing the need for part-time staff or overtime pay.  It can also lead to members getting into their rooms in a more timely manner, and less likelihood of encountering a room that was not well cleaned because of the rush to get them done by 4pm.

Labor is one of the higher costs for business, and in todays economy, it will be the first cost they look at controlling, as evidenced by the nationwide layoffs.


----------



## pilferk

I feel for those that this effects strongly.  It sucks to have your "routine" messed with and it's worse if you now will have to somehow either aquire more points or "bank and borrow" to take your traditional vacations (eventually leaving you "short").

For us...it's not much of an issue.  We travel Saturday - Friday (so 1 weekend night, and 5 weekday nights)...or, rather, we stay DVC those days, during Adventure Season (which happens to coincide with my "slow" season at work, too).  AKV, savanna view.  In a 1 BR, it would mean 8 more points for that time period.  I can deal with that.  In a 2 BR, it would mean  ONE more point for that time period.  That's not a big deal, to us, either.  Luckily, it doesn't mean we're "short" and need to buy that ONE more point to make things equal out.

I can certainly see why people are upset, though.  Even though everyone knew it was possible, even if it might be in the best interests of the program as a whole (assuming it is...who knows), it stinks to have the proverbial rug yanked out from under you.


----------



## kimberh

I was wondering if there was a survey that new prospects fill out when they attend  a DVC presentation. If so, I would bet weekend points come up. With Airfare being cheaper with a Saturday night stay, I would be willing to bet that the cost of weekend points comes up to the Guides or on a survey. I know that I have people mention this to me. How many Threads have been on the Dis about how to spend the weekends? DVC members that are not familiar with Internet Boards may not know how to spend the weekends to make the points stretch. This could be a huge complaint to Guides, which has been passed on to management. 

I know,  2 years ago... I had a Boardwalk View, One Bedroom booked for Sun-Thur night stay. I needed Fri night... I called MS it was about $ 330.00 for a Studio. Since I was going to have to change rooms, (I could not book Boardwalk view with cash...The points were just to high) I booked 2 nights at a Universal Property for the same money. I know I am just one of many that did this (stretched points). How many Threads have been posted about people trying to save weekend points? If I were Disney Management, I would have been discussing how to get more people to stay on property then lose them to Universal or Seaworld... or have them return home. 

As I posted earlier, I am not for the lack of communication, but I have never thought that the high weekend points were fair. I hate that the studios are so high now. The one bedrooms, wow. I mean, I feel all the pain of those it is really affecting.


----------



## Chuck S

kimberh said:


> I was wondering if there was a survey that new prospects fill out when they attend  a DVC presentation. If so, I would bet weekend points come up. With Airfare being cheaper with a Saturday night stay, I would be willing to bet that the cost of weekend points comes up to the Guides or on a survey. I know that I have people mention this to me. How many Threads have been on the Dis about how to spend the weekends? DVC members that are not familiar with Internet Boards may not know how to spend the weekends to make the points stretch. This could be a huge complaint to Guides, which has been passed on to management.
> 
> I know,  2 years ago... I had a Boardwalk View, One Bedroom booked for Sun-Thur night stay. I needed Fri night... I called MS it was about $ 330.00 for a Studio. Since I was going to have to change rooms, (I could not book Boardwalk view with cash...The points were just to high) I booked 2 nights at a Universal Property for the same money. I know I am just one of many that did this (stretched points). How many Threads have been posted about people trying to save weekend points? If I were Disney Management, I would have been discussing how to get more people to stay on property then lose them to Universal or Seaworld... or have them return home.
> 
> As I posted earlier, I am not for the lack of communication, but I have never thought that the high weekend points were fair. I hate that the studios are so high now. The one bedrooms, wow. I mean, I feel all the pain of those it is really affecting.



And you know, we see one or two threads a month from new members here, wondering why weekends are high points, and complaining. And this is only from the new DVC members that find their way to the DIS.  I think you are correct, guides hear this a great deal more than we do here on the boards.  Many new members may also have written letters or complained to MS while booking.  If marketing hears this, and MS sees a rise in Sun-Thur booking or hears complaints about airfares, there is certainly a basis for the re-allocation, if demand justifies it.


----------



## ashbradnmom

Scott said:


> I still don't get why 100% occupancy is imperative  The points have already been paid for. How does me staying in my villa (or not) affect DVC (not disney) financially? Please don't read any sarcasm here...this is one of the issues I can't get my brain around.
> Thanks,
> Scott



I do beleive that the reason for the close to 100% occupancy is that they think that if you are there you will spend money at the parks, restaurants etc. I look at it that yes DCV/DVD already has your money but all the same it it is still tied to disney and they need to keep people in the parks. If a room sits empty they can look at it and say we lost x amount of dollars by x amount of poeple that could have been in that room.


----------



## Scott

Chuck S said:


> And you know, we see one or two threads a month from new members here, wondering why weekends are high points, and complaining. And this is only from the new DVC members that find their way to the DIS.  I think you are correct, guides hear this a great deal more than we do here on the boards.  Many new members may also have written letters or complained to MS while booking.  If marketing hears this, and MS sees a rise in Sun-Thur booking or hears complaints about airfares, there is certainly a basis for the re-allocation, if demand justifies it.



Perhaps this is the crux of the problem. This goes beyond the "this hurts me I hate it" or "this helps me I love it" exchange. Chuck (or anyone else), is there a systematic process for gathering and evaluating member feedback related to this mystical "member experience" DVC alludes to in each press release? I would hate to think the DVC is making major decisions based on the "squeaky wheel" phenomenon, or some other "bright idea" from someone in a staff meeting. I have not been a DVC member long enough to understand the feedback/change process, but I've been on the DIS boards long enough to realize that part of the problem is that folks feel blind-sided and don't see the rationale or motivation for the changes. That is, the lack of transparency in the decision making. Even those who do see the rationale, are only making inferences and assumptions as to the reasons for the changes. I get the sense that some here (even those who like the changes) have lost confidence in the decision making ability of DVC.
Scott


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

ashbradnmom said:


> I do beleive that the reason for the close to 100% occupancy is that they think that if you are there you will spend money at the parks, restaurants etc. I look at it that yes DCV/DVD already has your money but all the same it it is still tied to disney and they need to keep people in the parks. If a room sits empty they can look at it and say we lost x amount of dollars by x amount of poeple that could have been in that room.



If they maintain close to 100% occupancy that means all the members are getting the opportunity to use all their points.  Since they sell up to 98% of the points anything that averages less than 98% means that there are members whose points are not being used.  It is best for the members if DVC can maintain as close to full occupancy as possible since that means everyone is getting the full benefit of their purchase.


----------



## Scott

ashbradnmom said:


> I do beleive that the reason for the close to 100% occupancy is that they think that if you are there you will spend money at the parks, restaurants etc. I look at it that yes DCV/DVD already has your money but all the same it it is still tied to disney and they need to keep people in the parks. If a room sits empty they can look at it and say we lost x amount of dollars by x amount of poeple that could have been in that room.



I agree with you, but I have also heard on these boards that DVC/Disney doesn't care if we take fewer trips or fail to use our points because they already have our money. That is, they don't need to provide additional perks and promotions to DVC people because we have already paid for our trip.


----------



## keishashadow

bobbiwoz said:


> I haven't even gotten a standard reply...well, just the initial one that says "Thank you!, we'll get to your concerns withing 3 business days."
> Bobbi


be sure to let us know, please


----------



## TSMIII

toocherie said:


> *I think that's the fear some posters have mentioned--that this isn't the end of the changes (just the changes that could be made for THIS year).*  At some point it will affect the booking patterns.  We just don't know what that point is.



I think this is one point that's been somewhat overlooked in this discussion and I give credit to those posters who have raised it.

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if they are done with the adjustments in the immediate future. My guess is that further adjustments are coming but without seeing the data no one can say for sure.

When I look at the new charts I'm struck by the fact that studios in Adventure and Choice seasons for the following resorts are exactly the same:
AKV - Value; BLT - LV; BCV; BWV - BW/PREF View; VWL

Now, are these changes actually designed to have demand *equal* in these room categories across two seasons at the same resort and roughly 5 months of the year or did DVC not get the adjustment that was needed due to the 20% reallocation wall and further adjustments are coming? I guess that's the $64K question. 

DVC should have a good idea of where they're at and where they need to be to balance demand.  Things could have gone a few ways with regard to demand data.  
1.  Demand could have remained reasonably stable, in which case we would have never seen a change as their current model (or recipe if you like, i.e the point charts) would have worked.  
2.  Demand could have been out of control and all over the place with no consistent trend(s) which would have meant the point charts were completely ineffective.  If this were the case, you'd essentially want to zero everything out and start from some baseline in an effort to get some consistent results to base further adjustments on - were this our situation I'd expect to see the maximum reallocation chart implemented where every night in every season was the same number of points.
3.  Demand could have exhibited a trend outside the desired range, either continuing to get further away from it or having plateaued.  In this case, which has to be where we currently are, DVC has sought to bring demand back into control by adjusting the point charts.  We'll likely never know whether the skew in demand had pateaued or was continuing to get worse.

Having done process control for a number of years using trend analysis and modeling, I'm thinking DVC probably has more than enough data with which to base their moves.  What I've picked up on in this discussion from some of the long time members is that DVC has probably gone longer than expected in doing another reallocation.

Usually, if we were dealing with the characteristics of example #3, we would do a small, conservative move based off an algorithm (or model) for that particular parameter which was out of control and then watch the results to see if the adjustment worked or not.

If the results showed absolutely no improvement, or even worse performance, we'd revert back to the previous "recipe" while we analyzed it some more and tried a different model to correct it.  Let's hope this is NOT the result of the new reallocation because it would mean DVC got it totally wrong.

If the results showed everything back in control, problem solved and we'd continue to monitor it.  Let's hope this IS the result and they don't have to go any further anytime soon. 

If the results showed some improvement, but not enough to get back into the desired range then another adjustment would have to be made to get it back into control.  If this is the result then DVC will have to reallocate again after they've compiled enough data to do the analysis.   Your guess how long that takes - I'd think at a bare minimum 2 years, maybe more if the economy causes this year to be an outlier.  

Without the data this is total speculation on my part, but seeing those rooms exactly the same in two seasons has me fearful that DVC is not finished with their first move on the data.   That they either hit the 20% wall, or didn't want to go too drastic in the first pass and that next year we may see another adjustment.  I sincerely hope I'm wrong!


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

Scott said:


> I agree with you, but I have also heard on these boards that DVC/Disney doesn't care if we take fewer trips or fail to use our points because they already have our money. That is, they don't need to provide additional perks and promotions to DVC people because we have already paid for our trip.



It is somewhat cynical to believe that Disney doesn't care if we get to use all our points.  It is in the best interest of everyone, Disney included, to have the system work the way it was intended.  We can't spend money there if were sitting at home.


----------



## dis-happy

White_Sox_Fan said:


> If they maintain close to 100% occupancy that means all the members are getting the opportunity to use all their points.  Since they sell up to 98% of the points anything that averages less than 98% means that there are members whose points are not being used.  It is best for the members if DVC can maintain as close to full occupancy as possible since that means everyone is getting the full benefit of their purchase.



Another way of looking at it: all points in any given year are a liability to DVC until they are either used for a reservation or expire.  They give the holder a "right" to a room and if DVC can't deliver that room they have a problem.  They need to use the economic motivators they have at hand to keep things in check; in this case changing the points spread.

The thread a couple of years ago about what might happen in 2042 was a lively and interesting discussion of this problem.


----------



## BroganMc

TSMIII said:


> Without the data this is total speculation on my part, but seeing those rooms exactly the same in two seasons has me fearful that DVC is not finished with their first move on the data.   That they either hit the 20% wall, or didn't want to go too drastic in the first pass and that next year we may see another adjustment.  I sincerely hope I'm wrong!



Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.

Guide: "Mr & Mrs X now you just need to decide how many points you want. Here are the charts for your resort... oops here's this year's and here it is next year."

Mr X: "Why does it cost more to stay a week next year than this year?"

Guide: "Oh, that's just the recent point reallocation. They do that to balance expected demand."

Mr X: "So how many points will we need for the year after?"

Guide: "They can only increase by 20% every year, but there will never be more points than the resort has in total. Something else goes down. So take that number and add 20% as a buffer."

Mrs X: "They can increase every year?"

Guide: "As long as points decrease at other times of the year or for other units. A 20% buffer should cover it all."

Mr X: "But they can do that every year, you said. So what if they decide to increase the weekly points by another 20% next year. Should we buy 40% more?"

Mrs X: "I thought this idea of this progam was to lock in our vacation dollars at today's prices. It doesn't seem like we're locking anything in with a 20% point increase every year."

Guide: "No you misunderstand, it's a point reallocation. The points for your week may go up 20% maximum but they'll go down for another room type or season by that amount."

Mrs X: "But we only want to take trips during those weeks and we'd need twice as many points for a bigger room."

Mr X: "What's the most that week would cost us with all these point allocations? Who decides to make these changes? Do they consult members first?"

Guide: "Um, uh, we care about our members. We're part of a family."


----------



## pakhowe

gonzalj1 said:


> Yes. I do believe full disclosure happens on every transaction. The disclosure is in the contract we all signed. It is not hidden.
> 
> *As I stated before, I read the contract. I was told that the re-allocation clause was for the purpose of adjusting for when certain holidays (such as Easter and Thanksgiving) fell in relation to the calender year. This is a very reasonable explanation and I fail to see why I would not believe it.*
> 
> Speak to any lawyer and they will tell you fully read any document you sign. If people didn't read the documents they signed then the surprise they feel fault NOT DISNEY'S.
> 
> *Again I read the contract.*
> 
> It's time we stop blaming others for our own ignorance. We want others to take the blame for following the rules we agreed to. This is exactly the type of behavior we say we are teaching our children to avoid. Only when we are the ones who shoul dtake responsibility we do not.
> 
> *It is true, I try to teach my children personal responsibility. I also try to teach them honesty, compassion and understanding.*
> 
> *I'm sure it is easy to sit behind a computer and call people you will never see ignorant, but perhaps you shouldn't assume you know the facts of everyone's individual transaction.*
> 
> If we didn't read the documents and agreed to something without a complete understanding of the terms and conditions then SHAME ON US. We are the ones who made a mistake. We need to take responsibility for our actions (or inaction) and deal with it.


 
Bold print above added by me.

I purchased points at AKV a few months ago. I asked about the re-allocation of points and was given a perfectly viable explanation for the clause, which does not in any way resemble the way the clause was exercised. There is no way DVC wasn't aware that this change was in the works when I made my purchase. I absolutely feel that there was, at the very least, a lack of full disclosure. 

We planned our first trip home to be a large trip in 2010 with extended family (by banking and borrowing). This first trip was planned and calculated before we signed the paperwork buying into DVC. These changes have increased the point requirements for this trip by 50 points. Yes I am angry. Yes I feel mislead. Yes I probably would have made the purchase had I known about the point re-allocation and I would be alot happier about it now.

On the bright side, The annual trip we are likely to take after this initial one decreased by one point (subject to additional reallocations of course). It will only take us 50 years to recoup the initial loss.


----------



## pakhowe

BroganMc said:


> Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.
> 
> Guide: "Mr & Mrs X now you just need to decide how many points you want. Here are the charts for your resort... oops here's this year's and here it is next year."
> 
> Mr X: "Why does it cost more to stay a week next year than this year?"
> 
> Guide: "Oh, that's just the recent point reallocation. They do that to balance expected demand."
> 
> Mr X: "So how many points will we need for the year after?"
> 
> Guide: "They can only increase by 20% every year, but there will never be more points than the resort has in total. Something else goes down. So take that number and add 20% as a buffer."
> 
> Mrs X: "They can increase every year?"
> 
> Guide: "As long as points decrease at other times of the year or for other units. A 20% buffer should cover it all."
> 
> Mr X: "But they can do that every year, you said. So what if they decide to increase the weekly points by another 20% next year. Should we buy 40% more?"
> 
> Mrs X: "I thought this idea of this progam was to lock in our vacation dollars at today's prices. It doesn't seem like we're locking anything in with a 20% point increase every year."
> 
> Guide: "No you misunderstand, it's a point reallocation. The points for your week may go up 20% maximum but they'll go down for another room type or season by that amount."
> 
> Mrs X: "But we only want to take trips during those weeks and we'd need twice as many points for a bigger room."
> 
> Mr X: "What's the most that week would cost us with all these point allocations? Who decides to make these changes? Do they consult members first?"
> 
> Guide: "Um, uh, we care about our members. We're part of a family."



Now that is kinda funny.  Thank you, I needed that.


----------



## bevis

Wow! Haven't checked in for a few days so i'm a little behind here but as i've browsed through something caught my eye. I'm not sure that this hasn't been raised already amongst the 100+ pages.

In Post #1233, BroganMC quoted something from his BLT contract. Now i'm no attorney but I know that the interpretation of the wording in a contract means everything.

 "- The total number of Vacation points required to use all Vacation Homes during each calendar year through January 31, 2060 can never increase."

There are discussions about the total # of points needing to remain the same for the year. It looks to me that they aren't just talking about adjusting point increases with decreases within a season or year, but over the life of the contract. AM I NUTS?? Or am I interpreting this wrong.

For example: 15,000,000 points per year X 50 years (2010-2060) = ?
                  The total points for the year could go up 100,000 one year then 
                  down 100,000 the next as long as the total of
                  15,000,000 x 60 = ? is not exceeded.
Does this make sense? For some reason that's how it reads to me.


----------



## bevis

Sorry! need to fix a typo.
That last "calculation" should be 15,000,000 x 50, not 60.
The # is so big, though does it really matter?


----------



## tedhowe

bevis said:


> "- The total number of Vacation points required to use all Vacation Homes *during each calendar year *through January 31, 2060 can never increase."



No, the amount of total points each year must remain fixed. The bold point above specifies that.


----------



## kimberh

BroganMc said:


> Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.
> 
> Guide: "Mr & Mrs X now you just need to decide how many points you want. Here are the charts for your resort... oops here's this year's and here it is next year."
> 
> Mr X: "Why does it cost more to stay a week next year than this year?"
> 
> Guide: "Oh, that's just the recent point reallocation. They do that to balance expected demand."
> 
> Mr X: "So how many points will we need for the year after?"
> 
> Guide: "They can only increase by 20% every year, but there will never be more points than the resort has in total. Something else goes down. So take that number and add 20% as a buffer."
> 
> Mrs X: "They can increase every year?"
> 
> Guide: "As long as points decrease at other times of the year or for other units. A 20% buffer should cover it all."
> 
> Mr X: "But they can do that every year, you said. So what if they decide to increase the weekly points by another 20% next year. Should we buy 40% more?"
> 
> Mrs X: "I thought this idea of this progam was to lock in our vacation dollars at today's prices. It doesn't seem like we're locking anything in with a 20% point increase every year."
> 
> Guide: "No you misunderstand, it's a point reallocation. The points for your week may go up 20% maximum but they'll go down for another room type or season by that amount."
> 
> Mrs X: "But we only want to take trips during those weeks and we'd need twice as many points for a bigger room."
> 
> Mr X: "What's the most that week would cost us with all these point allocations? Who decides to make these changes? Do they consult members first?"
> 
> Guide: "Um, uh, we care about our members. We're part of a family."



So would you buy if this coversation took place? I would not. It would scare me away. I own two non Disney timeshares, I am not a trusting person. I did trust Disney, It is where I felt the Magic for Pete's sake! 

We were on a cruise 8 or so years ago. We sat at a Table with a Orlando Lawyer with two girls. The conversation went something like this... I said, " so, how often do you go to Disneyworld?" she replied," Never!" "I would never take my children to Disney!" " I represent Clients daily that are run over by Disney on a Daily basis." " There is Corporate Disney that the World doesn't know about, believe you me, when you deal with them, you sure don't want to spend any money at the parks!"  I was just shocked! I couldn't hardly believe what she was saying. I do think I believe her now.   At this time we were not DVC owners, we just vacationed there every two years.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> gonzalj1 : *verbal communications are irrelevant. Only what is in writing matters. *
> 
> 
> Again, verbal communications, to which you seem to be refferring, are irrelevant. Since the contract, to my knowledge, places no limit on the potential reallocations one can not assume what they may consist of.



PLEASE tell me something myself and others don't already know gonzalj1 ?  We know the only binding information is in writing.....we were discussing the verbal communication and the "sales presentation" to the potential customer, as you will have it.  It was just a comment on how the sales people handle the presenting of the full facts to customers.  That was it.  End of story.  

And you can disagree all you like....I don't mind that.  It's when you start throwing around words like "ignorance" where I'll come back here.  And that's what got me.   I never said I wasn't aware of allocation in the tiny print of the  paperwork.  I was simply discussing the verbal sales presentation.  If disney continues as they have with some (not providing full disclosure verbally---because we asked about the allocation before signing and I keep repeating this), then they become no different than those hardsell, underhanded timeshare sales people you can find on every corner in Orlando who performed a legal/binding transaction, but in a slimy way. 




> I purchased points at AKV a few months ago. I asked about the re-allocation of points and was given a perfectly viable explanation for the clause, which does not in any way resemble the way the clause was exercised. There is no way DVC wasn't aware that this change was in the works when I made my purchase. I absolutely feel that there was, at the very least, a lack of full disclosure.


Agreed pakhowe (and I also purchased AKV 90+ days ago).....there is no way when DVC was throwing that Jan 15 deadline at us that they didn't know what they were planning to do.  (gosh....I must have gotten 3-4 emails in addition to 3-4 mailings about the Jan 15 cut off.....).  Why couldn't they have been giving us the head's up on this drastic allocation at the same time ???


----------



## drusba

gonzalj1 said:


> Yes. I do believe full disclosure happens on every transaction. The disclosure is in the contract we all signed. It is not hidden.
> 
> Speak to any lawyer and they will tell you fully read any document you sign. If people didn't read the documents they signed then the surprise they feel fault NOT DISNEY'S.
> 
> It's time we stop blaming others for our own ignorance. We want others to take the blame for following the rules we agreed to. This is exactly the type of behavior we say we are teaching our children to avoid. Only when we are the ones who shoul dtake responsibility we do not.
> 
> If we didn't read the documents and agreed to something without a complete understanding of the terms and conditions then SHAME ON US. We are the ones who made a mistake. We need to take responsibility for our actions (or inaction) and deal with it.



Full disclosure in the documents is not as absolute as you present. The documents members actually sign when they purchase state only that Disney reserves the right to adjust points based on changes in "seasonal" demand. What has been done is not an adjustment based on a change in "seasonal" demand but on alleged changes in the daily demand for a week.

A section of the public offering statement (POS), which no one signs -- and under legal principles I am aware of must give way to the actual contract documents signed, i.e., the signed documents, if different from the POS, generally control over the POS -- does appear to give Disney the ability to make adjustments to days of the week based on changes in demand during the week although that is not clearly stated. However, what it does clearly say is that for a member's home resort Disney will make a change only if it is based upon actual experience with demand at the resort over a period a calendar year (or more). Now, even if a BLT buyer read and understood each and every word of the POS and was himself a lawyer who specialized in timeshare documents, he could never conclude that Disney retained the right to make a point adjustment at a resort like BLT before there had ever been a reservation of a room. 

Also, full disclosure has another element. What Disney is required to disclose to purchasers is information that is material to the decision to buy. This decision to make a point adjustment most likely was being considered and decided months ago. Puchasers in the last few months at AKV and BLT were not informed of Disney's plan to change the point charts before they would even get to use their points and instead bought relying on the point charts that existed. Arguably, Disney revealed in the documents that it reserved a right to make a change, but that does not equal full disclosure to those recent purchasers for the purpose of the timeshare sale. Nothing in the documents said Disney intended to make the change it did make and that is material information those recent buyers were entitled to have before deciding to purchase.


----------



## T-i-double-g-err

BroganMc said:


> Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.


Actually, my thinking is that they would still represent that the points for any given week does not change radically, except in a few infrequent instances.  The key word being "week".  Looking at the weekly totals it appears that most weekly amounts only changed by under 4 or so points either up or down.  A few had more, but overall the weekly totals remained pretty close.  The truly radical differences seem to be for a five night stays ranging from Sun. - Thurs., or worse a Sun. - Thurs., followed by an off-property or cash Fri-Sat, followed by another Sun-Thurs. 



MiaSRN62 said:


> Agreed pakhowe (and I also purchased AKV 90+ days ago).....there is no way when DVC was throwing that Jan 15 deadline at us that they didn't know what they were planning to do.  (gosh....I must have gotten 3-4 emails in addition to 3-4 mailings about the Jan 15 cut off.....).  Why couldn't they have been giving us the head's up on this drastic allocation at the same time ???



I'm a new purchaser, so I'm not sure I have everything straight just yet.  Actually, I'm still in my 10-day cancellation window, so I'm a definite newbie.  Is it possible that a left-hand/right-hand miscommunication occurred?  Is there a separate Disney company responsible for development and sales who controls pricing, minimum purchases, etc. from the Disney company responsible for managing the club, who looks at demand/usage/occupancy and controls the reallocation of the point charts.  I'm not saying that this happened.  And, I think sister companies responsible for a common asset should communicate better.  However, if my speculation is correct, you have two different entities involved that have different goals and mandates.


----------



## tjkraz

BroganMc said:


> Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.



No, I can't imagine that scenario playing-out.  

It may prompt some additional discussions which highlight the program as a *timeshare *moreso than in the past.  But I doubt most potential customers will take personal offense to the reallocation as seems to be the case with many here.  

The salesperson could even draw parallels to Disney's cash rates.  If over time demand begins to spike for a particular event or season, Disney will respond by raising its room rates for that period.  They have already implemented higher weekend pricing like most hotel operators.  

As for whether members are consulted on a reallocation, obviously the answer is no.  It isn't a popularity contest.  The points are reallocated in response to member demand patterns.


----------



## drusba

T-i-double-g-err said:


> I'm a new purchaser, so I'm not sure I have everything straight just yet.  Actually, I'm still in my 10-day cancellation window, so I'm a definite newbie.  Is it possible that a left-hand/right-hand miscommunication occurred?  Is there a separate Disney company responsible for development and sales who controls pricing, minimum purchases, etc. from the Disney company responsible for managing the club, who looks at demand/usage/occupancy and controls the reallocation of the point charts.  I'm not saying that this happened.  And, I think sister companies responsible for a common asset should communicate better.  However, if my speculation is correct, you have two different entities involved that have different goals and mandates.



There are different entities but not necessarily different personnel. Disney Vacation Development Co (DVD) is the lead entity that develops the resorts, and ultimately has control over all DVC. Two other compaines, Disney Vacation Club Management Co (DVCMC), and Buena Vista Trading Co. (BVTC) are designated managers of the resorts and the reservation system. Officially DVD would be the entity to raise prices and minimal sale points and DVCMC (and possibly BVTC at some resorts) would be the entity to change the point charts. However, finding a practical rather than a legal distinction among the companies would be difficult because they all operate out of the same address and share personnel.


----------



## dzorn

gonzalj1 said:


> Points have not, and never will, go up. Points have been, and probably will be again, reallocated. The entire number of points to stay in the same room at the resort for the year has not changed. Nor will it. Period. End of Story.
> 
> I understand people are upset that they're preferred vacatin times may have gone up. I get it. However, please do not spread misinformation. For every increase there was a corresponding decrease. Guaranteed.
> 
> My planned 2010 and 2011 vacations just got less expensive and I can now book another night with my exisiting points. How could I do that if points went up?
> 
> Disney was well within their rights to make this change. They gave us ample notice (a year). I agree there could have been a little more communication around it. But all in all they did what they could legally. They never broke of even bent the contract we signed.



Please note these two statements do not match. Disney did not give adequate notice. They gave 2 days. I personally understand that they changes may be necessary but people would may changed their 2009 plans (by borrowing from 2010 or banking 2009) differently if they we actually given adequate notice. AKA when 2010 points were first available for use. 

I can only hope that DVC will give adequate notice in the future if and when further re-allocation is needed.

Denise in MI


----------



## spiceycat

probably wrong place - but anyway

because of the BLT - 100 point thing

does anyone else feel that the management at DVC is not as honest as one would hope?

disney has always been honest. this is so under handed that is hardily feels like the company that I love.

so the new disney will be dishonest with its DVC members so what is it doing to the general public?


----------



## ckg

Not having read this huge thread but understanding the change, I kind of like it for our needs as we are locals and now this should take the sting out of weekends a bit. 

With that said   I completely can see how this can cause hardship for some folks as the planned week point cost can be off by a couple of points for what people have budgeted.   I think that sucks for those owners as who is really going to want to do a tiny transfer (to fill in the point gap) for those people so they can get their week stay they have been getting every year.  I would suspect that would prove at least somewhat of a hassle at best.

If DVC is going to do this especially for recent Disney bought contracts or Disney bought add ons, they should allow those owners to buy a small odd sized contract to make up for the shortfall.  That would be the minimum decent thing to do IMO.


----------



## puntagordabob

Well as a recent BLT purchaser...I am sort of too new to really jump into the they did something good/bad here....

One thing I wish they would do is to allow those of us who bought BLT as 160 or more point purchasers (or even 100 point purchase add-ons too I suppose) to add on 25 point increments if we wish over and above what we have now... doesnt make sense to force people to buy 100 points when they need 10 or so... IMHO for people already onwers at BLT of 160 (or maybe 100) points the 25 point increment seems a fair compromise.


----------



## spiceycat

puntagordabob said:


> Well as a recent BLT purchaser...I am sort of too new to really jump into the they did something good/bad here....
> 
> One thing I wish they would do is to allow those of us who bought BLT as 160 or more point purchasers (or even 100 point purchase add-ons too I suppose) to add on 25 point increments if we wish over and above what we have now... doesnt make sense to force people to buy 100 points when they need 10 or so... IMHO for people already onwers at BLT of 160 (or maybe 100) points the 25 point increment seems a fair compromise.



my guide asked for this - and was told "NO"

she is a owner at BLT too.

so believe me the guides are just as upset as other members are.


----------



## spiceycat

MiaSRN62 agree with what you are saying.

when I was over at sales center waiting for my appointment to see the new BLT models - the sales person next to me was telling his couple that the points will NEVER change.

almost say something - but heck it had been a long, long time since it was changed - so saw no harm in it.

now wish I had.

can live with points change - it is part of life now - still really, really mad at the announcement before hand of 100 points min add on for blt. that to me is being lied too. they could have told us the points charts were changing before the 100 points minimum if they were honest.

now we all know they are not honest.

in 1994 when the first point change was announced - add on 25 points to OKW (really 50) not a biggy.

this is because really don't want to add on 100 points to get the 10 that I need...

oh well time to change how use my points again.

really think this needs to put in writing to DVC  and DIsney...

disney needs to know that the upper management at DVC is not being honest with DVC members.


----------



## Doug7856

spiceycat said:


> my guide asked for this - and was told "NO"
> 
> she is a owner at BLT too.
> 
> so believe me the guides are just as upset as other members are.



In my opinion, Disney has lost all credibility on this issue.  I just don't trust them any more.


----------



## jecpva

DVC is going to have to deal with upset members all year as the only way I realized the extent of the re-allocation was by the members posting on this board.  DVC sent me (and I assume everyone else) an Email on 1/23/09 which I just glanced over and didn't really pay attention to.  There are a lot of members who won't find out about this until they decide to book a vacation for next year.


----------



## jamstew

jecpva said:


> DVC is going to have to deal with upset members all year as the only way I realized the extent of the re-allocation was by the members posting on this board.  DVC sent me (and I assume everyone else) an Email on 1/23/09 which I just glanced over and didn't really pay attention to.



I never even got the email


----------



## DisFlan

I didn't get an email about it, either.  The first I knew about it (as usual) was here on the Dis.  

DisFlan


----------



## dzorn

Scott said:


> I still don't get why 100% occupancy is imperative  The points have already been paid for. How does me staying in my villa (or not) affect DVC (not disney) financially? Please don't read any sarcasm here...this is one of the issues I can't get my brain around.
> Thanks,
> Scott



Part of the unoccupied rooms may be rooms that DVC gave to CRO to offset trade out to Non-dvc resorts and cruises. If they don't get rented then we are absorbing the cost of those options. If a member cannot get a reservation they are more likely to trade out than lose the points. 

Denise in MI


----------



## jamstew

I've spent most of the last few days doing spreadsheets to figure out how the changes will impact my travel and that of my two adult children. We share my points, but the plan when I bought the points was that they would only go once every three years. Alternating between my two 150-point contracts (BCV & VWL), I can continue to take two trips a year for the same number of nights that I have been, and the kids can do a 1BR every third year as planned. By the end of 2015 (which is as far as I worked it out), I will have only had to borrow once in the BCV contract and twice in the VWL contract. By that time, I'll be 70 and likely not traveling on my own any more


----------



## spiceycat

DisFlan said:


> I didn't get an email about it, either.  The first I knew about it (as usual) was here on the Dis.
> 
> DisFlan



then check the email that MS has for you.

they say it would be send to member that had valid emails.

so if MS has a valid email and do not communicate with you - then that is a problem.


----------



## ashbradnmom

spiceycat said:


> then check the email that MS has for you.
> 
> they say it would be send to member that had valid emails.
> 
> so if MS has a valid email and do not communicate with you - then that is a problem.



It was not an email that actually stated the 2010 points have changed. The main topic of the announcement was the opening of the point sales for the Treehouse Villas at SSR


----------



## keishashadow

spiceycat said:


> then check the email that MS has for you.
> 
> they say it would be send to member that had valid emails.
> 
> so if MS has a valid email and do not communicate with you - then that is a problem.


add me to the list, mine is current, they're in my address book & i even check spam folder for "disney" (often, looking for the pincode that never comes ) i do get a random email now & again from my guide re purchase opportunities though


----------



## ashbradnmom

Sorry i didnt mean that to be for you spicycay but meant it to be for disflan


----------



## DebbieB

ashbradnmom said:


> It was not an email that actually stated the 2010 points have changed. The main topic of the announcement was the opening of the point sales for the Treehouse Villas at SSR



That's the one.  Look towards the bottom.   They buried it as a one-liner.



> Plus...
> 
> Disney Parks Celebrate US Military with Free Admission in 2009
> New wait-list process designed to improve Member experience
> *Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points Charts *
> Sanaa reservations begin Feb. 16


----------



## jecpva

ashbradnmom said:


> It was not an email that actually stated the 2010 points have changed. The main topic of the announcement was the opening of the point sales for the Treehouse Villas at SSR



Actually, below the THV/SSR promo in that Email were 4 bullet points that said:

Plus...

Disney Parks Celebrate US Military with Free Admission in 2009
New wait-list process designed to improve Member experience
Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points Charts
Sanaa reservations begin Feb. 16​
Not exactly highlighted and to find the details, you had to log into the DVC site.  I never even noticed it until I saw the posts on this board and rechecked my deleted Emails.


----------



## dzorn

jecpva said:


> Actually, below the THV/SSR promo in that Email were 4 bullet points that said:
> 
> Plus...
> 
> Disney Parks Celebrate US Military with Free Admission in 2009
> New wait-list process designed to improve Member experience
> Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points Charts
> Sanaa reservations begin Feb. 16​
> Not exactly highlighted and to find the details, you had to log into the DVC site.  I never even noticed it until I saw the posts on this board and rechecked my deleted Emails.



And if a member just looks on the opening page for *Latest News* they will have no clue about the change. After all is more important that we get a Narnia makeover or Preview American Idol  then know about a point re-allocation or wait list policy change.

Denise in MI


----------



## Anal Annie

keishashadow said:


> perhaps, just wondering if anybody has contacted MS & gotten anything other than a standard reply?



I have been away for 4 days and am just now trying to catch up on all this hooey.  I have skimmed some of the latest pages in this thread but not everything.  I emailed my thoughts on all of it to both MS and to my guide on Friday morning before I left and have not heard back from either.  I know my guide cannot reply to an email but you would think MS would say something other than the canned "we got your email and will be in touch" autoreply.   I did not email to the Member Satisfaction email that I just saw was posted somewhere.  I suppose I shall try that next.  I HAVE a valid email address on file.  I even contacted them to check it a couple of weeks ago and they claim it's good.  Yet I receive diddly squat from them.

OK, now what is this other change that I saw mentioned on here about a change in the reservation system and the Waitlist system???  NOW what?   Good grief!  Can't even go away for a long weekend without missing some sort of big scoop!

OH, and my theory on this mess is that they're not only punishing some of us for not being able to own a gazillion points, they are off giggling somewhere about how this will make Caskbill have to re-do his planning charts now that they are all out of whack.  DVC Management is a sick twisted bunch I tell ya!


----------



## Buckeye Fan

I just reviewed my last 2 vacations and my 2 scheduled. There was a + 13 point difference total for all trips. The biggest impact will be to "how" I book, not "what" I book. 

I had enough VB points to book 5 nights in a 2-BR. Now, I will be short points. Since weekend points were so high (70+ per night), it has been easy to get a Fri/Sat night at 7 months. I'm not sure how this will impact 7 month availability. Just something I'll have to figure out in the future!


----------



## DVC Mike

drusba said:


> Full disclosure in the documents is not as absolute as you present. The documents members actually sign when they purchase state only that Disney reserves the right to adjust points based on changes in "seasonal" demand. What has been done is not an adjustment based on a change in "seasonal" demand but on alleged changes in the daily demand for a week.
> 
> A section of the public offering statement (POS), which no one signs -- and under legal principles I am aware of must give way to the actual contract documents signed, i.e., the signed documents, if different from the POS, generally control over the POS -- does appear to give Disney the ability to make adjustments to days of the week based on changes in demand during the week although that is not clearly stated.


 
The Product Understanding Checklist _that you do sign_ says:



> ...created this Product Understanding Acknowledgement to *summarize* key information. For *complete details and definitions*, please review the Public Offering Statement.


 
Emphasis is mine. The point is that the Checklist you sign only summarizes the POS where the complete details and detailed definitions of how DVC works are given.


----------



## DVC Mike

spiceycat said:


> does anyone else feel that the management at DVC is not as honest as one would hope?
> 
> disney has always been honest. this is so under handed that is hardily feels like the company that I love.
> 
> so the new disney will be dishonest with its DVC members so what is it doing to the general public?


 
I don't think DVC has been dishonest or under handed. I can think of the way they decided to give developers points to those that bought BLT on day one (including myself). That wasn't necessary, but DVC did it and obtained some great positive feedback from its members.

DVC has followed the rules that are laid out in the official documents ("Disney Vacation Club Membership Agreement"). What is dishonest about that?

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that DVD changed their rules allowing small add-ons at BLT and only after that period passed, they released the reallocated point chart. I'm not so sure that was dishonesty more than DVD not realizing how it would negatively impact those small BLT point owners.


----------



## Scott

dzorn said:


> Part of the unoccupied rooms may be rooms that DVC gave to CRO to offset trade out to Non-dvc resorts and cruises. If they don't get rented then we are absorbing the cost of those options. If a member cannot get a reservation they are more likely to trade out than lose the points.
> 
> Denise in MI



This is another topic I would like more information on. I sent a message to MS, but didn't get a clear response. If a DVC member trades out, how does CRO use those points? Since they are not tied to a specific date (or even a specific resort within 7 months), couldn't they simply use those points for high occupancy seasons to ensure that they get used? I asked this question a few months ago and one kind DIS'er responded that he/she didn't think CRO would cherry pick prime dates and locations. Does anyone have reliable information on this policy?


----------



## cpdwiz

Are people upset that Disney changed the points system, OR, did not notify people in a timely, appropriate manner? Or both? I am curious to see....As I said in another post, this change helped me, BUT, we are flexible as to when we can go.....I certainly feel for the people this hurt....DVC is a HUGE investment, esp in this economy.....

Does anyone know if this was discussed at the meeting in December?


----------



## toocherie

cpdwiz said:


> Are people upset that Disney changed the points system, OR, did not notify people in a timely, appropriate manner? Or both? I am curious to see....As I said in another post, this change helped me, BUT, we are flexible as to when we can go.....I certainly feel for the people this hurt....DVC is a HUGE investment, esp in this economy.....
> 
> Does anyone know if this was discussed at the meeting in December?



According to what I have seen it was not discussed or even hinted at at the meeting in Dec.

Like you, the change doesn't necessarily hurt me.  But I think people are upset both about the change itself (it does impact some established vacation patterns) and the timeliness and method in which the change was communicated.


----------



## spiceycat

DVC Mike said:


> Perhaps you are referring to the fact that DVD changed their rules allowing small add-ons at BLT and only after that period passed, they released the reallocated point chart. I'm not so sure that was dishonesty more than DVD not realizing how it would negatively impact those small BLT point owners.



my problem is that BLT has to add on 100 points - not the 25 like the other DVC resorts. if I could add on 25 points to my BLT contracts would - problem solved.I can not.

DVC knew this change was coming - it kept from us (BLT buyers) and guides.
that to me is dishonest. If I know then would have simply added more points.

they make sure the annoucement of BLT 100 point addition was well announced.

this to me and probably more dvc members than you think Mike - is not a small change.

how many new owners only brought the 160 points that they had too - thinking it would be fine to find out now it will not be. and guess what insist of a small add on like 25 points - they have to go with 100 points add on or change their vacation plans.

if you don't think this dishonest - how do you describe DVC upper mangement in regard to both the 100 add on only at BLT and this point chart change?

they definitely knew both - and they picked to do this way in the hope that enough of us would just buy 100 add on.

sorry my budget does not allow that much of add on - now 25 points could do it.


----------



## disneynutz

Like so many other corporations, Disney has changed their business model. 

In the past they had a good balance between making a profit and being the Happiest Place On Earth. Sadly profit has slowly taken over. I wouldn't say that they are dishonest, but they are sure doing business in a gray area. 

Part of the problem is that we don't believe and/or want to admit that Disney would do anything that isn't in our best interest.

A good example of this is BLT. I would guess that 90% of the buyers are expecting a MK view. All of the Disney, artiest conception drawings show a MK view with fireworks, so everyone expects it, right. Less than 85 total rooms are MK views and that number goes down when you factor in lock-offs and the MK views of the backstage areas.

I guess you could call it successful marketing.


----------



## spiceycat

Scott said:


> This is another topic I would like more information on. I sent a message to MS, but didn't get a clear response. If a DVC member trades out, how does CRO use those points? Since they are not tied to a specific date (or even a specific resort within 7 months), couldn't they simply use those points for high occupancy seasons to ensure that they get used? I asked this question a few months ago and one kind DIS'er responded that he/she didn't think CRO would cherry pick prime dates and locations. Does anyone have reliable information on this policy?



if you traded to RCI - it gets the reservation (points)

if you traded to Disney resorts, concierge, adventure or cruise - then CRO has to rent the villa to pay for this stuff.

for II they used offseason, a few during holidays, but generally - May and Sept were big months - there is not enough information yet for RCI.

so everything could change with RCI.

so far never seem Easter, Palm, Memorial Day, July 4, THankgiving or Christmas to NY on II - but my trader is not a great one.

now did see Labor day.


----------



## spiceycat

disneynutz said:


> A good example of this is BLT. I would guess that 90% of the buyers are expecting a MK view. All of the Disney, artiest conception drawings show a MK view with fireworks, so everyone expects it, right. Less than 85 total rooms are MK views and that number goes down when you factor in lock-offs and the MK views of the backstage areas.



when I say this when the BLT model first opened - someone reported back that DVC had changed the studio to be Bay Lake not the MK view.

but hey at least they are trying to show us a real view. that was the big problem with VWL - it was over at BWV and of course in those surrounding it did not fit. Know it is irrating that they are showing the MK view but at least it is better than SSR view (okay to me - your opinion might be different)


----------



## maminnie

LVSWL said:


> Well, after several days of trying to read through this thread, I just want to say that my heart really goes out to those that are struggling with this change. DVC has been such a blessing for our family over the years. From the moment that we purchased in 2002 we have spent countless hours planning our multiple yearly vacations and then anticipating them. While our vacation habits have changed some over the last 6 years, as our kids have grown and gone from year round schools to high school, this present change will make us have to look at our vacations in a new light again. It also will change those thoughts that we had about how we might travel when the kids were out of the house and we would go down together.  I frankly am shocked at the lack of compassion I have seen on this thread recently. We are all DVC members, who bought in, and bought what we felt like were enough points to travel when "we thought that we would travel the most" whatever season it was and whether it was a weekend or not. Berating other members just seems mean to me. Anyway, like I said, my heart really aches for those who are trying to sort out what to do, who have plans that are put on hold now. If you are like our family, your trips to WDW and the planning and anticipation of those trips mean a lot to you so I know how upsetting this can be. Hopefully we will all figure out a way to weather this.



LYSWL:

I would like to also thank you for your very kind post.  

My family and I have also enjoyed so many wonderful visits to Disney.  It just saddens me that the modified reservation policy, modified waitlist policy, and the point reallocation may now effect how we are able to vacation and have also encouraged us to consider selling.  These three policys all make things more difficult for us in accomplishing vacations that we have been able to do for years.  I am also not a fan of RCI.  I just do not have confidence in DVC anymore and can't imagine what further changes they have in store for members.

Oh well, time will tell as to what we do.  Best of luck to all. 

maminnie


----------



## maminnie

BroganMc said:


> Oh to be a DVC Sales Guide now! Can you imagine the scenario playing out now in the sales center.
> 
> Guide: "Mr & Mrs X now you just need to decide how many points you want. Here are the charts for your resort... oops here's this year's and here it is next year."
> 
> Mr X: "Why does it cost more to stay a week next year than this year?"
> 
> Guide: "Oh, that's just the recent point reallocation. They do that to balance expected demand."
> 
> Mr X: "So how many points will we need for the year after?"
> 
> Guide: "They can only increase by 20% every year, but there will never be more points than the resort has in total. Something else goes down. So take that number and add 20% as a buffer."
> 
> Mrs X: "They can increase every year?"
> 
> Guide: "As long as points decrease at other times of the year or for other units. A 20% buffer should cover it all."
> 
> Mr X: "But they can do that every year, you said. So what if they decide to increase the weekly points by another 20% next year. Should we buy 40% more?"
> 
> Mrs X: "I thought this idea of this progam was to lock in our vacation dollars at today's prices. It doesn't seem like we're locking anything in with a 20% point increase every year."
> 
> Guide: "No you misunderstand, it's a point reallocation. The points for your week may go up 20% maximum but they'll go down for another room type or season by that amount."
> 
> Mrs X: "But we only want to take trips during those weeks and we'd need twice as many points for a bigger room."
> 
> Mr X: "What's the most that week would cost us with all these point allocations? Who decides to make these changes? Do they consult members first?"
> 
> Guide: "Um, uh, we care about our members. We're part of a family."



Interesting post.  What would a DVC sales representative say or do at this point??  How could they recommend any type of point amount at this point??  We as members have absolutely no idea what to expect in the years ahead.  If I were to try and buy an add-on to correct the situation I now have to deal with, I would have absolutely know idea what number of points to buy.  

So much for locking in for the years ahead.    

maminnie


----------



## Chuck S

maminnie said:


> Interesting post.  What would a DVC sales representative say or do at this point??  How could they recommend any type of point amount at this point??  We as members have absolutely no idea what to expect in the years ahead.  If I were to try and buy an add-on to correct the situation I now have to deal with, I would have absolutely know idea what number of points to buy.
> 
> So much for locking in for the years ahead.
> 
> maminnie



There should be something in the POS for each resort that would detail either the points needed, or consecutive days you could stay with X number of points at maximum re-allocation.  At least there is in my 1991 POS.  It shows how many consecutive days for each room type you could stay with a 230 point contract (the minimum at the time).  From that, you could calculate a very close approximation as to a final maximum reallocation point chart for the resort.


----------



## disneynutz

spiceycat said:


> when I say this when the BLT model first opened - someone reported back that DVC had changed the studio to be Bay Lake not the MK view.



According to documents filed with Orange County, there appears that there are lock-offs that will be in the MK category.


----------



## ashbradnmom

jecpva said:


> Actually, below the THV/SSR promo in that Email were 4 bullet points that said:
> 
> Plus...
> 
> Disney Parks Celebrate US Military with Free Admission in 2009
> New wait-list process designed to improve Member experience
> Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points Charts
> Sanaa reservations begin Feb. 16​
> Not exactly highlighted and to find the details, you had to log into the DVC site.  I never even noticed it until I saw the posts on this board and rechecked my deleted Emails.



yes that is right they seemed to push it off as not a big deal but the points for the THV was the main topic of the email


----------



## Cmbar

disneynutz said:


> According to documents filed with Orange County, there appears that there are lock-offs that will be in the MK category.



Are you all saying that a Studio at BLT will never be a MK view?  I have on my handy, dandy 2009 point chart which we all know is NO LONGER VALID, that there are indeed points for a MK view Studio.  Since the recent changes am I to believe that there will no longer be that category for that size or at least the possibility that they can take that away as well?  DVC Mike, you seem to know the contracts pretty well and it looks like you bought there. Any clue if they can change the view categories along with everything else as long as the total points per property stay the same in the same year.  We unfortunately are one of those who can only buy the minimum and have to slum in the studios and stay only weekdays! Love to know if I will never be able to get a MK view at my home resort!


----------



## BroganMc

maminnie said:


> Interesting post.  What would a DVC sales representative say or do at this point??  How could they recommend any type of point amount at this point??  We as members have absolutely no idea what to expect in the years ahead.  If I were to try and buy an add-on to correct the situation I now have to deal with, I would have absolutely know idea what number of points to buy.
> 
> So much for locking in for the years ahead.
> 
> maminnie



At this point I think the Guide would lose the sale. The points system is hard enough to grasp for new buyers. That's why Guides usually speak of weeks, seasons and unit sizes. Those things seem more tangible and concrete to buyers' minds. That's why I'm alarmed by the changes in weekly totals. It's one thing to balance the points within a week to lesson the point requirements on weekends, but when you start seeing different more expensive weekly totals it looks very bad.

That's why I'm surprised there are those here are quick to accept and move on. I really wonder how many have studied those charts and looked for the balance. I've looked at them many ways with multiple calculations and I've yet to determine how they are "balanced". The numbers for units, seasons and weeks do not cancel out to zero.

It seems more like voodoo economics here where the only factor members or buyers have to work with is a possible 20% yearly increase in nightly point requirements.

This is the main reason I'm still waiting for DVC to respond and growing more and more skeptical by their silence. I don't have a problem with the reasons why they would make a change. I have a problem with how they changed things. I'm highly doubtful at this point they abided by the rules in the contract. I want to see their numbers. Prove to me those charts are balanced.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Cmbar said:


> Are you all saying that a Studio at BLT will never be a MK view? I have on my handy, dandy 2009 point chart which we all know is NO LONGER VALID, that there are indeed points for a MK view Studio. Since the recent changes am I to believe that there will no longer be that category for that size or at least the possibility that they can take that away as well? DVC Mike, you seem to know the contracts pretty well and it looks like you bought there. Any clue if they can change the view categories along with everything else as long as the total points per property stay the same in the same year. We unfortunately are one of those who can only buy the minimum and have to slum in the studios and stay only weekdays! Love to know if I will never be able to get a MK view at my home resort!


I too have only purchased enough points for a studio. There has to be some studios with MK views for them to be included in the higher, MK View points catagory. How many, now that is the $100 Million dollar question! If you find out, please post.


----------



## Dean

Chuck S said:


> There should be something in the POS for each resort that would detail either the points needed, or consecutive days you could stay with X number of points at maximum re-allocation.  At least there is in my 1991 POS.  It shows how many consecutive days for each room type you could stay with a 230 point contract (the minimum at the time).  From that, you could calculate a very close approximation as to a final maximum reallocation point chart for the resort.


There is a maximum re-allocation chart in each POS but there is not a worst case scenario which to me would be the highest weeks went up.  The problem that got this started was really people looking at only staying S-F and I was/am one of them though I didn't buy the points specifically with those calculations in mind.  I think going forward one needs to look at the highest week for the unit size (Premier) for a full week as the benchmark of how many points you might need.  Although given the change has already happen, the risk is likely far less today that it was a month ago.


----------



## jamstew

jecpva said:


> Actually, below the THV/SSR promo in that Email were 4 bullet points that said:
> 
> Plus...
> 
> Disney Parks Celebrate US Military with Free Admission in 2009
> New wait-list process designed to improve Member experience
> Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points Charts
> Sanaa reservations begin Feb. 16​
> Not exactly highlighted and to find the details, you had to log into the DVC site.  I never even noticed it until I saw the posts on this board and rechecked my deleted Emails.



If I got one, I would have  stopped reading by that point, if not after the THV promotion. So, it's possible that I did get it and deleted it. They do have my current email addy & are on my "safe" list.


----------



## La2kw

granmanh603 said:


> ....I think Disney does what is best for Disney especilly in the last 3 or 4 years or so.....and I don't think we need to Rah Rah for them.



I agree that Disney does what's best for Disney.  Lately, there is little regard for members.   To think that these changes (like replacing glassware with Styrofoam) were made in our best interests is a bit naive, IMO.  Many, many hotels all over the world sanitize their dishes every single day.  Surely Disney is aware of this.  It was a cost-cutting move and nothing else.  I believe this point reallocation is timed to sell more points at a higher point cost, pure and simple.  More money for DVC, happy times for some people who will make out better, and too bad for those of us who have lost value in our points.  

Again, this is my opinion.  I'm not willing to get into a debate over it or defend it in any way.  I also read my contract and am well aware that DVC is within their rights, so please don't feel the need to explain that to me either.


----------



## drusba

Cmbar said:


> Are you all saying that a Studio at BLT will never be a MK view?  I have on my handy, dandy 2009 point chart which we all know is NO LONGER VALID, that there are indeed points for a MK view Studio.  Since the recent changes am I to believe that there will no longer be that category for that size or at least the possibility that they can take that away as well?  DVC Mike, you seem to know the contracts pretty well and it looks like you bought there. Any clue if they can change the view categories along with everything else as long as the total points per property stay the same in the same year.  We unfortunately are one of those who can only buy the minimum and have to slum in the studios and stay only weekdays! Love to know if I will never be able to get a MK view at my home resort!



I think all that is being said is that MK rooms are going to be 2BR lock-offs meaning they can be used as 2BR, or studio and 1BR, which is true at all resorts. Also, majority of rooms will be Bay View, about 11% standard, and thus MK views make up only about 30% of the resort.

As to being able to eliminate pre-ordained booking/view categories, the official documents do not appear to say that can change. However, the official documents also appear to clearly show that Disney could not make the very change in the charts it has just made at BLT before BLT first experienced a year of occupancy. Thus, since Disney has apparently chosen to ignore the prescribed limits on its power, you never know what it might change next.


----------



## maminnie

Chuck S said:


> There should be something in the POS for each resort that would detail either the points needed, or consecutive days you could stay with X number of points at maximum re-allocation.  At least there is in my 1991 POS.  It shows how many consecutive days for each room type you could stay with a 230 point contract (the minimum at the time).  From that, you could calculate a very close approximation as to a final maximum reallocation point chart for the resort.



Chuck S:

Thank you for your advice.  I will take a look at my contracts/POS for my purchases.

maminnie


----------



## mickeymom629

When I told DH about this change he said without hesitation, " so, now our points are worth less". 

I have been reading some conniving ways that people are going to book with the new reservation policy.

I am getting worried.  

La2kw - interesting point and I totally agree - increasing the points so people will see the necessity to buy more.  

I love Disney, BUT WHAT IS HAPPENING????


----------



## BWV Dreamin

JMHO, but lets face it....it really is all about the dollar, pure and simple. Disney is a company, with a board of directors and shareholders (as has been previously stated). They have a responsibility to them to gain revenue how ever that may be. We are in just horrific economical times, and Disney is not immune to this. Get ready, the next income generating move.....extensions to the remaining 2042 resorts. This time, there may not be an "opt out".


----------



## BroganMc

La2kw said:


> I agree that Disney does what's best for Disney.  Lately, there is little regard for members.   To think that these changes (like replacing glassware with Styrofoam) were made in our best interests is a bit naive, IMO.  Many, many hotels all over the world sanitize their dishes every single day.  Surely Disney is aware of this.  It was a cost-cutting move and nothing else.



Not to be OT but isn't that glassware issue all settled now? SSR and OKW got dish cleaning units and put the mugs and glasses back in the studios. I know we had them over NYE, in the same unit we didn't have them in October.

And yes, I do think that was done for the health and well-being of members. Recent TV exposes found maids in Orlando were not cleaning them properly (using dirty towels in the bathroom to wipe down the dishes).

Paying for disposable cups and plates was not a cost effective move for the company. It just done to avoid a potential lawsuit if someone used a dirty cup and got sick.

The situation is resolved now. In large part because of the hue and cry from members.

On the whole I do think Disney tries to be responsive to guests and members. Sometimes they just come up with things that have unintended consequences. Then its up to members to question and let them know if another change is needed.


----------



## BroganMc

BWV Dreamin said:


> JMHO, but lets face it....it really is all about the dollar, pure and simple. Disney is a company, with a board of directors and shareholders (as has been previously stated). They have a responsibility to them to gain revenue how ever that may be. We are in just horrific economical times, and Disney is not immune to this. Get ready, the next income generating move.....extensions to the remaining 2042 resorts. This time, there may not be an "opt out".



If that does happen it may not be a terrible thing. (Well not having an "opt out" would but then I'm fairly confident there's precedent for members to fight that.) I know the main reason I never added on at BWV was due to the shorter contract length.


----------



## LVSWL

As a new owner at BLT, I think that this is really one of the saddest examples of what Disney has done. To go from the thrill of new ownership in a property that promises to be so unique and exciting to the disappointment and disillusionment when you realize that you will not be able to enjoy your investment the way that you had planned, for as long, maybe not this year is just horrible and heartbreaking and just plain wrong.
The saddest thing is that the people that Disney stuck it to the most are those of us that have been there with them, the oldies. That's just a guess on my part, but I would imagine that the majority of the sales from Sept 08 till now were existing members, and we are the ones who will be more upset, both by BLT and by our other contracts. And we were the ones who were out there planning our future trips with no idea that the rug was about to be pulled because we had our little books with the point charts in them. Fat lot of good they did.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

BroganMc said:


> If that does happen it may not be a terrible thing. (Well not having an "opt out" would but then I'm fairly confident there's precedent for members to fight that.) I know the main reason I never added on at BWV was due to the shorter contract length.


Well this would certainly add a large amount of revenue in a short period of time.....and if they are starting with the points chart to "even things up" so to speak, I see the extensions very soon.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

LVSWL said:


> As a new owner at BLT, I think that this is really one of the saddest examples of what Disney has done. To go from the thrill of new ownership in a property that promises to be so unique and exciting to the disappointment and disillusionment when you realize that you will not be able to enjoy your investment the way that you had planned, for as long, maybe not this year is just horrible and heartbreaking and just plain wrong.
> The saddest thing is that the people that Disney stuck it to the most are those of us that have been there with them, the oldies. That's just a guess on my part, but I would imagine that the majority of the sales from Sept 08 till now were existing members, and we are the ones who will be more upset, both by BLT and by our other contracts. And we were the ones who were out there planning our future trips with no idea that the rug was about to be pulled because we had our little books with the point charts in them. Fat lot of good they did.


There have been several BLT owners that have called thier guides to see if they can add on a minimum of 25 pts.......so far, the guides have not gotten back to these posters. I am wondering if something is being worked out for the existing BLT owners.....


----------



## Cmbar

BWV Dreamin said:


> JMHO, but lets face it....it really is all about the dollar, pure and simple. Disney is a company, with a board of directors and shareholders (as has been previously stated). They have a responsibility to them to gain revenue how ever that may be. We are in just horrific economical times, and Disney is not immune to this. Get ready, the next income generating move.....extensions to the remaining 2042 resorts. This time, there may not be an "opt out".



What does this mean? When speaking to our guide a few weeks ago we discussed buying Boardwalk or Beach Club and he said he was pretty confident they would be offering an extension on those resorts.  I didn't ask more, but I don't understand what it means to not have a "opt out".  Was this done before?  Thanks!


----------



## Cmbar

BWV Dreamin said:


> There have been several BLT owners that have called thier guides to see if they can add on a minimum of 25 pts.......so far, the guides have not gotten back to these posters. I am wondering if something is being worked out for the existing BLT owners.....



Spiceytat reported earlier today that his guide has already told them no.  Also said that the Guide had asked for herself as well since she was a BLT owner. She wasn't happy either.  We will see if enough BLT owners complain.


----------



## Dean

I finally made a chance to play with the numbers.  Assuming 1992 (or any similar year) as the base year and assuming the points are based on the 2 BR for all lockoff's, I simply multiplied the number of points for each weekday and weekend for each season times the number of those days times the number of units in each cat at SSR.  I got a difference of 0.000078 or 0.0078%.  I used the numbers from the last multi site POS I had which I know are not complete but should be representative.  I added in the 60 THV units.  IF someone will give me the final breakdown of the number of units (2 BR dedicated, 2 BR L/O, GV), I will update the numbers and see if it changes.  But since the 2 BR units went up a slightly number of points and the 3 BR down a slight number of points, I doubt it'll be any different unless he mix of the last two buildings was different for 2 BR vs 3 BR than previous phases.  So a difference of under 0.01% would be about as perfect as it will be given this circumstance and a number that should stand up to any scrutiny if my calculations are accurate.  If it were a drug study, we could get FDA approval on the first try.


----------



## Chuck S

Cmbar said:


> What does this mean? When speaking to our guide a few weeks ago we discussed buying Boardwalk or Beach Club and he said he was pretty confident they would be offering an extension on those resorts.  I didn't ask more, but I don't understand what it means to not have a "opt out".  Was this done before?  Thanks!



Basically, the OKW master lease with WDW Properties was extended by the OKW Condominium association.  As such, legally, all "lease" contracts with owners were theoretically automatically extended because the "association" represents all the owners. Meaning we as owners, if we did not want the extension, had to re-deed our ownership interest to DVD/DVC to be effective on the original 2042 end date.  If an owner did not opt out, and did not pay up-front for the extension, legally the "association" would put a lien against their ownership for the extension price.  I agree it seemed like a strange procedure, but likely had to be done that way as we own a "deeded interest" in the leasehold, and the leasehold was extended.  Sort of like the power of a regular homeowners association in many legal situations.

I'm pretty sure that if Disney/DVC extended the other resort leaseholds in a similar manner, a similar procedure would need to be followed, and a similar "opt-out" would have to be documented by folks not wanting to extend.  A unilateral extension of a contract with a pre-defined end date would not stand up to a legal challenge.  It was just a strange legal way of handling it.

OKW owners received a small subsidy/credit on their dues last year to compensate us for the inconvenience of having the new documents notarized.  Notary fees in the UK, and perhaps in other countries, are much higher than here in the US, which typically are free at your bank, or a minimal charge.  My understanding is that if the UK owners submitted a notary receipt, DVC was re-imbursing them for the cost.


----------



## Tiger926

I have read a bunch of this thread, but obviously not all of it as it's so big! Not sure if this has been mentioned, but we will be short about 30 points for our regular 12 night stay every summer (magic season). We, or should I say,  my brilliant DH, suggested that we go back to Sea World. We like split stays, so now, we will do 5 days Sun - Thurs, Fri and Sat at a Sea World hotel, and then back to WDW for 5 days Sun - Thurs. This will save us points from our regular stay, but, it means 2 less days at WDW.

We refuse to add-on (we believe this was Disney's intention), refuse to borrrow too many points, and refuse to knock more than 1 day off of our stay (that's why we bought the points that we did), so we are going off-site. Not sure how Disney didn't think this would happen? They will now lose our spending money for those 2 days - less food, shopping and activities. 

We discovered after studying the new charts, that anyone going between 8-12 days, will lose points in a 1 bed for sure. We totally understand that Disney had the right to do this, but the way in which they didn't communicate to members is very problematic. They are in essence, forcing people to spend less time there, or, go off-site. Not a brilliant move in our IMHO.

Tiger


----------



## lugnut33

Tiger926 said:


> I have read a bunch of this thread, but obviously not all of it as it's so big! Not sure if this has been mentioned, but we will be short about 30 points for our regular 12 night stay every summer (magic season). We, or should I say,  my brilliant DH, suggested that we go back to Sea World. We like split stays, so now, we will do 5 days Sun - Thurs, Fri and Sat at a Sea World hotel, and then back to WDW for 5 days Sun - Thurs. This will save us points from our regular stay, but, it means 2 less days at WDW.
> 
> We refuse to add-on (we believe this was Disney's intention), refuse to borrrow too many points, and refuse to knock more than 1 day off of our stay (that's why we bought the points that we did), so we are going off-site. Not sure how Disney didn't think this would happen? They will now lose our spending money for those 2 days - less food, shopping and activities.
> 
> We discovered after studying the new charts, that anyone going between 8-12 days, will lose points in a 1 bed for sure. We totally understand that Disney had the right to do this, but the way in which they didn't communicate to members is very problematic. They are in essence, forcing people to spend less time there, or, go off-site. Not a brilliant move in our IMHO.
> 
> Tiger



Tiger, 

Just like DVC had the right to re-allocate the points however they see fit, you also have the right as a customer to spend your money however you want.  If that means spending those two days at Universal, or Sea World, or even Gatorland, then by all means do it.  The best thing you can do to protest this is hurt them with your wallet.  

BTW, I would totally recommend heading over to St. Peterburg Beach for thos two days.  It's off season and there's lot of fun stuff to do there.


----------



## jamstew

lugnut33 said:


> Tiger,
> 
> Just like DVC had the right to re-allocate the points however they see fit, you also have the right as a customer to spend your money however you want.  If that means spending those two days at Universal, or Sea World, or even Gatorland, then by all means do it.  The best thing you can do to protest this is hurt them with your wallet.
> 
> BTW, I would totally recommend heading over to St. Peterburg Beach for thos two days.  It's off season and there's lot of fun stuff to do there.



I love Pass-a-Grill, at the very tip of SPB on the south. No high rises, really laid back place. Personally, I'm spending a couple of days on Fort Myers Beach at the Pink Shell and the Edison Botanical Garden during my 2-week May WDW trip   There's also a high-speed ferry out of Fort Myers that does day trips down to Key West which I did a couple of years ago. I wouldn't do it in September again  and would probably spend the night next time, but it's a great side trip for not much money (assuming they still do it).


----------



## tjkraz

mickeymom629 said:


> La2kw - interesting point and I totally agree - increasing the points so people will see the necessity to buy more.



Sorry but this approach still doesn't pass my sniff test.  First, you have a portion of current membership who will benefit from the move.  Those who use their points for full weeks will see little (if any) change.  

Plus the overall value of DVC has taken a hit.  To first-time customers who may have been interested in Sun-Thurs stays, DVC is no longer as good a value as it was a week ago.  The reallocation has eliminated a portion of its market at the bottom of the income spectrum.  This isn't just an issue they need to live with in the present--it's something that will negatively impact DVC for years to come.  

And then you've got the obvious PR hit associated with this reallocation.  

I don't see how anyone could think this DVC would use this as justification for selling a handful of small, one-time add-ons to existing members.  It just doesn't add up.   



BWV Dreamin said:


> Get ready, the next income generating move.....extensions to the remaining 2042 resorts. This time, there may not be an "opt out".



Seriously?  Aren't people worked-up enough without pouring a little gasoline on the fire?   

DVC had justification for the manner in which it handled the OKW extension.  Simply put, they wanted to be able to make the offer available to all OKW owners.  If they had marketed it as a separate contract, regional timeshare sales laws would have blocked a portion of OKW owners from taking advantage.  For example, DVC can only sell points in one Canadian province (Ottawa, perhaps?)  If the 15-year extension had been sold as a separate contract, owners in other Canadian provinces, some foreign countries and even some US states would not have been able to take advantage.  Or they would have had to make their way to Florida or California to do it in person.  

By structuring it as an extension of the ground lease with the opt-out clause, DVC was able to make the offer to all owners regardless of their state or country of residence.  

Jim Lewis has already gone on record as saying that they realize the method used for OKW was not particularly member-friendly and would look at using a different approach if other resorts were extended.  My suspicion is that it would be offered as a separate contract and many owners would be unable to extend unless they visit a DVC sales center.  

Many members had been asking for OKW contract extensions for YEARS.  I trust some of the other long-timers here will vouch for that.  (Whether they liked DVC's final price or not is another matter.)  A big part of making the offer viable (agreeing to keep the resort open another 15 years) was being able to attract a large percentage of current owners to extend.  If DC had chosen an extension method which left them completely unable to contact a large portion of the resort's ownership, then the entire project looks less appealing.  

So DVC ultimately went with the option that let them contact everyone--even though it required some ugly contract language and formal opt-outs from those who weren't interested.  

Maybe they will offer extensions to others.  Given the opposition to using the same method as OKW, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon.  IMHO, if the extensions do materialize count on a large portion of owners being excluded...unless they want to take a trip to a DVC sales center.


----------



## tidefan

Looking at the new charts, one thing that strikes me as an advantage is that we try to maximize the weeks we are out (Spring Break, Summer, etc...) from work.  That usually means going on a Saturday and coming back the next Saturday (7 Days).  I'd like to maximize my time out so going out on Saturday and then coming back the next Sunday (8 days) would be better.  The new charts encourage this:

Sat - Sun (8-days) @ SSR

*Dream (very do-able since school is out in mid-May):*

1-BDRM
2009:  275
2010:  266

Net change:  -9

2-BDRM/THV
2009:  350
2010:  339

Net change:  -11

*Magic (for Summer)*

1-BDRM
2009:  297
2010:  288

Net change:  -9

2-BDRM/THV
2009:  384
2010:  377

Net change:  -7

So, this may actually encourage us to add the 8th day to our stays.

A couple of other interesting things at SSR.  1 Bdrms down for 1-week stays in all seasons except Premier.  2 Bdrms up in some, down in others.

Also, looking back through the Product Understanding Agreement, one thing I didn't know was that there is a Monorail easement at SSR  

I do feel for those with stays impacted.  You guys definitely have my sympathy.  Here's hoping for some relief, perhaps relaxed add-on rules (i.e. - 10 pt add-ons, etc.) and transfer rules that could really lessen the blow...


----------



## ACDSNY

Our trips are like Tidefan just reported, usually 7 - 8 nights so we are in the group that benefit from the change.  That being said we're always in a state of borrowing.  Hopefully our VGC add on will keep us from borrowing for a while.


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> I finally made a chance to play with the numbers.  Assuming 1992 (or any similar year) as the base year and assuming the points are based on the 2 BR for all lockoff's, I simply multiplied the number of points for each weekday and weekend for each season times the number of those days times the number of units in each cat at SSR.  I got a difference of 0.000078 or 0.0078%.  I used the numbers from the last multi site POS I had which I know are not complete but should be representative.  I added in the 60 THV units.  IF someone will give me the final breakdown of the number of units (2 BR dedicated, 2 BR L/O, GV), I will update the numbers and see if it changes.  But since the 2 BR units went up a slightly number of points and the 3 BR down a slight number of points, I doubt it'll be any different unless he mix of the last two buildings was different for 2 BR vs 3 BR than previous phases.  So a difference of under 0.01% would be about as perfect as it will be given this circumstance and a number that should stand up to any scrutiny if my calculations are accurate.  If it were a drug study, we could get FDA approval on the first try.



The figures I have for SSR unit configurations are:

435 studios
435 1bedrooms
360 dedicated 2bedrooms
60 THV
36 Grand Villas

The net difference I showed were points going up in studios, 1bedrooms and THVs. They went down in dedicated 2bedrooms and Grand Villas.

Are those the figures you're looking for?


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> The figures I have for SSR unit configurations are:
> 
> 435 studios
> 435 1bedrooms
> 360 dedicated 2bedrooms
> 60 THV
> 36 Grand Villas
> 
> The net difference I showed were points going up in studios, 1bedrooms and THVs. They went down in dedicated 2bedrooms and Grand Villas.
> 
> Are those the figures you're looking for?


Thanks, I'll update my numbers tonight if nothing happens.  You do know only the 2 BR and 3 BR are counted as the studio and 1 BR lockoff's don't enter into the official counts.

It also matters which year you chose, as even a different year where weekends fall into different seasons will shift the numbers much more than the negligible variance I'm seeing so far.  Heaven forbid you actually chose a leap year or a year that has an extra weekend day in it compare to weekdays.  I chose 1992 because that's likely the year they used for OKW and therefore they would want to be consistent.  The specifics would work for each year but would vary slightly year to year.


----------



## Tiger926

Lugnut33 - Thanks for the suggestion. Not sure how close St. Pete's beach is though, with 2 young children, this might not be feasible. We will start at WDW, go to Sea World and then end back at WDW, so not sure if St. Pete's can fit in between that? I'll talk to hubby.

I'm not good with numbers (I'm an English teacher - LOL!), so please bear with me:

If I may ask, what number of days (on average) is benefitting most from the change? Eg. We like to stay 11 or  12 nights, Sunday 1 week until Thurs or Fri. of following week, and so we definitely are not benefitting from change. So, is it people who are staying 7 or 8 nights? My hubby did quick calculations and said around 8 days, but based on above-mentioned scenarios, I think these people might be ok? Of course, I know it depends upon season and room type too. We are July people in a 1 bed, if that helps.

Tiger


----------



## tedhowe

Tiger926 said:


> If I may ask, what number of days (on average) is benefitting most from the change? Eg. We like to stay 11 or  12 nights, Sunday 1 week until Thurs or Fri. of following week, and so we definitely are not benefitting from change. So, is it people who are staying 7 or 8 nights? My hubby did quick calculations and said around 8 days, but based on above-mentioned scenarios, I think these people might be ok? Of course, I know it depends upon season and room type too. We are July people in a 1 bed, if that helps.
> 
> Tiger



I haven't done the math, but I would think with the nature of the change, a 9 night stay arriving on Friday and departing on the following sunday would benefit the most (i.e. 4 weekend nights and 5 weekday nights) - that would have the most net positive effect from the reallocation.


----------



## tjkraz

Tiger926 said:


> If I may ask, what number of days (on average) is benefitting most from the change? Eg. We like to stay 11 or  12 nights, Sunday 1 week until Thurs or Fri. of following week, and so we definitely are not benefitting from change. So, is it people who are staying 7 or 8 nights?



Seven days is typically a breakeven point.  For the most part, the weekly points either remained unchanged or were altered by single-digits (+ or -).  

If you stayed 8 or 9 nights starting on a Friday or Saturday and ending on the following Friday or Saturday, your total costs will go down.  There would also be some shorter stay trips which have gone down if they include weekends.  Monday - Saturday trips, Tuesday - Saturday and others have gone down.  

Those who completely avoided weekends will undoubtedly pay more.  Those who were used to spending points on the weekends may need more or less points for the same trip depending upon the exact makeup.


----------



## tamclan

Tiger926 said:


> Lugnut33 - Thanks for the suggestion. Not sure how close St. Pete's beach is though, with 2 young children, this might not be feasible. We will start at WDW, go to Sea World and then end back at WDW, so not sure if St. Pete's can fit in between that? I'll talk to hubby.
> 
> I'm not good with numbers (I'm an English teacher - LOL!), so please bear with me:
> 
> If I may ask, what number of days (on average) is benefitting most from the change? Eg. We like to stay 11 or  12 nights, Sunday 1 week until Thurs or Fri. of following week, and so we definitely are not benefitting from change. So, is it people who are staying 7 or 8 nights? My hubby did quick calculations and said around 8 days, but based on above-mentioned scenarios, I think these people might be ok? Of course, I know it depends upon season and room type too. We are July people in a 1 bed, if that helps.
> 
> Tiger



In general the posters who indicate their travels have a higher weekend percentage have indicated points requirment have gone down.  

So if your 6 days and less but go 2 weekend nights your better off.

7 days is close to break even.

If you go 8 (or more up to 12) and have 3 or 4 weekend days your better off, otherwise same number of nights will cost more points.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

tjkraz said:


> I don't see how anyone could think this DVC would use this as justification for selling a handful of small, one-time add-ons to existing members.  It just doesn't add up.


 I am very quick to suspect ulterior motives in Disney. But when it comes to the point-reallocation, I agree with you 100%. The reallocation wasn't done to sell a few add-ons. Demand was seriously out-of-whack and getting worse. DVC could not continue with the current point chart. Yes, they could have handled it better - much better. But at some point they had to do this.



> If they had marketed it as a separate contract, regional timeshare sales laws would have blocked a portion of OKW owners from taking advantage.  For example, DVC can only sell points in one Canadian province (Ottawa, perhaps?)  If the 15-year extension had been sold as a separate contract, owners in other Canadian provinces, some foreign countries and even some US states would not have been able to take advantage.  Or they would have had to make their way to Florida or California to do it in person.


 And here's where I return back to my paranoid ways. Talk about passing the sniff test... they didn't structure the deal is a member-unfriendly-way to avoid "burdening" a few Canadian owners  from having to travel to Florida or California. Considering that these folks OWN A TIMESHARE IN FLORIDA, it doesn't seem like that much of burden.



> So DVC ultimately went with the option that let them contact everyone--even though it required some ugly contract language and formal opt-outs from those who weren't interested.



Follow the money - always fallow the money. This isn't about ugly contract language or opt-out burdens. It's about maintenance fees.


----------



## tjkraz

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Follow the money - always fallow the money. This isn't about ugly contract language or opt-out burdens. It's about maintenance fees.



I agree the method they chose was motivated by getting the most extenders possible.  But I do believe, at the time, they thought the approach was a reasonable trade-off for the "pro" of being able to offer to everyone.  There would have been a vocal contingent of disappointed members if the extension were not immediately accessible to everyone.  

What they really didn't foresee was that members would find the opt-out process to be so cumbersome or viewed as such a negative.


----------



## Chuck S

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Follow the money - always fallow the money. This isn't about ugly contract language or opt-out burdens. It's about maintenance fees.



Except, that if they were unable to market it as an extension in their location, they would also be unable to even contact them to give them "official" notification that the ground lease HAD been extended and separate extension contracts would be available at WDW. It would be considered "marketing."

Let alone owners in overseas countries that do not allow DVC presentations. 

Honestly, for _most_ owners, signing over the deed to Disney (and we had 4 deeds) took about 20 minutes at your local bank.  UK members, however, were truly inconvenienced timewise and financialy, as notaries are very expensive there (think a few hundred $$), and often require an appointment.

Overall, while legally it was a strange way to extend, or decline the extension, it worked out pretty well for the vast majority of owners.  I would have extended, if I thought I would be live long enough/be healthy enough to enjoy it.  I may be, and if so, I can extend at that time, as I will turn 84 in 2042...we'll see.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

tjkraz said:


> I don't see how anyone could think this DVC would use this as justification for selling a handful of small, one-time add-ons to existing members. It just doesn't add up.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Aren't people worked-up enough without pouring a little gasoline on the fire?
> 
> .


Yes Tim, always carry a little octane with me!  Hey, any way you slice it, the outcome is the same. Owners will eventually add on more points to continue their vacation habits...lets do a poll. How many were NOT affected? I would venture to say, more than 50%. Are 50% of those affected going to sell? No way....will they adjust vacation habits, initally yes. After that, I bet no. Thus, ad-ons...


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

Dean said:


> Thanks, I'll update my numbers tonight if nothing happens.  You do know only the 2 BR and 3 BR are counted as the studio and 1 BR lockoff's don't enter into the official counts.
> 
> It also matters which year you chose, as even a different year where weekends fall into different seasons will shift the numbers much more than the negligible variance I'm seeing so far.  Heaven forbid you actually chose a leap year or a year that has an extra weekend day in it compare to weekdays.  I chose 1992 because that's likely the year they used for OKW and therefore they would want to be consistent.  The specifics would work for each year but would vary slightly year to year.


Dean,

I did a spreadsheet on the diff between 2009 & 2010 for SSR.  Unfortunately copying it into a post isn't very format friendly.  If you PM me with you email I'll send it too you, you can compare it to what you have.


----------



## Kmango

BWV Dreamin said:


> Yes Tim, always carry a little octane with me!  Hey, any way you slice it, the outcome is the same. Owners will eventually add on more points to continue their vacation habits...lets do a poll. How many were NOT affected? I would venture to say, more than 50%. Are 50% of those affected going to sell? No way....will they adjust vacation habits, initally yes. After that, I bet no. Thus, ad-ons...



But those points for the add-ons have to come from somewhere -- like people who've decided that DVC no longer works for them. Disney doesn't just magically have infinite points to sell (except at the new resorts, which isn't really helpful if you're 25 points short at an old resort). What I expect to see happen is that over the next few years, some of the people negatively impacted will give up and sell, some people will cope by shortening stays or borrowing points or transfers, and some people will buy more points, which may come from the first group of people. It's not so much that Disney will sell more points, as that the per-membership number of points may go up, while the number of members goes down (excluding new sales at BLT/AKV/etc). 

Some of the original OKWers have been talking about how things seemed to work better in the early days because the initial buy-in tended to be much higher, and people were encouraged to come for at least a week at a time. Then, once the buy-in got dropped, things started getting out of whack. This may, over the long run, work to correct that mistake. It's going to be fairly traumatic for a good number of people in the short term, but will probably end up being better in the long run.


----------



## drusba

tamclan said:


> In general the posters who indicate their travels have a higher weekend percentage have indicated points requirment have gone down.
> 
> So if your 6 days and less but go 2 weekend nights your better off.
> 
> 7 days is close to break even.
> 
> If you go 8 (or more up to 12) and have 3 or 4 weekend days your better off, otherwise same number of nights will cost more points.



From what I am seeing at BWV, if your regular pattern of going was 5 nights or 6 nights, you will usually find an increase regardless of which consecutive nights you choose, i.e., even if you went before 5 or 6 nights and included one or two weekend nights, you will still usually have higher cost. At 4 nights or less you can get (but not always get) fewer points if you previously included one or more weekend nights. At 7 nights, you are slightly higher or slightly lower or the same depending on season and room size. Add one or more weekdays onto a 7 night trip and you will be higher, e.g., those who would begin on Sunday and then stay over a week but leave before a third weekend night hit the schedule will have higher point cost. Add one or two weekend nights onto a seven night trip and you get lower but I seriously doubt there were many before who would arrive on a Friday or Saturday and and then also stay through the entire next weekend.


----------



## T-i-double-g-err

drusba said:


> Add one or two weekend nights onto a seven night trip and you get lower but I seriously doubt there were many before who would arrive on a Friday or Saturday and and then also stay through the entire next weekend.



Not sure about this comment.  If people have a week off from work, I can see stays that begin with a Sat. night and end with a Sat. night = 3 high point nights in a vacation.  People arriving on Saturday morning staying 8 nights and leaving the following Sunday maximize their vacation time from work.


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> Yes Tim, always carry a little octane with me!  Hey, any way you slice it, the outcome is the same. Owners will eventually add on more points to continue their vacation habits...lets do a poll. How many were NOT affected? I would venture to say, more than 50%. Are 50% of those affected going to sell? No way....will they adjust vacation habits, initally yes. After that, I bet no. Thus, ad-ons...



But it's still a VERY limited add-on market that would have been directly created by the reallocation in order for that to have been a motivator.  You're talking about people who:

1.  Have had their trips negatively impacted by the change.

2.  Are not ticked-off enough to either sell or take a firm stance on no more add-ons.

3.  Are rigidly determined to maintain their current vacation patterns (rather than altering their plans to better fit the new system.)

4.  Wouldn't have otherwise been in the market for an add-on in the near future (can't really count people who were going to add anyway.)

5.  Are impacted enough to actually justify an add-on.  Some may just be 2 points or 10 points short, and can manage by borrowing for many years to come.  

6.  Have the resources to add more points.

ALL of those would have to apply in order for this reallocation to earn DVC new business.  With only about 130,000 families members of DVC, I think that's a pretty small market for tiny little add-on contracts.  And it will NOT be a growing market.  Now that the reallocation is done, anyone who buys from this point forward has full knowledge of the new values.  

Meanwhile, among the cons that have come from the reallocation are:

1.  DVC is no longer the value it used to be to new (potential) members.  DVC has undoubtedly lost a segment of its potential market *FOR YEARS TO COME *because some accommodations are effectively going up in price by 20%.  If you're comparing to Value or even Moderate rates, DVC no longer stacks-up nearly as well as it did in the past.

2.  Obviously it has created a lot of ill will among current members who (in my opinion) don't really understand the nature of--or need for--a periodic reallocation.  

One final thought:  IF this move were driven by a desire to sell more points, why not do it 2 years ago?  Why not 5 years ago or 8 years ago?  I believe that Dean has said that DVC has known a reallocation was needed as far back as 2001, but they held off doing it out of fear of member backlash.  (That's also 2-3 years before Jim Lewis was appointed VP of DVC.)  

I just don't see how this could result in a net positive impact on sales.  But DVC had to bite the bullet at some point.  I'll agree that sales are very much a concern.  But rather than predicting that the reallocation will increase sales, I think it will probably decrease sales in the short term.  But with the resort offerings DVC has available now, they probably feel they can weather the storm and get this necessary move out of the way.


----------



## Kmango

tjkraz said:


> But it's still a VERY limited add-on market that would have been directly created by the reallocation in order for that to have been a motivator.  You're talking about people who:
> 
> 1.  Have had their trips negatively impacted by the change.
> 
> 2.  Are not ticked-off enough to either sell or take a firm stance on no more add-ons.
> 
> 3.  Are rigidly determined to maintain their current vacation patterns (rather than altering their plans to better fit the new system.)
> 
> 4.  Wouldn't have otherwise been in the market for an add-on in the near future (can't really count people who were going to add anyway.)
> 
> 5.  Are impacted enough to actually justify an add-on.  Some may just be 2 points or 10 points short, and can manage by borrowing for many years to come.
> 
> 6.  Have the resources to add more points.
> 
> ALL of those would have to apply in order for this reallocation to earn DVC new business.  With only about 130,000 families members of DVC, I think that's a pretty small market for tiny little add-on contracts.  And it will NOT be a growing market.  Now that the reallocation is done, anyone who buys from this point forward has full knowledge of the new values.
> 
> Meanwhile, among the cons that have come from the reallocation are:
> 
> 1.  DVC is no longer the value it used to be to new (potential) members.  DVC has undoubtedly lost a segment of its potential market *FOR YEARS TO COME *because some accommodations are effectively going up in price by 20%.  If you're comparing to Value or even Moderate rates, DVC no longer stacks-up nearly as well as it did in the past.
> 
> 2.  Obviously it has created a lot of ill will among current members who (in my opinion) don't really understand the nature of--or need for--a periodic reallocation.
> 
> One final thought:  IF this move were driven by a desire to sell more points, why not do it 2 years ago?  Why not 5 years ago or 8 years ago?  I believe that Dean has said that DVC has known a reallocation was needed as far back as 2001, but they held off doing it out of fear of member backlash.  (That's also 2-3 years before Jim Lewis was appointed VP of DVC.)
> 
> I just don't see how this could result in a net positive impact on sales.  But DVC had to bite the bullet at some point.  I'll agree that sales are very much a concern.  But rather than predicting that the reallocation will increase sales, I think it will probably decrease sales in the short term.  But with the resort offerings DVC has available now, they probably feel they can weather the storm and get this necessary move out of the way.



And 7. Prefers to add-on via Disney rather than resale.


----------



## keishashadow

tidefan said:


> Looking at the new charts, one thing that strikes me as an advantage is that we try to maximize the weeks we are out (Spring Break, Summer, etc...) from work. That usually means going on a Saturday and coming back the next Saturday (7 Days). I'd like to maximize my time out so going out on Saturday and then coming back the next Sunday (8 days) would be better. The new charts encourage this:
> 
> Sat - Sun (8-days) @ SSR
> 
> *Dream (very do-able since school is out in mid-May):*
> 
> I do feel for those with stays impacted. You guys definitely have my sympathy. Here's hoping for some relief, perhaps relaxed add-on rules (i.e. - 10 pt add-ons, etc.) and transfer rules that could really lessen the blow...


 
not so for many of us up north, not unusal for school to start 3rd week of August & run thru mid June, if not longer due to snow days that we must factor in to be 'safe'

as if (looking out my window & seeing an inch of ice on top of the foot of snow) i needed another reason to move south 



Kmango said:


> *But those points for the add-ons have to come* *from somewhere* -- *like people who've decided that DVC no* *longer works for them. Disney doesn't just magically have infinite points to* *sell (except at the new resorts*, which isn't really helpful if you're 25 points short at an old resort). What I expect to see happen is that over the next few years, some of the people negatively impacted will give up and sell, some people will cope by shortening stays or borrowing points or transfers, and some people will buy more points, which may come from the first group of people. It's not so much that Disney will sell more points, as that the per-membership number of points may go up, while the number of members goes down (excluding new sales at BLT/AKV/etc).


not infinite, yet im thinking they've ROFRd many points back over the last 6 months, including the older resorts & need to 'move' them

over the past couple of years (other than BC) add on points (in range of 25 to 75 or so) were available for my UY-October when my guide would call me to chat

who knows, maybe DVC will offer a one time 'fire-sale' on _25-50 point_ _cash_ add ons to help keep the peace for those who r short overall - not just BLT


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

For anyone interested I have posted my spreadsheet analysis of the reallocation for SSR on my picasa page in an album called SSR Reallocation.

http://picasaweb.google.com/Bowl12X/


----------



## bcrook

Many posts have claimed that a vast majority of people use S-F reservations (thus the need for reallocation), therefore with that logic a vast majority of people will be negatively affected by this move - some estimates were at 75%.  Did it have to be the full 20% increase at all at once?  [My vacation planned this year would cost me 35 points more next year that is significant.]  We don't even know what this will do?  There is a lot of speculation that it will balance out the week, but I really don't see how.  I don't have enough points to book weekends, so I won't.  Once again as a S-F traveller, I am in the majority.   One more thing that I haven't seen mentioned in the thread (and I have read all of it) is that 2 bedroom units should be sitting empty at a much higher rate, because the easiest solution is to downgrade room size.  

I am just amazed how secretive this has been.  One would think if there were so many people not being able to secure a room when they want to go, DVC would have had a task force out looking into this and asking for member suggestions to improve.  They could have had Dean, Chuck, and Tim working the DISboards preparing us for this months ago, because their arguments have gone a long way to helping me come to grips with this.  I am still sad that I have lost a day from trips each year, but I am a little bit more informed.


----------



## jecpva

tjkraz said:


> But it's still a VERY limited add-on market that would have been directly created by the reallocation in order for that to have been a motivator.  You're talking about people who:
> 
> 1.  Have had their trips negatively impacted by the change.
> 
> 2.  Are not ticked-off enough to either sell or take a firm stance on no more add-ons.
> 
> 3.  Are rigidly determined to maintain their current vacation patterns (rather than altering their plans to better fit the new system.)
> 
> 4.  Wouldn't have otherwise been in the market for an add-on in the near future (can't really count people who were going to add anyway.)
> 
> 5.  Are impacted enough to actually justify an add-on.  Some may just be 2 points or 10 points short, and can manage by borrowing for many years to come.
> 
> 6.  Have the resources to add more points.
> 
> ALL of those would have to apply in order for this reallocation to earn DVC new business.  With only about 130,000 families members of DVC, I think that's a pretty small market for tiny little add-on contracts.  And it will NOT be a growing market.  Now that the reallocation is done, anyone who buys from this point forward has full knowledge of the new values.
> 
> Meanwhile, among the cons that have come from the reallocation are:
> 
> 1.  DVC is no longer the value it used to be to new (potential) members.  DVC has undoubtedly lost a segment of its potential market *FOR YEARS TO COME *because some accommodations are effectively going up in price by 20%.  If you're comparing to Value or even Moderate rates, DVC no longer stacks-up nearly as well as it did in the past.
> 
> 2.  Obviously it has created a lot of ill will among current members who (in my opinion) don't really understand the nature of--or need for--a periodic reallocation.
> 
> One final thought:  IF this move were driven by a desire to sell more points, why not do it 2 years ago?  Why not 5 years ago or 8 years ago?  I believe that Dean has said that DVC has known a reallocation was needed as far back as 2001, but they held off doing it out of fear of member backlash.  (That's also 2-3 years before Jim Lewis was appointed VP of DVC.)
> 
> I just don't see how this could result in a net positive impact on sales.  But DVC had to bite the bullet at some point.  I'll agree that sales are very much a concern.  But rather than predicting that the reallocation will increase sales, I think it will probably decrease sales in the short term.  But with the resort offerings DVC has available now, they probably feel they can weather the storm and get this necessary move out of the way.





I don't know the exact reasoning of Disney/DVC as unfortunately they didn't invite me to any of their meetings or ask my opinion, but here are a few counter points to consider:

If DVC has the ROFR, they essentially control anyone selling their points.  In the scheme of things, I would think this is minor, but if DVC bought up these points, they would be making money on the resale of points they made money on selling in the first place.  I'm sure they mark up the price from whomever they buy them from.  I'd assume the typical member will call DVC rather than a timeshare reseller if they want to add onto their home resort.  Human nature, I wouldn't but I think you'd find most people would.

Anyone buying a new DVC contract now has to buy more points for the same S-F vacation members had taken in the past.  This doesn't affect the full week stays much, but basically it raises the points needed for the most economical stay.  Mathmatically, the only purchaser of DVC that might not buy as many points would be people looking to stay maybe 8 or 9 nites over 2 weekends.  Probably not a high percentage "guest".  I'm sure Disney has all of these stats and worked it to their advantage.  

The bottom line in this is DVC should have been up front rather than burying the notice in an advertisement Email.  They probably should have done this over multiple years so the impact wouldn't have been so severe.  The timing, considering this economy was extremely poor.  My wife and I attended the weekly Members Meeting a few weeks ago at Atlantic Dance just as they were raising the points cost and we were discussing what poor timing.  When you're sitting there and the DVC people keep harping how the price is going up and now's the time to buy, kind of turns you off.  I thought it was kind of insensitive to the reality of the current state of things.  Then how this was reallocation was handled.  Makes me question their customer focus.


----------



## Anal Annie

BWV Dreamin said:


> Yes Tim, always carry a little octane with me! *Hey, any way you slice it, the outcome is the same. Owners will eventually add on more points to continue their vacation habits*...lets do a poll. How many were NOT affected? I would venture to say, more than 50%. Are 50% of those affected going to sell? No way....will they adjust vacation habits, initally yes. *After that, I bet no. Thus, ad-ons... *



Not necessarily after this stunt!!   I am SO-O glad I didn't talk DH into a 30 point add-on at BLT only to panic 3 days later and find out I really needed 35 or 40 to make the whole banking & borrowing thing work out.  This has really busted my DVC bubble.

I am seriously wondering what we could've bought with our $21,500 with Marriott right now!!!!!    I am not quite to the point of selling just yet.  *But* I am pretty PO'd about it.  The changes DO affect what we had planned out for our next 2 trips after this summer - it means that SOMETHING has to change on one of them if we don't want to start a borrowing pattern - likely we will have to drop a day and that may not make the airfare worth it...so in the END...might just drop the whole trip.  I just don't know yet.  

If we were to ever able to add-on I want it to be for good reason...not because we're FORCED to do it in order to keep our plans.  It should be a happy purchase not an aggravating one.  I don't know yet what our workaround will be for our other plans but my inclination and disappointment is leading me in the opposite direction of an add-on.  I don't like feeling jerked around like this.

I am also irritated that I don't receive these emails they send out either.  (I still haven't had time to log onto the DVC website to even read about these latest changes!)  I emailed MS about the email thing (or lack of it) earlier this month.  I got a reply back on Jan. 12 from someone in "online communications" saying that I was indeed set up correctly and they didn't know why I wasn't receiving them.  She said they had more emails scheduled to go out this month and if I didn't receive them to call.   So I just hung up from spending 42 min. on hold with MS while they "checked" again.  For some reason they could not Xfer me to this "online communications" department.  Once again I had to sit thru the "did you check your junk mail box" excuse.  YES, DARN IT!!!   Then the CM gets her supervisor on.  He says something to the effect of "well, you know this information IS posted on the website so you can just go there to see it".  I was like "NOT my point!"  I should not have to inspect the DVC website every day to see if there's anything new.  If there's an email that goes out to SOME members I want it as well.  Either fix it or explain it.   

I'm officially a DIS-satisfied member now!


----------



## bub

I'm still so depressed about these changes. Of course they benefit Disney's bottom line, because otherwise why would they do this and put up with the complaints? I did know that they could do this, but I guess after many years of membership I did not expect such a large change.

I have not received any official notice of this change. Some have mentioned an email, but I did not receive it. It seems wrong to make such a major change without immediately notifying the membership. If I did not read these boards, I would not know and neither would my family who also belong to DVC but do not read the boards (they have me to do that!). I guess eventually we will get the new charts in the mail with a planner, but since people are now planning 2010 vacations, it seems like it will be coming too late.

I also don't understand why we have just one huge thread for all our comments on this. It is the biggest change DVC has made, in my opinion, since I joined 13 years ago. Putting it all in one thread makes it hard to sort out all of the different aspects being discussed. But I'm glad we have this site to share our vacations, knowledge and (sometimes) frustrations.

I will be shortening my vacations and NOT adding on.


----------



## bobbiwoz

bub said:


> I'm still so depressed about these changes. Of course they benefit Disney's bottom line, because otherwise why would they do this and put up with the complaints? I did know that they could do this, but I guess after many years of membership I did not expect such a large change.
> 
> I have not received any official notice of this change. Some have mentioned an email, but I did not receive it. It seems wrong to make such a major change without immediately notifying the membership. If I did not read these boards, I would not know and neither would my family who also belong to DVC but do not read the boards (they have me to do that!). I guess eventually we will get the new charts in the mail with a planner, but since people are now planning 2010 vacations, it seems like it will be coming too late.
> 
> I also don't understand why we have just one huge thread for all our comments on this. It is the biggest change DVC has made, in my opinion, since I joined 13 years ago. Putting it all in one thread makes it hard to sort out all of the different aspects being discussed. But I'm glad we have this site to share our vacations, knowledge and (sometimes) frustrations.
> 
> I will be shortening my vacations and NOT adding on.



The e-mails only direct you to the members' site where you read about them.  You are getting an "alert to go to the members' site," not special information.

Bobbi

PS.  This came after the notice about Tree House sales:
Plus...

Disney Parks Celebrate US Military with Free Admission in 2009
New wait-list process designed to improve Member experience
Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points Charts
Sanaa reservations begin Feb. 16


----------



## Sammie

> Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points charts
> 
> To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays at Disney Vacation Club Resorts, Disney Vacation Club has adjusted 2010 Vacation Points charts, reducing Vacation Point requirements for Friday and Saturday nights.
> 
> In addition to better reflecting the changes in Members' vacationing patterns, the adjusted charts make accommodations more affordable during many popular Walt Disney World® events, such as Mickey's Very Merry Christmas Party and ESPN The Weekend.



If this truly is the reason, you basically have a major change to point usage due to the complaints of those wanting weekends and some wanting 9 nights out of 365 for MVMCP and ESPN,

So what happens when those affected by the change complain now. When does it end. Which squeaky wheel is making the most noise and getting its way.


----------



## bobbiwoz

It seems to me that many members have adjusted vacations, or WDW get- aways to not include weekends.  There are people like DH and I who must go to WDW for long weekends because of other things. We always (Before DVC for us) went to the F&G show for a Friday and Saturday night.  Sometimes now I stay Sunday night or go out a night earlier to even up the point usage a little bit, but I'm alone then.  

The parties, like MNSSHP and MVMCP often are on Friday and Sunday and so, Friday it must be for us to go together. I wish the adjustment was made in stages, but I am happy that MS has worked to even up the points a bit.

I also wish there were different threads to discuss this.  They could be broken into resorts...how each resort is affected and let the little subgroups of owners talk about it.

Bobbi


----------



## DVC92

tjkraz said:


> One final thought:  IF this move were driven by a desire to sell more points, why not do it 2 years ago?  Why not 5 years ago or 8 years ago?  I believe that Dean has said that DVC has known a reallocation was needed as far back as 2001, but they held off doing it out of fear of member backlash.  (That's also 2-3 years before Jim Lewis was appointed VP of DVC.)



Probably, because sales have been significanty reduced at the present time. Additional sales weren't an issue in the past few years with people spending money like there was no tomorrow. That has come to an abrupt end. New buyers (although fewer than DVD would like) will still purchase BLT and AKV if they have the money, and since they aren't aware of any of these issues. However, DVD probably hopes a sufficient number of current members do add-ons for the minimal number of points they need to continue their previous plans.


----------



## KAT4DISNEY

I have a question about the maximum reallocation chart.  It states that each club member will always be eligible to reserve at least one (1) Use Day in the different Vacation Home types at his or her Home Resort, subject to availability, for the following number of Home Resort Vacation Points.  

It then continues on with a grid showing points for each Resort and accomodation size.  

In comparing this to the current point charts it appears that this requires them to keep at least 1 season (or I guess technically 1 day in a year) at the point amount they list and then they are allowed to go over or under this, correct?  

Second - are they ever allowed to change this maximum point number in the categories - ie, if they discover Studios have developed an overwhelming popularity and two-bedrooms have dropped like rocks and would that change apply to all members or just those who bought under those provisions?

From a couple of other postings on this it sounds like they have modified the length of time they will be guaranteed to book at this maximum - does the change to a one day rule apply retroactively to those members?  I think Doc posted something similar to being guaranteed a week at a certain maximum.

I'm just wishing to beef up my knowledge of what can and can't be done in the future so I am fully prepared.

FYI - the Treehouse maximum is set at 42 while two-bedroom rooms at SSR are at 41.  Just something that stood out since currently they are renting at the same point level.


----------



## bub

bobbiwoz said:


> The e-mails only direct you to the members' site where you read about them.  You are getting an "alert to go to the members' site," not special information.
> 
> Bobbi
> 
> PS.  This came after the notice about Tree House sales:
> Plus...
> 
> Disney Parks Celebrate US Military with Free Admission in 2009
> New wait-list process designed to improve Member experience
> Disney Vacation Club adjusts 2010 Vacation Points Charts
> Sanaa reservations begin Feb. 16



Bobbi - Thanks for posting this. I am not getting the emails anymore...I used to get them. Guess I will need to contact DVC and try and figure out why (as did "Anal Annie" above, with no luck). But still, not all members get emails so they should send something this major out in the real mail asap.

Has anyone who is unhappy about the changes complained directly to DVC and not just through this forum? I think I will do this, so that they will know that the changes are not something that every member is so happy about. I am starting not to like it when the words "improve Member experience" or "to benefit Members" are used.


----------



## Chuck S

Anal Annie said:


> I am also irritated that I don't receive these emails they send out either.  (I still haven't had time to log onto the DVC website to even read about these latest changes!)  I emailed MS about the email thing (or lack of it) earlier this month.  I got a reply back on Jan. 12 from someone in "online communications" saying that I was indeed set up correctly and they didn't know why I wasn't receiving them.  She said they had more emails scheduled to go out this month and if I didn't receive them to call.   So I just hung up from spending 42 min. on hold with MS while they "checked" again.  For some reason they could not Xfer me to this "online communications" department.  Once again I had to sit thru the "did you check your junk mail box" excuse.  YES, DARN IT!!!




One possible explanation for your not receiving email, is the mass email service DVC uses for general info is different from the go.com address used for most other Disney email communications.  DVC mass emails go through chtah.com, some anti-spam/anti virus software may be automatically blocking the email.  It could also be auto-blocked by your ISP.

While I am sure you checked the Member Website under email updates, you may want to take a look to be sure it is showing your correct address, and that you checked both boxes for Receive Member Update/Promo material and Disney insider.


----------



## tjkraz

bub said:


> I'm still so depressed about these changes. Of course they benefit Disney's bottom line, because otherwise why would they do this and put up with the complaints?



Because DVCMC (Disney Vacation Club Management Corp) has an obligation to ensure that the point charts remain in line with member demand.  Detailed explanation here:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=29921973&postcount=1480



Sammie said:


> If this truly is the reason, you basically have a major change to point usage due to the complaints of those wanting weekends and some wanting 9 nights out of 365 for MVMCP and ESPN,



And also due do shifts in member demand as stated in the notice.  

Yes, DVC is guilty of "buying the lead" (not stressing that fact strongly enough), but it is very much part of the reasoning behind the reallocation.  



DVC92 said:


> Probably, because sales have been significanty reduced at the present time. Additional sales weren't an issue in the past few years with people spending money like there was no tomorrow. That has come to an abrupt end.



But members abilities to add-on have also been impacted by the economy.  In fact, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume those with smaller contracts and resort-specific add-ons (who are most impacted by the reallocation) are the ones now most lacking the funds for another add-on.  

And I cannot see this as a net gain in sales for DVC...particularly in light of the ill will it has certainly generated.  

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=29945415&postcount=1610



KAT4DISNEY said:


> I have a question about the maximum reallocation chart.  It states that each club member will always be eligible to reserve at least one (1) Use Day in the different Vacation Home types at his or her Home Resort, subject to availability, for the following number of Home Resort Vacation Points.
> 
> It then continues on with a grid showing points for each Resort and accomodation size.
> 
> In comparing this to the current point charts it appears that this requires them to keep at least 1 season (or I guess technically 1 day in a year) at the point amount they list and then they are allowed to go over or under this, correct?



No.  The maximum reallocation values only apply if DVC were to completely eliminate all booking seasons and weekday/weekend differentials.  The values listed would be the nightly point cost for all 365 days of the year.


----------



## Mike

I am quite PO'd about the reallocation.  My annual vacation will now require 40 more points.  I own 220 points and now I need 260 points per year.  I will not change the length of my vacations.  I will not be adding on.  I will be staying offsite those additional days that I can no longer afford.  

  I will not be selling my contract but I doubt I will be buying APs anytime soon.  We will be spending less days in the parks and we will visit other area attractions more frequently.

  Also, when I am in the parks, everytime I walk by a DVC kiosk and see people inquiring, I am going to pull out my member card, show it to them and tell them to think twice about buying.  I will do my part to caution perspective buyers.


----------



## lugnut33

I'd be interested to know if they are even showing the 2010 points charts at those kiosks.


----------



## bobbiwoz

lugnut33 said:


> I'd be interested to know if they are even showing the 2010 points charts at those kiosks.



I am not sure that the kiosks even have charts.  I think the kiosks exist to get people over to the SSR showroom.  We were at BWV once and I stopped at the little disk they had and asked to see a chart, because we were talking about our next visit.  The person didn't have one to show me.
Bobbi
PS. If they did have the charts, I think it would benefit DVC to show next years charts.


----------



## KLR-wlv

SOme people keep insisting this has no financial benefit for disney - what about the rental market - this move ups rental weeks - likely the sun - thursday crowd - by $150-$400 per week. That could move people to CRO instead of taking a risk with rentals. 

ALso we don't know how many ROFR contracts they have - say for $50 Vero points. Perhaps they have a bunch of VB points they ROFR'd and think jacking those nights all up by the 20% will get VB owners to do add-ons. 

Are there any numbers on how many points DVC owns at the older resorts due to ROFR??


----------



## dizney4us

Mike said:


> Also, when I am in the parks, everytime I walk by a DVC kiosk and see people inquiring, I am going to pull out my member card, show it to them and tell them to think twice about buying.  I will do my part to caution perspective buyers.




We will be doing this as well.  We have a few family members that were on the fence about buying....this will be a total turn off for them!
The con is on!


----------



## Chuck S

KLR-wlv said:


> SOme people keep insisting this has no financial benefit for disney - what about the rental market - this move ups rental weeks - likely the sun - thursday crowd - by $150-$400 per week. That could move people to CRO instead of taking a risk with rentals.
> 
> ALso we don't know how many ROFR contracts they have - say for $50 Vero points. Perhaps they have a bunch of VB points they ROFR'd and think jacking those nights all up by the 20% will get VB owners to do add-ons.
> 
> Are there any numbers on how many points DVC owns at the older resorts due to ROFR??




But remember, Disney CRO has somewhat limited DVC unit inventory, garnered mostly from members trading into the Disney collection.  I'm more inclined to think that DVC was not able to as easily recoup the $$ needed for such trades, as overall rental demand likely has dropped with the economy.  Having more expensive DVC rooms to rent does not necessarily equal more income today, remember that CRO often upgraded VALUE class guests to DVC one bedrooms during the last two "free dining" promotions for free.  Not much of a money maker.

Also, ROFR really isn't a huge money maker, either.  Remember Disney has to pay a decent price to get those points back, they have to match the original offer received and accepted by the seller, who theoretically should be accepting the highest offer submitted.  Much lower profit ratio than simply selling "new" points at the newest resorts.  It is possible, though, that Disney has some inventory of repossessed points, but that is also less likely with the older resorts, as the vast majority of those loans would have beed satisfied years ago.  Unless people are defaulting simply on dues, instead of selling the points - which makes very little sense, too.


----------



## Chuck S

Mike said:


> Also, when I am in the parks, everytime I walk by a DVC kiosk and see people inquiring, I am going to pull out my member card, show it to them and tell them to think twice about buying.  I will do my part to caution perspective buyers.





dizney4us said:


> We will be doing this as well.  We have a few family members that were on the fence about buying....this will be a total turn off for them!
> The con is on!




Let us know what it is like in the park security area, OK?


----------



## disneynutz

KLR-wlv said:


> SOme people keep insisting this has no financial benefit for disney



Some people will never admit or understand that *everything* that Disney does is based upon financial benefit, flavored to look like an improvement to the Guest/Member experience. 

Programs, perks, park hours, point charts, DDP, are all adjusted to increase corporate revenue.

They are going to make adjustments no matter what we say. DVD just does a poor job of implementing the adjustments because they have become sales focused and not member focused.

In fact, I will bet that they made the change now because they want to print new sales information that includes 2010.


----------



## bcrook

Chuck S said:


> Let us know what it is like in the park security area, OK?



Yikes!  That sounds intimidating.  If that is a possibility they are going to have to change their slogan to Welcome Home - but keep your opinions to yourself!


----------



## Chuck S

disneynutz said:


> Programs, perks, park hours, point charts, DDP, are all adjusted to increase corporate revenue.



I should think this is true of every corporation and business.  Just like the way video stores offered cards that you pre-paid for a movie rental every month, but got a discount.  The were hoping that your'd either forget to get your movie, or would pick-up more than one whie you are their.

All inclusive resorts, like in Mexico and the Bahamas, which the DDP sort of mimics, are not about saving money for the guests, they are a a convienence for the guest.  The resort hopes they skip a few meals.

Park hours...of course, how many businesses do you know that will remain open if they don't have enough customers to justify the operating costs?

Point charts, I still disagree the re-allocation is designed primarily as a money maker.  They have a legal obligation to balance the charts for the DVC demand.  Given the bad publicity and ill will this seems to be causing, it is doubtful it was designed to increase sales...especially as the older resorts are sold out.


----------



## Chuck S

bcrook said:


> Yikes!  That sounds intimidating.  If that is a possibility they are going to have to change their slogan to Welcome Home - but keep your opinions to yourself!



If you waltz up to a DVC in-park kiosk, while others are browsing, and tell people not to buy...what do you think would happen?  Honestly, do you think any company would let you stand on their property to persuade their customers to not buy their products?


----------



## baj0505

Chuck S said:


> If you waltz up to a DVC in-park kiosk, while others are browsing, and tell people not to buy...what do you think would happen?  Honestly, do you think any company would let you stand on their property to persuade their customers to not buy their products?



I'll just wear my 'Ask me about DVC' button Disney gave me


----------



## Cmbar

disneynutz said:


> In fact, I will bet that they made the change now because they want to print new sales information that includes 2010.



Probably true.  We received the new Dream book this week but this book no longer has point charts in it.  Every resort is there with their layout including the VGC and THV at SSR and of course BLT.  In the back of the book they had two, 2009 chart sheets. One for BLT and one for AKV.  The BLT chart had at the very bottom in small print: "This Vacation Point Chart is effective from the Resort Opening date, currently scheduled to be fall 2009, throught December 31, 2009."

Does anyone else have a BLT point chart that has that small print that was given to them prior to last week?  Just curious.  I also am hoping someone who took the tour recently would be able to tell us if the guides were telling the BLT customers that the points have changed for 2010.  They did not highlight this in the literature or even indicate it except for this small print on the bottom of the chart.  The same statement is not on the AKV chart.

Also in the back of the book they have this disclouse page with various disclosures such as "the top of the world isn't part of BLT and access can be terminated (which means it will)

But also for the AKV it states:  "
Purchasers should not rely on the continued existence of, and access to, existing Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge Amenities, such as Savannas, Restaurants, and recreational facilities that are not part of membership."

Does this mean that AKV members won't have access to the lodge and their facilities?  Does that mean they can't use the pool at the AKL??  Is this true for all the other properties like Beach Club and Boardwalk and Wilderness Lodge?  What about BLT?  Will I not be entitled to use the pool over at the Contemporary??  

Wow it is scary when you read the fine print


----------



## Chuck S

Cmbar said:


> But also for the AKV it states:  "
> Purchasers should not rely on the continued existence of, and access to, existing Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge Amenities, such as Savannas, Restaurants, and recreational facilities that are not part of membership."
> 
> Does this mean that AKV members won't have access to the lodge and their facilities?



It probably means that Disney can remove/remodel the lodge facilites/restaurants and Savannahs at will, they are not legally a part of DVC.

Just like at OKW, they can rename, retheme, remove or remodel Olivia's restaurant, and other non-DVC operated entities, like the General Store.


----------



## bobbiwoz

Heck, somewhere in the POS for AKV, there is a statement that says there are not guarantees that there will be animals in the savannahs.  It's all there...at that point, I stopped reading.  I figured it wasn't going to make a difference.  If I wanted a "piece" of AKV, which I did, these were the conditions it would be under.

Bobbi


----------



## childsplay

This is a kick in the shorts, but one that DVC is well within their rights to deliver, so we will adjust and move forward.  
We just returned from a wonderful 10 day trip at BCV and SSR over Christmas and New Years, so those memories are still fresh enough to temper the sting.


----------



## Cmbar

baj0505 said:


> I'll just wear my 'Ask me about DVC' button Disney gave me



OOHH  That is so good!!    I have seen that button on someone and asked them about DVC (since I have been obsessed with buying for so long). They smiled and gave me a glowing review.  I would think DVC would be a little wary of people walking around with them now.  I like your thinking!!  Besides I don't think it is illegal to give people opinions.  You could just causually mention it to the person as you bump into them in the store they just went to!  

I am not an owner and don't have a button, so Chuck don't go throwing me in jail just yet  

I am one of those who feels a little mislead with the BLT purchase I was so close to making less than 10 days ago.  Not one word about needing a bit more in points and while I know they CAN do it, it does feel sleezy that they didn't inform the membership before upping the minimum buy in at BLT and now VGC.  Obviously I wish we had bought when prices were more reasonable.  It just makes DVC less of a bargain than when the older members bought it.  I think it is great that those who have owned for so long have gotten great value out of it!! But I can clearly see why people would be upset.  And yet it would be the new owners because they have paid a great deal more to get less points than the older owners and therefore their value has gone down more.  If the minimum buy in were still 230 points most people would not be able to buy in.  I for one don't need to stay 12 days each year so a smaller contract is fine with me.  But I would like to know how much more they can change my "locked in" vacation plans over the years.  It definitely was portrayed to us that points would NEVER change outside of season adjustments.  I don't like that I have to scour through the contract to find out they are lying to us.  SO there


----------



## bobbiwoz

childsplay said:


> This is a kick in the shorts, but one that DVC is well within their rights to deliver, so we will adjust and move forward.
> We just returned from a wonderful 10 day trip at BCV and SSR over Christmas and New Years, so those memories are still fresh enough to temper the sting.



 and I'm just a bit under 2 months away from a spring break get away.  

We were at Epcot for NYE and it was an amazing night...loved the fireworks, loved just being there!!!

Bobbi


----------



## childsplay

bobbiwoz said:


> and I'm just a bit under 2 months away from a spring break get away.
> 
> We were at Epcot for NYE and it was an amazing night...loved the fireworks, loved just being there!!!
> 
> Bobbi



Enjoy your up coming trip! 
We were at EPCOT as well for NYE and it really was special


----------



## baj0505

Cmbar said:


> OOHH  That is so good!!    I have seen that button on someone and asked them about DVC (since I have been obsessed with buying for so long). They smiled and gave me a glowing review.  I would think DVC would be a little wary of people walking around with them now.  I like your thinking!!  Besides I don't think it is illegal to give people opinions.  You could just causually mention it to the person as you bump into them in the store they just went to!
> 
> I am not an owner and don't have a button, so Chuck don't go throwing me in jail just yet
> 
> I am one of those who feels a little mislead with the BLT purchase I was so close to making less than 10 days ago.  Not one word about needing a bit more in points and while I know they CAN do it, it does feel sleezy that they didn't inform the membership before upping the minimum buy in at BLT and now VGC.  Obviously I wish we had bought when prices were more reasonable.  It just makes DVC less of a bargain than when the older members bought it.  I think it is great that those who have owned for so long have gotten great value out of it!! But I can clearly see why people would be upset.  And yet it would be the new owners because they have paid a great deal more to get less points than the older owners and therefore their value has gone down more.  If the minimum buy in were still 230 points most people would not be able to buy in.  I for one don't need to stay 12 days each year so a smaller contract is fine with me.  But I would like to know how much more they can change my "locked in" vacation plans over the years.  It definitely was portrayed to us that points would NEVER change outside of season adjustments.  I don't like that I have to scour through the contract to find out they are lying to us.  SO there



They will probably ask for it back   But seriously, the best and most honest advice I could give someone about buying DVC would be to truly understand what 'point reallocation' could mean to them and how it can affect their travel habits, as we've seen from all the comments both negatively and positively.  

I would be sure that they know that Disney not only has the right to make reallocations, but will do it, has done it, probably will continue to do it and the would be purchaser should expect it, be prepared for it, plan for it, you get the drift.  If they go in buying 'just what they need' and come up short they will at least know they did just that on the front end.  I know we all should have read the fine print so please don't lecture me.  I would hope that Disney wouldn't remove anyone from the park for just telling the truth ::cop:


----------



## jamstew

bobbiwoz said:


> I am not sure that the kiosks even have charts.  I think the kiosks exist to get people over to the SSR showroom.  We were at BWV once and I stopped at the little disk they had and asked to see a chart, because we were talking about our next visit.  The person didn't have one to show me.
> Bobbi
> PS. If they did have the charts, I think it would benefit DVC to show next years charts.



I stopped a kiosk in September and browsed through the book that's on their desktops (no CM in sight). I didn't see anything beyond information on trips you could take outside the DVC properties. No charts.


----------



## jamstew

Cmbar said:


> .
> 
> Also in the back of the book they have this disclouse page with various disclosures such as "the top of the world isn't part of BLT and access can be terminated (which means it will)
> 
> But also for the AKV it states:  "
> Purchasers should not rely on the continued existence of, and access to, existing Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge Amenities, such as Savannas, Restaurants, and recreational facilities that are not part of membership."
> 
> Does this mean that AKV members won't have access to the lodge and their facilities?  Does that mean they can't use the pool at the AKL??  Is this true for all the other properties like Beach Club and Boardwalk and Wilderness Lodge?  What about BLT?  Will I not be entitled to use the pool over at the Contemporary??



I could be wrong, but I think that  language is in contracts for *all* timeshares. I know it's in the the ones for my traditional TS properties.


----------



## tjkraz

disneynutz said:


> Some people will never admit or understand that *everything* that Disney does is based upon financial benefit, flavored to look like an improvement to the Guest/Member experience.
> 
> Programs, perks, park hours, point charts, DDP, are all adjusted to increase corporate revenue.



That is certainly true--after all Disney is a business.  However the two (benefit Disney, benefit customer) are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Take DME for example.  Disney seems to think that there is a benefit to them (increased guest spending), but millions of guests have also benefited from the free transportation.

In the DVC world you could point to something like the Annual Pass discount.  Sure Disney wants people to spend more time in the parks, add more points, etc.  But to members it certainly is a step-up from the 10% LOS pass discount we previously received.  

Regardless of financial motivations, the DVC entity is a bit unique in that it does have a certain responsibility to members which goes beyond financial concerns.  For example, they cannot raise annual dues above and beyond the cost of services provided.  DVC cannot arbitrarily choose to oversell a resort by marketing more points.  

Will the reallocation benefit Disney in a financial manner?  I don't think so but I could be wrong.  Either way it's actually irrelevant.  As our timeshare manager, DVC has a responsibility to reallocate the points regardless of what it will do to sales or what members think of the changes.  I suspect the greater fault would be DVC's for waiting 14-15 years since the last reallocation.  

If people question Disney's motivation or the accuracy of the reallocation, file a complaint with the Florida Timeshare Bureau.  If they receive enough complaints I'm sure they will investigate.  I understand folks here contacted the bureau regarding issues surrounding the OKW contract extension and those people ultimately received a favorable response.  That's what our tax dollars pay for.  

I wouldn't expect DVC or the bureau to publish any specifics regarding the reallocation, but they should at least be willing to review Disney's numbers and confirm whether or not the calculations were appropriate.


----------



## Muushka

Mike said:


> I am quite PO'd about the reallocation.  My annual vacation will now require 40 more points.  I own 220 points and now I need 260 points per year.  I will not change the length of my vacations.  I will not be adding on.  I will be staying offsite those additional days that I can no longer afford.
> 
> I will not be selling my contract but I doubt I will be buying APs anytime soon.  We will be spending less days in the parks and we will visit other area attractions more frequently.
> 
> Also, when I am in the parks, everytime I walk by a DVC kiosk and see people inquiring, I am going to pull out my member card, show it to them and tell them to think twice about buying.  I will do my part to caution perspective buyers.



My sentiments exactly.  We needed 220 a year for our needs and have 225.  No way will we buy any more.  Off site here we come.



tjkraz said:


> Snip.....
> 
> 2.  Obviously it has created a lot of ill will among current members who (in my opinion) don't really understand the nature of--or need for--a periodic reallocation. Snip....



You know, this ill-willed person has a grasp on reallocation.  In fact, I am surprised that it took this long.  What this disgruntled member is not understanding is why they put December, Sept and Jan at more of a premium at VWL (than say BCV) and why the studios only received 1 point increase and the 2 BR received the exact same increase as the 1 BR (what we always book), 4 points.  That is what I am upset about.  Had it only been 2 points a night, I would not be on this thread.


----------



## TisBit

Muushka said:


> You know, this ill-willed person has a grasp on reallocation.  In fact, I am surprised that it took this long.  What this disgruntled member is not understanding is why they put December at more of a premium at VWL and why the studios only received 1 point increase and the 2 BR received the exact same increase as the 1 BR (what we always book), 4 points.  That is what I am upset about.  Had it only been 2 points a night, I would not be on this thread.



Actually, I think the problem is YOU have not grasped why they did this.  I think the truth of the matter is, during the month of December VWL is by far one of the "hottest" resorts, so it would make sense to charge a premium.  Similar to making BCV and BWV more premium points during F&W, I am not sure if they did that or not, but it would make sense.


----------



## Muushka

TisBit said:


> Actually, I think the problem is YOU have not grasped why they did this.  I think the truth of the matter is, during the month of December VWL is by far one of the "hottest" resorts, so it would make sense to charge a premium.  Similar to making BCV and BWV more premium points during F&W, I am not sure if they did that or not, but it would make sense.



Actually, I did think about the fact that VWL is a "hot" place to be for the month of December.  And I also understand why they did the reallocation.  I am just miffed the way they chose to spread around the point increase.  
But they also increased the Jan and Sept time for those high point additions, so I am not sure what the heck they are thinking.

I need to edit my post to reflect the fact that it is not just Dec (the time we always go there) but Sept and Jan.


----------



## dizney4us

Chuck S said:


> Let us know what it is like in the park security area, OK?




I wouldn't be rude about it, just honest.  Telling prospective buyers that the product is not necessarily as it appears it the right thing to do.  My cousin was just about to buy this week after a year of us telling her how great it is, I was embarassed to have to tell her the changes that were made and how they were made.  I am also somewhat embarassed that I was conned into buying it. The impression that was made to us ws that reallocation was for the Easter and Christmas dates. Guess you can't even trust Disney nowadays!


----------



## KLR-wlv

TisBit said:


> Actually, I think the problem is YOU have not grasped why they did this.  I think the truth of the matter is, during the month of December VWL is by far one of the "hottest" resorts, so it would make sense to charge a premium.  Similar to making BCV and BWV more premium points during F&W, I am not sure if they did that or not, but it would make sense.



Actually WL 1 br is ONE POINT HIGHER than BCV during all of October. If we are to equate hot and in demand with the percentage increase in points, then Vero must be the hottest since weekdays were reallocated across all seasons and units the full 20%


----------



## Muushka

KLR-wlv said:


> Actually WL 1 br is ONE POINT HIGHER than BCV during all of October. If we are to equate hot and in demand with the percentage increase in points, then Vero must be the hottest since weekdays were reallocated across all seasons and units the full 20%



Sheesh!  I didn't even look at BCV and VWL for Oct.  Why in the world do they have it in for 1 BR at VWL?  I did email them that exact question.


----------



## Dean

Dean said:


> I finally made a chance to play with the numbers.  Assuming 1992 (or any similar year) as the base year and assuming the points are based on the 2 BR for all lockoff's, I simply multiplied the number of points for each weekday and weekend for each season times the number of those days times the number of units in each cat at SSR.  I got a difference of 0.000078 or 0.0078%.  I used the numbers from the last multi site POS I had which I know are not complete but should be representative.  I added in the 60 THV units.  IF someone will give me the final breakdown of the number of units (2 BR dedicated, 2 BR L/O, GV), I will update the numbers and see if it changes.  But since the 2 BR units went up a slightly number of points and the 3 BR down a slight number of points, I doubt it'll be any different unless he mix of the last two buildings was different for 2 BR vs 3 BR than previous phases.  So a difference of under 0.01% would be about as perfect as it will be given this circumstance and a number that should stand up to any scrutiny if my calculations are accurate.  If it were a drug study, we could get FDA approval on the first try.


That makes the difference .000074 or .0074% or a points difference of 1035 for the entire year.  Far less a difference than you get on a yearly variation due to the calendar or lockoff component reservations, but not exactly zero either which some would like to contend is the requirement.  



tjkraz said:


> I agree the method they chose was motivated by getting the most extenders possible.  But I do believe, at the time, they thought the approach was a reasonable trade-off for the "pro" of being able to offer to everyone.  There would have been a vocal contingent of disappointed members if the extension were not immediately accessible to everyone.
> 
> What they really didn't foresee was that members would find the opt-out process to be so cumbersome or viewed as such a negative.


DVC is a major bureaucracy a the present time and only getting bigger.  To pare it down for a smaller group of members around 2042 will be difficult and expensive.  DVC needs to cont all resorts for around the same time frame to minimize costs per point.  I am sympathetic to the problem they had to accomplish this with OKW but IMO they do not have the legal right to institute a special assessment for this purpose and had I still owned OKW, I would have put that theory to the test.


----------



## Dean

White_Sox_Fan said:


> Dean,
> 
> I did a spreadsheet on the diff between 2009 & 2010 for SSR.  Unfortunately copying it into a post isn't very format friendly.  If you PM me with you email I'll send it too you, you can compare it to what you have.


Thanks but no thanks, I've done what I wanted.  IMO difference one year to another is not really relevant as it will vary a small amount based on when weekends fall from one season to another and the number of weekend days each year which can vary by 1, not to mention leap years.  



T-i-double-g-err said:


> Not sure about this comment.  If people have a week off from work, I can see stays that begin with a Sat. night and end with a Sat. night = 3 high point nights in a vacation.  People arriving on Saturday morning staying 8 nights and leaving the following Sunday maximize their vacation time from work.


I think the long week with 2 weekends is a very common option for many vacations, I've certainly done this several times in the past 10 years including HI, Aruba, HH, Gatlinburg and Orlando.  I almost always travel at least part way to a drive destination when I have a full week.  We will go to HH this summer arriving Sat and I'll drive from work at least 3/4 of the way the night before and stay overnight somewhere.  That allows us to get checked in, do lunch and prepare for the other family members that are joining us.



bcrook said:


> Many posts have claimed that a vast majority of people use S-F reservations (thus the need for reallocation), therefore with that logic a vast majority of people will be negatively affected by this move - some estimates were at 75%.  Did it have to be the full 20% increase at all at once?


I don't think anyone stated that the majority of stays were S-F but a significant portion are and even when they're not often it's 6 days with one weekend day or downsizing for the weekend days.  As for 20%, it's hard to make much of a change and it not be 20% plus they may as well try to get it right, or at least as close as allowed, on one try.


----------



## casper

On subject but also kind of "off" subject...

Do you suppose it will be nearly impossible to get a reservation at the 7th month mark at OKW now? Many people are finding they are a few points shy of their vacation habits. Getting a reservation at OKW that usually requires fewer points might be a way of preserving the same vacation routine. If you can get in, that is.

I now have too few points to stay at SSR for 2 weeks of the year (8 nights). But if I change out to OKW in Nov, then I have enough points to continue my vacation habits each year. Even a few to spare!


----------



## DisneyWalker44

bub said:


> I also don't understand why we have just one huge thread for all our comments on this.


 It was done to increase DIS board member satisfaction


----------



## Dean

KAT4DISNEY said:


> I have a question about the maximum reallocation chart.  It states that each club member will always be eligible to reserve at least one (1) Use Day in the different Vacation Home types at his or her Home Resort, subject to availability, for the following number of Home Resort Vacation Points.
> 
> It then continues on with a grid showing points for each Resort and accomodation size.
> 
> In comparing this to the current point charts it appears that this requires them to keep at least 1 season (or I guess technically 1 day in a year) at the point amount they list and then they are allowed to go over or under this, correct?
> 
> Second - are they ever allowed to change this maximum point number in the categories - ie, if they discover Studios have developed an overwhelming popularity and two-bedrooms have dropped like rocks and would that change apply to all members or just those who bought under those provisions?
> 
> From a couple of other postings on this it sounds like they have modified the length of time they will be guaranteed to book at this maximum - does the change to a one day rule apply retroactively to those members?  I think Doc posted something similar to being guaranteed a week at a certain maximum.
> 
> I'm just wishing to beef up my knowledge of what can and can't be done in the future so I am fully prepared.
> 
> FYI - the Treehouse maximum is set at 42 while two-bedroom rooms at SSR are at 41.  Just something that stood out since currently they are renting at the same point level.


They guarantee that you can reserve a day but not what day or that it's one you want.  The only time the studio or 1 BR options would come into play is when there are dedicated units of those sizes.  And yes they can potentially shift points from one unit size to another.



dizney4us said:


> I wouldn't be rude about it, just honest.  Telling prospective buyers that the product is not necessarily as it appears it the right thing to do.  My cousin was just about to buy this week after a year of us telling her how great it is, I was embarassed to have to tell her the changes that were made and how they were made.  I am also somewhat embarassed that I was conned into buying it. The impression that was made to us ws that reallocation was for the Easter and Christmas dates. Guess you can't even trust Disney nowadays!


I have no problem with it but do find it funny.  A quote about a "woman scorned" comes to mind.  It's funny to me that people are so upset over something that is spelled out in the paperwork we all agreed to.  I doubt DVC would do anything unless you hung around for an extended period for that purpose.  IMO DVC ownership isn't any worse, or any better, overall than it was a week, month or year ago other than as the changes affects one's personal situation.


----------



## tjkraz

casper said:


> On subject but also kind of "off" subject...
> 
> Do you suppose it will be nearly impossible to get a reservation at the 7th month mark at OKW now? Many peopel are finding they are a few points shy of their vacation habits. Getting a reservation at OKW that usually requires fewer points might be a way of preserving the same vacation routine. If you can get in, that is.



Just my opinion but I doubt it.  

History seems to show that people (as a whole) are willing to spend more points for their preferred destination rather than just seek-out the cheapest option available.  OKW has always been a cheaper option to all of the other resorts, yet it wasn't the first resort to be fully booked.  Same for SSR.  People are willing to pay extra points for the BoardWalk view, to be at BCV, to have the Savanna view at AKV and so on.  

It may shift some patterns but I doubt it will be to the point where people are racing to the phone at 9am 7-months out just to get into OKW.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

Chuck S said:


> Honestly, for _most_ owners, signing over the deed to Disney (and we had 4 deeds) took about 20 minutes at your local bank.


 Not to rehash this too much, but the cost to non-extenders isn't just the time and trouble of filling out the paperwork. It's what I believe to be meaningfully increased future maintenance costs.


----------



## drakethib

Just wondering there have been a bunch of people complaining about this (myself included), how many have actually contacted DVC through any means (phone, email, fax) regarding this?

Has there been any response?


----------



## sgtdisney

Just found this thread after a long hiatus from the DIS, and had to comment.  I, like some of the others posting here have been long time members since 1992.  This isn't the first point re-allocation, I am sure it will not be the last.   As may others have eloquently stated, Disney has the legal right to do this.  The only thing you can count on is what was legally filed with the Orange County recorder.  As with any other legally binding agreement, that is what is guaranteed.  

That being said, I can understand, and empathize with the people who are upset.  There have been a number of changes to the DVC that I fell in love with 17 years ago that have changed my perception of the product.  I'm still happy to be a member, yes.   However, I always reserve the right to sell the membership when it becomes something that no longer suits my needs, and honestly I sometimes find myself wondering if I should.  

We live a fair distance from Orlando and these changes probably will not affect our usage too much.  That being said it does, obviously affect some others very adversely.   I feel bad for that.  I know there were many times when I was livid about a change but it was one that didn't matter to some, or even to many, but it still mattered to me.  I can say with 100% conviction, that all things being equal, we would not buy the membership today, that we did 17 years ago. 

Face it everyone, Disney, as wonderful as it even _still_ is, is not what it was in the past.   The magic is still there, certainly.  The place has a special magic about it, just being there.  But, in retrospect, it isn't as magical as it once was.   Maybe it was inevitable, or unavoidable.  The world isn't the same world it was in the late 60s when they were building Disney World.  It isn't even the same as it was when the DVC was created in late 1991.   It could be greed partially, it could just be the only way that this company could have survived.   With Walt, it was all about show, damn the profits, the show was of paramount importance.  That worked then.  Would it have worked now, in the economy we have now and for the past 20 years, maybe, maybe not.  We'll never know.   

What I do know is the 'show' part of Disney has been long suffering.  Ripping out long favorite rides (20K Under the sea) and leaving empty fields in their place or leaving show buildings vacant and unattended in Epcot would never have happened 25 years ago.   I can remember going to Disney when you would NEVER see a bulb out on main street and the parks were cleaner.  These things change, maybe they had to to allow the company to survive in these changing times.  

Anyway, off my soapbox, I guess I am just waxing poetic about how the changes have taken just a little shine off the magic for me over the past decade and 1/2.  Just keep in mind DVC is a business, they need to turn a profit to succeed.  The rules can and will change up until the letter of the contract, you can count on that.  It is a personal decision as to whether the product still holds value for the member or not, and only the member can decide that.   For now, we're still members and will enjoy our contract as it is.  I just can't help sometimes feeling a little circumspect when thinking about the things that I really enjoyed about the magic of Disney World, even the way the company treated the members in the beginning, and how things are today.


----------



## dizney4us

Dean said:


> They guarantee that you can reserve a day but not what day or that it's one you want.  The only time the studio or 1 BR options would come into play is when there are dedicated units of those sizes.  And yes they can potentially shift points from one unit size to another.
> 
> I have no problem with it but do find it funny.  A quote about a "woman scorned" comes to mind.  It's funny to me that people are so upset over something that is spelled out in the paperwork we all agreed to.  I doubt DVC would do anything unless you hung around for an extended period for that purpose.  IMO DVC ownership isn't any worse, or any better, overall than it was a week, month or year ago other than as the changes affects one's personal situation.




What is the selling feature of DVC now?  Hedging off inflation by paying huge sums of money up front for a point chart that can change seems very foolish.  I realize we all should have read all the documents, but we basically just trusted Disney...that as I now know was my own mistake.  And to be honest, the changes have little to no effect on us, because our kids are nearly grown and we have more freedom to travel whenever we want... but thats not the case for everyone.   This is yet another example of the overwhelming greed and lack of integrity in this world, and to see Disney be a part of it just sickens me, I can't help it, it just does!


----------



## tjkraz

Muushka said:


> Actually, I did think about the fact that VWL is a "hot" place to be for the month of December.  And I also understand why they did the reallocation.  I am just miffed the way they chose to spread around the point increase.
> But they also increased the Jan and Sept time for those high point additions, so I am not sure what the heck they are thinking.



The reallocation is all about balancing weekdays vs. weekends.  Direct comparisons between other unit sizes and other resorts aren't even relevant.  

If the weekday One Bedroom costs went up by a greater percentage than weekday Studio costs, that suggests that weekend One Bedroom vacancies were higher than weekend Studio vacancies.  

Also bear in mind that the adjustments would have been based upon all three components of Adventure seasons--January, September and early-December.  Although December has high occupancy, January and particularly September are much different.  Once you blend the data from all of those seasons, the results may not be what you would expect as a frequent December visitor.


----------



## tjkraz

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Not to rehash this too much, but the cost to non-extenders isn't just the time and trouble of filling out the paperwork. It's what I believe to be meaningfully increased future maintenance costs.



Disney addressed that.  In the latter years of ownership the capital improvements budget will be separate for extenders vs. non-extenders.  Don't remember how the information was circulated, but I've seen it mentioned here a number of times.


----------



## Doug7856

baj0505 said:


> I'll just wear my 'Ask me about DVC' button Disney gave me



I like that idea!


----------



## tjkraz

dizney4us said:


> This is yet another example of the overwhelming greed and lack of integrity in this world, and to see Disney be a part of it just sickens me, I can't help it, it just does!



That's an emotional response shared by many but please realize that Disney was *obligated *to make this sort of periodic adjustments.  They adjusted the points back in 1996 and it's a wonder they waited so long to do it again.

The laws of the state of Florida hold DVC (our timeshare manager) responsible for updating the point charts to account for shifts in demand.  Here is a quote from the Florida statutes:



> The rules and regulations shall also provide for periodic adjustment or amendment of the reservation system by the managing entity from time to time in order to respond to actual purchaser use patterns and changes in purchaser use demand for the accommodations and facilities existing at that time within the plan.



You can find the entire text here:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes....HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0721->Section 56#0721.56

At this point the worst thing we can hold DVC accountable for is poor communications.  Whether they profit from this is unknown and really irrelevant to the need for the changes.


----------



## Dean

dizney4us said:


> What is the selling feature of DVC now?  Hedging off inflation by paying huge sums of money up front for a point chart that can change seems very foolish.  I realize we all should have read all the documents, but we basically just trusted Disney...that as I now know was my own mistake.  And to be honest, the changes have little to no effect on us, because our kids are nearly grown and we have more freedom to travel whenever we want... but thats not the case for everyone.   This is yet another example of the overwhelming greed and lack of integrity in this world, and to see Disney be a part of it just sickens me, I can't help it, it just does!


I see it differently.  The factual draw is the same as it always has been.  True that is may not be a good fit for some today that it was last month but the reverse is true as well.  One buys DVC to have the option of a room on property for a controlled price.  That price may vary somewhat because of reallocation and dues over the years.  Shame on anyone for buying simply because they trusted Disney.  I think it's funny, and wrong, to blame this on greed, sales attempts or any similar motivation.  IMO the real area to place blame is squarely on the flexibility of the system, namely the ability to reserve less than 7 days up front without a priority given to those wanting the full 7 days.  It's part of the cost of doing business with such a system.


----------



## Doug7856

tjkraz said:


> That's an emotional response shared by many but please realize that Disney was *obligated *to make this sort of periodic adjustments.  They adjusted the points back in 1996 and it's a wonder they waited so long to do it again.
> . . .



True, but Disney was not obligated to change the rules for minimum purchase requirements, delay the charts from their normal October unveiling until after the rule change, and then drop this big point chart change just about 11 months out from the first booking date.

As has been said repeatedly, we'll all get over this, but the way this was handled just diminishes the trust and good will that the Disney Company has spent 100 years building among many DVC members.


----------



## Chuck S

Doug7856 said:


> True, but Disney was not obligated to change the rules for minimum purchase requirements, delay the charts from their normal October unveiling until after the rule change, and then drop this big point chart change just about 11 months out from the first booking date.
> 
> As has been said repeatedly, we'll all get over this, but the way this was handled just diminishes the trust and good will that the Disney Company has spent 100 years building among many DVC members.



I agree, Disney should never have lowered the points to 150 minimum, and should have aggressively used ROFR to repurchase smaller add-on contracts, unless they were being bought by an existing member.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

tjkraz said:


> Disney addressed that.


 Have they? Are sure? And if they were forced to address the issue after the fact, it makes their motivation even more suspect.


> In the latter years of ownership the capital improvements budget will be separate for extenders vs. non-extenders.


 That only address half of the increase - the reserve budget for post 2042 maintenance. Even if Disney doesn't charge non-extenders for that, there is still this issue of what shape the resorts will left in 2042. How much of our money will Disney spend fixing up the resorts in the 2039-2042 years? What expenses could they justify before the change? What can the justify now?


----------



## bobbiwoz

Dean said:


> ...
> IMO the real area to place blame is squarely on the flexibility of the system, namely the ability to reserve less than 7 days up front without a priority given to those wanting the full 7 days.  It's part of the cost of doing business with such a system.



Interesting, and this is the feature that I like most about DVC.  A full week at WDW was not something we ever did even when we had our DS's.  My mantra was "There's more to Florida than WDW."  However, we liked the WDW part of our trips very very much, and as empty nesters and as DGP's we go back again and again.

Bobbi


----------



## HookdonWDW

Chuck S said:


> I agree, Disney should never have lowered the points to 150 minimum, and should have aggressively used ROFR to repurchase smaller add-on contracts, unless they were being bought by an existing member.



I think this is definitely a huge part of the issue.  Reallocation was inevitable (and necessary IMHO).  The people it hurts the most are those with small contracts. I don't think the minimum should have been reduced, and I think they should have worked harder to make sure New owners (even those buying via resale) owned at least the minimum required points.


----------



## bcrook

Dean said:


> IMO the real area to place blame is squarely on the flexibility of the system, namely the ability to reserve less than 7 days up front without a priority given to those wanting the full 7 days.  It's part of the cost of doing business with such a system.



But this is what makes DVC so much more appealing than all the other timeshares.  I bought my 175 points to utilize this system rather than purchasing at Wyndahm, Westgate, or any other weekly point system.  I have a Bluegreen too because it is based on points (although it is not as flexible and much harder to find what I want.)  If the priority for DVC is week long stays, then market it that way.  And it is radical to start changing that goal, after so many sales were based on the flexibility.

I really appreciate everything that you have written about the need for reallocation.  You have made wonderful points based on the premise that the dates and point schedule are out of whack.  But, I haven't seen any data that says it is out of whack.  We have to assume that it was, and now it is fixed.   But this could also be a way simply to eat up more points from the people who are primarily booking weekdays.   

Is there data that shows people are having a hard time getting into their home resorts? And is there data that Friday and Saturdays at the resorts are ghost towns?  I haven't had any trouble getting in to anything I have asked for in the past two years booking at 11 months and mostly 7 months. 2 bedrooms, 1 bedrooms or studios.  

Again, I appreciate this thread.  I would just like to see some facts.


----------



## Chuck S

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Have they? Are sure?
> That only address half of the increase - the reserve budget for post 2042 maintenance. Even if Disney doesn't charge non-extenders for that, there is still this issue of what shape the resorts will left in 2042. How much of our money will Disney spend fixing up the resorts in the 2039-2042 years? What expenses could they justify before the change? What can the justify now?




I don't know about you, but even though my membership expires in 2042, (and if OKW also closed in 2042) if I vacationed in 2039, I would want the resort to be in the best shape possible.  I would be unhappy if maintenance were to slide just because it was closing in a year or two.  A building could need a new roof in 2039, even if the resort closed in 2042.  The difference is, now they will amortize such mainentance through 2057 rather than sticking the 2042 owners with the entire cost, as they would have to do if the resort were closing.


----------



## BeccaG

I came across an interesting quote from Walt Disney I had to share considering the nature of this thread.  I don't think DVC or WDW shouldn't make a profit, its just interesting to hear Walt's perspective. . . 

"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."  Walt Disney


----------



## Dean

bcrook said:


> But this is what makes DVC so much more appealing than all the other timeshares.  I bought my 175 points to utilize this system rather than purchasing at Wyndahm, Westgate, or any other weekly point system.  I have a Bluegreen too because it is based on points (although it is not as flexible and much harder to find what I want.)  If the priority for DVC is week long stays, then market it that way.  And it is radical to start changing that goal, after so many sales were based on the flexibility.
> 
> I really appreciate everything that you have written about the need for reallocation.  You have made wonderful points based on the premise that the dates and point schedule are out of whack.  But, I haven't seen any data that says it is out of whack.  We have to assume that it was, and now it is fixed.   But this could also be a way simply to eat up more points from the people who are primarily booking weekdays.
> 
> Is there data that shows people are having a hard time getting into their home resorts? And is there data that Friday and Saturdays at the resorts are ghost towns?  I haven't had any trouble getting in to anything I have asked for in the past two years booking at 11 months and mostly 7 months. 2 bedrooms, 1 bedrooms or studios.
> 
> Again, I appreciate this thread.  I would just like to see some facts.


Then there are certain things that encompass the cost of such flexibility.  Reallocation is one, high dues and lack of availability certain seasons are others.  DVC does not release occupancy numbers so if you were in a position to have hard facts, you couldn't pass it on anyway.  There certainly has been a TON of anecdotal and verbal info over the years to confirm this issue.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

Chuck S said:


> I don't know about you, but even though my membership expires in 2042, (and if OKW also closed in 2042) if I vacationed in 2039, I would want the resort to be in the best shape possible.


 I think those are going to be interesting times, as members will have very different opinions. There's a lot of us cheapskates who aren't going to want to spend money putting new furniture, carpets, etc in the rooms those last couple years.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

dizney4us said:


> What is the selling feature of DVC now?  Hedging off inflation by paying huge sums of money up front for a point chart that can change seems very foolish.  I realize we all should have read all the documents, but we basically just trusted Disney...that as I now know was my own mistake.  And to be honest, the changes have little to no effect on us, because our kids are nearly grown and we have more freedom to travel whenever we want... but thats not the case for everyone.   This is yet another example of the overwhelming greed and lack of integrity in this world, and to see Disney be a part of it just sickens me, I can't help it, it just does!




This brings up an interesting question (at least to me).

Has anyone checked the resale market for the last couple of days? It appears that this hasn't affected pricing at all. If it hasn't, it would seem reasonable to conclude that none of us has lost any *real* value in our investment(s) (at least not because of this change).

While some of us may believe that our perceived value may have been diminished by this change, I think it is important to remember that the real value (read: $$$) appears unaffected by all of this.

This begs the question; HAVE we lost any value? Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..."


----------



## DisneyWalker44

bcrook said:


> I really appreciate everything that you have written about the need for reallocation.  You have made wonderful points based on the premise that the dates and point schedule are out of whack.  But, I haven't seen any data that says it is out of whack.


 A lot of us have individual points of data. I've called many time about availability and been told the weekend days I want are free, but the weekdays are booked up. Every single time there is a difference, it's the weekdays that are booked. If I'm on the ball enough to call at the exact 7 or 11 month window, both are free. But I'm not always on the ball.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

HookdonWDW said:


> I think this is definitely a huge part of the issue.  Reallocation was inevitable (and necessary IMHO).  The people it hurts the most are those with small contracts. I don't think the minimum should have been reduced, and I think they should have worked harder to make sure New owners (even those buying via resale) owned at least the minimum required points.




Sounds strangely similar to my contention several pages back. Better watch out. The natives brought out the machetes and came after me.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

BeccaG said:


> I came across an interesting quote from Walt Disney I had to share considering the nature of this thread.  I don't think DVC or WDW shouldn't make a profit, its just interesting to hear Walt's perspective. . .
> 
> "Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."  Walt Disney



Walt died and this ain't Disneyland.


----------



## jlovesee

Ok I realize there is a bias on this forum against low point owners.  However, I wanted to respond.  I started with 25 points about 2 years ago at OKW, and added in 25 points this last summer (hoping for another 30 this summer!).  Yes, I don't own 150, 200, or even 1000, however as I posting live from a VWL studio, I can definitly attest that I love my DVC! No matter how small it may be.

Back to topic.  Most may be suprised to hear this, but at most I was mildly perturbed about the point re-location.  Some have been crying here saying "I was never told!" by their guide, or that  "I bought an exact # of points".  When I took the tour about 7 years ago (SSR was all that was available and it hadn't even opened one of the reasons we didn't buy then!) my guide mentioned that point re-allocation was a possibility, plus if you even briefly glanced at the paperwork they gave you you would have seen this was a possibility.  

Anyone that puts in thousands of dollars that DVC costs should do their homework.  I know I did, I knew exactly what I was getting into, and even knowing what I do today, wouldn't change my DVC and am still looking forward to adding on more.

Yes I can see it as being frustrating, but if you look at it from a business stand point I can understand why they did it.  If you have 100% occupancy Sun-Thur and only 20% occupancy on fri/sat (just guesstimates) that means you should raise points on the weekdays and lower points on the weekends, law of supply and demand.  Its as simple as that.

Anyway thats my two cents.  

BTW I love the Villas at Wilderness Lodge, but come on what's the deal with the door being right there by the sink?  Oh the terrible consequences of being at Disney!  

Jennifer


----------



## palhockeymomof2

DisneyWalker44 said:


> A lot of us have individual points of data. I've called many time about availability and been told the weekend days I want are free, but the weekdays are booked up. Every single time there is a difference, it's the weekdays that are booked. If I'm on the ball enough to call at the exact 7 or 11 month window, both are free. But I'm not always on the ball.



I've had the exact same experience as well...usually remember to call at the 11 & 7 month mark but sometimes have a brain fart   and forget


----------



## toocherie

WilsonFlyer said:


> This brings up an interesting question (at least to me).
> 
> Has anyone checked the resale market for the last couple of days? It appears that this hasn't affected pricing at all. If it hasn't, it would seem reasonable to conclude that none of us has lost any *real* value in our investment(s) (at least not because of this change).
> 
> While some of us may believe that our perceived value may have been diminished by this change, I think it is important to remember that the real value (read: $$$) appear unaffected by all of this.
> 
> This begs the question; HAVE we lost any value? Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..."



Your point presumes that 1) those folks with listings are aware of the change (they may not be Dis-sers), 2) that they are aware of the change and haven't changed their price yet, and 3) that they intend to lower their price.  The question shouldn't be what a person is asking for an interest--it's what a willing buyer will pay.  I would think that someone who is aware of the change and thinks it lowers the value may offer less than they would have otherwise because of the change.  And if the seller is aware of the change they might accept less.  But ultimately it may not have an effect on price because the points change may not matter to the buyer in question.

In my case--the change doesn't matter--I didn't calculate "to the point" when I bought DVC fully intending to take advantage of different size villas, different seasons, banking and borrowing, etc. and yes, different days of stay.  Someone who was contemplating a particular stay for S-Th in a particular unit in a particular season may think differently and not be willing to pay today the same price for DVC that they would have paid a week or two ago.

Edited to add:  I don't think that it's a potential loss in "financial" value that has people upset--it's the perceived (and in some cases real) loss of "vacation power."


----------



## bcrook

It seems like the DVC - Resort Reservation Availability thread on DISboards would provide the data for this discussion.  But it doesn't seem to indicate that it is difficult to  get in to anything.  Maybe the data is not up to date.   

Is it impossible to get into anywhere during the weekdays or just places like BCV?  It is my understanding the OKW and SSR have openings most of the time, even on weekdays.  Just curious.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

jlovesee said:


> Ok I realize there is a bias on this forum against low point owners.  However, I wanted to respond.  I started with 25 points about 2 years ago at OKW, and added in 25 points this last summer (hoping for another 30 this summer!).  Yes, I don't own 150, 200, or even 1000, however as I posting live from a VWL studio, I can definitly attest that I love my DVC! No matter how small it may be.
> 
> Back to topic.  Most may be suprised to hear this, but at most I was mildly perturbed about the point re-location.  Some have been crying here saying "I was never told!" by their guide, or that  "I bought an exact # of points".  When I took the tour about 7 years ago (SSR was all that was available and it hadn't even opened one of the reasons we didn't buy then!) my guide mentioned that point re-allocation was a possibility, plus if you even briefly glanced at the paperwork they gave you you would have seen this was a possibility.
> 
> Anyone that puts in thousands of dollars that DVC costs should do their homework.  I know I did, I knew exactly what I was getting into, and even knowing what I do today, wouldn't change my DVC and am still looking forward to adding on more.
> 
> Yes I can see it as being frustrating, but if you look at it from a business stand point I can understand why they did it.  If you have 100% occupancy Sun-Thur and only 20% occupancy on fri/sat (just guesstimates) that means you should raise points on the weekdays and lower points on the weekends, law of supply and demand.  Its as simple as that.
> 
> Anyway thats my two cents.
> 
> BTW I love the Villas at Wilderness Lodge, but come on what's the deal with the door being right there by the sink?  Oh the terrible consequences of being at Disney!
> 
> Jennifer




Congratulations! You goes in the "Gets it" column. Seriously. 

Unfortunately, and especially among relatively smaller point owners, you appear to be very much in the minority.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

toocherie said:


> <snip>
> 
> Edited to add:  I don't think that it's a potential loss in "financial" value that has people upset--it's the perceived (and in some cases real) loss of "vacation power." <snip>



A perfectly valid point. 

As is true in life, it is what you think it is: at least to you.


----------



## bcrook

jlovesee said:


> Yes I can see it as being frustrating, but if you look at it from a business stand point I can understand why they did it.  *If you have 100% occupancy Sun-Thur and only 20% occupancy on fri/sat (just guesstimates) that means you should raise points on the weekdays and lower points on the weekends, law of supply and demand*.  Its as simple as that.



I completely understand this logic, but it is based on the assumption of 100% occupancy during the weekdays.  Is that true?  Are all DVC rooms booked during the weekdays?

I bet those BWV view rooms, BCV, Savannah view AKL/AKV, December VWL, and all the Epcots at food wine are hard to get.  That seems like seasonal changes need to be made.  But were OKW weekends just so darn expensive that nobody booked there?  Did they really need to be adjusted?

Because we don't have the information that is needed to understand this, we are susceptible to the whims of management.  We don't really know if it is in our best interest or not.  Unless of course the goal is to give a break to locals who can utilize the weekends more frequently.  In that case, it is understandable and logical.  Because no matter how you look at any of this the weekend points are/were really high.


----------



## tjkraz

bcrook said:


> I completely understand this logic, but it is based on the assumption of 100% occupancy during the weekdays.  Is that true?  Are all DVC rooms booked during the weekdays?



100% occupancy isn't particularly relevant.  It could be 90% weekdays and 20% weekends....or 80 / 30...or 50% weekdays and 100% weekends.  

What matters is that the point spread is representative of member use.


----------



## tjkraz

WilsonFlyer said:


> This begs the question; HAVE we lost any value? Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..."



Not unless DVC lowers its own sales prices.  

IMO, the benchmark for resale pricing isn't based on any sort of formula.  It's not based upon a certain number of nights per contract purchased or a specific breakeven threshold.  

The most significant factors are DVC's ROFR and supply & demand.  If demand drops because fewer people perceive DVC to be a fair value, then resale prices should go down.  

DVC may not return the same number nights as they did before the reallocation.  But it's still much cheaper than paying cash rates for similar accommodations.  There is still significant value in a DVC purchase...it's just that some of us won't have as much to show for it come 2010.


----------



## bcrook

tjkraz said:


> 100% occupancy isn't particularly relevant.  It could be 90% weekdays and 20% weekends....or 80 / 30...or 50% weekdays and 100% weekends.
> 
> What matters is that the point spread is representative of member use.



I have read this over and over again.  Nobody seems to base their ideas of the point spread on anything concrete.  So it is possible that this is not based on use pattern but a different marketing plan.  If it is a different marketing plan that is something to howl about.

And do you think that ALL resorts show the same use pattern? Isn't it possible that OKW has a higher weekend reserve rate than AKV?  Then should OKW weekends be reduced the same amount? The across the board 20% changes doesn't really look like it based on usage patterns.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

bcrook said:


> <snip> The across the board 20% changes doesn't really look like it based on usage patterns. <snip>



If that's the case, DVC is in a heap of legal trouble with the state of FL. My bet is that they better be able to prove the reallocation relative to FL timeshare laws if they demand it. They may not have to prove it to us but the state of FL is a different story.

There's a snippet of the FL timeshare statute a couple of pages back. It's interesting reading and while open to some interpretation, it's pretty cut and dry in its intent.


----------



## Muushka

WilsonFlyer said:


> Congratulations! You goes in the "Gets it" column. Seriously.
> 
> Unfortunately, and especially among relatively smaller point owners, you appear to be very much in the minority.



I feel very condescended upon.  Thank you very much.  This relatively small point owner is done with this thread.


----------



## tjkraz

bcrook said:


> And do you think that ALL resorts show the same use pattern? Isn't it possible that OKW has a higher weekend reserve rate than AKV?  Then should OKW weekends be reduced the same amount? The across the board 20% changes doesn't really look like it based on usage patterns.



As WilsonFlyer said, DVC would be in a heap of trouble if they couldn't justify their numbers.  I suspect (but don't know) that DVC probably farmed-out the reallocation to an accounting firm or actuary.  That's the easiest way to deflect criticism when state regulators come knocking.

To specifically address your comments, it isn't an across the board 20% increase.  Look no further than the BCV and VWL point charts.  Through 2009 both resorts were identical.  But if you look at the 2010 versions published, they are now different.


----------



## BeccaG

WilsonFlyer said:


> Walt died and this ain't Disneyland.



Yes . . .I realize that . .I was merely pointing out where Walt's heart was at. . I did state that I expected WDW and DVC to make money. . .so I am not sure what your point is, other than to say that this is no longer Walt's company, which was kinda my point to, but I am disappointed that is the case.


----------



## lugnut33

tjkraz said:


> That's an emotional response shared by many but please realize that Disney was *obligated *to make this sort of periodic adjustments.  They adjusted the points back in 1996 and it's a wonder they waited so long to do it again.
> 
> The laws of the state of Florida hold DVC (our timeshare manager) responsible for updating the point charts to account for shifts in demand.  Here is a quote from the Florida statutes:
> 
> 
> 
> You can find the entire text here:
> 
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes....HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0721->Section 56#0721.56
> 
> At this point the worst thing we can hold DVC accountable for is poor communications.  Whether they profit from this is unknown and really irrelevant to the need for the changes.



You say that like you know people were overbooking on weekdays in every category, but we don't actually know that for a fact.  We are assuming, but I doubt every resort and every type of room had that happening.


----------



## lugnut33

Dean said:


> I see it differently.  The factual draw is the same as it always has been.  True that is may not be a good fit for some today that it was last month but the reverse is true as well.  One buys DVC to have the option of a room on property for a controlled price.  That price may vary somewhat because of reallocation and dues over the years.  Shame on anyone for buying simply because they trusted Disney.  I think it's funny, and wrong, to blame this on greed, sales attempts or any similar motivation.  IMO the real area to place blame is squarely on the flexibility of the system, namely the ability to reserve less than 7 days up front without a priority given to those wanting the full 7 days.  It's part of the cost of doing business with such a system.



Yeah, Disney didn't do it for money!!  LOL.  Trust me, they do everything for money and shareholder value as that is what drives large corporations like Disney.  Having that Florida law gives them the means to do it.  Just like you say it's written in the POS, so is the law of corporate greed.  It's just ridiculous to say this isn't money driven considering the other changes that came along with it.  And trust me, those who are getting burned by it will see it as greed, that's the way it works and no Florida law can change that.  Don't forget, perception is 9/10 reality.


----------



## lugnut33

WilsonFlyer said:


> This brings up an interesting question (at least to me).
> 
> Has anyone checked the resale market for the last couple of days? It appears that this hasn't affected pricing at all. If it hasn't, it would seem reasonable to conclude that none of us has lost any *real* value in our investment(s) (at least not because of this change).
> 
> While some of us may believe that our perceived value may have been diminished by this change, I think it is important to remember that the real value (read: $$$) appears unaffected by all of this.
> 
> This begs the question; HAVE we lost any value? Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..."




You might not have lost real money, but intrinsic value for some has been squashed because they are now not getting the same value for the buck that they did in 2009.   

And somebody brought up a great great point, I think people will be borrowing their 2010 points like crazy to use in 09.


----------



## bcrook

tjkraz said:


> To specifically address your comments, it isn't an across the board 20% increase.  Look no further than the BCV and VWL point charts.  Through 2009 both resorts were identical.  But if you look at the 2010 versions published, they are now different.



I just looked at the charts again for 2010.  I see very little difference between BCV and VWL for 2010 except for premier weeks (interesting there, because lots of people talk about VWL being in high demand then but BCV were raised much higher).  For the most part, for all resorts each weekday went up about 4 points and weekend went down about 10-14 points for one and two bedrooms.  The Grand Villas are almost all opposite - went up on weekends and down during the week.  That is very interesting.  

If the same increase is found in every resort during the week and reduced the same for every weekday.  It would indicate that all the resorts have the same use patterns. I just can't believe that is accurate.


----------



## lugnut33

tjkraz said:


> As WilsonFlyer said, DVC would be in a heap of trouble if they couldn't justify their numbers.  I suspect (but don't know) that DVC probably farmed-out the reallocation to an accounting firm or actuary.  That's the easiest way to deflect criticism when state regulators come knocking.
> 
> To specifically address your comments, it isn't an across the board 20% increase.  Look no further than the BCV and VWL point charts.  Through 2009 both resorts were identical.  But if you look at the 2010 versions published, they are now different.



I bet anything less than a 20% reallocation wouldn't even get a raised eyebrow by the state of Florida.


----------



## DVC92

Dean said:


> DVC is a major bureaucracy a the present time and only getting bigger.  To pare it down for a smaller group of members around 2042 will be difficult and expensive.  DVC needs to cont all resorts for around the same time frame to minimize costs per point.  I am sympathetic to the problem they had to accomplish this with OKW but IMO they do not have the legal right to institute a special assessment for this purpose and had I still owned OKW, I would have put that theory to the test.



It was put to the test with the Timeshare Bureau. The state of Florida had already approved the extension and wasn't about to backtrack. A subsidy for non-extenders was achieved, but I'm still waiting for DVC to publicly inform OKW members about it. They really seem to have a problem with communication.


----------



## DVC92

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Have they?



No, they haven't publicly addressed it.


----------



## tidefan

Tim said in a post awhile back that the market segment that DVC would be losing out on are the Value seekers.  I was thinking about this and it just didn't strike me that Disney would want to lose out on any market segment, then I thought, "You know, when the hotels went through this they turned around and built the All-Star resorts to satisfy budget travelers".  That's when the light bulb went off in my head.

*You don't think that this may be a preliminary move to establish the oft-discussed value DVC?*

It has been documented on various sites that the other half of Pop Century is seeing things stirring finally after being mothballed after 9/11.  I think that the re-branding is getting the term "Disney's Animation Inn and Suites" or something like that.  I wonder if the "Value DVC" rumors could be true?  This re-allocation would certainly create ample opportunity for a lower points resort that Disney could push as the "Value" alternative.  Disney certainly didn't want the Value hotel customers off-site, why would they want this segment of the timeshare industry left untapped either.  When you think about it, if priced reasonably, they could make a killing...

This is just my thinking, it's not something I have heard or anything, but just putting one and two together.


----------



## bcrook

That would be an example of using reallocation as a marketing strategy (as opposed to a response to usage patterns).  Very interesting.  There are many ways this reallocation works as a marketing tool.  I just can't see evidence that it is based on booking patterns.  Not at least in the manner things were reallocated so uniformly.


----------



## photobob

WilsonFlyer said:


> Congratulations! You goes in the "Gets it" column. Seriously.
> 
> Unfortunately, and especially among relatively smaller point owners, you appear to be very much in the minority.



It's not that we don't get it, Bob. I understand the what and why, but you can't expect people to be happy whose points don't go as far as they did. As i have stated before I was aware that changes could be made. My guide explained that there could be slight adjustments made, and if an adjustment was made where something went up in points, something else would go down in points. 
These are by no means slight adjustments. My 2009 five night stay will be 25 points higher if I take the same in in 2010. I don't consider that a slight adjustment.

Bob


----------



## tidefan

bcrook said:


> That would be an example of using reallocation as a marketing strategy (as opposed to a response to usage patterns).  Very interesting.  There are many ways this reallocation works as a marketing tool.  I just can't see evidence that it is based on booking patterns.  Not at least in the manner things were reallocated so evenly.



Could have been both.  Sort of the "intersection of ingenuity and opportunity".  I have no doubt that the charts were out of whack somewhat.  All one had to do is read the Reservation thread about how many people purchased specifically for Christmas/New Years at BWV to at least suspect that it was a game of musical chairs at best and someone gets left out...

I also am pretty sure that Sun-Thurs was out of whack, but I blame DVC for that one by letting it continue for so long on low points that they drove the usage to these patterns and now they are reaping what they have sown...


----------



## MELSMICE

HookdonWDW said:


> I think this is definitely a huge part of the issue.  Reallocation was inevitable (and necessary IMHO).  *The people it hurts the most are those with small contracts. *I don't think the minimum should have been reduced, and I think they should have worked harder to make sure New owners (even those buying via resale) owned at least the minimum required points.


We have 360 points & while I don't know if it will "hurt" us, it will definitely make a difference in the way we utilize/maximze our points.  360 is not a huge # of points, but is obviously more than double the minimum.  

Our stay this coming April is 223 points, I believe.  Our remaining points we usually use for an October visit.  If there is anything at all remaining after that, we will then use it for a February visit.  

If we are going to need more points for each visit, then obviously either one visit has to go or I have to spend cash for a room.  I'm not opposed to a cash visit at a resort - we do it quite often because we like to experience different resorts - it's just frustrating.  

My point is, even those of us with larger than minimum contracts are still affected by the change(s).


----------



## bcrook

tidefan said:


> Could have been both.  Sort of the "intersection of ingenuity and opportunity".  I have no doubt that the charts were out of whack somewhat.  All one had to do is read the Reservation thread about how many people purchased specifically for Christmas/New Years at BWV to at least suspect that it was a game of musical chairs at best and someone gets left out...



I can see that there would be lots of seasonal variation (like Christmas at BWV) or new perks (like MK view at BLT or Savannah View at AKV) but that doesn't justify widespread change for every single unit in every single time period at every single resort all at one time.  

Plus the argument this isn't based on usage patterns is the fact that there are no usage patterns yet at BLT or AKV Kidani.  But that is an entirely different hot spot that needs to be worked out still, and is the most unfair part of this whole reallocation.


----------



## tjkraz

lugnut33 said:


> You say that like you know people were overbooking on weekdays in every category, but we don't actually know that for a fact.  We are assuming, but I doubt every resort and every type of room had that happening.



Not sure what you mean by overbookings but higher weekday occupancy under the current charts is a pretty well known phenomenon.  And as long as things were out of balance, and adjustment was warranted.  

You don't need to demonstrate consistent 100% weekday occupancy in order for the adjustments to be valid.  As long as the weekdays were materially different than weekends, rebalancing is appropriate.  



bcrook said:


> I just looked at the charts again for 2010.  I see very little difference between BCV and VWL for 2010 except for premier weeks



Adventuer Season 1B weekday:  25pts BCV, 26 pts VWL
Choice Season 1b weekday:  27pts BCV, 28 pts VWL
Dream Season Studio weekday:  15 pts BCV, 14 pts VWL
Premier Season 2B weekday:  60 pts BCV, 57 pts VWL

There are other differences as well.

Additionally, BWV Preferred used to also match BCV and VWL, but is now also displaying variances.  

Without having access to any hard data, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not the adjustments are appropriate.  But given the points are now different where they were previously identical suggests that each resort was evaluated on its own.  The rest we are forced to take at face value.


----------



## Chuck S

Just want to clarify and respond to a poster a few pages back that said these boards are "against small point owners"...I am not against "small point owners" as such.  My complaint is that DVC itself should never have lowered the minimum points to such a low level.  It is not the fault of any individual DVC _member_.  The system can simply not absorb a large influx of small contracts, it wasn't designed to do so.

For instance, if a resort has 100 rooms and 10,000 300 point members, and 50% want to book Sun to Friday for Christmas week, that meant that 5,000 people will be trying for 100 rooms. 2% will be successful, 98% or 4,900 will be disappointed. Or 49% of total membership.

If that same 100 room resort has instead 30,000 100 point members, and 50% all tried for the same 100 rooms, sun to friday Christmas week the success rate is now 0.66%.  And 14,900 will be disappointed.  It just throws demand out of whack.  It is the cumulative effect of the higher total number of individual owners, not the individual owners themselves. Or 49.66% of total membership.

It is a simple numbers game, more owners means more demand, and if those owners buy just enough points for weekdays every year, it creates a weekday/weekend imbalance.


----------



## lugnut33

What if they make a 150 point minimum reservation requirement?


----------



## BroganMc

lugnut33 said:


> What if they make a 150 point minimum reservation requirement?



Then you throw all the studio reservations out of balance. Studios only go for over 150 per week in Premier season.

Perhaps the biggest trouble DVC got themselves into was assigning point values for the weeks in various seasons on those charts. I'm betting a lot of folks bought into the system figuring on those weekly values as their benchmarks.

Changes to weekdays and weekends, I doubt, is nearly as painful to most owners as changes to the weekly totals.

Just looking at the SSR point charts for next year (comparing 2009 vs 2010 point requirements), I find the winners are those with larger units with those opting for smaller units the biggest losers. 

If you opted to stay only in studios and had enough points for the year, under the revised schedules you'd need 77 more points.
Same scenario with 1bedrooms cost 86 more points. 
Two bedroom & Treehouse Villa renters need 9 points less. 
Grand Villas cost 214 points less.

I'm still unclear how DVC calculated their point reallocation. I either come up with thousands more points or thousands less points, depending how I configure the equation. I've yet to reach that magic number zero.

Just a note: there are exactly the same number of weekdays and weekends in each season next year (for SSR) as this year.

EDITED TO ADD: Another thing I'm finding on the new schedules. There's absolutely no incentive for picking an SSR studio over other resorts in October now. It costs 13 points for SSR, VWL and BWV. (Used to be a point difference between SSR and VWL & BWV). AKV has priced itself out of the market at 14 points that month. Only BLT is more expensive at 15 points.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Melsmice :  If we are going to need more points for each visit, then obviously either one visit has to go or I have to spend cash for a room. I'm not opposed to a cash visit at a resort - we do it quite often because we like to experience different resorts - it's just frustrating.
> 
> My point is, even those of us with larger than minimum contracts are still affected by the change(s).



See, this is how I see it too ?  All the talk about small contracts ?  I initially bought in with 150 (guess that's small ??) but have since added another 100.  But even a person who has 500 points and purchased that amount with the intention of utilizing every last one of thos points every year, could still be coming up short and having to drop days....downsize unit size....etc.   I mean, one could have 500 points and still vacation using only weekdays several times a year ?  We're just assuming those with larger points stay over weekends consistantly if at all ?

So how is this different ?  This is what I'm not getting ?

Maria


----------



## Chuck S

MiaSRN62 said:


> See, this is how I see it too ?  All the talk about small contracts ?  I initially bought in with 150 (guess that's small ??) but have since added another 100.  But even a person who has 500 points and purchased that amount with the intention of utilizing every last one of thos points every year, could still be coming up short and having to drop days....downsize unit size....etc.   I mean, one could have 500 points and still vacation using only weekdays several times a year ?  We're just assuming those with larger points stay over weekends consistantly if at all ?
> 
> So how is this different ?  This is what I'm not getting ?
> 
> Maria



Because it is, again, the sheer number of owners trying for the same time frame.  If everyone of the owners at a resort had 500 points, there would be fewer owners overall at the resort, and fewer people vying for the same reservation.  Going back to the 100 room resort in the illustration above...

If that same 100 room resort had only owners with 500 points, there would now be 6,000 owners at the resort.  If 50% of them wanted one of those 100 rooms for a Sunday to Friday reservation at Christmas, that would mean 3000 are trying for the reservation. And again 100 or 3.33% would succeed. 2,900 would fail, meaning 96.66% of those trying.  That would be 48.33% of total resort membership.

Now the difference in our examples between 49.66%, 49% and 48.33% of membership may seem insignificant.  But when applied to hundreds of thousands of members, the differences are great.

People are complaining because their _individual_ vacation habits are no longer viable under the 2010 charts,  but even in the examples, you are disappointing either 2,900, 4,900 or 14,900 individuals, just with the differences between 500, 300 and 100 point minimum ownerships.  The greater the number of total owners, the greater the number of individuals unable to book their desired vacations.

It is all a numbers game.  Someone much earlier in the thread compared the charts to a Sudoku puzze, and really it is a pretty accurate description.  Try to design the charts within the confines of the resort point limit so that the highest number of members can use their points, ideally using most or all of their annual points every year.  If that means some individuals lose a night while other gain a night, unfortunately, that is they way the puzzle fits together.


----------



## T-i-double-g-err

bcrook said:


> I have read this over and over again.  Nobody seems to base their ideas of the point spread on anything concrete.  So it is possible that this is not based on use pattern but a different marketing plan.  If it is a different marketing plan that is something to howl about.
> 
> And do you think that ALL resorts show the same use pattern? Isn't it possible that OKW has a higher weekend reserve rate than AKV?  Then should OKW weekends be reduced the same amount? The across the board 20% changes doesn't really look like it based on usage patterns.



I don't see maximum adjustments as evidence that changes were not made based upon demand patterns.  If demand was truly out of whack, DVC will have projected what kind of reallocation would rebalance demand.  If the projection required more than the 20% change, it could only implement a first step in one year by doing a maximum 20% reallocation.  Wherever we saw a 20% change in a 2010 chart entry, I would see a higher probability of seeing further changes in the 2011 charts, unless demand data between now and 2011 chart publication demonstrate the desired shift in demand with only the 2010 reallocation.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Because it is, again, the sheer number of owners trying for the same time frame. If everyone of the owner at a resort had 500 points, there would be fewer owners overall at the resort, and fewer people vying for the same reservation. Going back to the 100 room resort in the illustration above.



I see what you're saying Chuck....but couldn't an owner of 500 points, break up their points into enough visits during the year (say 20 if they wanted) and they would still be "acting" as an owner of a small point contract if they chose to vacation for shorter periods during the week spaced out throughout the year.   I don't know...maybe I'm just missing something.  But I do get what you said in the above quote.


----------



## Starr W.

MiaSRN62 said:


> I see what you're saying Chuck....but couldn't an owner of 500 points, break up their points into enough visits during the year (say 20 if they wanted) and they would still be "acting" as an owner of a small point contract if they chose to vacation for shorter periods during the week spaced out throughout the year.   I don't know...maybe I'm just missing something.  But I do get what you said in the above quote.



I think the problem is there are some bottlenecks of demand at DVC as a whole and certain resorts. For example VWL for Xmas decorations, how many owners try to book rooms Thanksgiving to Xmas? 

When I've called at 7 months for Jan or May trips, I can always get a 2br at VWL. I stayed there in May once and if it was booked to 50% capacity I'll buy you one of those pricey pool drinks at VB.


----------



## Chuck S

MiaSRN62 said:


> I see what you're saying Chuck....but couldn't an owner of 500 points, break up their points into enough visits during the year (say 20 if they wanted) and they would still be "acting" as an owner of a small point contract if they chose to vacation for shorter periods during the week spaced out throughout the year.   I don't know...maybe I'm just missing something.  But I do get what you said in the above quote.



Sure, but it depends upon the percentage of those 500 point owners that would break them into several visits.  In theory, a large percentage would also use them in a single reservation.

Disney gambled that small 150 initial contract owners would do add-ons, preferably at their home resort, to increase their membership, keeping the demand in balance.  A large percentage apparently did not add-on.  Disney lost that gamble.


----------



## bobbiwoz

MiaSRN62 said:


> I see what you're saying Chuck....but couldn't an owner of 500 points, break up their points into enough visits during the year (say 20 if they wanted) and they would still be "acting" as an owner of a small point contract if they chose to vacation for shorter periods during the week spaced out throughout the year.   I don't know...maybe I'm just missing something.  But I do get what you said in the above quote.



Well, 20 visits would only be 25 points per visit, don't think that actually happens.  

However,  one owner's points will not be competing against each other for a particular time period, unless the owner is booking more than one room at that time.

Bobbi


----------



## Tiger926

Thanks to those of you who answered my math question a few pages back regarding who is being hardest hit with the new changes. Much appreciated!

We usually go between 10-12 nights at one time, depending upon whether we have banked points or not (we had extra developer's points last year), so we actually would be going 10 nights next year, and 11 this year. Anyway, DH and I did a 2009 vs 2010 vacation @ 11 nights for a direct comparison, and for the exact same vacation in 2010 we are 15 points more. Doesn't seem like a big deal, but it puts us into borrowing 60 points, something we don't want to do. We then said we'd go to Sea World for 2 weekend days, but once we added up cost of tix and hotel room, it's too expensive, considering we already buy APs each year. 

So, we are going to knock 1 night off of our usual stay for 10 nights. I will do the exact 2009 vs. 2010 comparison today, but I am assuing it will still be about 15 points? This means 1 less day of spending money in Disney, but that is what the new point allocation means for us as we are not adding-on to accommodate the changes. Not happy about it, but DVC does have the right to do this - although our Guide said it would be 1 point here or there, and hardly ever happens, so when our weekday nights are 4 points more each night, this is a lot. Sure, the weekend totals are down by 8-10 points, but this means that the people on the front end are getting hit the most to make up for the lowering of weekends. We have always done at least 10 nights, so we always have weekdays and weekends anyway. 

This is a very interesting thread - we've  learned lots! Thanks, Tiger


----------



## Inkmahm

tidefan said:


> Tim said in a post awhile back that the market segment that DVC would be losing out on are the Value seekers.  I was thinking about this and it just didn't strike me that Disney would want to lose out on any market segment, then I thought, "You know, when the hotels went through this they turned around and built the All-Star resorts to satisfy budget travelers".  That's when the light bulb went off in my head.
> 
> *You don't think that this may be a preliminary move to establish the oft-discussed value DVC?*
> 
> It has been documented on various sites that the other half of Pop Century is seeing things stirring finally after being mothballed after 9/11.  I think that the re-branding is getting the term "Disney's Animation Inn and Suites" or something like that.  I wonder if the "Value DVC" rumors could be true?  This re-allocation would certainly create ample opportunity for a lower points resort that Disney could push as the "Value" alternative.  Disney certainly didn't want the Value hotel customers off-site, why would they want this segment of the timeshare industry left untapped either.  When you think about it, if priced reasonably, they could make a killing...
> 
> This is just my thinking, it's not something I have heard or anything, but just putting one and two together.



Interesting idea.  

Is there a "value" time share industry?     Seems to me that people who stay in value hotels may not have the $ (in general) for the initial purchase of points?  That may be a bad assumption on my part though.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Bobbiwoz: Well, 20 visits would only be 25 points per visit, don't think that actually happens.



I could see it....people who travel on business trips frequently to Orlando (as an example), and stays only a couple nights stretched out over the year.  I doubt it happens often---but it's possible.   
Even if it's half the amount I suggested----10 visits/year.  I was just picking a number out of a hat really.  Just showing how a large point owner could act like a small point owner and book smaller weekday trips throughout the year. 

True, the owner is not competing against themselves, but I didn't think that was the point ?  Boy this makes my head spin


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Is there a "value" time share industry?  Seems to me that people who stay in value hotels may not have the $ (in general) for the initial purchase of points? That may be a bad assumption on my part though.



We stay at POP quite often (will be there next Friday for 5 nights) when we're out of points---or to supplement our DVC stays on the weekends.  And we own an offsite timeshare, as well as 250 DVC points.  So it could happen.  But I was wondering if the other half of POP was going to be more like an all-suite resort (like the Family Suites at AS Music) ?


----------



## Chuck S

There are several factors contributing, though.  The sheer number of small contracts, savvy renters wanting to rent only Sun to Friday with larger point owners willing to accommodate them, more local owners reaching retirement age and staying weekdays instead of weekends, etc.  The system could likely have absorbed one or two of these factors.  It is the cumulative effect of them all that threw the room demand out of whack.  remember the system was also designed with the idea that a certain percentage of owners would trade to other non-DVC locations.  150 points really doesn't allow for much of that, either.


----------



## MiaSRN62

Thanks Chuck....I get it.....

Maria


----------



## Diznee4me

Sammie said:


> If this truly is the reason, you basically have a major change to point usage due to the complaints of those wanting weekends and some wanting 9 nights out of 365 for MVMCP and ESPN,
> 
> So what happens when those affected by the change complain now. When does it end. Which squeaky wheel is making the most noise and getting its way.



My reaction to this reasoning DVC gave to reallocate I think is lame to say the least. I do not know about you but during the seasons of MVMCP and ESPN I can never get a room because they are booked. How is it that they needed to make this change so more members can go to these events? There were no rooms available around these times as it is!


----------



## Chuck S

MiaSRN62 said:


> We stay at POP quite often (will be there next Friday for 5 nights) when we're out of points---or to supplement our DVC stays on the weekends.  And we own an offsite timeshare, as well as 250 DVC points.  So it could happen.  But I was wondering if the other half of POP was going to be more like an all-suite resort (like the Family Suites at AS Music) ?



We like POP, too.  I think, if it is ever developed, it will be family suites similar to All Stars.  Although, I think it could be a pretty good DVC location, as well.  The few empty buildings with rooms could be retro fitted into studios, and the food court/check-in building could easily be adapted to include a full service restaurant.  That is assuming they are all still structurally sound. The main thing would be theming, they could tastefully theme villa buildings for different eras _without_ using the giant icons.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> they could tastefully theme villa buildings for different eras without using the giant icons.



Yes...maybe a little more in understated (value) elegance


----------



## MELSMICE

MiaSRN62 said:


> I see what you're saying Chuck....but couldn't an owner of 500 points, break up their points into enough visits during the year (say 20 if they wanted) and they would still be "acting" as an owner of a small point contract if they chose to vacation for shorter periods during the week spaced out throughout the year.   I don't know...maybe I'm just missing something.  But I do get what you said in the above quote.


I was just going to respond & say the exact same thing.  

Like I said, we have 360 points.  We try to use those points so we get at least 2, preferably 3 visits out of those points.  We incorporate cash stays at other resorts during these stays many times.  

Even if I had 500 points, I'd do the same thing.  We have never used all 360 points for one trip.  Actually, we started with 270 & have added on since then & even with only 270, we never used them all for one trip.  

Also, we don't borrow.  We have banked quite a few times but we don't like to borrow & have chosen not to.  When the points are gone for that year, they're gone.  If I wanted another trip, I'd pay cash for it.


----------



## MELSMICE

Chuck S said:


> We like POP, too.


I'm glad to hear this.  Myself & 2 of my DD's will be there for a quick trip in February.  We are trying POP for the first time & I keep second guessing myself.  

We have points remaining, but again, we will most likely return in October & use them at that time, so we chose to try POP.  

We are used to staying at DVC, deluxe & sometimes a mod, but have never tried a value.  We always use the amenities & spend a lot of time at the resorts, but I figured with cooler weather, shorter trip & only 3 out of 5 of us being there, we will probably do the parks quite a bit, so we're giving POP a try.  

Thanks for reassuring me that I'll probably enjoy it.


----------



## amcnj

My first admission is I did not read all of the previous posts so apologize for any info repeats.  Also, I only looked at OKW changes in points for 2010.  In general, the changes were minor if looking at weekly totals, with swings of +/- 4 points for a week.  The exceptions are Premier Season, where  Studios and One Bedrooms went up by 7 and 8 points respectively for a week.  Larger changes occuured in Grand Villas, but they were all decreases for a week.  Looking at Sun-Thurs versus weekend rates, in every season in every room category the weekday rates went up and weekend rates dropped.  A Sunday to Thursday stay is now 5 to 40 points more depending on the season and room.  Weekends are less points than they were, but still are much more than a weekday(75-80% more).  So was the intent solely to shift usage more to weekends or weeklong stays?  If so why not make all nights the same number of points, or weekends only a few points more, if they feel local DVC users would then start booking weekends only and reversing the current situation.  If most DVC members stick to their  Sun-Thurs trip preference, what will be the efect?  It will cost them more points for these stays and won't that lower future demand overall as there are now less "free" points out their for future stays?     

Do those who use mainly weekday stays think the new point structure will encourage them to use more weekend or weeklong stays, or just take fewer trips?


----------



## Anal Annie

After chewing on this whole thing for several days now I am still just as irritated as I was in the beginning.  We knew it was possible for them to re-allocate the points but never, ever expected it would done in such a poor manner and that it would be so radical.  Personally, I think the *way* this whole thing has been handled by DVC is what's got me so upset.  I understand the "why" behind it.  It's just the whole deceptive MANNER of how it was handled that's irritating me so I still feel like ranting.  DVC has not responded to my direct emails so I get more irritated by the day.

First of all, the announcement was poorly handled.  I never did get an email about it and if it weren't for the DISBoards I wouldn't know about it until the next planners came out.  It should have been done by a mailing that went to EVERYONE at the same time.  It is not a minor change and should not just be buried on the website.  DVC does NOT communicate effectively across the board to all members and I think this was indeed quite sneaky.  

Secondly, as others have pointed out, it was not just a SLIGHT reallocation of 1 or 2 points here & there.  It was major.  IMO they still did not lower the weekends enough to make a big difference and it in fact hurts many.  The fact is that if we were planning on any trip that was less than a full week it messes us up.  Not only can I no longer plan a Sun-Thur trip but I used to be able to plan a 4 n extended weekend.  But they didn't lower the weekend points enough to be able to do that since they raised the weekdays so much.  They have now made a shorter stay economically unfeasible with airfare added on.  Airfare costs are easier to recover if you're going for 4 n rather than only 3.  They have knocked us from a 5 n weekday stay to a 4 n and from a 4 n weekend to a 3 n weekend.  I'm not liking that idea.  We just may now drop one entire trip and it will likely be the one we wanted to do over spring break 'cuz the airfare will be higher so why bother if we have to drop from 5 n to 4 n.

Third, many of us plan well ahead of time and have already made plans for 2009 AND 2010 based on the old charts.  I think they should have announced this change further out than just BAM here's your 2010 charts.  It should've been done 2 years ahead so we could have made informed decisions for 2009.  

They TOTALLY screwed new BLT add-on purchasers with their timing.  AND I think if the changes were announced properly they could have done it in a phased in manner by raising them only slightly for the first year and then finalizing it during the 2nd year.  This would've allowed people to accept their fate, adjust accordingly and plan ahead as they are used to being able to do.   If we'd known a *month ago *that we'd need more points for 2010 we probably wouldn't have booked airfare and 10 nights for 2009.  We'd have spread out our useage differently.   THAT pisses me off - we didn't have the information necessary to plan efficiently.   I don't think the way this was done was fair.  And my heart goes out to all of the BLT suckers who added on by Jan 15 based on the old charts.  I SO wanted to do that and I would've been screwed up BIG TIME if we'd done that.  

I feel we can no longer trust in the DVC product and feel that small add-on purchases are a deceptive sham.  I for one have made my last DVC recommendation to friends and family.  I would now in fact discourage anyone who asks me about it.  I could not in good concious recommend a product that makes radical changes to the program without properly and personally informing its members of its intentions with fair notice.  This is like  your credit card company raising your interest rate via your monthly statement.  You know they CAN but are not prepared for the bill when it comes.  I don't care for the "take it or leave it" attitude.  Not ready to sell yet but DVC has certainly lost some of its magic for me.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

Chuck S said:


> There are several factors contributing, though.  The sheer number of small contracts, savvy renters wanting to rent only Sun to Friday with larger point owners willing to accommodate them, more local owners reaching retirement age and staying weekdays instead of weekends, etc.  The system could likely have absorbed one or two of these factors.  It is the cumulative effect of them all that threw the room demand out of whack.  remember the system was also designed with the idea that a certain percentage of owners would trade to other non-DVC locations.  150 points really doesn't allow for much of that, either.



The issue you have ignored, however, is that a "small point owner" has to be defiend by, at a minimum, the size of the unit they typically book.  As has been pointed out, 150 points is a good-szed contract if you never book anything but a studio.  If you want to rent GVs, on the other hand, not so much.

We own less than 200 points and stay for 10+ days on a single trip once a year in a studio, usually 3-4 weekend nights in each trip.  Whiel we don't own a lot of points, I don't think we are behind any booking inbalance.

Lots of owners with less than 200 points is another unintended consequence of the flexibility inherant in the system.  -- Suzanne


----------



## TisBit

KLR-wlv said:


> Actually WL 1 br is ONE POINT HIGHER than BCV during all of October. If we are to equate hot and in demand with the percentage increase in points, then Vero must be the hottest since weekdays were reallocated across all seasons and units the full 20%



And that is kind of my point.  We don't really know what is the hottest areas at what time.  DVC should have that info and adjust accordingly.  I hope that is the case, charge more points for high demand times/units and less for low demand.  People who micro-manage their points will probably stay in the lesser desired units, while people that are more liberal with points will still book those high demand units.

If this is the actual changes, what you will find is more availability across the board, because people that go for peak units/times will burn up their points faster.  

The point of my post was we don't know WHY certain point changes were made.  Even Vero Beach, will people really stop going there because of the allocation?  I doubt it, they seemed to be a pretty high demand.  Similar to HHI during the spring/summer.


----------



## TisBit

Chuck S said:


> There are several factors contributing, though.  The sheer number of small contracts, savvy renters wanting to rent only Sun to Friday with larger point owners willing to accommodate them, more local owners reaching retirement age and staying weekdays instead of weekends, etc.  The system could likely have absorbed one or two of these factors.  It is the cumulative effect of them all that threw the room demand out of whack.  remember the system was also designed with the idea that a certain percentage of owners would trade to other non-DVC locations.  150 points really doesn't allow for much of that, either.



I think even more than that, which has been hit on before, is people that modified their vacation style to match Disney point charts.  How many people outside of DVC plan their Disney trips for Sun-Thurs?  If a large percentage of DVC'ers modify their plans to hit these lower point times, which has obviously happened, that will cause the biggest imbalance.  So the answer is what happened here, raise the weekdays a little, keep weekends a little more and gobble up those points.


----------



## T-i-double-g-err

amcnj said:


> My first admission is I did not read all of the previous posts so apologize for any info repeats.  Also, I only looked at OKW changes in points for 2010.  In general, the changes were minor if looking at weekly totals, with swings of +/- 4 points for a week.  The exceptions are Premier Season, where  Studios and One Bedrooms went up by 7 and 8 points respectively for a week.  Larger changes occuured in Grand Villas, but they were all decreases for a week.  Looking at Sun-Thurs versus weekend rates, in every season in every room category the weekday rates went up and weekend rates dropped.  A Sunday to Thursday stay is now 5 to 40 points more depending on the season and room.  Weekends are less points than they were, but still are much more than a weekday(75-80% more).  So was the intent solely to shift usage more to weekends or weeklong stays?  If so why not make all nights the same number of points, or weekends only a few points more, if they feel local DVC users would then start booking weekends only and reversing the current situation.


My understanding is that, per the various agreements in place, DVC may only modify points for a given room for a given night by 20% per year.  So, even if they wanted to make a more drastic point reallocation, it could not do so in 1 year. 



amcnj said:


> If most DVC members stick to their  Sun-Thurs trip preference, what will be the efect?  It will cost them more points for these stays and won't that lower future demand overall as there are now less "free" points out their for future stays?


If most DVC members stick to Sun-Thurs, I would expect reallocation again for 2011 charts to create an even greater incentive to shift demand.  I'm thinking that DVC believes that the higher Sun-Thurs nights will reduce demand for those nights and the lower Fri-Sat nights will increase demand for those nights.  I agree with your comment that a significant question remains as to whether the new point differential is enough to increase demand for Fri-Sat nights.  My guess is that the changes will effect a reduced demand for Sun.-Thurs. nights by, as you suggest, reducing weekdays stays by some amount.



amcnj said:


> Do those who use mainly weekday stays think the new point structure will encourage them to use more weekend or weeklong stays, or just take fewer trips?


I just bought in at BLT right before the 1/15 "deadline" and sent my contracts back the day before the new point charts were released.  As I purchased with a full week in mind at the time, my projected usage really isn't significantly impacted by the reallocation.  So, I'm not in the category to whom you posed the question.

Even though my projected usage does not appear impacted, I have to say that the poor quality of communication is causing me to question whether I should continue with the purchase or exercise my cancellation rights within the 10-day grace period.  Any DVC purchase is a fairly expensive proposition, and, even though I may agree with the concept of a reallocation of points to balance demand as may have been required under FL law, I take great exception with how poorly the change was effected with so little regard for, and prior notification to, the members.


----------



## jamstew

amcnj said:


> Do those who use mainly weekday stays think the new point structure will encourage them to use more weekend or weeklong stays, or just take fewer trips?



I usually stay 8 nights twice a year and will continue to do so. Weekend nights have been, and still will be, at a value or moderate. The only thing that changes for me is the number of points I have left over every year.


----------



## tjkraz

tidefan said:


> *You don't think that this may be a preliminary move to establish the oft-discussed value DVC?*



Possibly.  

I don't know that I would point to the reallocation is the #1 factor pointing in that direction, however the surprisingly high charts for BLT and the Grand Californian suggest there is room for a more moderately priced DVC.  



amcnj said:


> If most DVC members stick to their Sun-Thurs trip preference, what will be the efect?



Following the reallocation the weekdays now have capacity to absorb more points.  So this change may be adequate to address the current problem even if patterns don't change to any noteworthy degree.  

In one piece of correspondence to DVC I questioned whether they would commit to going a certain number of years without reallocating again.  If they did, it would help eliminate some of the fear currently hanging over the heads of members.  I'm curious to see if they will respond to that inquiry.  

I think most statisticians would agree that another wave of changes wouldn't be appropriate until we work with the new system for several years.  The 2011 charts will have to be published by January '10, and we won't even have complete data from the 2010 changes to use as the basis for further adjustments.  

For that reason, a 2011 adjustment seems out of the question.  But I think we should all move forward under the assumption that points will be reallocated every 8-10 years at a minimum.  It would be helpful for DVC to commit to waiting at least a minimum number of years between reallocations (i.e. at least 5 years before another adjustment), or better yet to commit to a regular schedule.  But I doubt they would agree to such a rigid structure.  



> Do those who use mainly weekday stays think the new point structure will encourage them to use more weekend or weeklong stays, or just take fewer trips?



I fall in that group and I'm looking at adding weekends to our stay.  Honestly that's something I had been considering for some time.  After all, it's cheaper to take 2 longer trips than 3 shorter trips--savings on transportation, vacation time, etc.  The reallocation won't save me any points but since i'm compelled to pay for for the weekdays, adding a weekend is a lot more palatable than it was in the past.  

Overall I think folks will choose the approach that best suits their needs.  Some will add more points.  Some will use banking and borrowing to amass more points periodically.  Some will cut down their trips by a day.  Some will reduce frequency.


----------



## thepops

Anal Annie said:


> AND I think if the changes were announced properly they could have done it in a phased in manner by raising them only slightly for the first year and then finalizing it during the 2nd year.



How do we know that they didn't do exactly what you suggest,   and that another change is already planned for next year's charts ?


----------



## SuzanneSLO

tjkraz said:


> . . . . I think most statisticians would agree that another wave of changes wouldn't be appropriate until we work with the new system for several years.  The 2011 charts will have to be published by January '10, and we won't even have complete data from the 2010 changes to use as the basis for further adjustments.
> 
> For that reason, a 2011 adjustment seems out of the question. . . .



I think it depends on whether the 2010 adjustment gets DVC to its current goal or whether these changes were just a stepping stone to a another goal, such as moving some booking periods like early Dec into another Season.  If the latter, the ability to reach this goal with a single reallocation was limited for some rooms sizes at some resorts by the 20% limit.  If that is the case, I would expect more reallocations sooner than 8 to 10 years form now.

Given that all studios at BWV appear to be sold out from Dec 6-11 (5 weekdays and 1 weekend) at not quite the 10 month mark, there is anecdotal evidence that a Seasonal adjustment is needed as much as a weekday/weekend adjustment.  -- Suzanne 
 -- Suzanne


----------



## dzorn

Inkmahm said:


> Interesting idea.
> 
> Is there a "value" time share industry?     Seems to me that people who stay in value hotels may not have the $ (in general) for the initial purchase of points?  That may be a bad assumption on my part though.



A person staying in a value very well may have money. They just choose to spend it differently. Just as I am sure some that stay Deluxe cannot afford it. 

Denise in MI


----------



## Belle & Ariel

Chuck S said:


> I agree, Disney should never have lowered the points to 150 minimum, and should have aggressively used ROFR to repurchase smaller add-on contracts, unless they were being bought by an existing member.



I don't understand the 150 point comment.
We were told by Disney  in August that at their 160 points, we could vacation 13 nights a year in a studio.  We actually went resale for 150.  With the reallocation, I can have a 6 and a 7 night stay in a studio each year, once in May and once in September or December, which are our times to vacation.  So we are getting what they advertised for 160 points for only 150.
DH only gets 3 weeks vacation, and as we do other things, too, 2 weeks is all we can spend at Disney.  I know there will be years we do not want to go twice.
So why do you not like the 150 point minimum?  I would not have bought if we had to buy more. 
I highly respect your opinions on things here and am not trying to argue; I am just curious.


----------



## Chuck S

Belle & Ariel said:


> I don't understand the 150 point comment.
> We were told by Disney  in August that at their 160 points, we could vacation 13 nights a year in a studio.  We actually went resale for 150.  With the reallocation, I can have a 6 and a 7 night stay in a studio each year, once in May and once in September or December, which are our times to vacation.  So we are getting what they advertised for 160 points for only 150.
> DH only gets 3 weeks vacation, and as we do other things, too, 2 weeks is all we can spend at Disney.  I know there will be years we do not want to go twice.
> So why do you not like the 150 point minimum?  I would not have bought if we had to buy more.
> I highly respect your opinions on things here and am not trying to argue; I am just curious.




My later posts detail the problems with selling high numbers of small contracts.

See Post #1712 and Post #1716


----------



## KLR-wlv

Chuck S said:


> My later posts detail the problems with selling high numbers of small contracts.
> 
> See Post #1712 and Post #1716



SO you are suggesting Disney go to a weeks timeshare? If there are 100,000 points to sell in a resort - what difference is it if 100 people buy 1000 point contracts or 1000 people buy 100 point contracts? Obviously everyone doesn't get the same week in either scenario. I personally don't want to go to Disney every Christmas week or spring break (in my 8 years of membership I've only gone once at christmas, twice at spring break). I just haven't EVER experienced not getting a reservation so I don't know who all these people are who can't get a reservation. Since we're all talking hypotheticals, since no one has any real facts from disney, I don't know why one person's theory is correct over anyone else's...


----------



## Anal Annie

thepops said:


> How do we know that they didn't do exactly what you suggest,   and that another change is already planned for next year's charts ?



 Well, if they pull something like THAT then they should've been tellin' us up front about it NOW.  And if they do this sneaky number AGAIN in another year...   We'll probably be tempted to put ours up for sale so we can buy a real grown-up timeshare.  For the top dollar paid for DVC we don't need these planning headaches and the anxiety.


I have seen at least 2 DVC commercials today on TV.  I don't recall EVER seeing commercials before for DVC.  Thought that was kinda odd.


----------



## bobbiwoz

KLR-wlv said:


> ... I just haven't EVER experienced not getting a reservation so I don't know who all these people are who can't get a reservation. Since we're all talking hypotheticals, since no one has any real facts from disney, I don't know why one person's theory is correct over anyone else's...




I have no idea why but there were no studios anywhere available for Sunday December 7th...I called up to 2 days before, then gave up and stayed at Pop!

Bobbi


----------



## Belle & Ariel

Chuck S said:


> My later posts detail the problems with selling high numbers of small contracts.
> 
> See Post #1712 and Post #1716



I read those and see your point about so many owners competing for prime times--something I did not think about.

But what is the person who goes to the beach, cruises, and still wants a small investment in Disney to do?  
We are staying longer than usual to burn banked 2007 points this year and taking in-laws next year on 2008 points. We will still have 2008 points to bank.  So I cannot imagine having more than 150.  
I think Disney is smart to sell the smaller contracts.  I think the person who does not go to WDW several times a year might make that one trip more "magical" ie. spend more money on character meals, souvenirs; where some who go several times a year find ways to economize by eating in and not spending so much on dining and souvenirs as well as buying APs.


----------



## lugnut33

Chuck S said:


> My later posts detail the problems with selling high numbers of small contracts.
> 
> See Post #1712 and Post #1716




Hence my comment about a 150 point minimun reservation because a person could own 300 points and break it into several vacations all planned during the week.  It makes no difference if somebody with 120 points or somebody with 500 points stays Sunday through Friday only, it costs the same amount of points on the charts.  

Or require a Friday night or Saturday night stay on every reservation.  

Something in the back of my mind keeps coming forward and it pertains to a comment a previous poster made about this being a way for DVC to market to locals in the area that are likely to want to do weekend stays.  Maybe DVC sees that as an easy growth area and lowered the weekend points to accomodate that?


----------



## Dean

jlovesee said:


> Ok I realize there is a bias on this forum against low point owners.


I don't think that' true at all.  There are some realities of owning a low number of points just like there are realities based on home resort owned.  



bcrook said:


> I completely understand this logic, but it is based on the assumption of 100% occupancy during the weekdays.  Is that true?  Are all DVC rooms booked during the weekdays?
> 
> I bet those BWV view rooms, BCV, Savannah view AKL/AKV, December VWL, and all the Epcots at food wine are hard to get.  That seems like seasonal changes need to be made.  But were OKW weekends just so darn expensive that nobody booked there?  Did they really need to be adjusted?
> 
> Because we don't have the information that is needed to understand this, we are susceptible to the whims of management.  We don't really know if it is in our best interest or not.  Unless of course the goal is to give a break to locals who can utilize the weekends more frequently.  In that case, it is understandable and logical.  Because no matter how you look at any of this the weekend points are/were really high.


It doesn't assume 100% occupancy, only occupancy high enough to effect availability.  For sold our resorts there really should be enough points in play to reserve the entire resort the entire year outside basically maintenance and upgrade issues.  This is true taking into account exchanges because the number of exchange points given up should even out as well.  So if there are low times, there are by definition, times that too high.  While we don't have exact numbers, I think we have enough info to know that weekends are lower than weekdays overall.  Even if we had the books, we'd still be subject to DVC's whims up to a point.  



bcrook said:


> And do you think that ALL resorts show the same use pattern? Isn't it possible that OKW has a higher weekend reserve rate than AKV?  Then should OKW weekends be reduced the same amount? The across the board 20% changes doesn't really look like it based on usage patterns.


It's likely that the seasonal demand between resorts is similar, esp if you account for OKW and SSR being lower points than the rest overall.  This will NEVER be an exact science and there will likely be some variation that cannot be accounted for.  Regardless DVC has the obligation to even out the demand as much as possible but it will never be perfect.


----------



## tjkraz

SuzanneSLO said:


> I think it depends on whether the 2010 adjustment gets DVC to its current goal or whether these changes were just a stepping stone to a another goal, such as moving some booking periods like early Dec into another Season.  If the latter, the ability to reach this goal with a single reallocation was limited for some rooms sizes at some resorts by the 20% limit.  If that is the case, I would expect more reallocations sooner than 8 to 10 years form now.
> 
> Given that all studios at BWV appear to be sold out from Dec 6-11 (5 weekdays and 1 weekend) at not quite the 10 month mark, there is anecdotal evidence that a Seasonal adjustment is needed as much as a weekday/weekend adjustment.  -- Suzanne
> -- Suzanne



I agree, Suzanne.  I'm among those who think rearranging the seasons should have actually been a higher priority than rebalancing weekdays and weekends, but that's splitting hairs since they were both needed.  

Still, I do think DVC would be best served to wait a few years before making ANY other changes, regardless of how warranted they may seem.  The current realignment is certain to have an impact on member demand.  A second adjustment is necessary, but if done properly it may be the last such adjustment for quite some time.  

In fact, if weekend occupancy increases beyond what they project in this 2010 reallocation, the next adjustment may see some of the higher-priced weekday rates go back down a point or two.


----------



## Dean

lugnut33 said:


> Yeah, Disney didn't do it for money!!  LOL.  Trust me, they do everything for money and shareholder value as that is what drives large corporations like Disney.  Having that Florida law gives them the means to do it.  Just like you say it's written in the POS, so is the law of corporate greed.  It's just ridiculous to say this isn't money driven considering the other changes that came along with it.  And trust me, those who are getting burned by it will see it as greed, that's the way it works and no Florida law can change that.  Don't forget, perception is 9/10 reality.


You do know you have the right to go look at the books don't you.  To my knowledge, I'm the only one that has ever done so and as of Sept, 2006, I know it to be true.  IF I felt it was mainly about the money, I'd sell and walk away.  If you feel that way, you should do the same.  I'm probably one of the most distrusting and cynical members here and I think this is not about the money at all, you're welcome to feel differently of course.



DVC92 said:


> It was put to the test with the Timeshare Bureau. The state of Florida had already approved the extension and wasn't about to backtrack. A subsidy for non-extenders was achieved, but I'm still waiting for DVC to publicly inform OKW members about it. They really seem to have a problem with communication.


The regulators are more about the structure than the financing.  The proper test regarding the payment method IMO would be nonbinding arbitration then legal action per the POS rules.  I realize the problem because if they extended it by asking for participation, the rest got a free pass the way the legal action is noted.  The only other way would likely be to sell new and separate contracts.  



photobob said:


> These are by no means slight adjustments. My 2009 five night stay will be 25 points higher if I take the same in in 2010. I don't consider that a slight adjustment.
> 
> Bob


IMO a shift that results in a 25 points increase for a weekday only stay for a 2 BR would not be a large adjustment in my book.


----------



## Dean

lugnut33 said:


> What if they make a 150 point minimum reservation requirement?


It's likely too  late to do that, it would have needed to be in place at present.  But you could potentially give those reserving a full week a head start by letting them reserve a week or month earlier.  Or you could jack up the minimum stay to 3-5 days and require a weekend night for some situations.  



BroganMc said:


> EDITED TO ADD: Another thing I'm finding on the new schedules. There's absolutely no incentive for picking an SSR studio over other resorts in October now. It costs 13 points for SSR, VWL and BWV. (Used to be a point difference between SSR and VWL & BWV). AKV has priced itself out of the market at 14 points that month. Only BLT is more expensive at 15 points.


The demand was still not anywhere near equal with points differences.  Maybe buy where you want to stay will be more important than ever.



MiaSRN62 said:


> See, this is how I see it too ?  All the talk about small contracts ?  I initially bought in with 150 (guess that's small ??) but have since added another 100.  But even a person who has 500 points and purchased that amount with the intention of utilizing every last one of thos points every year, could still be coming up short and having to drop days....downsize unit size....etc.   I mean, one could have 500 points and still vacation using only weekdays several times a year ?  We're just assuming those with larger points stay over weekends consistantly if at all ?
> 
> So how is this different ?  This is what I'm not getting ?
> 
> Maria


I've owned as many as 885 points and only stayed 3 weekend nights ever on points.  Still there are advantages that a larger points owner  has.  You can reserve your home resort then a different resort at the 7 month window and wait list holding both reservations.  OR you can reserve a larger and smaller unit OR multiple weeks to give you more options later.



Inkmahm said:


> Interesting idea.
> 
> Is there a "value" time share industry?     Seems to me that people who stay in value hotels may not have the $ (in general) for the initial purchase of points?  That may be a bad assumption on my part though.


I think a large segment of timeshare owners, esp resale owners are value oriented.  Bluegreen and Wyndham certainly fit this segment well.  Marriott created a whole company for this purpose.  It failed but I think it's because they didn't make it value enough rather than that the concept was bad.  This is in large part why most of our stays are from exchanges and how our 15 day trip to HI and out 11 day trip to Aruba were under $2500 for 2 including air and all other costs including indirect timeshare expenses.  I'll admit that in part, it's a game to me, basically a form of gambling.  But it keeps me occupied and out of any real trouble and my wife enjoys the perks associated with it.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> I'm thinking that DVC believes that the higher Sun-Thurs nights will reduce demand for those nights and the lower Fri-Sat nights will increase demand for those nights. I agree with your comment that a significant question remains as to whether the new point differential is enough to increase demand for Fri-Sat nights. *My guess is that the changes will effect a reduced demand for Sun.-Thurs. nights by, as you suggest, reducing weekdays stays by some amount.*





> Do those who use mainly weekday stays think the new point structure will encourage them to use more weekend or weeklong stays, or just take fewer trips?



I'm in this group as well.  This allocation will *not* make me more likely to stay weekends.   It just doesn't work for me.   I'm already now for 2010, 30+ points short due to the allocation.  Staying weekends will only put me even further into a deficit.  Even though the weekend points are lower, the increase in weeknights cancels it out.  So I'm *guessing*, DVC was hoping those of us that stay during the weeknights will drop days ?  Or add points ?  Otherwise....I don't know how they thought we would have increased interest in weekends when we're already short with our weeknight points due to allocation ?  So I really am thinking they hope we "go away" or something.  Because this allocation was clearly done to help those that already budgeted for weekend stays....have a pattern of staying over one or more weekends.....and it was to give them a break.  

So I will be one that will either stay less days (but doubt this because the more I think about it I just get ticked off).   I'm more likely to downsize villa size and stay the same amount during the weeknights.  I might have to switch from a studio to a 1 or 2 bedroom during my 5 night weekly stay----but so be it----I have no other choice.  And I highly doubt I'm the only weeknighter that will do this.........

Maria


----------



## Dean

thepops said:


> How do we know that they didn't do exactly what you suggest,   and that another change is already planned for next year's charts ?


Possibly but I doubt it.  I'd expect them to make the change and evaluate the outcome.  While I'm sure they have a ton of data about reservation trends from their own system, hotel trade organizations and ARDA, they won't know for certain exactly how this effect will affect the reservation patterns.  I would personally not expect major changes going forward other than you MAY get some shifts in dates for certain seasons, esp early Dec moving up to Dream season at some point with something else decreasing OR a leveling of Dream, Choice and Adventure.  It think anything from here will be fine tuning.  Still, if your time is the one affected, you may be just as upset as some are now.  And to make ANY change has a lot of unintended consequences.  Say you want to further shift weekends and weekdays.  If you raise a studio by 1 points and a 1 BR by 2 points (2 or 3 points per night increase for a 2 BR), you've still got to decrease weekends and unless you make Fri and Sat different points costs like at HH, you've still go to find where to even the change out.  To be honest, if they do have to make any further weekday/weekend changes, I'd expect Fri and Sat to become different costs.

I too feel DVD made a mistake allowing smaller purchases, not necessarily the 150 point sales but certainly anything under 100 points even for add ons was a poor move from a system standpoint.  Another approach they could have taken, and many other systems have used, is allow one time points purchases (rentals) directly.  OF course this is still a viable alternative if they so chose.



KLR-wlv said:


> SO you are suggesting Disney go to a weeks timeshare? If there are 100,000 points to sell in a resort - what difference is it if 100 people buy 1000 point contracts or 1000 people buy 100 point contracts? Obviously everyone doesn't get the same week in either scenario. I personally don't want to go to Disney every Christmas week or spring break (in my 8 years of membership I've only gone once at christmas, twice at spring break). I just haven't EVER experienced not getting a reservation so I don't know who all these people are who can't get a reservation. Since we're all talking hypotheticals, since no one has any real facts from disney, I don't know why one person's theory is correct over anyone else's...


From a system standpoint there are many differences and higher costs to management for more members with less points.  One with 1000 points MIGHT reserve a 2 BR or 3 BR unit for a full week or more (ane many will) while a 100 points owner is VERY unlikely to do so.  It's likely that those who own smaller contracts actually make more phone calls *per member* (not just per point) than does the larger points owner and needs MORE hand holding.  Not to say it's right or wrong from a members standpoint, just that there are consequences to having smaller contract members.  IMO, DVC should change the fee structure to a minimum cost per master contract plus a lower per point fee.  Something like $250 per contract plus $4 per point rather than $5 per point.  That way those who own smaller contracts pay more of their actual costs to the system rather than being subsidized by the larger point owners.  I'll also say that anything that encourages owners to reserve a full 7 days has many benefits to the system and to a large portion of the membership in general.



Anal Annie said:


> Well, if they pull something like THAT then they should've been tellin' us up front about it NOW.


No way is a company going to do that, it's a poor business model to do so.  You make your plans and decisions then you roll them out.  You don't say anything until something is set because you might have to change it later.  You advertise the things people will like, you put out the changes many won't and move on.  No "what do you think", town hall meetings or easy options for people to complain.  The you measure by surveys and by member retention and new sales.


----------



## Chuck S

Belle & Ariel said:


> I read those and see your point about so many owners competing for prime times--something I did not think about.
> 
> But what is the person who goes to the beach, cruises, and still wants a small investment in Disney to do?
> We are staying longer than usual to burn banked 2007 points this year and taking in-laws next year on 2008 points. We will still have 2008 points to bank.  So I cannot imagine having more than 150.
> I think Disney is smart to sell the smaller contracts.  I think the person who does not go to WDW several times a year might make that one trip more "magical" ie. spend more money on character meals, souvenirs; where some who go several times a year find ways to economize by eating in and not spending so much on dining and souvenirs as well as buying APs.



The system could absorb some small contracts and function fine, it could absorb a number savvy renters wanting Sun to Friday, too.  But Disney also surely counted on a goodly percentage of those that originally purchase 150 point contracts to also add-on once they tried out the DVC system.  By simply reading the boards, and seeing the number of 150 owners, or those that bought "just enough" for Sun to Friday in their desired season/room size, and seeing and in creasing number of the Rent/Trade board renters wanting Sun to Friday rentals, indicates that Sun to Friday demand became unbalanced.  Again, it isn't only the 150 point contracts, they were one of several contributing factors.

DVC and Disney are legally two separate operating companies, and legally, under timeshare law, DVC's responsibility is to balance demand, not consider dining income, character meals, park income, and other ancillary spending habits of their members, no matter whether or not it benefits Disney. While often decisions _can_ be of mutual benefit, others may not benefit Disney as a whole.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

Chuck S said:


> . . .  But Disney also surely counted on a goodly percentage of those that originally purchase 150 point contracts to also add-on once they tried out the DVC system.  By simply reading the boards, and seeing the number of 150 owners, or those that bought "just enough" for Sun to Friday in their desired season/room size, and seeing and in creasing number of the Rent/Trade board renters wanting Sun to Friday rentals, indicates that Sun to Friday demand became unbalanced.  Again, it isn't only the 150 point contracts, they were one of several contributing factors. . .



Of course, one of the other impacts of not allowing smaller contracts is that there would likely have been a significantly fewer sales of DVC points.  I know that one of the stumbling blocks I had when we first looked into DVC was the then 230 point minimum.  I still do not feel that owning that many points would be cost effective for my DH and I.

With fewer sales, you would undoubtedly see fewer new resorts coming online.

-- Suzanne


----------



## Cmbar

SuzanneSLO said:


> Of course, one of the other impacts of not allowing smaller contracts is that there would likely have been a significantly fewer sales of DVC points.  I know that one of the stumbling blocks I had when we first looked into DVC was the then 230 point minimum.  I still do not feel that owning that many points would be cost effective for my DH and I.
> 
> With fewer sales, you would undoubtedly see fewer new resorts coming online.
> 
> -- Suzanne



Not to mention that the cost to buy in at lower point structure allowed them to significantly raise the price per point.  Lets just say there is a breakeven point of where most feel comfortable spending on a timeshare.  If that number is 20,000 then people who bought back in the days of 230 minimum at 52.00 a point only spent around 12,000 so they could easily by the minimum and more.  Now a person who wants to buy a 160 point contract will need to spend close 18,000 for 30% less points.  Now for a family to do the point structure that allows a good minimum (lets say 230 again) it would cost 26,000.  So the owners who are advocating a minimum buy in that was higher have a great point that it would allow the system to work better, however the price per point has gone up to a point that make it difficult to get new buyers to buy in with that many points (this also benefits the older buyers as well as the value of their 230 points has gone up).


----------



## Anal Annie

Well, I finally just now received 2 emails back in response to my emails that I sent last week.  They are identical canned responses that do not directly address my specific complaints.   One was from Member Services and the other was from Member Satisfaction.  My original comments were below in the emails so I could tell which one came in response to which one.  The one from Member Satisfaction was in response to the email that I had sent to my guide.   So apparently the guides have been instructed to forward all complaints to Member Satisfaction and not to reply themselves (no real surprise there).  

Here is their generic reply:

Thank you for contacting Disney Vacation Club.

We appreciate your feedback regarding the adjustments we have made to 
the Vacation Points Charts for 2010.  Changes have been made which 
reflect the changes in vacationing patterns of our Members.  Disney 
Vacation Club Members have expressed that they would like to be able to 
use their Membership on weekends, but felt the Vacation Points in 
general were too high on Fridays and Saturdays. The changes also benefit
our Disney Vacation Club Members through managing expenses, and also 
ensure a more balanced demand throughout the year.  Some Vacation Points
totals per week have changed slightly up or down.  Additionally, the 
nightly Vacation Points have been reallocated at some Disney Vacation 
Club Resorts.  Any increase in nightly Vacation Point requirements is 
offset by a corresponding decrease.  However, the total number of 
Vacation Points for any particular Disney Vacation Club Resort will 
never change.

The feedback we receive from our Members is important to us, and your 
comments will be appropriately noted.  

Thank you again for sharing your concern. 

Sincerely,

Disney Vacation Club Member Services

This generic response only pisses me off more that they cannot directly address my personal comments and concerns NOR do they appreciate me as a member as they feebly attempt to indicate.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> The feedback we receive from our Members is important to us, and your
> comments will be appropriately noted.



Yeah....gotta love generic/form responses.  I'm sure they just hit the "forward" button and everyone, no matter what they say or ask, will get this exact email.   

Thanks for posting Anal Annie.


----------



## toocherie

Well, IIRC, we all got form "generic" email responses when we complained about the glassware issue too--and then started getting phone calls from MS/Customer Satisfaction when the hubbub went on.

Not sure in this circumstance, however, that there is much DVC can do--having indicated that they changed the charts in response to member demand it would be hard, I think, for them to reverse course and go back to the old points charts.

I continue to believe, however, that some allowance should be made for recent purchasers who are a few points shy of taking their intended vacation--however that could be accomplished.


----------



## figment795

MiaSRN62 said:


> We stay at POP quite often (will be there next Friday for 5 nights) when we're out of points---or to supplement our DVC stays on the weekends. And we own an offsite timeshare, as well as 250 DVC points. So it could happen. But I was wondering if the other half of POP was going to be more like an all-suite resort (like the Family Suites at AS Music) ?


 
I agree with you I will be staying at POP as well if my points are low. With AP rates it can be a great deal.


----------



## Tiger926

figment795 said:


> I agree with you I will be staying at POP as well if my points are low. With AP rates it can be a great deal.



This is a solution for many, but for us, we decided once we bought DVC, no more cash to Disney. Although, we did break that rule in the spring when we paid cash for a cruise ressie with points (which we had to cancel due to baby's illness) and for a night at Contemporary - it was a deal though as for the $95.00 exchange fee plus points, we got upgraded to the MK view suite on room 14! It was breathtaking... The only reason  we did it though is because we booked the cruise using Developer's points, and once we cancelled, we had to use them at non-DVC resort, so we chose Contemporary, and I just remembered we stayed 1 night at Poly as well. So, for 2x$95.00 exchange fees, it allowed us to keep our Developer's points, and we used those for a concierge stay at Yacht Club.

Anyway, now that this has happened, hubby and I have decided no money out of our pocket to Disney for cash rooms as that is silly - that is why we have DVC in the first place! We are working with the points we have, which means 1 less day at Disney, and ultimately less money spent by us on dining and other stuff. 

Tiger


----------



## MiaSRN62

> With AP rates it can be a great deal.


True Figment.  I'm staying there next week for an AP rate of $54 standard/$64 preferred.  I took the preferred.  I don't mind saving money on cash nights.  My DVC stays are already booked for May and Aug.  So I'm out of points unless I want to borrow which I do not want to do.   If I start borrowing considering I'll be 30+ points short in 2010 I don't think I'll ever catch up.


----------



## Carl Aird

SuzanneSLO said:


> Of course, one of the other impacts of not allowing smaller contracts is that there would likely have been a significantly fewer sales of DVC points.  I know that one of the stumbling blocks I had when we first looked into DVC was the then 230 point minimum.  I still do not feel that owning that many points would be cost effective for my DH and I.
> 
> With fewer sales, you would undoubtedly see fewer new resorts coming online.
> 
> -- Suzanne



I'm not sure they are interested in contract sales to make money
I thought Disney made money by getting us (DVC members) to stay in the park and spend money on tickets,food,etc


----------



## Capn Dave

We usually stay at Saratoga the points are going from 97 to 105 for a week in a studio.
Am I reading this correctly? I thought the whole point of buying a time share was to buy future vacations at todays prices. If they keep raising the points required it makes no sense to purchase.
Is this legal?


----------



## figment795

Anyway, now that this has happened, hubby and I have decided no money out of our pocket to Disney for cash rooms as that is silly - that is why we have DVC in the first place! We are working with the points we have, which means 1 less day at Disney, and ultimately less money spent by us on dining and other stuff. 

Tiger[/quote]

I agree, we also have DVC so we did not pay rack rate rooms. However when DH and I purchaced in 2004 we did not know that DVC has the right to change the point stucture whenever they see fit. That changes our value of DVC. If our guide whould have said the point charts could change by 20% on any given year. I am not sure we would have 370 points at SSR and 230 at BLT.  We have plenty of points to ride out the changes to the 2010 point charts but what happens in 2011 and beyond.


----------



## Dean

SuzanneSLO said:


> Of course, one of the other impacts of not allowing smaller contracts is that there would likely have been a significantly fewer sales of DVC points.  I know that one of the stumbling blocks I had when we first looked into DVC was the then 230 point minimum.  I still do not feel that owning that many points would be cost effective for my DH and I.
> 
> With fewer sales, you would undoubtedly see fewer new resorts coming online.
> 
> -- Suzanne


Less sales doesn't automatically mean less income and fewer points.  There is a certain amount of cost involved in every sale, every add on.  It's likely DVC made no money whatsoever on a 25 point sale and little on a 50 point sale.  But those sales did fill the void to help move a resort through and get dues paying members on board for that resort.  The question I can't answer, and none of us can, is what is the optimum balance.    Given the retail requirements to new members, I'd say it's in the 150-160 pt range for DVD to make any significant money and the only way the smaller sales make sense is because they're to existing members with LESS inherent costs.  Thus if each DVC resort sold out slower but for larger contracts and for a slightly trimmed sales staff, they'd likely be as well or better off.  Again, the question is where is the break point to make it worth fooling with and I'd argue that from what we've seen it's in the 100 pt range to existing members due to some lower admin costs and 150-160 for new members.  Anything else is likely a loss leader.  Thus the idea that small point buyers, of which I am one (4*25), are helping out everyone else is simply wrong IMO.



Anal Annie said:


> Well, I finally just now received 2 emails back in response to my emails that I sent last week.  They are identical canned responses that do not directly address my specific complaints.   One was from Member Services and the other was from Member Satisfaction.  My original comments were below in the emails so I could tell which one came in response to which one.  The one from Member Satisfaction was in response to the email that I had sent to my guide.   So apparently the guides have been instructed to forward all complaints to Member Satisfaction and not to reply themselves (no real surprise there).
> 
> Here is their generic reply:
> 
> Thank you for contacting Disney Vacation Club.
> 
> We appreciate your feedback regarding the adjustments we have made to
> the Vacation Points Charts for 2010.  Changes have been made which
> reflect the changes in vacationing patterns of our Members.  Disney
> Vacation Club Members have expressed that they would like to be able to
> use their Membership on weekends, but felt the Vacation Points in
> general were too high on Fridays and Saturdays. The changes also benefit
> our Disney Vacation Club Members through managing expenses, and also
> ensure a more balanced demand throughout the year.  Some Vacation Points
> totals per week have changed slightly up or down.  Additionally, the
> nightly Vacation Points have been reallocated at some Disney Vacation
> Club Resorts.  Any increase in nightly Vacation Point requirements is
> offset by a corresponding decrease.  However, the total number of
> Vacation Points for any particular Disney Vacation Club Resort will
> never change.
> 
> The feedback we receive from our Members is important to us, and your
> comments will be appropriately noted.
> 
> Thank you again for sharing your concern.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Disney Vacation Club Member Services
> 
> This generic response only pisses me off more that they cannot directly address my personal comments and concerns NOR do they appreciate me as a member as they feebly attempt to indicate.


You should have expected nothing else.  Any nonstandard response runs the risk of not accurately portraying the decided upon response.  Plus I think the response is accurate.  My understanding is it's DVD's policy for the guides not to respond to email.  I know some do but most don't.  DVD will likely look the other way up to a point if they violate this policy but they are putting their job on the line if they do.


----------



## figment795

Capn Dave said:


> We usually stay at Saratoga the points are going from 97 to 105 for a week in a studio.
> Am I reading this correctly? I thought the whole point of buying a time share was to buy future vacations at todays prices. If they keep raising the points required it makes no sense to purchase.
> Is this legal?


 
I think this is why there are so many emotions on the board about this topic. I know when we purchased we had no idea that they could change and raise the points as well. Now if they decide to change the time of year well like to go all together then it would be time to sell. For now we are waiting.


----------



## Dean

Capn Dave said:


> We usually stay at Saratoga the points are going from 97 to 105 for a week in a studio.
> Am I reading this correctly? I thought the whole point of buying a time share was to buy future vacations at todays prices. If they keep raising the points required it makes no sense to purchase.
> Is this legal?


While they may have raised your planned stay, they decreased someone else's.  Not only is it legal, DVC is required to do so in certain situations.  The only way to guarantee you'll get a week each time is to buy a non points timeshare.


----------



## Sheribo

Anal Annie said:


> Well, I finally just now received 2 emails back in response to my emails that I sent last week.  They are identical canned responses that do not directly address my specific complaints.   One was from Member Services and the other was from Member Satisfaction.  My original comments were below in the emails so I could tell which one came in response to which one.  The one from Member Satisfaction was in response to the email that I had sent to my guide.   So apparently the guides have been instructed to forward all complaints to Member Satisfaction and not to reply themselves (no real surprise there).



I got the same email.  No surprise that they're saying they made the changes to reflect member requests for weekend stays.  I wonder if DVC members would still be requesting lower point weekends if they knew that it meant the weekdays would go up.  I also wonder what the problems would be in actually asking the membership to vote or express an opinion on the changes *before* they are implemented.


----------



## Dean

Sheribo said:


> I also wonder what the problems would be in actually asking the membership to vote or express an opinion on the changes *before* they are implemented.


Several problems with that approach.  It would imply there was a choice when there was not.  It would create false expectations.  It would also suggest uncertainly on DVC's side which would lend more fuel to the fire raging here now.  If you survey members or to go the extreme of having a vote, you only give them choices that you deem workable to solve the issue or problem at hand.  In this case the choices would likely have been something that equated to a min stay of 7 nights for most people or a re-allocation.  There are ways to have a de-facto min stay of 7 nights by staying within the framework of the POS.  They could also liberalize the banking and borrowing rules but in the long run this would likely create more problems than it is worth and it doesn't fix the problem, only delay the requirement to deal with the underlying issue.


----------



## Sheribo

Dean said:


> Several problems with that approach.  It would imply there was a choice when there was not.  It would create false expectations.  It would also suggest uncertainly on DVC's side which would lend more fuel to the fire raging here now.  If you survey members or to go the extreme of having a vote, you only give them choices that you deem workable to solve the issue or problem at hand.  In this case the choices would likely have been something that equated to a min stay of 7 nights for most people or a re-allocation.  There are ways to have a de-facto min stay of 7 nights by staying within the framework of the POS.  They could also liberalize the banking and borrowing rules but in the long run this would likely create more problems than it is worth and it doesn't fix the problem, only delay the requirement to deal with the underlying issue.



Yes, I understand that.  Do you really think that they originally posted the points charts in error or was it a test?


----------



## Dean

Sheribo said:


> Yes, I understand that.  Do you really think that they originally posted the points charts in error or was it a test?


I suspect that it was simply timing.  Someone posted the charts prior to when they were supposed to or possibly before they had been triple checked.  I wouldn't think for a second it was a trial balloon.


----------



## Chuck S

Sheribo said:


> Yes, I understand that.  Do you really think that they originally posted the points charts in error or was it a test?



I'm thinking someone in IT was getting the website ready, and it went live before the intended time.  I don't think the "charts" were in error, I think the posting of them at that particular moment was an error. They probably wanted the promo email with the change notation and the charts to go up at the same time.


----------



## photobob

Chuck S said:


> I'm thinking someone in IT was getting the website ready, and it went live before the intended time.  I don't think the "charts" were in error, I think the posting of them at that particular moment was an error. They probably wanted the promo email with the change notation and the charts to go up at the same time.



I think your probably right.
BTW-I got the generic email today as well.


----------



## drusba

Chuck S said:


> I'm thinking someone in IT was getting the website ready, and it went live before the intended time.  I don't think the "charts" were in error, I think the posting of them at that particular moment was an error. They probably wanted the promo email with the change notation and the charts to go up at the same time.



There were hoping to get a few more BLT and AKV sales past the 10 day cancellation date.


----------



## BeccaG

Inkmahm said:


> Interesting idea.
> 
> Is there a "value" time share industry?     Seems to me that people who stay in value hotels may not have the $ (in general) for the initial purchase of points?  That may be a bad assumption on my part though.



My husband just got a marketing e-mail for the holiday inn timeshare, one or two of which are located in Florida and one "minutes away" from WDW.  So to answer your question, yes there appears to be a value time share industry!! Who would have thunk!!?


----------



## mickeymom629

> thought the whole point of buying a time share was to buy future vacations at todays prices.



Our guide did tell us this, so I totally agree with you.  She specifically said that was what was great about buying into DVC.  

If I now need to use more points to get what *I* usually book because of the 2010 chart, then my points have lost their value and I am now "paying" more than yesterday's prices.  

The fact that the change has some people using less points and now "spending" less than yesterday's points is irrelevant - it's just a bonus for them that they didn't expect.


----------



## Dean

BeccaG said:


> My husband just got a marketing e-mail for the holiday inn timeshare, one or two of which are located in Florida and one "minutes away" from WDW.  So to answer your question, yes there appears to be a value time share industry!! Who would have thunk!!?


Holiday Inn is part of the Orange Lake resort in Orlando.


----------



## hoodedrooster

First, I added all of the annual points for a year for studio, 1 BR, and 2 BR at BCV for 2009 and then for 2010.  The difference is 3 more total points for 2010 as compared to 2009.  Although this is only 3 points, it is more and not what Disney said.  

Second, according to the Public Offering Statement for BCV, the maximum number of points for at least one use day for 2 BR is 46.  In other words, Disney must allow for at least one day per year at no more than 46 points.  It also goes on the say that at some point in the future, all seasons and days may have the same point requirement.  If all days had the a point requirement of 46 for all seasons throughout the year, the total points would be slightly less than that for 2010 total.  In other words, the worst case reallocation scenario that Disney could have in strategic plan is to balance out at around 46 points per night for all nights in a year.


----------



## La2kw

MiaSRN62 said:


> I'm in this group as well.  This allocation will *not* make me more likely to stay weekends.   It just doesn't work for me.   I'm already now for 2010, 30+ points short due to the allocation.  Staying weekends will only put me even further into a deficit.  Even though the weekend points are lower, the increase in weeknights cancels it out.  So I'm *guessing*, DVC was hoping those of us that stay during the weeknights will drop days ?  Or add points ?  Otherwise....I don't know how they thought we would have increased interest in weekends when we're already short with our weeknight points due to allocation ?  So I really am thinking they hope we "go away" or something.  Because this allocation was clearly done to help those that already budgeted for weekend stays....have a pattern of staying over one or more weekends.....and it was to give them a break.
> 
> So I will be one that will either stay less days (but doubt this because the more I think about it I just get ticked off).   I'm more likely to downsize villa size and stay the same amount during the weeknights.  I might have to switch from a studio to a 1 or 2 bedroom during my 5 night weekly stay----but so be it----I have no other choice.  And I highly doubt I'm the only weeknighter that will do this.........
> 
> Maria



I'm in the same boat.  I guess I'm one of those folks messing up the system with my "small" amount of 270 points.  We have always gone to WDW for about 2 weeks, staying sun-thurs and checking out on weekends for trips to the beach, universal, etc.  I have no intention of adding on points to take the same trip I have been taking for the past 13 years.  I will just make my weekends three night weekends instead.  Less time at WDW, less of my money spent at WDW.  At this point, the less money I give Disney, the better.  I'm appalled at this entire debacle as well as the other "member enhancements" we have been subjected to this past year or so.  

BTW, HGVC on International Drive (near the Premium Outlets) is a very nice resort and will be seeing more of me.  I just reserved at one bedroom unit for our weekends this July.  Just $106/night.  At four nights, that's about $400 of my money Disney will not be getting.  King bed, balcony, full kitchen, spa tub, etc.  Very comparable to DVC.


----------



## tidefan

mickeymom629 said:


> The fact that the change has some people using less points and now "spending" less than yesterday's points is irrelevant - it's just a bonus for them that they didn't expect.



How is that irrelevant?  It shows that you can't make a blanket statement about this.  Yes, for many, points don't go as far, but for many, points now go further, and for even more (like myself that usually stays 7-8 days) it's pretty much a wash from what we had before.


----------



## tidefan

hoodedrooster said:


> First, I added all of the annual points for a year for studio, 1 BR, and 2 BR at BCV for 2009 and then for 2010.  The difference is 3 more total points for 2010 as compared to 2009.  Although this is only 3 points, it is more and not what Disney said.



I think Dean and Tim have covered this point ad nauseum, but 

1) how did you calculate for lock-off's, all as 2 Bdrms, as studios and 1 Bdrms, or a mix of both?  If any resort calculates them different I would imagine it would be BCV as there is a difference with the dedicateds having the 2 queens in the second bedrooms.

2) are the number of weekends and weeknights in 2010 the same for the BCV "base year"?


----------



## tidefan

La2kw said:


> BTW, HGVC on International Drive (near the Premium Outlets) is a very nice resort and will be seeing more of me.  I just reserved at one bedroom unit for our weekends this July.  Just $106/night.  At four nights, that's about $400 of my money Disney will not be getting.  King bed, balcony, full kitchen, spa tub, etc.  Very comparable to DVC.



Can you imagine if you were one of the poor saps at HGVC that paid $12,000 to $15,000 for a week you could get for less than your maintenance fees?  I stayed at the Sea World HGVC in a 1 Bdrm last year in March for a conference that was down the road and I paid less than $100/night.

Speaking of poor saps, I have firsthand experience with other timeshare companies that makes all of these DVC changes seem trivial.  I should let everyone know to avoid Diamond Resorts.  We own a week with them (well, we own a deeded week at one of their managed resorts, we are not members of "the CLUB") that we bought resale a few years ago when it was Sunterra, and while the units are great and we really enjoy going to the property, what I did not enjoy was Diamond raising our Maintenance Fees by 35% (In DVC terms, think of it like going from around $5 per point to just short of $7 per point).


----------



## Tiger926

MiaSRN62 said:


> I'm in this group as well.  This allocation will *not* make me more likely to stay weekends.   It just doesn't work for me.   I'm already now for 2010, 30+ points short due to the allocation.  Staying weekends will only put me even further into a deficit.  Even though the weekend points are lower, the increase in weeknights cancels it out.  So I'm *guessing*, DVC was hoping those of us that stay during the weeknights will drop days ?  Or add points ?  Otherwise....I don't know how they thought we would have increased interest in weekends when we're already short with our weeknight points due to allocation ?  So I really am thinking they hope we "go away" or something.  Because this allocation was clearly done to help those that already budgeted for weekend stays....have a pattern of staying over one or more weekends.....and it was to give them a break.
> 
> So I will be one that will either stay less days (but doubt this because the more I think about it I just get ticked off).   I'm more likely to downsize villa size and stay the same amount during the weeknights.  I might have to switch from a studio to a 1 or 2 bedroom during my 5 night weekly stay----but so be it----I have no other choice.  And I highly doubt I'm the only weeknighter that will do this.........
> 
> Maria



We always stay weekends, and I can assure you that we are still short on points for next year - approx. 15-20 depending upon location. So, we didn't get a break at all because although weekend points went down, weeknight points went up. We did the math, and it's higher for us at the end of the week.

Tiger


----------



## Tiger926

tidefan said:


> *Can you imagine if you were one of the poor saps at HGVC that paid $12,000 to $15,000 for a week you could get for less than your maintenance fees?  I stayed at the Sea World HGVC in a 1 Bdrm last year in March for a conference that was down the road and I paid less than $100/night.*
> 
> 
> Speaking of poor saps, I have firsthand experience with other timeshare companies that makes all of these DVC changes seem trivial.  I should let everyone know to avoid Diamond Resorts.  We own a week with them (well, we own a deeded week at one of their managed resorts, we are not members of "the CLUB") that we bought resale a few years ago when it was Sunterra, and while the units are great and we really enjoy going to the property, what I did not enjoy was Diamond raising our Maintenance Fees by 35% (In DVC terms, think of it like going from around $5 per point to just short of $7 per point).



ITA! We stayed here 1 year after buying DVC, and we were blown away - first by the price ($100.00/night) and then by the property. Rooms were incredibly furnished, lovely decor, huge bathrooms, balconies, etc. Very nice - I assume it's because they use the cheap rates as a marketing ploy, just like when Disney offers SSR or AKL for $130/night. My hubby actually made an appointment to speak to a rep there, but when we went in to the office, they weren't there. 

We were thinking of staying there for the other night or 2 that we will have to knock off our normal vacations due to the point re-allocation, but with Sea World tickets on top of it, it's too costly as it's not something that we planned to do every year.

This thread is so interesting! Tiger


----------



## hoodedrooster

tidefan said:


> I think Dean and Tim have covered this point ad nauseum, but
> 
> 1) how did you calculate for lock-off's, all as 2 Bdrms, as studios and 1 Bdrms, or a mix of both?  If any resort calculates them different I would imagine it would be BCV as there is a difference with the dedicateds having the 2 queens in the second bedrooms.
> 
> 2) are the number of weekends and weeknights in 2010 the same for the BCV "base year"?



I just added all of the points from studio, 1 br, and 2 br together for one total number.  Since I added them all together and the 2009 and 2010 charts are for same for all seasons, the number should be the same.


----------



## tjkraz

La2kw said:


> BTW, HGVC on International Drive (near the Premium Outlets) is a very nice resort and will be seeing more of me.  I just reserved at one bedroom unit for our weekends this July.  Just $106/night.  At four nights, that's about $400 of my money Disney will not be getting.  King bed, balcony, full kitchen, spa tub, etc.  Very comparable to DVC.



DVC/Disney has always been about charging a premium for being on-site.  

If you can sacrifice being on-site, a world (no pun intended) of options opens up.  You can rent a nearby 3-4 bedroom vacation home for a week with twice the space of a DVC villa and a private pool for less than the cost of the DVC maintenance fees for the same duration.  Hotel rooms a couple miles from WDW are 1/3 to 1/4 the price of on-site.


----------



## dandave

I'm only just nearing closing on a mere 50 point resale, but even I knew that the total number of points could be shaken up and changed around like a cup of Yahtzee dice. I've read mention of it here for years. But then again, it has been said that while I was wasting my time researching, weighing the pros and cons of DVC, and just simply waiting for the right time, some here decided to jump right on in there head first and start making all those DVC memories that could not possibly be made at a regular ol' Resort. 
Sure my heart goes out to a few posters here, in particular those who just finished small add-ons at BLT that would have covered a couple of nights under the 2009 chart. Disney had to present the new charts sometime though, and there would always be people who had added on *just* prior to the new chart release. For the most part, however, I cannot sympathize.
I cannot imagine signing a real estate contract worth $$$ without reading it first - especially a contract that involved a Timeshare Salesperson anywhere along the route. (Hey, a job is a job, but I tend to triple check anything told me by a Timeshare Salesperson or a Used Car Dealer.) And then to top it all off with a great big cherry, you complain that you were fooled, conned, even...even..even robbed if the truth be known! I would say that you were outwitted by a smooth talking salesperson, blinded by a desire to be an owner of DVC, and/or too frenzied to do the proper due diligence. I would say that, but I know that I would likely be attacked in my sleep by an angry DVC mob if I did. So, for safety's sake, I'll refrain from saying that.
One thing that I really don't get, however, are those who plan to verbalize their disgust for DVC at the parks, to your friends, and to anyone else who will listen. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would you follow a potential buyer around your home pointing out the non-existent closet space, the outdated kitchen cabinets, the tacky wallpaper in the den, or the overall feeling of gloom associated with the upstairs bedroom where Grandpa Bernie was found frozen last winter? I'm just curious. 

And I really must chime in about the Value Resorts, once again. DH and I are taking our two kids and two of their friends for Spring Break. We're getting two rooms for about $130 total per night with the "7 for 4". That's 4 beds, 2 TVs, 2 bathrooms, privacy and daily maid service. Slumming it is so dreadfully dismal.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> We always stay weekends, and I can assure you that we are still short on points for next year - approx. 15-20 depending upon location. So, we didn't get a break at all because although weekend points went down, weeknight points went up. We did the math, and it's higher for us at the end of the week.
> 
> Tiger



Well, as a weekend DVC'er...thanks for sharing your perspective on this Tiger. It's a bit difficult at times to try and figure out who this allocation benefits and who it hurts.   




> dandave : And then to top it all off with a great big cherry, you complain that you were fooled, conned, even...even..even robbed if the truth be known! I would say that you were outwitted by a smooth talking salesperson, blinded by a desire to be an owner of DVC, and/or too frenzied to do the proper due diligence. I would say that, but I know that I would likely be attacked in my sleep by an angry DVC mob if I did. So, for safety's sake, I'll refrain from saying that.


 
Well it's ok if you don't sympathize with some of us dandave.  Respectfully, I don't require that from you.  And for the record, dh and I were aware there could be an allocation----as did MANY here and it has been stated as such in hundreds of posts by many of us.  But this is a fairly drastic one you must admit.  I'm short 30 points on my OKW contract and 6 on my AKV contract for our current vacation patterns.  Our AKV add-on was about 90+ days ago.  Noone could convince me that DVC wasn't aware they were going to announce this allocation.  They waited until after the Jan 15 price increase to drop that little bombshell on us.  Feel kind of duped in that respect.  We would have purchased more AKV points had this "little" announcement been made prior to Jan 15.  Communication was lacking....and timing not nearly the best for planning by Members.  





> dandave :One thing that I really don't get, however, are those who plan to verbalize their disgust for DVC at the parks, to your friends, and to anyone else who will listen. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.



Again, whether you're referring to me or not, just putting it out there to you anyway....
I just don't feel nearly as passionate about recommending DVC to friends and family now with this allocation.  And not knowing when they'll throw another curve ball our way.....poor communication with issues of this magnitude...etc make it not in the best interest of my friends/family to rave about DVC and how they should purchase as I have in the past.  Surely we don't plan to drag the DVC name in the mud....but alot less cheerleading for them for sure.  

I just think the wind has been taken out of some of our "DVC sails" so to say......at least for me.  I'm heading to WDW next week.  A month ago I was SOoooo excited to check out the BLT model and do an add-on there.   Now, dh doesn't even want to look at the model, let alone do any add-ons.  What a difference the new year has made for us........


----------



## tidefan

hoodedrooster said:


> I just added all of the points from studio, 1 br, and 2 br together for one total number.  Since I added them all together and the 2009 and 2010 charts are for same for all seasons, the number should be the same.



My point (that we have tossed around a bit in these threads already) is that do you count the points for a 2 bedroom lockoff as a 2 Bedroom, or do you count them as a Studio and a 1 Bedroom.  This could be important as the points for a week in a Studio + a week in a 1 Bedroom do not equal a week in a 2 bedroom.  Are you counting dedicated studios, dedicated 1 bedrooms, 2 bedroom lockoffs and dedicated 2 bedrooms separately?  Dean's assertion is that the lockoffs are all counted as 2 bedroom units.


----------



## dandave

Mia, I certainly didn't mean you or any other particular person. I read backwards a few dozen pages, I that was my overall take on the Great Debate.  
My little 50 points won't get me the 5 studio nights at OKW anymore, but that was part of the gamble. If this is the worst thing that happens to my family this year, I'll consider myself blessed.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Mia, I certainly didn't mean you or any other particular person. I read backwards a few dozen pages, I that was my overall take on the Great Debate.



I didn't believe you were referring to me specifically.....that's why I added in my reply that I'll "just throw it out there" anyway (in general).   So no offense or anything taken.  



> If this is the worst thing that happens to my family this year, I'll consider myself blessed.



I doubt any of us consider this the worst thing that has or will happen to our families.....and I'm sure most of us feel blessed that we can even afford to travel to WDW in these tough economic times.  But still, it is a significant change in the way many of can afford to vacation with DVC and is worth discussing here.  

Take care and congrats on your recent purchase


----------



## dandave

Thank you, Mia!


----------



## bobbiwoz

I know that if I began staying off site, that would be cutting my nose to spite my face.  We've stayed 3 times off site to save points or because of bargains, and we weren't as pleased.  We do like to go to other attractions in Florida, so, these weren't exclusively WDW trips, but for the money, I have a better time when I'm on site WDW.  We stayed at HGVC and I thought they were lovely but lacking.

Can DVC change so that a week's stay is mandatory?  We did a HGVC presentation, and I know they mentioned "points" because there a Friday, Saturday and Sunday night cost more than the other nights.  We bought DVC not because we wanted a timeshare but because we wanted to stay on site at WDW ( and VB too!) and DVC has enabled us to do that with so many of our DFamily/Friends for a very reasonable amount of money compared to what each vacation would cost us through CRO.

Bobbi


----------



## Anal Annie

Like Maria said, I am not planning to drag the DVC brand thru the mud.  But *they sure did cure my addonitis *and I no longer feel the need to "share the magic" of the "best kept secret".  We knew they could re-allocate but never expected them to change so much so that we can no longer afford the same vacation this week that we could last week.  This is certainly something I am not going to BRAG ABOUT to someone who asks me about DVC.  In a social setting I used to talk it up and offer my guides name and I have passed on their marketing materials to refer people when they've sent them.  That marketing crap will hit the recycling bin on the way in from the mailbox now.  I won't even bring it inside my house.

And if the point charts for VGC are any indication I can tell you that they've also busted my bubble for ever staying at (or buying) Ko'Olina.

I feel like I just won the consolation prize.


----------



## wildernessDad

I hope that people are not calling MS and/or their guides and chewing them out over this.  More than likely, they had no idea that this was coming and they don't make planning decisions anyway.


----------



## mickeymom629

> How is that irrelevant? It shows that you can't make a blanket statement about this. Yes, for many, points don't go as far, but for many, points now go further, and for even more (like myself that usually stays 7-8 days) it's pretty much a wash from what we had before.



I say that only as it applies to what we were told - "locking in to today's prices for tomorrow".  It should still _apply to all members using their points the way they have been._ 

No matter how you look at it, if a member has been booking Sun. to Thurs., their "prices" just went up for the same stay - which goes against what was implied.  

If they had left some weeks in the year with the same points, that might have been a little better - at least the Sun.-Thurs. members would have *some* options at "yesterday's" prices.

Obviously, this is JMO.


----------



## jakenjess

I've been reading this thread with great interest; it's really a fascinating give and take!   We're one of the small point owners (160) that is really getting hurt by the reallocation.  As I posted many, many pages ago, the seven weeknights in a 1 BR (we're moving to POR for the weekend) for April 2009 will be 25 points more in 2010, not an insignificant amount for most owners.  

I completely understand DVC is well within its rights to do this, and maybe it is the right thing to do, but I admit I'm very disappointed.  First, we were planning on a small add-on at BLT, about 30 points, during our April visit; then they raised the minimum.  I didn't feel comfortable adding on at that time because of other financial obligations, so we lost out there.  Now the reallocation means even fewer DVC nights for us in the future.  

We always stayed on WDW property for our non-DVC nights, but at this point I think we'll be better off to go off site, probably to a Universal resort for the front of the line privileges, and enjoy the other attractions Orlando has to offer.


----------



## tjkraz

mickeymom629 said:


> If they had left some weeks in the year with the same points, that might have been a little better - at least the Sun.-Thurs. members would have *some* options at "yesterday's" prices.



I don't see how DVC could have done this even if they wanted to.  

The reallocation *must *be based upon demand patterns.  They don't have the flexibility to make it a more gradual change as some posters have suggested, or to leave some seasons untouched as an olive branch to members.  

If this reallocation were to come under scrutiny by state regulators or even legal challenge, DVC needs to prove that the calculations were accurately based upon historical demand.  Period.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> The reallocation must be based upon demand patterns. They don't have the flexibility to make it a more gradual change as some posters have suggested, or to leave some seasons untouched as an olive branch to members.
> 
> If this reallocation were to come under scrutiny by state regulators or even legal challenge, DVC needs to prove that the calculations were accurately based upon historical demand. Period.



Understood Tim.   But why did they wait until now to do this ?  I would venture to guess that "demand patterns" have been pretty much this way for awhile.  For example, Food and Wine and early Dec have always been BIG Dvc Member booking times.  Weekends have been high for a decade....why change now ?  I'm just wondering why this couldn't have been down more gradually and spread out more evenly over time to give Members time to adjust.  

Why wait until now....give us so little notice....and immediately following the price increase on Jan 15.  So yes, I can see they had to do this....but it's the "how" they did it that gets me.  

Maria


----------



## mickeymom629

> If this reallocation were to come under scrutiny by state regulators or even legal challenge, DVC needs to prove that the calculations were accurately based upon historical demand. Period.



Well, there are definitely differences in "historical demands" for different *seasons*, so I don't see why they couldn't have just adjusted the points for certain weeks and not others.  That's why they have different points during different seasons to begin with.


----------



## keishashadow

dzorn said:


> A person staying in a value very well may have money. They just choose to spend it differently. Just as I am sure some that stay Deluxe cannot afford it.
> 
> Denise in MI


 


tjkraz said:


> DVC/Disney has always been about charging a premium for being on-site.
> 
> If you can sacrifice being on-site, a world (no pun intended) of options opens up. You can rent a nearby 3-4 bedroom vacation home for a week with twice the space of a DVC villa and a private pool for less than the cost of the DVC maintenance fees for the same duration. Hotel rooms a couple miles from WDW are 1/3 to 1/4 the price of on-site.


 
_location, location_ & onsite percs is what drives the rate & the classification of 'deluxe' resorts in many of the onsite hotels

the DVC units r very nice & we look forward to visiting for many years in the future, yet def not what i consider comparable in quality & service to true deluxe accommodations outside 'the world'



Anal Annie said:


> Like Maria said, I am not planning to drag the DVC brand thru the mud. But *they sure did cure my addonitis *and I no longer feel the need to "share the magic" of the "best kept secret". We knew they could re-allocate but never expected them to change so much so that we can no longer afford the same vacation this week that we could last week. This is certainly something I am not going to BRAG ABOUT to someone who asks me about DVC. In a social setting I used to talk it up and offer my guides name and I have passed on their marketing materials to refer people when they've sent them. That marketing crap will hit the recycling bin on the way in from the mailbox now. I won't even bring it inside my house.
> 
> And if the point charts for VGC are any indication I can tell you that they've also busted my bubble for ever staying at (or buying) Ko'Olina.
> 
> I feel like I just won the consolation prize.


 
agree 100%, i won't bad mouth DVC by sharing in an unsolicited fashion as to what i feel is the _new best kept secret_ - DVC likes to tinker w/things to enhance our experience ; yet my cheerleading days r over

speaking as a realtor, positive word of mouth is imperative to generate repeat business/referrals; will be interesting to see how this shakes out sales wise


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> Understood Tim.   But why did they wait until now to do this ?  I would venture to guess that "demand patterns" have been pretty much this way for awhile.  For example, Food and Wine and early Dec have always been BIG Dvc Member booking times.  Weekends have been high for a decade....why change now ?  I'm just wondering why this couldn't have been down more gradually and spread out more evenly over time to give Members time to adjust.



I wish I could answer that.  Absolutely no idea.  However it seems like members have mostly benefited from DVC's slow response.  

An OKW One Bedroom in Dream Season went from 20 pts to 24.  Yes that is a radical change.  However, even if DVC had been more responsive to member patterns, it's entirely possible that the points would have gone to 21 per night in 1999, 22 per night in 2002, 23 per night in 2006 and now 24 night in 2010.  

That gradual increase may have better prepared members for these changes, but it would undoubtedly have cost us more over those years.  (And by "us" I mean we who have been benefiting from the low weekday points while they apparently remained skewed.)



> Why wait until now....give us so little notice....and immediately following the price increase on Jan 15.  So yes, I can see they had to do this....but it's the "how" they did it that gets me.



I wish I could answer those questions.  

A few pages ago Dean made a comment to suggest that DVD (the sales branch which sets prices) and DVC (the management company which would handle the reallocation) do not communicate as much as some may think. 

There may be some logic to that.  Consider this:  Wouldn't it have been to DVD's advantage to acknowledge the reallocation *before *the BLT minimum went up to 100 points?  People who find themselves 10-20 points short now are not going to spend $10k on a 100 point contract.  However, a large percentage of them almost certainly would have added a few more points to their small BLT add-on.  Others may have bit the bullet and bought another 25 points to get back where they need to be.  

Some may think this supposed lack of communications is a crock--and I'm not sure I buy it myself.    But I really do think DVC would have sold more points--particularly at BLT--if they had disclosed the reallocation a couple of weeks before the minimum increased.  



mickeymom629 said:


> Well, there are definitely differences in "historical demands" for different *seasons*, so I don't see why they couldn't have just adjusted the points for certain weeks and not others.  That's why they have different points during different seasons to begin with.



Demand certainly varies from one season to another (i.e. Christmas week demand is higher than mid-September), but the reallocation suggests that weekday demand has been much higher than weekends across all seasons.


----------



## BroganMc

tidefan said:


> 1) how did you calculate for lock-off's, all as 2 Bdrms, as studios and 1 Bdrms, or a mix of both?  If any resort calculates them different I would imagine it would be BCV as there is a difference with the dedicateds having the 2 queens in the second bedrooms.



SSR has dedicated 2bedrooms with 2 queens as well. That's why I calculated the dedicated 2bedrooms differently from lockoffs. But Dean insists they should be considered the same.

I'm reading my contracts too and it still doesn't add up. If you count all 2bedroom configurations the same then the total point count for the resort goes down significantly (by several thousand). If you count lockoffs and dedicateds separately then the total point count goes up significantly. The balance just isn't there which is why so many people are reporting a loss. You'd think if it was balanced then while you'd take a shorter trip one season (or go to a smaller unit), you could increase the length or unit size of a trip a different season. But that's just not happening.

I'd love to see the numbers DVC used for calculating total points in a resort and how those reallocated charts come to a 0 difference. Any increase, no matter how minimal, is a direct violation of the contract. Any decrease seems like it would be shortchanging the program at large.


----------



## photobob

MiaSRN62 said:


> Understood Tim.   But why did they wait until now to do this ?  I would venture to guess that "demand patterns" have been pretty much this way for awhile.  For example, Food and Wine and early Dec have always been BIG Dvc Member booking times.  Weekends have been high for a decade....why change now ?  I'm just wondering why this couldn't have been down more gradually and spread out more evenly over time to give Members time to adjust.
> 
> Why wait until now....give us so little notice....and immediately following the price increase on Jan 15.  So yes, I can see they had to do this....but it's the "how" they did it that gets me.
> 
> Maria



Maria, I agree completely. While I knew point allocations could change, I never expected them to drop this bomb. I can't wait for the next way they are going to enhance my DVC experience. "Due to increasing demands by the DVC members to help the slumping economy we have have decided to suspend the DVC AP discount!!!"


----------



## DVC92

tjkraz said:


> A few pages ago Dean made a comment to suggest that DVD (the sales branch which sets prices) and DVC (the management company which would handle the reallocation) do not communicate as much as some may think.



Since Jim Lewis is the president of DVD and DVC, I find that a litte hard to believe unless he has multiple personalities. However, that could be the case because he does seem to have a personality defect relating to communication.


----------



## dcfromva

Chuck S said:


> DVC and Disney are legally two separate operating companies, and legally, under timeshare law, DVC's responsibility is to balance demand, not consider dining income, character meals, park income, and other ancillary spending habits of their members, no matter whether or not it benefits Disney.



  I keep seeing folks mention DVC's legal responsibility is to balance demand.
But, then there are folks who have said it has been unbalanced for years and DVC didn't want "to take the heat".    BCV came on line in 2002, SSR in 2004, AKV in 2008 and BLT in 2009....  All sold with points seemingly "out of balance".  And, what about AKV and BLT-points changing before occupancy has been established?

   I do not believe the points have been out of balance all this time and DVC has been shirking their legal responsibility.   (BTW,  for whatever reason, nearly everytime I try to make a reservation for the weekend at less than 7 months, I end up on the W-L).  I do not believe these recent point adjustments are for "seasonal" demand based on occupancy, either, as called out in the contract. (Or, they wouldn't be adjusting AKV and BLT)   

   I believe DVC is taking steps to _"encourage"_ folks to stay 7 nights.  This goes along with the booking policy--7nights from check-in which gives folks making a 7 night reservation a preference.  It goes along with 2 WL per UY which will discourage folks from making several smaller reservations which they might end up on the WL.  I think 7night stays would lower the overhead (fewer full cleanings by housekeeping, fewer calls to member services--if you use your 240 points on one reservation vs 3 or 4 reservations, et'c.)

   The problem with moving towards 7 night stays is Disney has marketed and sold DVC on less than 7 night stays.  Even now, if your buy in is at 160 or even 200 points, it is probably not going to be enough for a 1 week stay every year for much beyond the studio level.  
     Without having access to the data used to make this decision, _everyone _ here is just making a guess.   

     My theory may not be correct, but most of my heartburn stems from the _way _this latest change was accomplished.    If DVC had sent out a briefing sheet summarizing the occupancy patterns (of which I'm not convinced there is a disparity) and the need to reallocate the points back when they were considering the change instead of a couple days before folks were planning on booking their next Jan vacation, I would be doing way less suspicious of their motives and may be doing less grumbling.  I say this from the point of view of someone who usually stays over a long weekend.   Even though I just saved 18 points on my most recent reservation, I still don't like the way this was implemented--it stinks to high heaven.    

   My biggest worry is that this is just another change in a series of changes.   We looked at other timeshares and one of the reasons we bought Disney because of the flexibilty in making reservations.  I don't see anytime in the next 10 years where it would work out for us to stay 7 nights on a routine basis.


----------



## BroganMc

What DVC Satisfaction Team responded to me:



			
				DVC said:
			
		

> We appreciate your feedback regarding the adjustments we have made to
> the Vacation Points Charts for 2010.  Changes have been made which
> reflect the changes in vacationing patterns of our Members.  Disney
> Vacation Club Members have expressed that they would like to be able to
> use their Membership on weekends, but felt the Vacation Points in
> general were too high on Fridays and Saturdays. The changes also benefit
> our Disney Vacation Club Members through managing expenses, and also
> ensure a more balanced demand throughout the year.  Some Vacation Points
> totals per week have changed slightly up or down.  Additionally, the
> nightly Vacation Points have been reallocated at some Disney Vacation
> Club Resorts.  Any increase in nightly Vacation Point requirements is
> offset by a corresponding decrease.  However, the total number of
> Vacation Points for any particular Disney Vacation Club Resort will
> never change.



Anyone get anything different?

Just for the record, I have yet to see any calculation of points that DO NOT show a total allottment change per resort. I sure would like to know DVC's figures for that.


----------



## tjkraz

keishashadow said:


> speaking as a realtor, positive word of mouth is imperative to generate repeat business/referrals; will be interesting to see how this shakes out sales wise



Personal experiences may hurt the little guy (or gal) working with limited resources in a single market.  But I doubt it will have much impact on a big company like Disney.  

If you look in the right places, you'll find people who hate Apple, people who hate Sony, people who hate WalMart, people who hate Home Depot, and so on.  There many who claim to despise Disney for manners in which the theme parks have changed over the years, but the crowds are still coming.  That sort of disgruntled fringe element is typically viewed with guarded skepticism.  

If I remember correctly, Chuck says there was a pretty irate group back in 1994 following the last reallocation.  But DVC survived and flourished.  

The value of DVC has certainly changed to new buyers eyeing exclusively weekday stays.  But they will make a rational financial decision based upon the numbers available--and many will still choose to buy.  



dcfromva said:


> I do not believe the points have been out of balance all this time and DVC has been shirking their legal responsibility.   (BTW,  for whatever reason, nearly everytime I try to make a reservation for the weekend at less than 7 months, I end up on the W-L).



No we don't have any hard data but anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.  The high volume of Sunday arrivals and Friday departures is pretty easy to witness at resorts.  Weekends are easy to book under the 25% member discount--a discount only available when DVC projects it will not be able to fill the resort with members using points.  Point rentals are almost always Sun - Thurs.  And look at the volume of people posting here who are upset about the reallocation vs. those who have said they will be the same or better.  

I only have two experiences booking weekends and both were vastly different than booking weekdays.  On one occasion I booked a Saturday night in BCV Studio for early-December (Adventure season) on just 3 months notice.  Another time I booked a BWV Standard View One Bedroom for Friday on a month's notice.  I have also successfully booked the 25% discount on weekends.  

The only justification for reallocation is to balance demand--it needs to be a response to demand shifts, not a vehicle for changing member patterns.  If you really suspect an ulterior motive, file a complaint with the Florida Timeshare Bureau and ask them to investigate.  But I will be very surprised if Disney is unable to defend its actions on something as serious as this.


----------



## spiceycat

tjkraz said:


> A few pages ago Dean made a comment to suggest that DVD (the sales branch which sets prices) and DVC (the management company which would handle the reallocation) do not communicate as much as some may think.
> 
> There may be some logic to that.  Consider this:  Wouldn't it have been to DVD's advantage to acknowledge the reallocation *before *the BLT minimum went up to 100 points?  People who find themselves 10-20 points short now are not going to spend $10k on a 100 point contract.  However, a large percentage of them almost certainly would have added a few more points to their small BLT add-on.  Others may have bit the bullet and bought another 25 points to get back where they need to be.
> 
> Some may think this supposed lack of communications is a crock--and I'm not sure I buy it myself.    But I really do think DVC would have sold more points--particularly at BLT--if they had disclosed the reallocation a couple of weeks before the minimum increased.
> 
> Demand certainly varies from one season to another (i.e. Christmas week demand is higher than mid-September), but the reallocation suggests that weekday demand has been much higher than weekends across all seasons.



DVC wants to benefit itself at our cost - that is the reason for the 100 points at BLT before annoucing the new points chart./

anything else is just wishfully thinking on some people part.

when DVC did this before - not a big deal just add on 25 points. Can't do this now. it must be 100 or nothing at BLT.

DVC is changing - everything must change or die. but certainly don't like the direction DVC is going. 

demand has been out of portion since VWL - so don't give me that it wasn't that they before.

just watch how many DVC members check in on Sunday and check out on Friday. this is NOT a new situation.

DVC is becoming like the other timeshares. they benefit themselves at member costs.

this will continue and get worst as long as Jim Lewis is in charge. really think it will back fire on him. He really thinks that the higher costs that he can charge will interest the rich.

well the rich I know aren't interested in timeshares period. they want to go when they like to where they like and money is not a problem.


----------



## tjkraz

spiceycat said:


> DVC wants to benefit itself at our cost - that is the reason for the 100 points at BLT before annoucing the new points chart./
> 
> anything else is just wishfully thinking on some people part.
> 
> when DVC did this before - not a big deal just add on 25 points. Can't do this now. it must be 100 or nothing at BLT.



I agree that DVC has a certain interest in selling more points.  

However, my argument is that they would have sold MORE if they had the foresight to disclose the reallocation a few weeks earlier.  Specifically:

If the reallocation were known a several weeks before the 1/15/09 BLT minimum increase, raise your hand if you would have either:
  a)  Added a few more points to a small add-on, or
  b)  Purchased an add-on of 25-99 points to go along with existing holdings.

Now raise your hand if you plan to buy 100+ at BLT in response to the reallocation.  

My assumption is the first group (small adders) is *much *larger than the group who now intends to spend nearly $11,000 each to add 100 points at BLT.


----------



## spiceycat

really, really think that the management though we would buy 100 points.

these people don't seem to understand that the country is not in a good economy setting.

people are worried. they may not have jobs tomorrow. the management at DVC is out of touch with the members and have been since Lewis arrived. 

he does not care. Actions speak much, much louder than words. He has shown thru his actions.

don't be surprised if members will start being charged for changing their reservation. anything to get money out of us.

or reservations must be for 3 or 4 days not less. the way he is going it might be a week. He is changing DVC to be like the other timeshares and that is not good for members.

when you aren't looking at reality - you will never acknowledge that you are wrong.

dvc management these days is not looking at reality.

DVC management really, really needs a woman at the head. when women make mistake they admit to them and try to fix it. Men seem to think it will go away if they ignored it.


----------



## jecpva

BroganMc said:


> What DVC Satisfaction Team responded to me:
> 
> Originally Posted by DVC
> We appreciate your feedback regarding the adjustments we have made to
> the Vacation Points Charts for 2010. Changes have been made which
> reflect the changes in vacationing patterns of our Members. Disney
> Vacation Club Members have expressed that they would like to be able to
> use their Membership on weekends, but felt the Vacation Points in
> general were too high on Fridays and Saturdays. The changes also benefit
> our Disney Vacation Club Members through managing expenses, and also
> ensure a more balanced demand throughout the year. Some Vacation Points
> totals per week have changed slightly up or down. Additionally, the
> nightly Vacation Points have been reallocated at some Disney Vacation
> Club Resorts. Any increase in nightly Vacation Point requirements is
> offset by a corresponding decrease. *However, the total number of
> Vacation Points for any particular Disney Vacation Club Resort will
> never change.*
> Anyone get anything different?
> 
> Just for the record, I have yet to see any calculation of points that DO NOT show a total allottment change per resort. I sure would like to know DVC's figures for that.



I'm all set now, as long as I reserve _*every *_room for the entire year, everything will be exactly the same.  Anyone want to transfer me some points, I'm a little short.


----------



## epcotwanderer

spiceycat said:


> DVC management really, really needs a woman at the head. when women make mistake they admit to them and try to fix it. Men seem to think it will go away if they ignored it.



I think this is a bit harsh and condescending. I am a woman and I don't think that any of DVC's problems are all because of Jim Lewis nor have anything to do with him being a man.


----------



## DisFlan

tjkraz said:


> The only justification for reallocation is to balance demand--it needs to be a response to demand shifts, not a vehicle for changing member patterns.



Very good point, Tim.  But I don't doubt that DVC will be able to defend the decision.

I don't know whether the divisions have good communications or not.  It's a moot point as far as this reallocation is concerned.  It's a done thing.  (But they should learn something from it.)  They'll ride out the ill will.  The bad feelings will eventually pass.   Most buyers a couple of years from now won't know (or care) what took place in the last week.  And I have no doubt that there _will_ be buyers.  But possibly more in the future than in the short term.  This kerfluffle is likely costing them some sales right now - and it's not the best timing for it.  I have my doubts that sales quotas were up to expectations before the reallocation announcement, and they probably aren't having a bumper week.  But if they can ride out the bad economy, this too shall pass.

DisFlan


----------



## Just People

A first I didn't like the change for 2010.   We would go 2x a year with our points.   In 2010, that wont be possible...BUT with the reallocation of points we will have enough points to stay for a 7 nights (1 week) in a villa, plus 1 additional weekend night  (Saturday-Sunday).   That just wouldn't be possible for us this year with our points.  So instead of (2) 5 night stays we will be taking just (1) 8-night stay.  In the end we will save money because of this.  We won't be spending the extra money on Annual Passes, less expenses on meals, souveniers,etc.  

  This is money that Disney won't be making off me because of their decision.  

  All in all, we'll benefit from the trip savings per year, so it wont be bad at all.


----------



## jecpva

Someting I don't think I've seen mentioned in this very long thread is the effect this will have on renting points.  Basically, S-F have increased across the board as the point rentals are based on around $10/point which will probably lower the demand (or the price).  Another (unintentional?) win for Disney as the typical renter will be looking at a price increase (up to 20%) and may use other choices for "on property" stays.


----------



## T-i-double-g-err

DisFlan said:


> I have my doubts that sales quotas were up to expectations before the reallocation announcement, and they probably aren't having a bumper week.


It actually may have been a pretty good week for DVC sales with the opening of GCV for purchase by founding members.



Just People said:


> A first I didn't like the change for 2010.   We would go 2x a year with our points.   In 2010, that wont be possible...BUT with the reallocation of points we will have enough points to stay for a 7 nights (1 week) in a villa, plus 1 additional weekend night  (Saturday-Sunday).   That just wouldn't be possible for us this year with our points.  So instead of (2) 5 night stays we will be taking just (1) 8-night stay.  In the end we will save money because of this.  We won't be spending the extra money on Annual Passes, less expenses on meals, souveniers,etc.
> 
> This is money that Disney won't be making off me because of their decision.
> 
> All in all, we'll benefit from the trip savings per year, so it wont be bad at all.


Then, if enough members take the same approach as you and out-of-whack weekday demand was truly the reason for the change, the reallocation may actually accomplish the goal to balance demand.  DVC's mandate is to balance demand across the year for the membership.  I'm not saying that DVC would not like to drive revenue higher for the theme park division of its sister company; however, the obligation to balance demand for DVC exists irrespective of the impact of actions taken to balance demand on its sister company's revenue.


----------



## DisFlan

T-i-double-g-err said:


> It actually may have been a pretty good week for DVC sales with the opening of GCV for purchase by founding members.



Honestly, I hope it _does_ sell well.  It'll be interesting to see what happens.  Anyone have an idea how BLT and AKV sales are doing?


DisFlan


----------



## Sammie

A very important part of DVC's response to everyone is 





> Vacation Club Members have expressed


.

So contact them and complain and see if they are truly listening or is this the canned response for every change they make.


----------



## tjkraz

Sammie said:


> So contact them and complain and see if they are truly listening or is this the canned response for every change they make.



So what would be your barometer for deciding whether they are (in your words) listening or not?  We will never know if DVC is contacted by 10% of the membership or 1% or .01%.

Members should absolutely contact DVC to share concerns or suggestions regarding the program.  But remember each of us only represents one voice.  I would hope that DVC does NOT base its policy decisions on 10 emails or 100 emails or 1000 emails.


----------



## bobbiwoz

Sammie said:


> A very important part of DVC's response to everyone is .
> 
> So contact them and complain and see if they are truly listening or is this the canned response for every change they make.



I have expressed much disatisfaction with high weekend rates.   However, it seems from what people "in the know" are saying, the change is also due to members usage.  I don't know if they've listened to me or they're doing what they are required to do.  If I was starting all over again, buying into DVC, I would still do it.

Bobbi


----------



## hellerjw

tjkraz said:


> I would hope that DVC does NOT base its policy decisions on 10 emails or 100 emails or 1000 emails.



I suspect this is exactly how they gauge "member interest" since only a very small portion of us (my guess is 1000 or less) attend the meetings and/or bother to send correspondence. The vocal minority will drive the silent majority in any feedback type situation.


----------



## tjkraz

hellerjw said:


> I suspect this is exactly how they gauge "member interest" since only a very small portion of us (my guess is 1000 or less) attend the meetings and/or bother to send correspondence. The vocal minority will drive the silent majority in any feedback type situation.



In this case, the high weekend rates have been around for 18 years.  I suspect the number of folks who complained about them is quite significant.


----------



## hellerjw

tjkraz said:


> In this case, the high weekend rates have been around for 18 years.  I suspect the number of folks who complained about them is quite significant.




That's assuming this is truly member driven and not simply a correction that's long overdue. I tend to believe the latter, but the DVC spin machine wants us to believe members actually had some say in the reallocation


----------



## tjkraz

hellerjw said:


> That's assuming this is truly member driven and not simply a correction that's long overdue. I tend to believe the latter, but the DVC spin machine wants us to believe members actually had some say in the reallocation



Exactly.  I'm sure there were elements of both in the decision, but Public Relations 101 says to try and project the change in the most favorable light.  In this case it's the "members requested it" approach.

I will say this:  I think the one aspect of this change that members may have _some _ability to influence is the add-on threshold for BLT.  

I do understand business reasons for limiting small add-ons.  However, even if DVC isn't willing to globally retreat to the 25-pt level for all members, it seems reasonable to allow those who already own at BLT to add 25 more if warranted by the reallocation.  It seems like that would be a relatively small conceit on DVC's part.  

So far DVC is saying they won't do that.  But if member requests are substantial *perhaps *they would re-examine the topic. 

Just a suggestion...
Tim


----------



## mopee3

bobbiwoz said:


> I have expressed much disatisfaction with high weekend rates.   However, it seems from what people "in the know" are saying, the change is also due to members usage.  I don't know if they've listened to me or they're doing what they are required to do.  If I was starting all over again, buying into DVC, I would still do it.
> 
> Bobbi



I am right there with you Bobbie.    

Something I don't see in all this complaining and squabbling  about the ability of DVC to change as they see fit , is the Magic of being at the World.   We arrive in just a few days with our 38 and 34 year old daughters  and they/us can hardly breath we want to be there so badly.  This will be our 3rd trip in the last 15 months.  

I know some planned for one thing and are now disappointed,  others are happy with the change because they stay mostly over weekends. 

Well I guess I would say if you aren't happy, don't let the door hit you in the rear end on the way out of DVC.   


Moe


----------



## bethy

I've read a lot of this thread and it's helped me take a hard look at the specific risks of buying into VGC which is a good thing.  

Anyway, I don't think DVC is trying to get rid of small add ons necessarily because it's just become apparent that though the minimum buy in to VGC is 100 pts, the total can be broken down into multiple smaller contracts.  Forgive me if someone has already mentioned this - this is a hefty thread!


----------



## tamclan

spiceycat said:


> when you aren't looking at reality - you will never acknowledge that you are wrong.
> 
> dvc management these days is not looking at reality.
> 
> DVC management really, really needs a woman at the head. when women make mistake they admit to them and try to fix it. Men seem to think it will go away if they ignored it.



Leadership is making tough decisions, not popular decisions regardless of gender.

This change makes my vacation days more expensive.  However if your able to be objective and honest I think one should realize the model as it was was not sustainable.  Too many points chasing the bargain Sun - Thur night stays myself included.

To continue in the 2009 and prior year model people would gripe DVC **^%$&()^&*((   because I can't get a room when I want unless I book (and I hope you bought at the resort you wanted) at exactly 11 months out and pray that you don't need to change because very little if anything else is available.

So while I am disappointed in the lack of communication the message is the same, weekdays will cost more.  The changes are not incenting me to buying any more points, too much change to absorb in a short amount of time.  

You can certainly excercise your rights as a consumer and take your business elsewhere but to think everything was perfect the way it was is a little misguided.

You may not agree with me and my approach.  Just my 2 cents.  

So we can agree to disagree.

Respectfully,


----------



## toocherie

bethy said:


> I've read a lot of this thread and it's helped me take a hard look at the specific risks of buying into VGC which is a good thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think DVC is trying to get rid of small add ons necessarily because it's just become apparent that though the minimum buy in to VGC is 100 pts, the total can be broken down into multiple smaller contracts.  Forgive me if someone has already mentioned this - this is a hefty thread!



bethy:  I am wondering--however--if the breaking into smaller contracts for new resorts is going to be unique to VGC or will be continued in the new Florida resorts, since most people don't tend to stay as long as DLR as WDW?  Do we know if for BLT and AKV that if people buy a total of 100 or more as an add-on if they are able to break up into smaller contracts?


----------



## BWV Dreamin

toocherie said:


> bethy: I am wondering--however--if the breaking into smaller contracts for new resorts is going to be unique to VGC or will be continued in the new Florida resorts, since most people don't tend to stay as long as DLR as WDW? Do we know if for BLT and AKV that if people buy a total of 100 or more as an add-on if they are able to break up into smaller contracts?


BLT...100 minimum contract, no multiples equaling 100. AKV, yes, you can buy a 25 pt. contract.


----------



## Sammie

tjkraz said:


> So what would be your barometer for deciding whether they are (in your words) listening or not?  We will never know if DVC is contacted by 10% of the membership or 1% or .01%.
> 
> Members should absolutely contact DVC to share concerns or suggestions regarding the program.  But remember each of us only represents one voice.  I would hope that DVC does NOT base its policy decisions on 10 emails or 100 emails or 1000 emails.



See TJ, this truly is my greatest complaint about the current management at DVC. I can appreciate that change has to happen and I can accept that not all changes will appeal to me, I am fine with that.

What I and many others have a very hard time accepting is that with the current management, when they make a change it is blamed on "member feedback".

I think that is alot of PR, BS and I ain't buying into it. I think they do what they feel is best for them, and blame it on us wanting it. And maybe sometimes, they do make a decision based on what is best for DVC in general. 

I just want them to state the truth, I can handle that. I always feel when they change something and use the canned response (member feedback) when questioned why, they feel we are not capable of understanding the real reason for change.


----------



## keishashadow

epcotwanderer said:


> I think this is a bit harsh and condescending. I am a woman and I don't think that any of DVC's problems are all because of Jim Lewis nor have anything to do with him being a man.


 
he is @ the helm

and has or should have signed off on _every single change under his watch _he is 'the man'.

as long as his measures cut expenses/r profitable as a whole, he has no worries and probably will receive a great bonus for his work, least they're not getting TARP money 

condescending is the responses that r being given particularly as to the BLT situation re add on points. especially now that those short due to new allocation would be forced to purchase another 100 pts in order to make it work or curtail the plans they so carefully crafted. Never did i think i would be happy about deciding not to add on there.


----------



## bobbiwoz

FWIW...I indicated my disatisfaction with every after villa stay that I've filled out after going to WDW for a long weekend.  They ask if you are satisfied with the "value."  I say, no, weekend points are too high.  

Bobbi


----------



## mnra

ok I have tried to find it but I can;t  so here is my question a one bedroom with mkv and lake view in july at blt how many points was it before and how many now. 

also 2 bedroom in the summer at okw and bwv 

all these would be for 7 days 
thanks


----------



## bevis

Because i'm somewhat on the fence with this issue I think i'll kind of play the "devil's advocate" here. I have to admit, though, that there is something that I keep seeing repeated over and over again that I can't quite get my mind around.
Could some of you folks please give your definition of "flexibility", with respect to your DVC ownership specifically? In other words, when you purchased, what exactly were you drawn to when you saw or heard about the flexibility of the system?


----------



## mnra

I think I found what I am looking for and find this totally hard to believe.  I own at 3 places and each one I am point short for a 2 bedroom for the magic season.  I bought 350 and okw figuring 8 night and am 7 points short their. At bwv bought 350 figuring 7 nights and 2 points their. and the worst just bought at blt and am 3 points short for two 1 bedroom units at magic season and I just bought this.  I start to wonder if management has any clue or they think we are just blind and will buy anything disney.  Yes they might have  a right to do something but you have to question the ethical nature of doing it.  Do we really think that members aren;t their best sales person.  Maybe we can all hope that they would sell each a few points if we needed it to complete our weeks since my feeling of them saying borrow from next year will turn out to be a huge mistake.  I would think that resale of small contracts would increase in price with disney move like this.  Sorry for the long rant and rave.


----------



## bethy

bevis said:


> Because i'm somewhat on the fence with this issue I think i'll kind of play the "devil's advocate" here. I have to admit, though, that there is something that I keep seeing repeated over and over again that I can't quite get my mind around.
> Could some of you folks please give your definition of "flexibility", with respect to your DVC ownership specifically? In other words, when you purchased, what exactly were you drawn to when you saw or heard about the flexibility of the system?




Not having to book a minimum of 7 days at the same place. for the same size villa for the exact same week every single year.


----------



## Chuck S

bevis said:


> Because i'm somewhat on the fence with this issue I think i'll kind of play the "devil's advocate" here. I have to admit, though, that there is something that I keep seeing repeated over and over again that I can't quite get my mind around.
> Could some of you folks please give your definition of "flexibility", with respect to your DVC ownership specifically? In other words, when you purchased, what exactly were you drawn to when you saw or heard about the flexibility of the system?



Well, since I purchased in 1992, there was only ONE DVC resort, so trading to other DVC locations wasn't part of my definition of "flexibility" at buy-in.  To me, the biggest positive was not being locked into a specific time frame or room size at DVC (now known as OKW) every year, or the same length of stay every trip and the ability to bank/borrow if one year I needed more points, others years, less.  Trading through RCI added a little to flexibility, although I've not traded out, even to another DVC resort, in all these years, but it is nice to know it is an option. 

And really, nothing about those positives of the membership has changed.


----------



## bababear_50

Just cancelled my plans for an add-on...too many changes in such a short period of time with NO notice at all.  Well guess I'll just look for another place to vacation in between my once a year Disney World trip.


----------



## WDWFAM4

I suggest sending you emails of disatifaction to:members@disneyvacationclub.com


----------



## mnra

Chuck S  I agree with most of your points but early on had much more chance for last minute trip I don;t see that being able to be done all that much.  Maybe I just need to plan way in advance but last minute trips are fun


----------



## mnra

wdwfam4 

sorry about the rant and rave  not sure they would care but had to get it out hope your weekend is good


----------



## mickeymom629

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by bevis
> Because i'm somewhat on the fence with this issue I think i'll kind of play the "devil's advocate" here. I have to admit, though, that there is something that I keep seeing repeated over and over again that I can't quite get my mind around.
> Could some of you folks please give your definition of "flexibility", with respect to your DVC ownership specifically? In other words, when you purchased, what exactly were you drawn to when you saw or heard about the flexibility of the system?
> 
> 
> Not having to book a minimum of 7 days at the same place. for the same size villa for the exact same week every single year.
> Today 04:39 PM



That's what we love,too!  I only have 200 points, and I like to use them for at least a 5 night stay a year on average.  (We have to get a 2 bedroom villa)At least I knew that we could go yearly Sun-Thurs. for 5 nights somewhere.  I am hoping to book for next December for my last time with the "old" point system which will use up most of my points, with borrowing.  

I am sad to say that if we need to bank and borrow for *every other *year vacations with the new point allocation or stay just 4 nights yearly, the dues I pay yearly will be a little more difficult to swallow.   We could definitely use our money more wisely and probably visit more often, just maybe not stay on property.

I'm glad we bought DVC, and I have not regretted our years as members - definitely the opposite!  I just hope I feel like _keeping _my membership can be justified.

And the fact that we are a family of 6, DVC made staying on property so "affordable" with great accomodations.


----------



## WolfpackFan

I hesitate to jump back into this fray, but I'm beginning to wonder if some folks aren't really overreacting to this change in a big way. At first, I was very bothered and made several posts expressing that dissatisfaction. But since then, I've changed my plans for this year and next year and the change really hasn't effected me as much as I thought. In fact, for my AKV trip it lowered my points somewhat since I did plan on staying on Friday and Saturday nights. What I've come to realize is we'll just have to change our trip plans. We may not go as often, but when we do go we'll just stay longer. That's not a bad thing seeing as we will save on transportation costs, food, etc. The change really only effected our HHI plans in a significant manner and that's because we only have an 80 pt. contract. What I'll end up doing is just using our HHI pts. for fewer nights and then augment them with our other points at 7 months. If I can't get a ressie, then we'll just stay as long as we can with the points we have. I see now that these changes were made for a good reason - to make the system more equitable for everyone and I really can't argue with that and who knows maybe it will make it easier to get reservations in general, because people might be taking fewer trips like we are.


----------



## bwvBound

bevis said:


> Could some of you folks please give your definition of "flexibility", with respect to your DVC ownership specifically? In other words, when you purchased, what exactly were you drawn to when you saw or heard about the flexibility of the system?


Highlights for me: the ability to choose any arrival day of the week, any length of stay, any size unit, any season ... at any of the DVC resorts with the option to bank/borrow points across use years.


----------



## DisDaydreamer

bwvBound said:


> Highlights for me: the ability to choose any arrival day of the week, any length of stay, any size unit, any season ... at any of the DVC resorts with the option to bank/borrow points across use years.



Haven't been following this thread for very many pages, but when I saw Hope posting I had to take a look.... Well said.  I think probably length of stay is the greatest feature.  Many timeshares work only in weeks.


----------



## Capn Dave

I agree that DVC should have been more forthcoming about the point changes. I have also read on this thread that a number of people are happy with the reallocation. Unfortunately it affected me negatively for the times of the year we like to vacation.
I would like to see DVC publish a breakdown by resort of which weeks went up and which went down. I then could determine easily if I could take advantage of the point decreases. I know I can look at the 2010 point chart and compare it to the 2009 but a simple spreadsheet highlighting the changes would make it easier to read.
I would also like to see the point allocation per resort to ascertain that the total point value did not change.


----------



## jekjones1558

> I know I can look at the 2010 point chart and compare it to the 2009 but a simple spreadsheet highlighting the changes would make it easier to read.



Capn dave,
Have you seen this?:
http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081
Not a spreadsheet but I like the sideXside.


----------



## Dean

hoodedrooster said:


> First, I added all of the annual points for a year for studio, 1 BR, and 2 BR at BCV for 2009 and then for 2010.  The difference is 3 more total points for 2010 as compared to 2009.  Although this is only 3 points, it is more and not what Disney said.
> 
> Second, according to the Public Offering Statement for BCV, the maximum number of points for at least one use day for 2 BR is 46.  In other words, Disney must allow for at least one day per year at no more than 46 points.  It also goes on the say that at some point in the future, all seasons and days may have the same point requirement.  If all days had the a point requirement of 46 for all seasons throughout the year, the total points would be slightly less than that for 2010 total.  In other words, the worst case reallocation scenario that Disney could have in strategic plan is to balance out at around 46 points per night for all nights in a year.


First, you have to ignore lockoff smaller units.  Then you have to figure out the points for each day for each unit type and for the number of units in that cat. for each day of the year.  It will not be zero, nor will it be the same each year.  



tidefan said:


> Can you imagine if you were one of the poor saps at HGVC that paid $12,000 to $15,000 for a week you could get for less than your maintenance fees?  I stayed at the Sea World HGVC in a 1 Bdrm last year in March for a conference that was down the road and I paid less than $100/night.


Overall HGVC is a good system with as tight or tighter control over ROFR than DVC from what I've heard.  Still, I stayed 7 nights at the I-Drive location for about $300 in a 2 BR.



bobbiwoz said:


> Can DVC change so that a week's stay is mandatory?  We did a HGVC presentation, and I know they mentioned "points" because there a Friday, Saturday and Sunday night cost more than the other nights.  We bought DVC not because we wanted a timeshare but because we wanted to stay on site at WDW ( and VB too!) and DVC has enabled us to do that with so many of our DFamily/Friends for a very reasonable amount of money compared to what each vacation would cost us through CRO.
> 
> Bobbi


Likely not without a vote.  But they could give priority to a full weeks stay and there are other ways they could encourage stays that are more favorable to a full week or at least the weekend.


----------



## Dean

mickeymom629 said:


> Well, there are definitely differences in "historical demands" for different *seasons*, so I don't see why they couldn't have just adjusted the points for certain weeks and not others.  That's why they have different points during different seasons to begin with.


They could have but it seems that with limited exceptions, they felt the weekend vs weekday issue was the big problem.  I'm sure they were up against the 20% max change as well.  Thus we may or may not see another change in 2-4 years.



BroganMc said:


> SSR has dedicated 2bedrooms with 2 queens as well. That's why I calculated the dedicated 2bedrooms differently from lockoffs. But Dean insists they should be considered the same.
> 
> I'm reading my contracts too and it still doesn't add up. If you count all 2bedroom configurations the same then the total point count for the resort goes down significantly (by several thousand). If you count lockoffs and dedicateds separately then the total point count goes up significantly. The balance just isn't there which is why so many people are reporting a loss. You'd think if it was balanced then while you'd take a shorter trip one season (or go to a smaller unit), you could increase the length or unit size of a trip a different season. But that's just not happening.
> 
> I'd love to see the numbers DVC used for calculating total points in a resort and how those reallocated charts come to a 0 difference. Any increase, no matter how minimal, is a direct violation of the contract. Any decrease seems like it would be shortchanging the program at large.


The points for an entire year for every unit for a base year of 1992 (likely the one used for OKW and all else) is 14074776 points, with the change, the points would be 14075811 for that same year.  True it's not zero but I don't think it has to be to meet the intent of this requirement.  As for the lockoff issue, go to the demand balancing portion of the POS for SSR and see it doesn't list only 2 & 3 BR units plus the THV possibly if you have a new one.  From a practical approach they couldn't do it all as lockoffs separately as they would have oversold those resorts.  The only other ways to do so would be all not locked off or a fixed percentage and there's no indication in the legalities of that approach but there is for none locked off in the rebalancing referenced above.

Here's the FL statutes pertaining to this subject.


> Prior to offering the multisite timeshare plan, the developer shall create the reservation system and shall establish rules and regulations for its operation. In establishing these rules and regulations, the developer shall take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand of each component site that he or she intends to offer as a part of the plan and shall use his or her best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the purchasers of the plan as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the accommodations and facilities of the plan. The rules and regulations shall also provide for periodic adjustment or amendment of the reservation system by the managing entity from time to time in order to respond to actual purchaser use patterns and changes in purchaser use demand for the accommodations and facilities existing at that time within the plan. The person authorized to make additions and substitutions during the term of the multisite timeshare plan shall also comply with the requirements of this subsection in ascertaining the desirability of the proposed addition, substitution, adjustment, or amendment and the impact of same upon the demand for and availability of existing plan accommodations and facilities.


----------



## Dean

dcfromva said:


> I keep seeing folks mention DVC's legal responsibility is to balance demand.
> But, then there are folks who have said it has been unbalanced for years and DVC didn't want "to take the heat".    BCV came on line in 2002, SSR in 2004, AKV in 2008 and BLT in 2009....  All sold with points seemingly "out of balance".  And, what about AKV and BLT-points changing before occupancy has been established?
> 
> I do not believe the points have been out of balance all this time and DVC has been shirking their legal responsibility.   (BTW,  for whatever reason, nearly everytime I try to make a reservation for the weekend at less than 7 months, I end up on the W-L).  I do not believe these recent point adjustments are for "seasonal" demand based on occupancy, either, as called out in the contract. (Or, they wouldn't be adjusting AKV and BLT)


What I've said is it was a problem and was slowly getting worse.  The fact they delayed doesn't change the appropriateness of the change regardless, only the judgement of the people making the decisions.



Sammie said:


> See TJ, this truly is my greatest complaint about the current management at DVC. I can appreciate that change has to happen and I can accept that not all changes will appeal to me, I am fine with that.
> 
> What I and many others have a very hard time accepting is that with the current management, when they make a change it is blamed on "member feedback".
> 
> I think that is alot of PR, BS and I ain't buying into it. I think they do what they feel is best for them, and blame it on us wanting it. And maybe sometimes, they do make a decision based on what is best for DVC in general.
> 
> I just want them to state the truth, I can handle that. I always feel when they change something and use the canned response (member feedback) when questioned why, they feel we are not capable of understanding the real reason for change.


It's not like they have to justify this change other than to say it's related to member demand.  My guess is they didn't press in that area simply because they're not willing to share the numbers.  However, Member Feedback is a very broad term.  Usage patterns are a lot more accurate member feedback than are compiled complaints or surveys and the term is very accurate used in that context IMO.



WolfpackFan said:


> I hesitate to jump back into this fray, but I'm beginning to wonder if some folks aren't really overreacting to this change in a big way.


You think?  IMO the personal affect should have no impact on one's thoughts as to the reasonableness of the change.  That's different than being disappointed if the reasonable change costs one more points, which I totally understand as it will also cost me more.

Everyone will have a different definition of flexible, you could end up with a 50 count list easily.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

DisDaydreamer said:


> Haven't been following this thread for very many pages, but when I saw Hope posting I had to take a look.... Well said.  I think probably length of stay is the greatest feature.  Many timeshares work only in weeks.


 
Hi Rob!


----------



## gracelrm

Well, I read 72 pages and decided I could never make it to the end.  Good thing I've been off work the past 4 days due to ice & snow or I'd never gotten that much read!  I'm glad there are so many people on these boards to explain the things that will likely never be explained by DVC.  Sunday when I first got wind of all of this, I couldn't for the life of me figure out why dvc would do this - but so many of you have made me understand why it's happening.  I don't necessarily like it, but it makes sense.  We usually stay at wdw for an entire week during the summer, so the changes for us are minimal.  However, most years during our fall break we go to HH, VB or sometimes to WDW.  We can't really stay an entire week during fall break because of ballgames/marching band/etc so our points needed will increase.  Fortunately, we didn't purchase points based upon going the same time each year - we bought a round number that we could afford.  I think that's what makes the changes a little easier for us to take - we weren't set on a certain week.  Several times throughout the 8 years we've owned, I've wished for a few more points than what we currently have.  DH has always just said, we'd just always borrow and then in 2042 - we wouldn't have any points and that would be okay cause I'd be 79 and he'd be 81.  I guess that's how we'll survive this increase in points.  

I do hate that so many people have had their plans messed up.  Maybe enough emails and letters will make DVC keep this in mind in the future and make any changes known with at least an 18 month or more notice.


----------



## mickeymom629

> *I'm all set now, as long as I reserve every room for the entire year, everything will be exactly the same. Anyone want to transfer me some points, I'm a little short. *



   Thanks for the first good chuckle I've had since this thread began!


----------



## codina818

I have been looking at the new points charts and it seems that there are no cheap 5 day stays anymore...

What happened is that the 8 point studios have disappeared... it used to be 5 nights X 8 = 40 points.... no longer.

now the cheapest (excluding AKV value) is 45 points.

Same with most other 5 night studio stays... they go up at least 5 points for Sun-Fri. 5 night stay.

Looks to me like DVC has raised the minimum number of points for any stay..

in fact, 4 night X 12 points stays were less than 50 points.... poof.. gone now for most resorts, now it is 4 x 13 = 52... so those 50 point contracts are not good for a yearly stay... and a 25 point contract won't give you a 4 night stay every two years.

Looks like a price hike to me.


----------



## disneykidatheart

If I have learned anything from reading this thread, it is that emotions are running very high on the recent unveiling of the 2010 points charts. The timing can certainly be seen as suspect and we will likely never know if it was by accident or design.  I absolutely empathize with those of you that made recent purchases and find yourselves short of points and hopefully DVC will offer an olive branch with a workable solution for you.

  I think it would be difficult to state emphatically what was said or not said at the DVC tour.  And that would be especially true after time has passed. Our heads were spinning with details after my husband and I took our tour.  Yes, we carried home our packet of papers for perusal fully convinced we would be signing on the Palm tree lines.  We read through the entire packet.  As soon as we arrived home there came an impending threat of retirement for my husband, who at 53 was not yet ready to be put out to pasture.  We decided we would not sign the papers and wait until we were ready to make a commitment that may be based on retirement.  

   I soon found the DIS boards and learned tons and tons and tons of information.  I could not say for sure now what I learned at the tour and what I  learned on the boards.  I always knew that points could be reallocated but always thought it would only pertain to seasonal changes.  I only heard much later that OKW had a reallocation in the 90's.

   Although the threat of retirement passed, our fervor for DVC did not subside and I found the resale market.  I haunted it for a few months until I found a 76 point contract that would allow us to get our feet wet.  Since 76 points is not a lot we found the beauty of being able to use the S-TH booking.  We supplemented our stay with weekend trips to Naples to visit relatives and were extremely happy with our onsite Disney stays.  It was only a short matter of time before that was not enough for us.  My husband soon tired of moving around and supported another purchase after the visit in which we moved four times.  We continued to buy more small contracts through resale until we now have an amount that allows a couple trips per year.   (By the way,  even though we paid closing costs for four of those five contracts, we still came out ahead of buying through Disney.  Time was never a factor for us and the purchases always worked out well, even though one was with a seller from the UK--but that is another thread).  Our trips gradually added a weekend night  and once, a full week stay.  I am pretty well sold now on staying put for as long as possible.  We don't travel at peak times.  I don't call at the eleven month mark, and not even usually at the 7 month mark.  I have never had a problem getting the dates I needed.

   So, our situation changed in a few short years.  While my husband still worked, the S-TH system worked.  We were able to get a vacation in and he could do it with minimal time off from work.  My husband retired in October and now we are able to travel without the pressure of being home on a timetable.  Now the weekly stays will work out more to our advantage.

   I have been a bit wistful when I hear that in the past there were other perks such as park passes.  Now I guess I am happy that I don't really know what I missed.  The Disney DVC I know is the Disney DVC it was when I purchased nearly five years ago.  I can't worry about what came before.  I still love coming and staying onsite.  The magic is still here for me.  I still feel very fortunate I can travel at all.  There will always be changes.  I may not agree with them nor like them.  But I have to believe that in the end the changes are made for the betterment of DVC as a whole.   When the magic is gone I will consider selling my contracts and moving on.

  I would love to have the points charts stay the same as before but, being a pragmatic person, I can understand the need for a realignment of points.  I have to think--What is better-being hit with a plank between the eyes once or having toothpicks shot into my eyes every couple of years?  I vote for the plank.  I will get over it and move on.  Having said that, I hope the charts won't continue to be changed.  

   Think of it this way.  DVC published the 2010 charts as a rollout for their new theme for 2009 which will be known as "The year of a million screams".


----------



## dcfromva

disneykidatheart said:


> Think of it this way.  DVC published the 2010 charts as a rollout for their new theme for 2009 which will be known as "The year of a million screams".


----------



## Pig Pen

YAY!  

Now I do not have to split my stay at a value to conserve weekend points...AND when I move to FL I can do weekend trips and not deplete my points as quickly.

Thanks DVC!


----------



## Dean

codina818 said:


> I have been looking at the new points charts and it seems that there are no cheap 5 day stays anymore...
> 
> What happened is that the 8 point studios have disappeared... it used to be 5 nights X 8 = 40 points.... no longer.
> 
> now the cheapest (excluding AKV value) is 45 points.
> 
> Same with most other 5 night studio stays... they go up at least 5 points for Sun-Fri. 5 night stay.
> 
> Looks to me like DVC has raised the minimum number of points for any stay..
> 
> in fact, 4 night X 12 points stays were less than 50 points.... poof.. gone now for most resorts, now it is 4 x 13 = 52... so those 50 point contracts are not good for a yearly stay... and a 25 point contract won't give you a 4 night stay every two years.
> 
> Looks like a price hike to me.


Not for any stay, just for the stays you are looking at.



mickeymom629 said:


> Thanks for the first good chuckle I've had since this thread began!


Too bad, I've had a bunch.


----------



## TisBit

gracelrm said:


> Fortunately, we didn't purchase points based upon going the same time each year - we bought a round number that we could afford.  I think that's what makes the changes a little easier for us to take - we weren't set on a certain week.



I think that is a pretty key statement.  We are in the same boat, we bought an amount that we felt comfortable with and use the points as they are available and what time of year we want to go.  

I would venture to say that most members who bought and are not DVC experts did the same thing.  This change is easy for the people that have an allotment of points and didn't buy to be able to go for a specific time every year.

Maybe the new advice to prospective members is to pad their contract with 5-10 extra points, with banking and borrowing you will always use them and won't get caught short.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Dean said:


> Not for any stay, just for the stays you are looking at.
> 
> Too bad, I've had a bunch.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

WolfpackFan said:


> I hesitate to jump back into this fray, but I'm beginning to wonder if some folks aren't really overreacting to this change in a big way.


 Well, this site had thousands of posts wailing about the switch from check-out-day to check-in-day reservations. And that's turned out to be a non-issue (if not an improvement).

Compared to that, the reaction to the change in point charts - which will hurt a lot of people even if its a good idea - seems tame


----------



## jfinke

TisBit said:


> I think that is a pretty key statement.  We are in the same boat, we bought an amount that we felt comfortable with and use the points as they are available and what time of year we want to go.
> 
> I would venture to say that most members who bought and are not DVC experts did the same thing.  This change is easy for the people that have an allotment of points and didn't buy to be able to go for a specific time every year.
> 
> Maybe the new advice to prospective members is to pad their contract with 5-10 extra points, with banking and borrowing you will always use them and won't get caught short.



I agree...  We bought the minimum of 150 at SSR before it opened.  If we have them, we use them.  If we don't, we don't.  Sometimes we stay in a 1br and bank and borrow.  Sometimes we stay in a studio and go multiple times.

I think that something else which has helped is that between the crowd levels,  Disney's ability to have alternative events in slow periods (F&WF, Marathon, Cheerleaders, Pop Warner, etc.), and other reasons our desire to go to WDW is less and less every year (though we keep getting pulled back in, partly thanks to DVC).  We have also discovered other vacation opportunities such as cruising, which provides a nice relaxing alternative.


----------



## newgeneb

Has anyone looked at the Cruise charts points are way up on some - I dont like the changes but will have to deal with it - I feel sorry for new buyers and I think DVC did a very bad job on the PR


----------



## Anal Annie

newgeneb said:


> Has anyone looked at the Cruise charts points are way up on some - I dont like the changes but will have to deal with it - I feel sorry for new buyers and I think DVC did a very bad job on the PR



 I looked only at a 4 nighter in July to compare to ours from last summer.   A Cat 10 for 3 ppl was up 81 points over what we used for July 2008.  But it had gone up like 65 points already for 2009...so the biggest chunk of that increase was actually already in there.  It only went up 16 points from July 2009 to 2010.  But I think an 81 point increase over 2 years is pretty steep tho for the same month, same length of cruise, same category etc.  I believe we have done our last cruise on points.


----------



## Chuck S

Don't forget that non-DVC points, including cruises and non-DVC resorts are not limited as to the amount of annual increase or decrease at all, they _could_ legally double or triple year to year, for all categories and resorts.

The only limits are on DVC resorts.  And Disney has some pretty broad legal rights, as well as some legal obligations, there.  For instance, they are *obligated* to adjust the point charts if demand changes, they have no choice under law.  But they _could_ also restrict us to using our points only at our home resort (unlikely but possible) and/or institute a minimum required stay,  suspend banking/borrowing, or close/remove/add amenities unless those amenities are part of the timeshare.


----------



## bethy

I'm reviewing my VGC paperwork and I will say that it says over and over and in multiple places and sometimes even in bold print that the point charts can be reallocated in response to demand and usage patterns.  Maybe I'm reading it with extra care due to the recent changes but it's pretty darned hard to miss.


----------



## tjkraz

Sammie said:


> See TJ, this truly is my greatest complaint about the current management at DVC. I can appreciate that change has to happen and I can accept that not all changes will appeal to me, I am fine with that.
> 
> What I and many others have a very hard time accepting is that with the current management, when they make a change it is blamed on "member feedback".



It depends upon the circumstances.  If Disney had raised the price of soda or swapped our AP discount for a 5% off MYW passes and attributed it to "member feedback", then I think we all would be raising our eyebrows.   

But in this case, is there really room to doubt that people have been asking for lower weekend points for *years*?  I bet that between the Guides giving sales presentations and the 100+ MS reps manning the telephone bank, they probably hear these comments a couple dozen times per day.  Heck, I have probably made the comment to a DVC rep myself somewhere along the way.  

So I have little reason to doubt the accuracy of DVC's claim.  As for how many members realized that lower weekends means higher weekdays, I think some of the comments in this thread speak volumes.


----------



## Anal Annie

tjkraz said:


> It depends upon the circumstances.  If Disney had raised the price of soda or swapped our AP discount for a 5% off MYW passes and attributed it to "member feedback", then I think we all would be raising our eyebrows.



I certainly hope DVC realizes that the AP discount is one of the reasons many DVC'ers make multiple trips in one year.  I know that's why we were hoping to plan 3 trips from Aug '09 - Aug '10.  Now with the increase in points we may only do 2 trips...if they dropped the AP discount that would for sure seal the deal for us to not go as often.  I know it's only a perk, but it's a big incentive to go more frequently.  I wasn't going to order our AP's for awhile yet since we don't go until August...but I am thinking more & more about just going ahead & ordering them when we get our taxes done "just in case" that's the other shoe that's yet to drop.  I would hope they'd give us more than a days notice on it but given their ways of late I wouldn't put it past them to just slip that one in under the rug on the website too without any real notice.  Hummmmm.   I do not trust them.


----------



## tjkraz

Anal Annie said:


> I certainly hope DVC realizes that the AP discount is one of the reasons many DVC'ers make multiple trips in one year.  I know that's why we were hoping to plan 3 trips from Aug '09 - Aug '10.  Now with the increase in points we may only do 2 trips...if they dropped the AP discount that would for sure seal the deal for us to not go as often.  I know it's only a perk, but it's a big incentive to go more frequently.  I wasn't going to order our AP's for awhile yet since we don't go until August...but I am thinking more & more about just going ahead & ordering them when we get our taxes done "just in case" that's the other shoe that's yet to drop.  I would hope they'd give us more than a days notice on it but given their ways of late I wouldn't put it past them to just slip that one in under the rug on the website too without any real notice.  Hummmmm.



Just to clarify, I wasn't in any way suggesting that the AP discount is on its way out.  I was just using that as the basis for an analogy.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

tjkraz said:


> It depends upon the circumstances.  If Disney had raised the price of soda or swapped our AP discount for a 5% off MYW passes and attributed it to "member feedback", then I think we all would be raising our eyebrows.


 You mean like when Disney removed tips and appetizers from the dinning plan to meet customer requests?


----------



## Anal Annie

tjkraz said:


> Just to clarify, I wasn't in any way suggesting that the AP discount is on its way out.  I was just using that as the basis for an analogy.



I realize that.  Go ahead...call me paranoid, but I think from what we've seen happen lately, losing the AP discount is something we should brace ourselves for at any time.  I am sure they have had many requests for them to stop it.   Just as I am sure many members request for them to stop allowing night by night ressies and go to a week long system.  I do not think for a minute that member satisfaction is behind any of their short or long-term goals.  I am sure it is ONLY the bottom line that matters to any of the suits at DVC.


----------



## BroganMc

tjkraz said:


> But in this case, is there really room to doubt that people have been asking for lower weekend points for *years*?  I bet that between the Guides giving sales presentations and the 100+ MS reps manning the telephone bank, they probably hear these comments a couple dozen times per day.  Heck, I have probably made the comment to a DVC rep myself somewhere along the way.
> 
> So I have little reason to doubt the accuracy of DVC's claim.  As for how many members realized that lower weekends means higher weekdays, I think some of the comments in this thread speak volumes.



Hmm, I wonder exactly how DVC counted a member comment. For instance, when I opted to pay cash for a weekend night and save my points for more cheaper weekdays, was that considered a request for a cheaper weekend night?

Just for the record, I have no problem balancing a weekly chart with nightly point totals. I have a HUGE problem with changing weekly totals, especially when they aren't lowered in another season to make up the difference. Taking large numbers of points off Grand Villas and shoving them on the more populous (and reachable) studios is a gross insult to "meeting member concerns".


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> Hmm, I wonder exactly how DVC counted a member comment. For instance, when I opted to pay cash for a weekend night and save my points for more cheaper weekdays, was that considered a request for a cheaper weekend night?
> 
> Just for the record, I have no problem balancing a weekly chart with nightly point totals. I have a HUGE problem with changing weekly totals, especially when they aren't lowered in another season to make up the difference. Taking large numbers of points off Grand Villas and shoving them on the more populous (and reachable) studios is a gross insult to "meeting member concerns".


I would certainly count members actions louder than words and interpret that any member staying on points weekdays but cash weekends as a vote for lower weekends.  Interesting that the change in 1996 did exactly that.  It lowered GV significantly while increasing essentially one season.  While the increase in adventure season was to both weekdays and weekend, the end result was that both were increased though weekdays higher than weekends overall on a % basis.


----------



## DVC92

One thing I fail to understand is why some think that DVC is under a legal obligation to balance demand. In reviewing my POS, it clearly states that reservations are on a first come, first serve basis. If you don't get your desired booking, too bad. It also states that the reallocation, limited to 20%/year, to balance demand is a discretionary power of DVC, not a mandatory one. It goes on to state that there are a maximum number of points that can ever be required to stay in a particular room (i.e., studio, 1 bedroom, etc.) on any given day.

That being said, if DVC truly is trying to balance demand, then subsequent reallocations will occur yearly until weekdays/weekends are balanced however unfair that might be to minimum point purchasers of which I am not. This one time reallocation will not influence or allow members, particularly those who purchased a minimum # of points (e.g., 160), to book on weekends which still require substantially more points. However, this reallocation will allow such members to make a minimum add-on of 25 points to continue going only Sun-Thurs. and will force any new buyers to purchase more points if they only are attempting to book weekdays. If DVC doesn't institute further reallocations, then I believe this was their motive.


----------



## dzorn

DVC92 said:


> One thing I fail to understand is why some think that DVC is under a legal obligation to balance demand. In reviewing my POS, it clearly states that reservations are on a first come, first serve basis. If you don't get your desired booking, too bad. It also states that the reallocation, limited to 20%/year, to balance demand is a discretionary power of DVC, not a mandatory one. It goes on to state that there are a maximum number of points that can ever be required to stay in a particular room (i.e., studio, 1 bedroom, etc.) on any given day.
> 
> That being said, if DVC truly is trying to balance demand, then subsequent reallocations will occur yearly until weekdays/weekends are balanced however unfair that might be to minimum point purchasers of which I am not. This one time reallocation will not influence or allow members, particularly those who purchased a minimum # of points (e.g., 160), to book on weekends which still require substantially more points. However, this reallocation will allow such members to make a minimum add-on of 25 points to continue going only Sun-Thurs. and will force any new buyers to purchase more points if they only are attempting to book weekdays. If DVC doesn't institute further reallocations, then I believe this was their motive.



It is under Florida time share laws that require rebalancing of the system. The exact link has been posted several times on this thead.

Denise in MI


----------



## DVC92

dzorn said:


> It is under Florida time share laws that require rebalancing of the system. The exact link has been posted several times on this thead.
> 
> Denise in MI



Can you link me to the statute?


----------



## LVSWL

Dean said:


> I would certainly count members actions louder than words and interpret that any member staying on points weekdays but cash weekends as a vote for lower weekends.  Interesting that the change in 1996 did exactly that.  It lowered GV significantly while increasing essentially one season.  While the increase in adventure season was to both weekdays and weekend, the end result was that both were increased though weekdays higher than weekends overall on a % basis.


I don't agree that to interpret any member staying on points weekdays but cash on weekends is a vote for lower weekends. Maybe, that member just would like to take more trips with their points, and using a smaller amount for each trip would allow them to take two trips instead of just one, or three instead of two. Now with the points higher, that may not be a possibility. It is not as though Disney made the weekend points equal and that member could travel on the weekend now, those points are still considerably higher.


----------



## DVC92

Under section 721.13 of the Statutes, it states the managing entity has the following duty: "(g)  Scheduling occupancy of the timeshare units, when purchasers are not entitled to use specific timeshare periods, so that all purchasers will be provided the use and possession of the accommodations and facilities of the timeshare plan which they have purchased."

I don't believe that requires all nights to have equal points.


----------



## Dean

DVC92 said:


> One thing I fail to understand is why some think that DVC is under a legal obligation to balance demand. In reviewing my POS, it clearly states that reservations are on a first come, first serve basis. If you don't get your desired booking, too bad. It also states that the reallocation, limited to 20%/year, to balance demand is a discretionary power of DVC, not a mandatory one. It goes on to state that there are a maximum number of points that can ever be required to stay in a particular room (i.e., studio, 1 bedroom, etc.) on any given day.
> 
> That being said, if DVC truly is trying to balance demand, then subsequent reallocations will occur yearly until weekdays/weekends are balanced however unfair that might be to minimum point purchasers of which I am not. This one time reallocation will not influence or allow members, particularly those who purchased a minimum # of points (e.g., 160), to book on weekends which still require substantially more points. However, this reallocation will allow such members to make a minimum add-on of 25 points to continue going only Sun-Thurs. and will force any new buyers to purchase more points if they only are attempting to book weekdays. If DVC doesn't institute further reallocations, then I believe this was their motive.


I think this section from FL chapter 721 implies the requirement as does the POS in general but it will not spell out that it MUST be done or at what level.



> (6)  Prior to offering the multisite timeshare plan, the developer shall create the reservation system and shall establish rules and regulations for its operation. In establishing these rules and regulations, the developer shall take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand of each component site that he or she intends to offer as a part of the plan and shall use his or her best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the purchasers of the plan as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the accommodations and facilities of the plan. The rules and regulations shall also provide for periodic adjustment or amendment of the reservation system by the managing entity from time to time in order to respond to actual purchaser use patterns and changes in purchaser use demand for the accommodations and facilities existing at that time within the plan. The person authorized to make additions and substitutions during the term of the multisite timeshare plan shall also comply with the requirements of this subsection in ascertaining the desirability of the proposed addition, substitution, adjustment, or amendment and the impact of same upon the demand for and availability of existing plan accommodations and facilities.





LVSWL said:


> I don't agree that to interpret any member staying on points weekdays but cash on weekends is a vote for lower weekends. Maybe, that member just would like to take more trips with their points, and using a smaller amount for each trip would allow them to take two trips instead of just one, or three instead of two. Now with the points higher, that may not be a possibility. It is not as though Disney made the weekend points equal and that member could travel on the weekend now, those points are still considerably higher.


The issue isn't what an individual wants but what really happens.  Maybe that member didn't want lower weekends, maybe they'd prefer lower weekdays.  But actions speak louder than words and if your actions are that you stay weekdays and not weekends on points, you're creating a push toward a change.  In an ideal system there would be someone else to push back the other way and it would all even out, not so with DVC it appears.  Hopefully going forward this change will be enough to even out usage.  It might or might not, we'll see.  I's entirely possible you'll need another similar change in a few years.



DVC92 said:


> Can you link me to the statute?


FL Chapter 721
FL Admin Code for timeshares .  The way it works is the Statutes are the law and the rules further define the statutes but must be c/w them.  If order to write a rule you must have the specific authority to do so under the statute.


----------



## NJ Mets fan

they could raise the number of points for a full week in magic season at the Boardwalk from 350 to 352 points in 2010.  I came pretty close to buying 350 points so I could go every year during this season.  I thought they could not change the point charts.  I guess technically I could have kept borrowing the extra 2 points each year but what keeps them from raising the number of points even more???  I'm a new member so maybe there is something I'm not aware of.


----------



## dandave

Hi! DVC is allowed to arrange the points, as needed. They just can't change the grand total per resort.

There's a thread for this info here:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2066946


----------



## NJ Mets fan

Thanks - I should have known there would be a thread on this.  I have to agree with the majority of people in that I don't like the changes.


----------



## MELSMICE

LVSWL said:


> I don't agree that to interpret any member staying on points weekdays but cash on weekends is a vote for lower weekends. Maybe, that member just would like to take more trips with their points, and using a smaller amount for each trip would allow them to take two trips instead of just one, or three instead of two. Now with the points higher, that may not be a possibility. It is not as though Disney made the weekend points equal and that member could travel on the weekend now, those points are still considerably higher.



This is why we prefer not to say at DVC on weekends.......saving points for future trips during the same year, while also being able to experience different resorts.


----------



## mickeymom629

> The issue isn't what an individual wants but what really happens. Maybe that member didn't want lower weekends, maybe they'd prefer lower weekdays. But actions speak louder than words and if your actions are that you stay weekdays and not weekends on points, you're creating a push toward a change. In an ideal system there would be someone else to push back the other way and it would all even out, not so with DVC it appears. Hopefully going forward this change will be enough to even out usage. It might or might not, we'll see. I's entirely possible you'll need another similar change in a few years.



The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights.  They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the *worse* and DVC did _not_ speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.  

The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.

That's the way I see it.


----------



## tjkraz

The reallocation is based upon simple economic theory--supply and demand.  

You can't price all nights identically because demand varies.  Certain seasons are in greater demand so you charge a higher price to lower that demand.  Christmas or Easter weeks would be a prime example. 

Other weeks are in lower demand so you discount in order to increase demand.  

The same holds true for days of the week.  Weekends have the highest baseline demand due to interest by both weeklong vacationers and weekenders.  So the weekend prices should be higher than weekdays.  

The problem was that DVC set the weekends TOO HIGH in the first place.  The points were prohibitively high and the only way to lower them was to raise other days.  

If the point costs were identical for every night of the year, a Two Bedroom at Saratoga Springs would cost 41 points per night.  The fact that DVC is charging 31 points per weeknight (Choice Season) in 2010 illustrates the fact that the points are still discounted to adjust for demand.  A weekend is 48 points during the same season, which is done to limit what would otherwise be excessive demand for weekend reservations.


----------



## BroganMc

mickeymom629 said:


> The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights.  They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the *worse* and DVC did _not_ speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.
> 
> The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.
> 
> That's the way I see it.



Well said. I personally think what DVC did was to actually make the system more unworkable and weekends even less desirable to members. It also created an instability where there wasn't one. In that, I mean changing weekly totals after so many years and with so many sold out resorts means that many members now are short points for a week. That in itself creates unrest among the membership. Talk of being able to do it again and make that imbalance even greater just jeopardizes the program's trust issues even more.

Of course, there are those here who argue DVC had legal rights and reasons to do what they did. And there are some who benefitted positively from the change (i.e. weekend warriors). The question to me is not if DVC had the right to reallocate but whether what they did was a wise thing overall. Was it truly beneficial to membership?

I know if I had purchased 350 points at BWV with the intention of taking the family down every Spring or Summer, I'd be hopping mad right now to find my contract is now worth less.

Let me put it this way, the wise thing for DVC to have done would have been to redistribute the weekly points but kept the weekly totals the same. They should also have announced this change the end of last year when BLT started selling. At least a warning that points were being reallocated. Barring all that, they should at least offer members of the currently selling resorts a promotion to do small add-ons to make up the difference. Leaving BLT owners hanging out to dry with that bogus 100 pt minimum add-on screams unethical.


----------



## tjkraz

BroganMc said:


> The question to me is not if DVC had the right to reallocate but whether what they did was a wise thing overall. Was it truly beneficial to membership?



I don't see where they had any other choice.  

The foundation of DVC is 100% year-round occupancy.  If DVC is looking at trends where weekday rooms are filling up 10-11 months out while weekends are sitting empty, adjustments have to be made.  For the last 3-4 years members have openly talked about how reservations are much more difficult to come by.  Most often it was attributed to SSR coming on line and all members getting more paranoid about securing reservations.  In hindsight, I suspect an even greater influence was the consistent flow of people buying points exclusively for weekday use.  As time went on we had more and more people competing for the limited supply of weekday reservations. 



> Let me put it this way, the wise thing for DVC to have done would have been to redistribute the weekly points but kept the weekly totals the same.



Easier said than done.  When you are reducing 2 nights and trying to spread the points over 5, the numbers are rarely balanced.  

Look at SSR 2B Magic Season.  The 2009 numbers are 36 pts weekday, 68 weekend and 316 weekly.  

For 2010 the weekend points were reduced by 9 per night.  That's 18 total points.  How do you spread 18 points over 5 weeknights and still keep the weekly totals the same?  You don't.  So the weekly cost went up 2 points.  

Most of the variances are of a similar 1-4 point swing.  There are a very small number of larger variances, but I assume they are warranted by booking trends at the resort.


----------



## Pootle

mickeymom629 said:


> The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights.  They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!"



I mostly stayed Sun-Thursday too and it *will* change my pattern.  I *will* now pay for the occasional weekend stay with points rather than cash.

Congratulations to Dean and tjkraz especially for sticking with this thread and pointing out the obvious and not-so-obvious angles without emotion and with great common sense.  It's been an interesting read


----------



## jakenjess

mickeymom629 said:


> The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights.  They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the *worse* and DVC did _not_ speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.
> 
> The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.
> 
> That's the way I see it.



At this point that's EXACTLY how I see it playing out for us.  We may add one weekend night, but overall we'll stay fewer days on Disney property.   No matter how you slice it, it's more points for us.  This may also impact whether we buy APs.  We always were able to stretch our points and get a couple (or even three) trips on one AP, but that looks doubtful now.  I may go for the 10-day nonexpire, as our trips will now be fewer and farther between.


----------



## Dean

mickeymom629 said:


> The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights.  They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the *worse* and DVC did _not_ speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.
> 
> The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.
> 
> That's the way I see it.


Only time will tell for certain and it will take us a long time to know in all likelihood since we will have indirect info at best to judge ourselves.  However, the issue isn't what a given member will do but what the membership overall will do.  There will likely be some that don't have the points and may have LESS points stays over time OR stay less days on points when they do.  There will be others that have enough points (now or in the future) and WILL stay over the weekend and others still that will stay long weekends due to this change (or around 9 days with 2 weekends). Some have those visit habits now even with the higher weekends, more will with the change.  The only way to change everyone's stay is to structure the options in such a way that it's really only feasible to stay over the weekend or a full week but I don't really see that happening.  Remember, you don't have to change everyone's habits, just a percentage.  And if this change isn't enough, you'll likely see another shift if a few years.  

For sake of discussion, lets assume for a minute that those who currently stay S-F will not change their habits in any way except as this change forces them and that they will not buy any more points.  As a minimum, you've freed up around 10% or more of the weekdays for other members to use and these days will more likely be Sundays and Fridays, thus they're more likely to stay over a weekend as well since their points will now go further.  Thus this change will have at least some of the desired effect even if it doesn't change the approach of any S-F type members.  But as I've noted, I have been one of those S-F members and it will change my approach for some trips.



> The question to me is not if DVC had the right to reallocate but whether what they did was a wise thing overall. Was it truly beneficial to membership?
> 
> I know if I had purchased 350 points at BWV with the intention of taking the family down every Spring or Summer, I'd be hopping mad right now to find my contract is now worth less.


IF it evens out demand and improves the occupancy numbers overall, it has a major benefit to each and EVERY member, even the ones that it will cost more points.  Obviously it comes with a price to some as does each and every change.  If one bought exactly the number of points for a given week, with banking and borrowing, the damage is minimal.  Your case is the worst situation I believe for a full week (percentage wise), going from 97 to 105 for a studio and even then it will only cost about 1 trip for a whole week every 12 years.  Worst case scenario for a S-F person should be a loss of 1 stay every 5 years.  For the example you quoted, 350 going to 352, it won't cost a full trip over the entire life of the contract.

As you likely know, one of my considered approaches was to add on 25 points at AKV instead of the 100 I did buy and then sell all the rest of my points.  Then stay mostly on exchanges in.  I would have been in a very uncertain position if I only owned 25 points when you couple that with this change and the change to RCI.


----------



## Plutofan

The people who should be really upset are the HH and Vero owners who purchased points to use at those resorts.  Their savings has shrunk dramatically over the rack rates.  With MF going up higher than the rack rates at these resorts recently you wonder how long it will be before it is not worth it to own at these resorts.  If you divide the rack rate by the number of points most WDW resorts points value are the high twenties to thirties.  If you do the same calculation at Vero and HH there are some point values in the low teens.


----------



## mickeymom629

> originally posted by *Pootle* mostly stayed Sun-Thursday too and it will change my pattern. I will now pay for the occasional weekend stay with points rather than cash.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that means that you either had more points than you needed for Sun-Thurs stays _before the point change_ and are now going to use them to stay 6 or 7 nights now or, if you are like me, you will be forfeiting another night of the week for that weekend night and/or banking and borrowing to add that weekend night(s), but still staying 4 or 5 nights in total.  

I should have said "people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less *# *of nights as often, or less often with the same *#* nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights *too*!" unless they had extra points to spare before.  The # of nights meaning that now they might include a weekend night.

By changing these points, DVC has increased the cost for my stays and they already had my money and continue to get it every year when I pay my dues.  

And, somewhere back in this thread is about housekeeping costs.  I would prefer that they do away with trash/towel day unless someone requests it.  I've never stayed long enough for the full cleaning day.  Was the point about housekeeping that they have to come on Fridays and Sundays because of the vacation patterns?  If villas were vacant on weekends then why haven't members been able to check in early on Sunday and get an already cleaned place - supposedly cleaned on Friday, which was a weekday (not double pay) and when most villas were vacated?  In all my stays, I have rarely had a room ready when we've checked in on Sunday before 4p.m.


----------



## disnefile

I am very happy that DVC made the change.  The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system.  Timeshares are to benefit everyone.  They should make the points equal for all days.  I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.

DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.


----------



## photobob

mickeymom629 said:


> The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights.  They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the *worse* and DVC did _not_ speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.
> 
> The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.
> 
> That's the way I see it.



We are even less likely to stay on weekends than before. My change will be either to stay less nights overall than before or drop down in accommodations to stay as many or more nights. I may try go to the resort that has lowest points.


----------



## mickeymom629

> *Plutofan* - The people who should be really upset are the HH and Vero owners who purchased points to use at those resorts. Their savings has shrunk dramatically over the rack rates. With MF going up higher than the rack rates at these resorts recently you wonder how long it will be before it is not worth it to own at these resorts. If you divide the rack rate by the number of points most WDW resorts points value are the high twenties to thirties. If you do the same calculation at Vero and HH there are some point values in the low teens.



That's us.     When we bought, HH MFs were lower than others and that was one of the reasons we bought there.


----------



## Dean

Plutofan said:


> The people who should be really upset are the HH and Vero owners who purchased points to use at those resorts.  Their savings has shrunk dramatically over the rack rates.  With MF going up higher than the rack rates at these resorts recently you wonder how long it will be before it is not worth it to own at these resorts.  If you divide the rack rate by the number of points most WDW resorts points value are the high twenties to thirties.  If you do the same calculation at Vero and HH there are some point values in the low teens.


Hopefully both groups bought with the intent of staying there part of the time AND/OR the knowledge that it was a gamble PLUS this risk being discussed here.  HH has always been a major gamble due to the seasonal nature of the area and the dues risk.  Even when the dues were lower, you knew it couldn't last for a small resort in a high risk area.  At least with VB you knew up front the dues were high but likely going higher.  Still, it looks like the changes were about as small for HH as they could have been given this type of reallocation.


----------



## Dean

mickeymom629 said:


> I should have said "people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less *# *of nights as often, or less often with the same *#* nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights *too*!" unless they had extra points to spare before.  The # of nights meaning that now they might include a weekend night.


Simple math dictates if you had exactly the number of points and the cost for your stays went up, you won't have enough to stay on points for the number of days you did before.  Your choices then become to stay less days, make different choices of time of year or unit size, or to buy more points.  Of course you could just get disgusted and sell what you have and it's likely some will do just that.



> By changing these points, DVC has increased the cost for my stays and they already had my money and continue to get it every year when I pay my dues.


You say this like there's something wrong with it.  It's the way the system, and timeshares in general, work.  Things change and you likely haven't seen the last change you won't like.  Hopefully you'll see others that you will.  There's no requirement for one to continue to pay fees, you do have the option of selling or just stop paying the dues.


----------



## littlestar

disnefile said:


> I am very happy that DVC made the change.  The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system.  Timeshares are to benefit everyone.  They should make the points equal for all days.  I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.
> 
> DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.



I wouldn't want the weekends even with all days. I'd be afraid the people within driving distance would book up the weekends and I'd never be able to get a full 7 day stay having to fly in from out of state. We were at Saratoga a few weeks ago and there was a noticeable difference in crowds on the weekends. By Monday night, it was quiet again and we had our choice of parking spaces in the parking lot. 

I do think they needed to adjust the points, I just wish they would have gave more notice to the membership. And I feel sorry for the BLT buyers who are now short on points because those 2010 point chart adjustments weren't disclosed to them when they bought. I guess I just expected more from Disney than that.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

BroganMc said:


> Let me put it this way, the wise thing for DVC to have done would have been to redistribute the weekly points but kept the weekly totals the same.


 If all you are upset about are the minor 1-4 point change many weeks have, I think you've gone way off base. In the long run, that will be a total non issue. Since there are 5 weekdays and 2 weekends in a week, it's hard to do a fair rebalancing that ends up with the exact same number of points. 



> They should also have announced this change the end of last year when BLT started selling.


 At a minimum, they should have announced that they were engaged in serious consideration to change the charts. That's a piece of information every new buyer should have had.



> Leaving BLT owners hanging out to dry with that bogus 100 pt minimum add-on screams unethical.


 Every BLT owner can borrow a couple points if they are short due to the reallocation. Nobody is hanging out to dry.


----------



## MELSMICE

disnefile said:


> I am very happy that DVC made the change.  The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system.  Timeshares are to benefit everyone.  They should make the points equal for all days.  I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.
> 
> DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.


One of the reasons we loved DVC was because it was flexible & nothing like a timehsare "outside" the world.  You can rent from one day to as many days as you want.  With most other timeshares you are stuck from a Saturday through Saturday without room for flexibility.


----------



## dcfromva

Dean said:


> HH has always been a major gamble due to the seasonal nature of the area and the dues risk.



This is one resort that I could never figure out.  We have visited in late Jan... It was cold and the resort seemed pretty deserted.  I have wondered how that works. I assume that Disney sold 12 months worth of points--is it 100% full 12 months out of the year?


----------



## dcfromva

DisneyWalker44 said:


> At a minimum, they should have announced that they were engaged in serious consideration to change the charts. That's a piece of information every new buyer should have had.


----------



## photobob

disnefile said:


> I am very happy that DVC made the change.  The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system.  Timeshares are to benefit everyone.  They should make the points equal for all days.  I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.
> 
> DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.



Don't hold back, tell us what you really think!


----------



## LVSWL

disnefile said:


> I am very happy that DVC made the change.  The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system.  Timeshares are to benefit everyone.  They should make the points equal for all days.  I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.
> 
> DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.


Wow!


----------



## Dean

MELSMICE said:


> One of the reasons we loved DVC was because it was flexible & nothing like a timehsare "outside" the world.  You can rent from one day to as many days as you want.  With most other timeshares you are stuck from a Saturday through Saturday without room for flexibility.


Even with maximum reallocation this would still currently be true.  That may change in the future if they were to institute a minimum stay or similar approach.  I'd quibble with the idea that most other timeshares have no flexibility at all.  Many are very flexible, often more flexible than DVC in many ways, but there are those that are fixed week and fixed unit and they have their place as well.  There really is no such thing as a traditional timeshare anymore.



dcfromva said:


> This is one resort that I could never figure out.  We have visited in late Jan... It was cold and the resort seemed pretty deserted.  I have wondered how that works. I assume that Disney sold 12 months worth of points--is it 100% full 12 months out of the year?


The concept is easy in many aspects.  MOST points systems sell points essentially where every points is a high demand point, or at least a point for the time & resort they want to visit, in the eyes of the buyer.  This works fairly well for an area like Aruba, HI or Orlando where there is a certain amount of reasonable demand all year long.  For seasonal places like HH, MB, Williamsburg and the like, the process really breaks down.  This is not simply true for HH but for all timeshares in the area.  It's actually a bigger problem for full week timeshares because in most instances the dues are the same (or very close) all year around but the value is different.  One could stay about 3.5 months of the year at DVC or a top Marriott in HH for a fraction of the maintenance fees.  I know I could do it for around $300-350 a week including exchange fees.  When you consider that includes utilities and the like, it's not much more cost than sitting home.  That's the dilemma that those who have a condo or home in a seasonal area that is high demand part of the year.  If you rent it out, the time when most people want to go is the best time to get rental income.  I have a friend who owns a 2 BR condo in Keystone and he times his trips for the time when he can go but the rental income is less.  

Owners of the HI Marriott's have been struggling with this issue.  Even though there is a certain amount of demand even "off season", it's still quite a bit different.  Marriott has made either 50 or 51 weeks Platinum for the resorts there so there is quite a bit of competition for the better weeks.  Xmas and NY are the weeks that are normally carved out.  The end result when you consider that Marriott gives a reservation advantage to multiple week owners in their system is that for a single week owner it's almost impossible to get the best weeks there like Feb, March, early to mid April and mid June to mid August.


----------



## Dean

DisneyWalker44 said:


> At a minimum, they should have announced that they were engaged in serious consideration to change the charts. That's a piece of information every new buyer should have had.


While it might have been the courteous thing to do, it would have been a STUPID business decision.  Remember these are also two different entities even if there is a lot of cross communication and some personnel overlap.  I would bet you my house and cars that in most of the communications they had about this change there were reminders NOT to leak the info.  Had anyone done so it would certainly have been grounds for dismissal.  Think of it like the new car line and how secretive they are until the trade shows for the unveiling.


----------



## Pootle

mickeymom629 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that means that you either had more points than you needed for Sun-Thurs stays _before the point change_ and are now going to use them to stay 6 or 7 nights now or, if you are like me, you will be forfeiting another night of the week for that weekend night and/or banking and borrowing to add that weekend night(s), but still staying 4 or 5 nights in total.



My vacationing habits vary from year to year and I just work with whatever points I have, simple as that.  I know if I were to go back and look at my point use over the last 13 years and recalculate using the new charts (which I'm not going to do, LOL) I would definitely be in negative territory with the new adjustments, but I can see the need and logic for this change and so I will just adapt quite happily.


----------



## BlakeNJ

I have calculated the difference in points for the two trips we take each year.  Both have increased.  Our Thanksgiving vacation has increased my 7 points and our October vacation has increased by 4 points.  Can someone please give me an example of weeks where their points have decreased?  Is it normally the slower weeks, like September/January?  I  am going to print of both 2009 & 2010 to compare myself.

Thanks!


----------



## BEACHCLUBVILLAS

I'm feeling vulnerable due to the possibility of future redistribution of points and wondering if anyone else is as well.  We all know that Disney can redistribute the points anytime they want. We all know to take from one day they have to give to another so the total points don't change.  We also know they will do it and it can be substantial.  Ok, fine.   

How substantial?  I've studied the possiblibilities.  Resorts with Grand Villas are most at risk.  The points to stay in one are very high.  That gives them a lot of leeway.  Where we have been sold on being able to lock in vacations at today's costs/points 40 years from now isn't correct.  Increases in maintenance fees per point aside, I don't know if I'll ever use a grand villa but I do know that if you take 100 points out of a grand villa in one season and redistribute those points to studio, 1br or 2br, you wil see significant cost increases.  And it's all within the rights of Disney to do so to "benefit members" of course.  The maintenance fees per point increases every year.  The number of points it takes to stay in the more popular room choices per resort per night increase.  That's a price increase.  And the possibilities are limitless. 

I never looked at it this way but I think 40 years from now, the point charts will look nothing like they do today. And the points you own today will not go as far in 40 years as they do today unless you planned to use them on grand villas.  Then, it might be a deal.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

Dean said:


> While it might have been the courteous thing to do, it would have been a STUPID business decision.  Remember these are also two different entities even if there is a lot of cross communication and some personnel overlap.  I would bet you my house and cars that in most of the communications they had about this change there were reminders NOT to leak the info.  Had anyone done so it would certainly have been grounds for dismissal.  Think of it like the new car line and how secretive they are until the trade shows for the unveiling.


 Dean, are you suggesting that DVCMC managed to keep this a secret from DVD? If so, I'd agree. But I find that almost impossible to believe. And if DVD was aware, they had an obligation to disclose information that could materially impact buyer's ability to use the property. 

With all the folks posting how this has ruined their DVC, I wonder if any new owners will challenge Disney. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney quietly refunded the purchase for any late 2008 buyers who demanded it. (I also wouldn't be surprised if no one demands it, because this just won't be the deal breaker some folks suggest).


----------



## dcfromva

BEACHCLUBVILLAS said:


> I'm feeling vulnerable due to the possibility of future redistribution of points and wondering if anyone else is as well.  We all know that Disney can redistribute the points anytime they want. We all know to take from one day they have to give to another so the total points don't change.  We also know they will do it and it can be substantial.  Ok, fine.
> 
> How substantial?  I've studied the possiblibilities.  Resorts with Grand Villas are most at risk.  The points to stay in one are very high.  That gives them a lot of leeway.  Where we have been sold on being able to lock in vacations at today's costs/points 40 years from now isn't correct.  Increases in maintenance fees per point aside, I don't know if I'll ever use a grand villa but I do know that if you take 100 points out of a grand villa in one season and redistribute those points to studio, 1br or 2br, you wil see significant cost increases.  And it's all within the rights of Disney to do so to "benefit members" of course.  The maintenance fees per point increases every year.  The number of points it takes to stay in the more popular room choices per resort per night increase.  That's a price increase.  And the possibilities are limitless.
> 
> I never looked at it this way but I think 40 years from now, the point charts will look nothing like they do today. And the points you own today will not go as far in 40 years as they do today unless you planned to use them on grand villas.  Then, it might be a deal.



 Maybe an advantage to own at BCV where there are no GV from which to redistribute the points, eh?...


----------



## CarolMN

BlakeNJ said:


> I have calculated the difference in points for the two trips we take each year.  Both have increased.  Our Thanksgiving vacation has increased my 7 points and our October vacation has increased by 4 points.  Can someone please give me an example of weeks where their points have decreased?  Is it normally the slower weeks, like September/January?  I  am going to print of both 2009 & 2010 to compare myself.
> 
> Thanks!



For example, at the BWV:

There are several weeks (7 nights) that are the same or less in 2010 than they were in 2009.  I suspect this may be true at other resorts (I haven't looked because we stay almost exclusively at the BWV).

Long weekends (3-4 nights) will be less expensive in almost all unit types in 2010 than they were in 2009.

Most who stay 9 nights (two weekends) will find their trips less expensive in 2010 than in 2009.  

Again, I only really looked at the BWV chart, but I think the above are probably true for all the resorts with a few exceptions.


----------



## Anal Annie

NJ Mets fan said:


> they could raise the number of points for a full week in magic season at the Boardwalk from 350 to 352 points in 2010.  I came pretty close to buying 350 points so I could go every year during this season.  I thought they could not change the point charts.  I guess technically I could have kept borrowing the extra 2 points each year but what keeps them from raising the number of points even more???  I'm a new member so maybe there is something I'm not aware of.



This is another way they have messed up the system.  Now instead of people being able to rely on and purchase points in round increments they've created these absurd weekly totals to deal with.  (OK, I know 350 is not technically a "round" number but you know what I mean.)  Most people will make their purchases in lots or contracts of 25, especially newcomers who don't realize they can buy an odd lot number of 352 if that's what they really want.  So now people will probably round up from 350 to 375 to cover the 352.  Another example - now 6 nights in either a 2 bedroom at SSR or a THV in the "Magic" season went from 248 to 259 points so before, 250 would cover it - now they would be short by 9 silly points.  IMO that's just another SLICK sleazy move on DVC's part to sell a few more points as they figure people will round up from 250 to 275 in this case.


----------



## tjkraz

BlakeNJ said:


> Can someone please give me an example of weeks where their points have decreased?



There are many examples of situations where the weekly rates have both increased and decreased by single digits.  Put the charts side-by-side and they are very easy to identify.  



DisneyWalker44 said:


> With all the folks posting how this has ruined their DVC, I wonder if any new owners will challenge Disney. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney quietly refunded the purchase for any late 2008 buyers who demanded it. (I also wouldn't be surprised if no one demands it, because this just won't be the deal breaker some folks suggest).



From what I have read, canceling the contract is pretty much the only remedy provided by Florida statute for claims of misleading sales tactics. Unless the Florida Timeshare Bureau or some other governing body finds that adjusting the BLT chart before any trends were established was improper, that seems like the only avenue available to disgruntled buyers.  And I tend to agree that DVC may just void a handful of contracts rather than expend any more time and money on the issue.  



Anal Annie said:


> Most people will make their purchases in lots or contracts of 25, especially newcomers who don't realize they can buy an odd lot number of 352 if that's what they really want.


----------



## aurorafan

WilsonFlyer said:


> I agree, Chuck and I expressed this to my Guide during our December visit. My suggestion was similar to, if not exactly the same as yours.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> *Home resort: add-ons of 25, 50+ allowed
> Non-Home resorts: Add-ons of only 100+ allowed*
> 
> I could even argue that add-ons for non-home resorts be set to the minimum buy-in to DVC at the time. I wouldn't like it but it would make sense.
> 
> They're almost certainly going to _have_ to allow 25 point add-ons to current BLT owners given the changes to the charts for 2010. Surely.
> 
> The bolded above seems like a logical answer to the problem to me. It fixes the problem for everyone concerned (DVC and owners) IMHO.




This seems like a good change for the system as a whole.  I think owners should be allowed the smaller add-ons at their home resort, but if I want to buy at BCV (which I do ), make me buy 100 pts. so I'm more likely to go every year or for longer stays every other year.  Honestly I like that right now I could get a smaller contract and B&B, but I do see where it's better for the system to make the add-on larger.  I do think as a current owner I shouldn't be made to buy at the current Disney buy-in level however, but that's more of an emotional feeling than a logical "what's best for the system" one .


----------



## DVC92

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Dean, are you suggesting that DVCMC managed to keep this a secret from DVD? If so, I'd agree. But I find that almost impossible to believe. And if DVD was aware, they had an obligation to disclose information that could materially impact buyer's ability to use the property.


 
DVD and DVC are only separate entities for legal purposes. In actuality, they are one and the same since Jim Lewis is the president of both.


----------



## Dean

BlakeNJ said:


> I have calculated the difference in points for the two trips we take each year.  Both have increased.  Our Thanksgiving vacation has increased my 7 points and our October vacation has increased by 4 points.  Can someone please give me an example of weeks where their points have decreased?  Is it normally the slower weeks, like September/January?  I  am going to print of both 2009 & 2010 to compare myself.
> 
> Thanks!


Almost anyone who stays more weekdays than weekends will increase.  Anyone who stays more weekends such as 9 days with 2 weekends or just long weekends, will decrease.  The weekly decreases are mostly for GV during higher seasons.  Most people for full weeks will be close to the same within a few points.



DisneyWalker44 said:


> Dean, are you suggesting that DVCMC managed to keep this a secret from DVD? If so, I'd agree. But I find that almost impossible to believe. And if DVD was aware, they had an obligation to disclose information that could materially impact buyer's ability to use the property.


Secret, I doubt it as there is enough overlap in personnel to make that almost impossible.  But I am suggesting it's not necessarily a free flow of timely information all along the way and it's likely the worker bees knew little if any about it.  Likely the most many would have known was that it was being looked at.  I also bet there was dissension from those involved mostly on the sales side for reasons expressed in this thread.  As I stated before, I'm also confident the goal was to get it done before BLT went on sale and it may have been.  But remember these things have to be submitted and approved by the state before they can be talked about to the members or prospective members.  I don't think anyone argues the timing was poor for those who bought in recently, esp for BLT new buyers.  Existing members should have known it was a risk, especially those who've been on this BBS for a while but they all should have known.  



> With all the folks posting how this has ruined their DVC, I wonder if any new owners will challenge Disney. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney quietly refunded the purchase for any late 2008 buyers who demanded it. (I also wouldn't be surprised if no one demands it, because this just won't be the deal breaker some folks suggest).


I can't see how this has ruined it for anyone other than possibly someone who bought a VERY small contract for a stay less than every year with only enough for S-F.  IMO if a 20% change means DVC no longer makes sense for you, it NEVER made sense for you in the first place.  The value may no longer be the same but the principles haven't changed.  Plus those who saw that much change were getting the best per night value of anyone to start with, their price per night is still less than most members.  I would agree that DVC is likely to be accommodating but there's only so much they can do.  If the deed is already recorded, they may not be willing to do much.  Remember there's a 10 day back out period that starts from the latest of when you sign he papers or you receive certain legal documents including the POS.  IF you haven't received all these documents, the clock on the 10 day right to rescind is still ticking.  I also agree it will blow over and most of those who are spouting will be fine in a year or two other than one very important and valuable lesson, read the rules and assume the worst.


----------



## mybabesuz

BlakeNJ said:


> I have calculated the difference in points for the two trips we take each year.  Both have increased.  Our Thanksgiving vacation has increased my 7 points and our October vacation has increased by 4 points.  Can someone please give me an example of weeks where their points have decreased?  Is it normally the slower weeks, like September/January?  I  am going to print of both 2009 & 2010 to compare myself.
> 
> Thanks!



The Christmas Week Vacation that I just booked for 2009
would be 28 points less in 2010...


----------



## NJ Mets fan

Anal Annie said:


> This is another way they have messed up the system.  Now instead of people being able to rely on and purchase points in round increments they've created these absurd weekly totals to deal with.  (OK, I know 350 is not technically a "round" number but you know what I mean.)  Most people will make their purchases in lots or contracts of 25, especially newcomers who don't realize they can buy an odd lot number of 352 if that's what they really want.  So now people will probably round up from 350 to 375 to cover the 352.  Another example - now 6 nights in either a 2 bedroom at SSR or a THV in the "Magic" season went from 248 to 259 points so before, 250 would cover it - now they would be short by 9 silly points.  IMO that's just another SLICK sleazy move on DVC's part to sell a few more points as they figure people will round up from 250 to 275 in this case.



In my case I guess I am fairly lucky but that is because I just lucked out with my reasoning during my purchase decision.  Originally I was going to buy a 350 resale contract to cover one week a year at BWV in the summer which is now 352 pts.  I then decided to purchase a 200 pt contract which would cover any of the resorts including BLT every other year with a few points left over.  Sure I would love to own 800 points like some on here but I have pending colleges to pay for and frankly don't want to spend every vacation at Disney even though we love it.  
Although this may work out for some and may even work out in the future for me, I think it stinks.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

Dean said:


> But remember these things have to be submitted and approved by the state before they can be talked about to the members or prospective members.


 Why? What prevented DVD from telling potential customers that DVCMC has hired outside consultants to recommend changes to the point chart for 2010?



> I would agree that DVC is likely to be accommodating but there's only so much they can do.  If the deed is already recorded, they may not be willing to do much.


 If Disney withheld "Material Facts" from buyers, they won't have a choice if pressed. At some point, point reallocation moved beyond theoretical possibility. Consultants were hired, etc. If a buyer can credibly show that information would have changed their buying decision and Disney withheld it, you don't think Disney will let them out of the deal?


----------



## drusba

Just to put to rest whether the company that makes point changes, DVCMC, would be aware of upcoming price or minimum add-on changes that would be made by the main company, DVD, the two companies share at least four officers, Jim Lewis (Pres), John McGowan (Secretary), Lawrence Smith (Treasurer), Thomas Katheder (VP and Asst Sect), and Marsha Reed (also a VP and Asst Sect). They both also have the same home office, 200 Celebration Place (in Celebration).


----------



## Tiger926

CarolMN said:


> For example, at the BWV:
> 
> There are several weeks (7 nights) that are the same or less in 2010 than they were in 2009.  I suspect this may be true at other resorts (I haven't looked because we stay almost exclusively at the BWV).
> 
> Long weekends (3-4 nights) will be less expensive in almost all unit types in 2010 than they were in 2009.
> 
> 
> Again, I only really looked at the BWV chart, but I think the above are probably true for all the resorts with a few exceptions.
> 
> *Most who stay 9 nights (two weekends) will find their trips less expensive in 2010 than in 2009.*




I just wanted to clarify that this is not the case for all resorts, across the board. I kept reading this, as it seems like some people are assuming that the weekends decreases are going to be great for those of us who normally do weekends, so I finally did the calculations for AKV & BCV, and here is what I found: 

For 9 nights in July 2009 (5 weekday & 4 weekends) @ AKV, it's _*more*_ in 2010, but for BCV for 9 nights, it's _*less*_ in 2010. It all depends upon the resort - but as you noted, perhaps this is the case for BWV and BCV across the board as those weekends were so high? I am now going to do the calculations for SSR as we actually own there, but we are staying at BCV this year instead with our usual AKV stay.

I, of course, am not good with math, and just did these calculations quickly as baby is asleep on my lap, so I'll have my hubby double check them when he returns home. It's very interesting to see how seemingly inconsistent, at first glance the re-allocations are across the board, so people really need to do their calculations to see exactly how it has affected them at their particular resorts.

This is such an informative thread! Tiger


----------



## dianeschlicht

Okay, so all of this point stuff hit the fan while I was down enjoying an AKV and OKW vacation.  I haven't had a chance to look at the new point charts until now, and I must say, I don't understand what all the uproar is about.  Sure, some nights in certain accommodations went up, some some others went down.  In fact, it looks like MANY of the AKV point requirements either stayed the same or decreased.  Same for OKW.  In fact, many of them went down for our preferred dates.  I never look at it as individual days though....I figure if a week stays the same or decreases, that's the important part.  

Most of our stays of 10+ days wont be effected by more than a couple of points, and most of them are acually less.  

I think everyone needs to just calm down and learn to use the new allocations.  We all learned to use the higher weekend points to our advantage, so now we just have to learn to use the higher weekday points and other lower points the same way.  I really don't see that it's that big a deal.

Of course, it IS a big deal for poor Bill who must now redo his planners!


----------



## Kmango

DVC92 said:


> DVD and DVC are only separate entities for legal purposes. In actuality, they are one and the same since Jim Lewis is the president of both.



By that logic, Apple Computers and Pixar were one and the same before Disney bought the latter.


----------



## drusba

tjkraz said:


> From what I have read, canceling the contract is pretty much the only remedy provided by Florida statute for claims of misleading sales tactics. Unless the Florida Timeshare Bureau or some other governing body finds that adjusting the BLT chart before any trends were established was improper, that seems like the only avenue available to disgruntled buyers.  And I tend to agree that DVC may just void a handful of contracts rather than expend any more time and money on the issue.



Claims for concealing material information in a sale transaction can include statutory and common law claims in Florida, i.e., the statutory remedy does not preclude the buyer from also pursuing a common law claim for misrepresentation. The remedy can be, at the option of the party misled, either to rescind the agreement and get their money back, or confirm the agreement and seek damages for the difference in value between what was represented and what it would have been if the information had not been concealed. Also, for either option, if the seller is proven to have knowingly concealed material information, the buyer can seek punitive damages, which is often easier to get if you also show the seller misled numerous buyers rather than just you.


----------



## BEACHCLUBVILLAS

Owning at resorts without Grand Villas is certainly something to consider. WLV and BCV just increased in value. 


If a resort has one Grand Villa with high points and the rest studios, 1BR and 2BR and they were to do a point reallocation, conceivably it could look like a legal reallocation.  Are the the reallocations weighted?  100 points taken away from 1 grand villa to be spread among 10 2BR's is different than 100 points taken away from 5 GV to be spread among 10 2BRs.


----------



## CarolMN

Tiger926 said:


> I just wanted to clarify that this is not the case for all resorts, across the board. I kept reading this, as it seems like some people are assuming that the weekends decreases are going to be great for those of us who normally do weekends, so I finally did the calculations for AKV & BCV, and here is what I found:
> 
> For 9 nights in July 2009 (5 weekday & 4 weekends) @ AKV, it's _*more*_ in 2010, but for BCV for 9 nights, it's _*less*_ in 2010. It all depends upon the resort - but as you noted, perhaps this is the case for BWV and BCV across the board as those weekends were so high? I am now going to do the calculations for SSR as we actually own there, but we are staying at BCV this year instead with our usual AKV stay.
> 
> I, of course, am not good with math, and just did these calculations quickly as baby is asleep on my lap, so I'll have my hubby double check them when he returns home. It's very interesting to see how seemingly inconsistent, at first glance the re-allocations are across the board, so people really need to do their calculations to see exactly how it has affected them at their particular resorts.
> 
> This is such an informative thread! Tiger


Please note that I did not say *all* the weeks or *all* long weekends, etc.  even for the BWV.  My post was in response to someone who wanted to know which members might see a decrease under the new charts.

Even at the BWV, Magic season for a week in a 1 bedroom or a 2 bedroom went up 2 points per week for both SV & PV.  However, a week in a GV or a week in a SV studio stayed the same and a week in a PV studio went down 2 points.

My point is that *there are weeks that decreased under the new charts.*  I'm sure we can find weeks that decreased at every resort.  Not all weeks, of course.  

ITA that each family has to "do the math" to see how the re allocations impact their vacation pattern.  Some will find the re allocations to their benefit and some will not.  Most of the posts are from people who will have to pay more because they were taking advantage of the lower cost for week days.  I am one of them.


----------



## Tiger926

CarolMN said:


> Please note that I did not say *all* the weeks or *all* long weekends,etc.
> 
> However, even at the BWV, Magic season for a week in a 1 bedroom or a 2 bedroom went up 2 points per week for both SV & PV.  However, a week in a GV or a week in a SV studio stayed the same and a week in a PV studio went down 2 points.
> 
> My point is that there are weeks that decreased.  I'm sure we can find weeks that decreased at every resort.  Not all, of course.
> 
> ITA that each family has to "do the math" to see how the re allocations impact their vacation pattern.  Some will find the re allocations to their benefit and some will not.



Thanks - I didn't say you said all weeks, but I just wanted to clarify in case  people are reading this quickly, and they might assume that was the case.  I just wanted to add my actual calculations for the resorts we stay at as we always do split stays for between 10-12 nights in the summer. We have always been weekend DVC people, so I just wanted to add my perspective to the discussion that for us weekend people, our vacations totals will not all be at a decrease level, as it depends upon the resort and the season, as you pointed out.

Tiger


----------



## Chuck S

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Why? What prevented DVD from telling potential customers that DVCMC has hired outside consultants to recommend changes to the point chart for 2010?
> 
> If Disney withheld "Material Facts" from buyers, they won't have a choice if pressed. At some point, point reallocation moved beyond theoretical possibility. Consultants were hired, etc. If a buyer can credibly show that information would have changed their buying decision and Disney withheld it, you don't think Disney will let them out of the deal?



I don't see that they withheld "material facts" as the possibility of a re-allocation has always been clearly spelled out in our documents.  As far as not disclosing the current re-allocation earlier, you would need to somehow prove just "when" DVCMC decided to go ahead with the change in points, as I would guess that there are several possible (maybe every possible) point re-allocation charts that have been filed away at Disney since OKW opened that they will pull put and use depending on changing demand.


----------



## La2kw

disnefile said:


> I am very happy that DVC made the change.  The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system.  Timeshares are to benefit everyone.  They should make the points equal for all days.  I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.
> 
> DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.



Are you referring to members or renters?  

If you are referring to members, then why are you blaming them for using their membership the way it is allowed?  One of DVC's major selling points was that it *wasn't like* other run of the mill timeshares where you had to use the same week every year.  It was more flexible.  A member using their points for Sun-Thurs is perfectly within reason, and still is.  Just as a member using their points for a weekend stay or even a one night stay.  

These latest "member enhancements" move it towards the rest of the run of the mill timeshares IMO.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

Chuck S said:


> I don't see that they withheld "material facts" as the possibility of a re-allocation has always been clearly spelled out in our documents.  As far as not disclosing the current re-allocation earlier, you would need to somehow prove just "when" DVCMC decided to go ahead with the change in points, as I would guess that there are several possible (maybe every possible) point re-allocation charts that have been filed away at Disney since OKW opened that they will pull put and use depending on changing demand.


 You don't have to prove when the final decision was made. You just have to show there were undisclosed material facts. At some point, reallocation moved beyond a possibility. For one thing, Disney hired an outside consultant to review and help with the reallocation. That hiring, if knowledge of it would have affected a buyers decision, is a material fact.


----------



## La2kw

dianeschlicht said:


> Okay, so all of this point stuff hit the fan while I was down enjoying an AKV and OKW vacation.  I haven't had a chance to look at the new point charts until now, and I must say, I don't understand what all the uproar is about.  Sure, some nights in certain accommodations went up, some some others went down.  In fact, it looks like MANY of the AKV point requirements either stayed the same or decreased.  Same for OKW.  In fact, many of them went down for our preferred dates.  I never look at it as individual days though....I figure if a week stays the same or decreases, that's the important part.
> 
> Most of our stays of 10+ days wont be effected by more than a couple of points, and most of them are acually less.
> 
> I think everyone needs to just calm down and learn to use the new allocations.  We all learned to use the higher weekend points to our advantage, so now we just have to learn to use the higher weekday points and other lower points the same way.  I really don't see that it's that big a deal.
> 
> Of course, it IS a big deal for poor Bill who must now redo his planners!



The big deal for me is that I live on the west coast and can't fly down to WDW for a long weekend.  I go for at least two weeks.  I no longer have enough points to do the same trip I have been doing for the past *13 years*.  Not a big deal to some, but for my family it is.


----------



## starbox

I would not be surprised to see the seasons change - as summer travellers - there is always plenty of availiability in May/June/July while the value weeks (Jan, early December, October/November) are really popular with DVC owners.  I would not be surprised at ALL to see summer points decrease and "value" seasons increase.


----------



## figment795

disnefile said:


> I am very happy that DVC made the change. The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system. Timeshares are to benefit everyone. They should make the points equal for all days. I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.
> 
> DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.


 

Ouch that was harsh. There are a great deal fo 5 day renters that were trying  to save points since the weekend had been highter points.


----------



## figment795

La2kw said:


> The big deal for me is that I live on the west coast and can't fly down to WDW for a long weekend. I go for at least two weeks. I no longer have enough points to do the same trip I have been doing for the past *13 years*. Not a big deal to some, but for my family it is.


 

DH and I live in Oregon so we understand your situation. Sure we might get a quick weekend in if airfare is good. But you loose 8 hrs of the day getting to Orlando. It is a big deal for us as well. We have a good number of points however now it might not be it our benifit to do an AP each year.


----------



## drusba

Chuck S said:


> I don't see that they withheld "material facts" as the possibility of a re-allocation has always been clearly spelled out in our documents.  As far as not disclosing the current re-allocation earlier, you would need to somehow prove just "when" DVCMC decided to go ahead with the change in points, as I would guess that there are several possible (maybe every possible) point re-allocation charts that have been filed away at Disney since OKW opened that they will pull put and use depending on changing demand.



Legally, in determining whether material information has been withheld, there is big distinction between revealing to a buyer that you reserve the right to make a change in the future, which arguably they have revealed (but there is a question, particularly for BLT owners, there), and revealing that you actually intend to make that change in the very near future, particularly before the buyer even gets to make a reservation for the resort. The "concealed" information would be Disney's knowledge that it was intending to make a change in points when it was selling to recent purchasers.

There is also a serious question as to whether Disney revealed it even has the right to make the change it did at BLT. Even when you get to the very section in the POS under which Disney reserves its right to make a change, Disney says that its right is to make adjustments "to respond to actual Club member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand" and a change can occur if it is "evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year" and the right is reserved "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Component to accommodate Club Member demand."  Even Disney's lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how this section gave it the right to make a point chart change before anyone had ever even made a reservation at BLT and thus before there was ever any "actual" use patterns and changes or before there was ever any experience at the resort on which to base a change.

Also, if one actually pursued legal action, it would be very easy to determine when Disney knew it was going to make a change. In any such action, Disney would be required to produce to the buyer all documents, including all emails, that exist which reflect on the change from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility until the time the point charts were announced.


----------



## Mattsmommy

disnefile said:


> DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.



Some of us don't have the luxury of taking a whole week off of work. At my job I am not allowed to take vacation during the summer but I combine my 2 days off with a few days of paid time off and that is our summer "vacation".


----------



## dianeschlicht

La2kw said:


> The big deal for me is that I live on the west coast and can't fly down to WDW for a long weekend.  I go for at least two weeks.  I no longer have enough points to do the same trip I have been doing for the past *13 years*.  Not a big deal to some, but for my family it is.


Well, my point was that we too live a long ways away and travel for about 2 weeks at a time and have been doing so for more than 12 years.  I'm saying that it really does NOT effect me much if I look at those same trips I have booked in the past and what they would "cost" now.  I only saw one case where it went up, and that was only by 2 points over the length of the stay.


----------



## Sammie

> Originally Posted by mickeymom629
> The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the worse and DVC did not speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.
> 
> The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.
> 
> That's the way I see it.



This I agree with. I think many members bought points to fit their vacation profile, they did not profile their vacation to fit their points. I think they sat down with their agent and said this is what I can do based on my job, my lifestyle, my kids etc. How many points will I need? Now this has changed but the way they can vacation has stayed the same.

I know we won't change to weekends simply because the points changed. We have enough points to cover the change, some don't.  

The comments from some that show no empathy for those that are affected in a very adverse way,  really do not surprise me, as bascially DVC did the same thing especially at BLT. This behavior toward BLT members and the manner in which they conduct business is my greatest concern. It does not show a great deal of professionalism on their part.


----------



## tjkraz

drusba said:


> Also, if one actually pursued legal action, it would be very easy to determine when Disney knew it was going to make a change. In any such action, Disney would be required to produce to the buyer all documents, including all emails, that exist which reflect on the change from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility until the time the point charts were announced.



If we want to give DVC the benefit of the doubt, it would be pretty easy to insulate themselves from any accusations of wrongdoing.  I assume they would have hired an outside firm to calculate the reallocations.  That's a no-brainer since it eliminates any claims of Disney trying to manipulate the figures and limits liability on their part.  

And to address timing issues, DVC could have simply requested that the final report be delivered just a few weeks before the new charts were announced.  If this is the first time any reallocation analysis has been performed--at least within the last 5 years or so--DVC could accurately claim that they had no idea what the outcome might be.  

It's entirely possible that DVC execs did not even see the updated charts until sometime after January 1st--perhaps not even until 1/15 when the sales changes were made.  All DVC had to do was take the auditors' numbers and format them for distribution.


----------



## DisFlan

Well...I've read this whole thread and I agree that DVC did what they had to do.  But I know what we'll be doing, too.  Our kids live in Orlando and we'd rather visit them there more often, not less - so we'll still be doing Sun-Thur (with a couple of nights elsewhere) to get more trips in.  A weekend night would now cost us a trip.  The weeknights will now cost us more points, but that's just the way it is.  

We've occasionally stayed a weekend night in the past, but now, this is _less_ likely for us than it was before the reallocation.

For the first time, we're seriously considering renting an off site condo for all or part of a few trips to be able to stay longer and bring more family along - _instead of buying more points_.  Which would also likely mean we'd be spending less time on site and forking over as many $$$ to Disney.  (Harry Potter put Universal on our radar for the first time in years.)  And we probably aren't the only members with this idea right now.


DisFlan


----------



## drusba

tjkraz said:


> If we want to give DVC the benefit of the doubt, it would be pretty easy to insulate themselves from any accusations of wrongdoing.  I assume they would have hired an outside firm to calculate the reallocations.  That's a no-brainer since it eliminates any claims of Disney trying to manipulate the figures and limits liability on their part.
> 
> And to address timing issues, DVC could have simply requested that the final report be delivered just a few weeks before the new charts were announced.  If this is the first time any reallocation analysis has been performed--at least within the last 5 years or so--DVC could accurately claim that they had no idea what the outcome might be.
> 
> It's entirely possible that DVC execs did not even see the updated charts until sometime after January 1st--perhaps not even until 1/15 when the sales changes were made.  All DVC had to do was take the auditors' numbers and format them for distribution.



In a legal action, the buyer would also be entitled to get all documents of any such consultant and any communications between the consultant and Disney. What you describe could not have been the case because Disney as the manager and fiduciary of the members cannot just delegate away its responsibility to a consultant and then try to remain ignorant of what it was doing for months (doing so itself would be improper). It would be required to keep track and would be charged in any legal action of having all the same information and knowledge that its agent, the consultant, had when the consultant had it. I have seen many cases where the right hand tried to claim it did not know what its left hand was doing and it is a defense that I have never seen work.


----------



## LIFERBABE

drusba said:


> Legally, in determining whether material information has been withheld, there is big distinction between revealing to a buyer that you reserve the right to make a change in the future, which arguably they have revealed (but there is a question, particularly for BLT owners, there), and revealing that you actually intend to make that change in the very near future, particularly before the buyer even gets to make a reservation for the resort. The "concealed" information would be Disney's knowledge that it was intending to make a change in points when it was selling to recent purchasers.
> 
> There is also a serious question as to whether Disney revealed it even has the right to make the change it did at BLT. Even when you get to the very section in the POS under which Disney reserves its right to make a change, Disney says that its right is to make adjustments "to respond to actual Club member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand" and a change can occur if it is "evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year" and the right is reserved "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Component to accommodate Club Member demand."  Even Disney's lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how this section gave it the right to make a point chart change before anyone had ever even made a reservation at BLT and thus before there was ever any "actual" use patterns and changes or before there was ever any experience at the resort on which to base a change.
> 
> Also, if one actually pursued legal action, it would be very easy to determine when Disney knew it was going to make a change. In any such action, Disney would be required to produce to the buyer all documents, including all emails, that exist which reflect on the change from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility until the time the point charts were announced.



I agree.  

It was a material fact that they did not disclose and waited to disclose it until they could benefit even more from it via the 100 point minimum.  That is not good faith negotiations and fraudulent.

If I priced a contract artificially hi to get past ROFR and then kicked back a few thousand to my friend that purchased the contract after the sale, that would be a material fact that was not disclosed and DVC would probably break out the dogs on me.

Brogan I also agree with many of the points you have made.  It's too bad that this thread has been combined into 1 big brick wall, that we must all pound our head against.  

I will say that the snarkiness and condescension displayed by some is totally unnecessary.  There should be room for all viewpoints even if they do not agree. 

Not everyone used their DVC the same.  As many may recall, that was a selling point of the program.  The ability to use the points to fit your family, not someone else's.  Now we are trying to dictate to those families how they should have used their DVC 

DVC, DVD, Jim Lewis, BVTC, CRO, or whatever or whoever they are, they set out to intentionally withold vital information in the sale of BLT and their actions prove that.  It is a real estate transaction and they will be held accountable.


----------



## tjkraz

La2kw said:


> If you are referring to members, then why are you blaming them for using their membership the way it is allowed?



Probably for the same reason that many appear to be upset with DVC for tweaking the program in a way that is allowed.



> These latest "member enhancements" move it towards the rest of the run of the mill timeshares IMO.



In terms of program administration, DVC has no choice other than to be "just another timeshare."  DVC is just one of many point-based timeshare programs...all of which are subject to the same set of laws.  

The reallocation possibility was disclosed from day one and is necessary to maintain the health of the program.


----------



## december14disney

> I am very happy that DVC made the change. The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system. Timeshares are to benefit everyone. They should make the points equal for all days. I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.
> 
> DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.



Wooo-ee. *Harsh.* While logistically this might help with availability, etc....some of us just dont have the money to have a lot of points and found great vacations Sun-Thurs....


----------



## DeeCee735

mickeymom629 said:


> The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the *worse* and DVC did _not_ speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.
> 
> The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.
> 
> That's the way I see it.


 
I agree. I don't think this was an answer in anyway. I do understand the ecomonic reasoning of supply and demand, however the fact that weekends are still higher remains the same, and now with the weekdays higher as well, seems it's just added to the problem. We NEVER stay 7 nights, actually we usually just do Sun - Thurs, and sometimes, but not often, Sun through Friday.

Now, we either have to borrow points, cut our amount of trips per year, cut our length of stays, or down grade our room size or view. So, if alot of people downgrade their room size or their view (where applicable), than there is going to be an overload of reservations going to standard views/parking lot views and an overload of people requesting studio's or one bedrooms, leaving the higher point views and larger rooms with vacanies, so how does this help? And all the while still costing more in points because no matter how you cut it, weekends are still higher, so those people out there like us......they are going to continue Sun-Thurs stays, and will have to use more points to do so, or even if people start thinking that they'll try weekend stays, they are higher points then what those families are used to using.....JMO


----------



## aurorafan

jdg345 said:


> While I agree with you overall here, I think we have a disagreement in a 'chicken/egg' scenario.  For example, you think there is no need for a discount in this period because it sells out.  I think it sells out because there is a discount.
> 
> How many people would vacation in that period if it was Magic Season?  Shifting August/September down could ultimately run that into being sold out at 11 months in the same way December is.



I'm not sure about that for a couple of reasons.  Weather, hurricanes and school being the primary ones .  A lot of people like me are willing to pull their kids out of school in Dec. because they're well into the school year.  I would never pull them out end of Aug.-beginning of Sept. because they're just starting and need to get acclimated, settled, etc.  Given a choice I'd rather go when the weather is more moderate than when it's guaranteed stifling, and lots of people aren't willing to risk being in Florida when a hurricane might appear.

So I could be wrong, but if they make Dec. higher I probably won't go then (or at least as often), but I won't change to Aug./Sept. simply because they lower it, and I imagine there are many others who feel the same .


----------



## tjkraz

LIFERBABE said:


> I will say that the snarkiness and condescension displayed by some is totally unnecessary.  There should be room for all viewpoints even if they do not agree.



Meh.  We're over a hundred pages with countless posters throwing out terms like like fraudulent, dishonest, misleading, deceptive (and many, many more) toward DVC / DVD / Disney / Jim Lewis.  

The terms of the POS are pretty much the only known quantity here.  Nevertheless, many are playing judge, jury and executioner by condemning the above despite having little first-hand knowledge of the facts.  There's also a lot of personal bias coming thru, here.  

The thread is not exactly a glowing example of open-minded discussion and universal respect.


----------



## Dean

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Why? What prevented DVD from telling potential customers that DVCMC has hired outside consultants to recommend changes to the point chart for 2010?
> 
> If Disney withheld "Material Facts" from buyers, they won't have a choice if pressed. At some point, point reallocation moved beyond theoretical possibility. Consultants were hired, etc. If a buyer can credibly show that information would have changed their buying decision and Disney withheld it, you don't think Disney will let them out of the deal?


They couldn't discuss any changes that were to be approved and had not, they could have discussed they were contemplating changes but as I've said, I think that would be a poor business move.  Once approved, they could have and may have chosen not to until the day of change.  Given that the buyer signed they received the POS and it is clearly spelled out that the change could occur, I don't think DVC would have any legal risk or obligation.  As noted, one could rescind up until a certain point.  But there is the point of no return, likely when the deed has been sent for recording which I'm guessing they do by courier rather than mail.  Some have already been told they could change their add on and I know some have been initially denied some changes.  



drusba said:


> Claims for concealing material information in a sale transaction can include statutory and common law claims in Florida, i.e., the statutory remedy does not preclude the buyer from also pursuing a common law claim for misrepresentation. The remedy can be, at the option of the party misled, either to rescind the agreement and get their money back, or confirm the agreement and seek damages for the difference in value between what was represented and what it would have been if the information had not been concealed. Also, for either option, if the seller is proven to have knowingly concealed material information, the buyer can seek punitive damages, which is often easier to get if you also show the seller misled numerous buyers rather than just you.


You never know what a court is going to do, they are often as or more irrational than the plaintiffs.  Still, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff and Disney has some pretty good lawyers.  Unless this is tested in court, no way to say otherwise and we're left with what the rules and statutes say. 



Mattsmommy said:


> Some of us don't have the luxury of taking a whole week off of work. At my job I am not allowed to take vacation during the summer but I combine my 2 days off with a few days of paid time off and that is our summer "vacation".


We all understand that everyone's situation is different but individual personal situations should not be involved in these types of decisions from DVC's side, only the needs of the membership overall.


----------



## december14disney

tjkraz said:


> The thread is not exactly a glowing example of open-minded discussion and universal respect.



 Admist all the  in this thread thank you for this. It made me crack up here at my desk.


----------



## DeeCee735

figment795 said:


> Ouch that was harsh. There are a great deal fo 5 day renters that were trying to save points since the weekend had been highter points.


 

Agreed, harsh, nasty and uncalled for. Aside from saving points, some of us work 6 to 7 days a week, and taking a full week off from work can be an issue (such as my DH), so a 5 night trip is all he can muster at a time. You shouldn't be so judgmental when you have no idea what you're talking about......


----------



## Dean

DeeCee735 said:


> Agreed, harsh, nasty and uncalled for. Aside from saving points, some of us work 6 to 7 days a week, and taking a full week off from work can be an issue (such as my DH), so a 5 night trip is all he can muster at a time. You shouldn't be so judgmental when you have no idea what you're talking about......


I would agree the wording was harsh but it is technically correct.  I think we all are sympathetic to anyone who's adversely affected as I am, but in my case, it stops at sympathy and does not spill over to judgement of the change itself.  I think most want to go way beyond that by saying DVC did a bad thing and I don't think that position is defendable.


----------



## aurorafan

ashbradnmom said:


> I believe you are right, it should be the points for the entire resort can not increase, not a specific room. I might be wrong though but that was the way it was explained to me.



This is how it was explained to me also--the rooms/seasons/dates may change but the point total for the entire resort could not.  I took that to mean that my points would always get me a room at AKV at sometime during the year--never that I would always be able to get a specific kind of room/view during a particular season for a specific number of days for the life of the contract.


----------



## LIFERBABE

tjkraz said:


> Meh.  We're over a hundred pages with countless posters throwing out terms like like fraudulent, dishonest, misleading, deceptive (and many, many more) toward DVC / DVD / Disney / Jim Lewis.
> 
> The terms of the POS are pretty much the only known quantity here.  Nevertheless, many are playing judge, jury and executioner by condemning the above despite having little first-hand knowledge of the facts.  There's also a lot of personal bias coming thru, here.
> 
> The thread is not exactly a glowing example of open-minded discussion and universal respect.




All of which are opinion.  Just because some say the POS is the only known quantity, does not make it so.  Just because some say others do not have first-hand knowledge of facts does not make that so either.  

Why is it so important to discount what others are saying when in essence, all the posts are "throwing" terms around and showing personal bias and basing it as fact and understanding?

I didnt wake up 1 day and decide to blame all my problems on Jim Lewis.   In fact, for several years I thought he was the best thing to ever happen to DVC.  It was his actions and attitude towards the membership that let me know he was not.

My issue is with the BLT reallocation, and the way it was handled.  Not the reallocation as a whole.


----------



## CarolAnnC

Just a reminder here folks that this thread exists to allow discussion of the 2010 point changes.  Arguments, sarcasm, etc., will not be tolerated.

So let's all return to a respectful, sharing conversation please.  Thanks in advance!


----------



## bevis

I can understand how the S-Th folks feel that they've lost some value. But I have to admit that i'm a little more than suprised at how many folks (here on the Dis Boards anyway) seem to vacation basically _the same time of year, every year._
I asked a few pages back for some to define flexibility in terms of their ownership, particularly at the time they purchased, in hopes of understanding the hostility toward management. To me the issue was the timing of the reallocation (BLT sales) but even considering that, i've come to my senses reading Dean's explaination.So back to flexibility.
At the risk of sounding snarky, _what did you expect_. We all knew (or should have known) that this would happen eventually. It looks as though some of you more "seasoned" owners already have experienced it. 
The way the system is set up is the as flexible as it can be. I never expected that the points for the same weekday, weekend day, week, season, etc. would stay the same indefinitely, so any changes to any of these don't give me reason to complain. If we could only travel the same week every year, we wouldn't have even considered DVC. 
I just can't see how those that travel that way can say anything about the flexibility. If you can't or don't take advantage of the flexibility then maybe DVC wasn't a good choice.


----------



## DVC92

As I had previously mentioned, way back in 1992, DVC sold points (minimum being 230) and marketed the resort in a manner encouraging weekly stays. I still have a brochure they employed showing what a week costs for every season and unit. I don't know what the pattern of use was in the early years, but DVD/DVC altered their sales approach by lowering the minimum purchase of points and permitting small add-ons. This either created the current problem (assuming there is one) or exacerbated it. Whether or not their current actions are for sales or to alleviate an actual imbalance they created, I don't believe we will truly ever know.


----------



## Disneyhappy

disnefile said:


> I am very happy that DVC made the change.  The Sun to Thurs people were wrecking the system.  Timeshares are to benefit everyone.  They should make the points equal for all days.  I called DVC and told them to do that in the future to stop all these people from screwing up the system.
> 
> DVC did the right thing and I have no sympathy for the 5 day renters.



Hmmm... Insteresting - If that is the case, they should not market it as a flexible system which was one of the main reasons we spent more to buy DVC vs Marriott time share.  DVC is coming closer and closer to being just another timeshare with the benefit of being onsite. Nothing wrong with it if that was how they market it. The 5 day renters DO have my sympathy if they made the initial point purchase based on that vacation pattern and the representation from DVC of a flexible vacation system. The POS may give DVC the right to make these many changes they have been making in the last few years but it doesn't mean it is no in "bad form" and members have to be happy about it. I followed these boards for quite a few years before we bought in and there were never complaints like I read now related to changes. If there had been this much negative chatter at the time be bought in, we would never have signed the contract.

As far as Disney winning any contract dispute- although they have the edge, I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. I see contract disputes litigated daily in my line of work and it is amazing how some courts, including appellate courts, rule when they think they are helping the underdog. Problem is finding an attorney (or team of attorneys) willing to go up against the relentless, well financed DVC/Disney teams of attorneys.


----------



## dianeschlicht

starbox said:


> I would not be surprised to see the seasons change - as summer travellers - there is always plenty of availiability in May/June/July while the value weeks (Jan, early December, October/November) are really popular with DVC owners.  I would not be surprised at ALL to see summer points decrease and "value" seasons increase.



That would not surprise me either as DVC becomes more popular.  The point is to fill the parks during the times of the year when non-DVC members are staying home.   The only way those "value" times for DVC will change drastically is if JQ public starts coming again during those seasons.


----------



## lugnut33

drusba said:


> There is also a serious question as to whether Disney revealed it even has the right to make the change it did at BLT. Even when you get to the very section in the POS under which Disney reserves its right to make a change, Disney says that its right is to make adjustments "to respond to actual Club member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand" and a change can occur if it is "evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year" and the right is reserved "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Component to accommodate Club Member demand."  Even Disney's lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how this section gave it the right to make a point chart change before anyone had ever even made a reservation at BLT and thus before there was ever any "actual" use patterns and changes or before there was ever any experience at the resort on which to base a change.
> 
> Also, if one actually pursued legal action, it would be very easy to determine when Disney knew it was going to make a change. In any such action, Disney would be required to produce to the buyer all documents, including all emails, that exist which reflect on the change from the time it was first mentioned as a possibility until the time the point charts were announced.



Now that's some stuff I'd like to see.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

DVC92 said:


> As I had previously mentioned, way back in 1992, DVC sold points (minimum being 230) and marketed the resort in a manner encouraging weekly stays. I still have a brochure they employed showing what a week costs for every season and unit.


 Back then, point systems were pretty uncommon. Was Disney really encouraging weekly stays, or just trying to make the system more understood by customers whose concept of a timeshare was a weekly stay.


----------



## tjkraz

drusba said:


> Legally, in determining whether material information has been withheld, there is big distinction between revealing to a buyer that you reserve the right to make a change in the future, which arguably they have revealed (but there is a question, particularly for BLT owners, there), and revealing that you actually intend to make that change in the very near future, particularly before the buyer even gets to make a reservation for the resort. The "concealed" information would be Disney's knowledge that it was intending to make a change in points when it was selling to recent purchasers.





drusba said:


> In a legal action, the buyer would also be entitled to get all documents of any such consultant and any communications between the consultant and Disney. What you describe could not have been the case because Disney as the manager and fiduciary of the members cannot just delegate away its responsibility to a consultant and then try to remain ignorant of what it was doing for months (doing so itself would be improper). It would be required to keep track and would be charged in any legal action of having all the same information and knowledge that its agent, the consultant, had when the consultant had it. I have seen many cases where the right hand tried to claim it did not know what its left hand was doing and it is a defense that I have never seen work.



Fair enough.  

However, if that argument holds any water, it would apply to every single contract--original or add-on--that DVC has sold since it began evaluating reservation patters in preparation for the point adjustments.  It's not just BLT that was reallocated but AKV, SSR, BWV and every other resort...all of which would have had some volume of contract sales while the reallocation was being computed.  

That's a pretty big ball for Disney to drop from a legal standpoint.  

I'm sure DVC isn't the first point-based timeshare to reallocate.  Is there any legal precedent for having to provide additional disclosure beyond the statements in the POS and other ownership docs?  

The legality of a BLT reallocation would appear to be a separate issue.  Given the wording in the POS, I tend to agree that it may not be appropriate.  However, as I said previously, I would also file that under the heading of "be careful what you wish for."

The scheduled BLT adjustments for 2010 are much more subdued than other resorts--just a point or two shift per night.  If the BLT reallocation were reversed, we would go into 2010 with 8 resorts that have favorable weekend points and BLT with extremely unfavorable weekend rates.  That could lead to even lower weekend occupancy at BLT and a more radical reallocation after a year or two worth of data has been accumulated.  You'd be buying a one or two year reprieve from adjustments, followed by (potentially) years of even higher weekday rates.


----------



## lugnut33

tjkraz said:


> Meh.  We're over a hundred pages with countless posters throwing out terms like like fraudulent, dishonest, misleading, deceptive (and many, many more) toward DVC / DVD / Disney / Jim Lewis.
> 
> The terms of the POS are pretty much the only known quantity here.  Nevertheless, many are playing judge, jury and executioner by condemning the above despite having little first-hand knowledge of the facts.  There's also a lot of personal bias coming thru, here.
> 
> The thread is not exactly a glowing example of open-minded discussion and universal respect.



You are doing the same thing as many others because I constantly hear you saying too many people are staying during the week.  Again, no real evidence of that has been presented (I'm not saying it's not true, but we are all guessing, unless you've seen the numbers) other than the old charts showing the weekdays were cheaper thus leading us to believe more people are using their points on weekdays than weekends.   

I tend to believe this move is more targeted to getting locals to buy more points.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

tjkraz said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> However, if that argument holds any water, it would apply to every single contract--original or add-on--that DVC has sold since it began evaluating reservation patters in preparation for the point adjustments.


 At some point, Disney crossed a line. Reallocation went from possible to likely. It's hard to say when that line was crossed - that's why we have lawyers and courts. My guess is the line was crossed when specific action was taken - a committee was set up or consultants were hired. The legal standard is pretty weak - if a buyer can credibly claim they would have acted differently with information, it's a material fact. 

It's an interesting message board discussion. But the practical consequences are very small. There's a chance some recent buyers will complain, and Disney will refund their money. No big deal either way.


----------



## tjkraz

lugnut33 said:


> You are doing the same thing as many others because I constantly hear you saying too many people are staying during the week.  Again, no real evidence of that has been presented (I'm not saying it's not true, but we are all guessing, unless you've seen the numbers) other than the old charts showing the weekdays were cheaper thus leading us to believe more people are using their points on weekdays than weekends.



I probably expressed myself poorly.  I wasn't trying to say that people are incorrect for making their own observations or discussing how they feel about the change.  I have no problem with that.  You're correct--there is little that is truly clear-cut here.  

What I find disappointing is the the fact that some posters are being chastised for being insensitive toward others, while many more have had a field day making disparaging remarks at the expense of DVC / Disney / Jim Lewis.  Here's hoping that EVERYONE can keep the personal attacks out of their posts--even toward those who are not here to defend themselves.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

lugnut33 said:


> You are doing the same thing as many others because I constantly hear you saying too many people are staying during the week.


 The argument isn't that too many people are staying during the week. It's that demand for weeknights was too much higher than weekends.


----------



## DaveH

We bought in 2001. We were told and explained clearly this could happen. When we bought I was looking for ways it could change for the negative to us. I have noticed as DVC has grown on how easy some days have been to get and others harder. I have noticed the unofficial of seeing how busy the resorts are seem to be lighter on Friday ans Saturdays than the rest of the time. We have used just s-th and whole weeks and long weekends. We bought in at 150 points. Our needs were a studio. Our normal travel times at VWL our home was 7 to 10 days. We started going more than once a year, so when we could we added on when SSR opened to member buy in. We later added on the member cruise in 2007. We have one time we go almost every year and another often. We have also gone other times. I looked at the charts on weekly basis. One resort went up somewhere from 2-5 points and another down 2-3 points. I have also noticed that other times both went up and others down. I have noticed at one time the last 2 weeks of Aug was lower than now. The seasons have changed a little. I have noticed some minor days or 2 also in different seasons.


----------



## TisBit

mickeymom629 said:


> The reality may come to be that people who have typically stayed Sun-Thurs are now going to stay less nights as often, or less often with the same nights. They are not suddenly going to stay Sun -Thurs and say "wow, those weekend points are less, so let's stay those nights too!" There will be a change for the worse and DVC did not speak to their actions, only made the entire problem worse by raising the nights they did stay.
> 
> The only members who benefitted are those who already stayed on weekends, and they weren't the ones whose actions would have counted for this change.
> 
> That's the way I see it.



I think this would be a self defeating reasoning.  By saying that people will change their vacation habits due to a negative affect on points, it would thus mean that those that are benefiting would also change their vacation habits in a positive way, by staying extra night, adding a trip, etc.

The only way that this reasoning would result in lower occupancy would be if they their was a substantial increase of points to EVERY member.


----------



## tjkraz

Disneyhappy said:


> Hmmm... Insteresting - If that is the case, they should not market it as a flexible system which was one of the main reasons we spent more to buy DVC vs Marriott time share.



The reallocation hasn't altered DVC's flexibility.  You can still book multiple resorts and room sizes, different dates each year, any number of nights that you want (no minimum stay), etc.

To some the VALUE has been altered, but that doesn't really have anything to do with its flexibility.  

Value is in the eye of the beholder.  Two months ago, if someone had investigated buying DVC for 2- and 3-day weekends they would find it to be a very poor value due to the high weekend point costs.  Weekday travelers received a better value.  

As of 2010 that value has been shifted a bit--weekdays aren't quite a good but weekends have improved substantially.  On a macro level, I doubt the value of DVC has changed much at all--it's simply been reallocated.  Some will make out better than they did in the past while others will be worse off.


----------



## javamom

Wow, I've read most of this thread.  Stunning read.

For those members that bought pts for specific stays or types of stays, I feel for you.

Points are points, and most all owners are going to use their points in a way that maximizes their usage.  For some, this allocation hurts.  I feel for them.

That members use their points as they are allowed by the contract, and that DVC administers the program as they are allowed to by the contract is just fine and dandy.  Yippee, everyone gets a cookie.

Personally, it doesn't effect my membership or my points.  I didn't buy a set amount of points, or a minimum buy-in, for specific stays.  I do however, use my points wisely to maximize the number of nights that I can stay.  In most scenarios, I've lost a night.  Oh well, I still get my vacation/s.

I do find it fascinating that they would choose this time to reallocate the points.  I cannot think of a worse PR nightmare.  "Welcome, thousands of brand new members that haven't even had a chance to use your points.  Yeah about that, those examples that we showed you aren't really going to work on that minimum buy-in.  But, you can bank or borrow around points and it'll all work out.  Would you care to add-on to that contract?"  "Oh, you don't need that many more points, eh?  Sorry about that."

Similar scenario for those that did BLT add-ons.

As members, DVC already has our money.  But I don't think that you could pay me enough to be a guide or MS CM right now, or well into 2010.  I don't blame folks for being upset about this and word of mouth is the best seller.  I think the timing is baffling from a PR stand point, and with all the properties that they have to sell I cannot think of a better way to generate ill-will on the grapevine.

Arguably, DVC doesn't "need" it's members to help generate sales, but in this economy, I wouldn't want my membership spewing venom a/or selling their contracts on the resale market.

Just my .02, and in this economy, it's really more like .00002


----------



## LVSWL

My new least favorite word..reallocated


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

drusba said:


> There is also a serious question as to whether Disney revealed it even has the right to make the change it did at BLT. Even when you get to the very section in the POS under which Disney reserves its right to make a change, Disney says that its right is to make adjustments "to respond to actual Club member use patterns and changes in Club Member use demand" and a change can occur if it is "evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Club Member's Home Resort experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year" and the right is reserved "solely for adjusting the Home Resort Component to accommodate Club Member demand."  Even Disney's lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how this section gave it the right to make a point chart change before anyone had ever even made a reservation at BLT and thus before there was ever any "actual" use patterns and changes or before there was ever any experience at the resort on which to base a change.


I agree that those that just purchased BLT probably have the biggest gripe.  I wonder, however, if Disney couldn't use the argument that if the demand trend was pretty much the same across all the existing resorts that they could interpolate that BLT would have the same issues.


----------



## figment795

starbox said:


> I would not be surprised to see the seasons change - as summer travellers - there is always plenty of availiability in May/June/July while the value weeks (Jan, early December, October/November) are really popular with DVC owners. I would not be surprised at ALL to see summer points decrease and "value" seasons increase.


 

If that happens DH and I will sell both our SSR and BLT contracts.


----------



## Dean

figment795 said:


> If that happens DH and I will sell both our SSR and BLT contracts.


I think you can expect early to mid Dec to change designations in the next few years to likely Dream season.


----------



## figment795

DeeCee735 said:


> Agreed, harsh, nasty and uncalled for. Aside from saving points, some of us work 6 to 7 days a week, and taking a full week off from work can be an issue (such as my DH), so a 5 night trip is all he can muster at a time. You shouldn't be so judgmental when you have no idea what you're talking about......


 
Sorry if I made you mad. I do know what you are talking about. My DH as well has limited time off and sometimes we can only do a 5 day trip.  I was trying to say we will miss the old point chart system that ends in 09.


----------



## figment795

Dean said:


> I think you can expect early to mid Dec to change designations in the next few years to likely Dream season.


 
I agree with you. I told DH this might happen and without skipping a beat he said we whould then sell it. Some of the changes have been hard to swallow but changing 1st week of DEC not good for us.


----------



## Dean

figment795 said:


> I agree with you. I told DH this might happen and without skipping a beat he said we whould then sell it. Some of the changes have been hard to swallow but changing 1st week of DEC not good for us.


We'll see but it does seem to be a higher demand than many of the other Adventure and Choice times.  Another variation is going to 4 seasons instead of 5 at WDW esp since there is little difference now between Adventure and Choice.


----------



## mickeymom629

> *]TisBit* I think this would be a self defeating reasoning. By saying that people will change their vacation habits due to a negative affect on points, it would thus mean that those that are benefiting would also change their vacation habits in a positive way, by staying extra night, adding a trip, etc.



Maybe, but I think you missed my point which was for the reasoning that DVC gave for changing the points - you have to read what I was commenting to, which was that they lowered the weekend points so that more people would want to stay the weekend nights.  I was saying that the people who like to go Sun-Thurs, because it fits their vacation preference (traveling on the weekends, etc) will not necessarily be adding the weekend nights *TOO *, etc. etc., just because they lowered the points.  Those who _already_ go on weekends are benefitted because their typical stay has been lowered.

Yes, those who spend less points for the time they usually stay *might *add a night (a trip?? - that would be a substantial savings), but I'm sure for some of those there will still be banking and borrowing to add the extra night or vacation.   By the same token, those who are negatively affected will also find a way to bank and borrow to adjust.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

True, just because they lowered weekends doesn't mean that the S-F people will start booking weekends, but by raising the weekday points requirements they have created more supply (not in days obviously but in points) on the weeknights. If people stay one less day that is one more open day for someone else to use.


----------



## Mississippian

From everything I've been able to read about booking habits, this is a change that Disney really needed to make.

I don't think I've ever stayed on a weekend night, because they are so expensive.  Now that they are cheaper I might give it a shot.

DVC shoujld do everything they can to equalize demand.  I support them.  Remember, for every "bargain" that they take away they are creating a new one.


----------



## DVC92

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Back then, point systems were pretty uncommon. Was Disney really encouraging weekly stays, or just trying to make the system more understood by customers whose concept of a timeshare was a weekly stay.



I felt at the time they were encouraging weekly stays. Our sales rep suggested 270 points so that we could alternate weekly stays between 1 and 2 bedroom units every other year during different seasons. Studios were deemphasized since OKW has a lot of dedicated 2 bedroom units.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> White Sox Fan : but by raising the weekday points requirements they have created more supply (not in days obviously but in points) on the weeknights. If people stay one less day that is one more open day for someone else to use.



some of us...myself included....plan on still staying the same amount of weeknights, but instead, just doing so in a smaller unit.  So the same amount of points will be used by us (and I'm sure we're not the only ones that will do this.).   

Besides, is there really that much need for weeknights to open up ?  I have NEVER had a problem getting several different DVC units at under 4-5 months even. Granted, we don't go during holiday times (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Pres Week, Easter, July 4th) or early Dec.  I would never try and book BWV or BCV during Food and Wine under 3 months.  But I have gotten VWL in under 3 months for that time period. 

But in the months of Feb, May, June, July, Aug, Sept, Oct, and early Nov we've gotten the villa we wanted in under 4-5 months at :  OKW, SSR, VWL, BWV.   I've had a little more trouble getting BCV (but that's a very small resort and I'm talking under 4-5 months).   And even with BCV---some of the nights were available.    Funny thing was, one Aug (2003 I think ?) I could not get the WEEKEND at BCV but the weeknights were available but we chose to not have to switch resorts and went with BWV instead.    

So was there really a big need for this (raising weeknight points to free up weeknights) ?  We just never had any problems in over 10 years of being Members.  I mean, my 2 bedroom OKW villa went up from 30 to 36 points per weeknight for Magic season.  We're talking August when we usually go.  I know there's always been availability last minute during the week because we've added days and extra rooms at under 4 months.  So who is on a waitlist for a 2 bedroom villa at OKW in Aug where DVC deems it demands a 6 point per night jump ?  I really don't get it ?

Maria


----------



## jekjones1558

> I know there's always been availability last minute during the week because we've added days and extra rooms at under 4 months. So who is on a waitlist for a 2 bedroom villa at OKW in Aug where DVC deems it demands a 6 point per night jump ? I really don't get it ?



Perhaps the weekend nights at that time have very high vacancy rates and the reallocation is an attempt to get at least some of those empty rooms filled by locals or others who might now consider an end-of-summer long weekend holiday?  Of course it remains to be seen whether that happens...


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> some of us...myself included....plan on still staying the same amount of weeknights, but instead, just doing so in a smaller unit.  So the same amount of points will be used by us (and I'm sure we're not the only ones that will do this.).
> 
> Besides, is there really that much need for weeknights to open up ?  I have NEVER had a problem getting several different DVC units at under 4-5 months even. Granted, we don't go during holiday times (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Pres Week, Easter, July 4th) or early Dec.  I would never try and book BWV or BCV during Food and Wine under 3 months.  But I have gotten VWL in under 3 months for that time period.
> 
> But in the months of Feb, May, June, July, Aug, Sept, Oct, and early Nov we've gotten the villa we wanted in under 4-5 months at :  OKW, SSR, VWL, BWV.   I've had a little more trouble getting BCV (but that's a very small resort and I'm talking under 4-5 months).   And even with BCV---some of the nights were available.    Funny thing was, one Aug (2003 I think ?) I could not get the WEEKEND at BCV but the weeknights were available but we chose to not have to switch resorts and went with BWV instead.
> 
> So was there really a big need for this (raising weeknight points to free up weeknights) ?  We just never had any problems in over 10 years of being Members.  I mean, my 2 bedroom OKW villa went up from 30 to 36 points per weeknight for Magic season.  We're talking August when we usually go.  I know there's always been availability last minute during the week because we've added days and extra rooms at under 4 months.  So who is on a waitlist for a 2 bedroom villa at OKW in Aug where DVC deems it demands a 6 point per night jump ?  I really don't get it ?
> 
> Maria


But if you stay in a smaller unit, that will still free up something for someone else who very possibly will stay weekends.  As a minimum, it uses up more points allowing for others with points they might not have been able to use to now use those points.  The very fact that some resorts at times have been so easy to reserve suggests there were extra points not being used either at that resort or at all.


----------



## TinklednPants

When I first viewed the new point charts I did not see much that would bother me.   2 points here, three points there, some in my favor and some against.
However, a look at my upcoming 5 nights in a VB Beach Cottage showed that next year this same trip would cost an extra 50 points.  50 points, IMO, is not inconsequential.


----------



## LVSWL

Dean said:


> But if you stay in a smaller unit, that will still free up something for someone else who very possibly will stay weekends.  As a minimum, it uses up more points allowing for others with points they might not have been able to use to now use those points.  The very fact that some resorts at times have been so easy to reserve suggests there were extra points not being used either at that resort or at all.


Sounds like a whole lot of wishing and hoping on DVCs part to me,"someone who will very possibly"


----------



## bobbiwoz

TinklednPants said:


> When I first viewed the new point charts I did not see much that would bother me.   2 points here, three points there, some in my favor and some against.
> However, a look at my upcoming 5 nights in a VB Beach Cottage showed that next year this same trip would cost an extra 50 points.  50 points, IMO, is not inconsequential.



Yes, it's us VB owners (and I think HHI owners) who really should have the pity parties Those weekend point costs were so high to begin with, we're all faced with about 10 points more for each weekday now.

Bobbi


----------



## Laurabearz

bobbiwoz said:


> Yes, it's us VB owners (and I think HHI owners) who really should have the pity parties Those weekend point costs were so high to begin with, we're all faced with about 10 points more for each weekday now.
> 
> Bobbi



Our 6 night Summer trip to Hilton Head trip went from 231 points to 256 points.  

With the Saturday night going from 99 points down to 81 points, which is still to rich for our blood.  

Thankfully all that means for us, is we cant bring friends with us in 2010, 2014, 2020, 2024 etc....


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> some of us...myself included....plan on still staying the same amount of weeknights, but instead, just doing so in a smaller unit.  So the same amount of points will be used by us (and I'm sure we're not the only ones that will do this.).



Many resorts--particularly the newer ones--have a high number of lockoff units meaning that the number of studios available for guest booking can increase.  

Member habits will certainly be altered by the reallocation but it's far too soon to predict what sort of trends may emerge.  

Some will book smaller room sizes.  
Some will book cheaper room classes (say, Savanna down to Standard View.)
Some will book cheaper seasons.
Some will shorten their trip by a day.
Some will reduce the frequency of their trips to DVC resorts.
Some will alter their patterns to include more weekends.
Some will buy more points to maintain established patterns.

In reality, I suspect many of us will utilize several of these approaches at different times.  One trip going from a 1B to a Studio may seem like a fair compromise.  Another time we may value the larger room and shorten the trip by a day.  



> So was there really a big need for this (raising weeknight points to free up weeknights) ?  We just never had any problems in over 10 years of being Members.



With hindsight being 20/20, I would say yes, absolutely!

I can honestly say this is the first time I've seen someone claim that there have been no changes in resort availability over the last 5+ years.  For the last several years I've been reading the same things over and ove and over again in terms of availability:  

"Book day by day or you might not get it!"
"The new reservation system is awful because I'll get blocked by others who can book before me!"
"Remember you're competing with all of those SSR owners!"
"Used to be that I could always get something on short notice but now I never can!"

The blame was usually cast on SSR owners with the assumption being they were booking every resort but their own.  But that explanation doesn't address why people were rushing to book their own Home resorts 11 months out.  With this move it seems clear to me--we've had 14 years of resort-specific add-ons and an imbalance of members buying into DVC to use their points for weekday stays.  Owners at BCV, BWV, etc. are competing with SSR owners or AKV owners or BLT owners for the limited number of weekdays available--they are competing with *themselves*.


----------



## Inkmahm

aurorafan said:


> I'm not sure about that for a couple of reasons.  Weather, hurricanes and school being the primary ones .  A lot of people like me are willing to pull their kids out of school in Dec. because they're well into the school year.  I would never pull them out end of Aug.-beginning of Sept. because they're just starting and need to get acclimated, settled, etc.  Given a choice I'd rather go when the weather is more moderate than when it's guaranteed stifling, and lots of people aren't willing to risk being in Florida when a hurricane might appear.
> 
> So I could be wrong, but if they make Dec. higher I probably won't go then (or at least as often), but I won't change to Aug./Sept. simply because they lower it, and I imagine there are many others who feel the same .



Exactly the same.  I don't care how cheap they make end of Aug / early Sept, I'm not going to Florida at that time of year.


----------



## bobbiwoz

Laurabearz said:


> Our 6 night Summer trip to Hilton Head trip went from 231 points to 256 points.
> 
> With the Saturday night going from 99 points down to 81 points, which is still to rich for our blood.
> 
> Thankfully all that means for us, is we cant bring friends with us in 2010, 2014, 2020, 2024 etc....



Yes, I'm afraid that it's our DF's who will be losing. I'll be booking Garden View Inn rooms at 7 months for them if available. We're still hoping for the BC for us and the DGC! 
Bobbi


----------



## Anal Annie

I'll bet Thursdays will be very easy to get now that all the Sun-Thur peeps have to drop a night off their trips.  I just hope there are enough studios to go around now for everybody who has to cut back on their unit size to meet the new point requirements.  I wonder if they will track these kinds of pattern changes to see how the new charts affect things like this.


----------



## Inkmahm

figment795 said:


> I agree with you. I told DH this might happen and without skipping a beat he said we whould then sell it. Some of the changes have been hard to swallow but changing 1st week of DEC not good for us.



I'd be unhappy, too, if they changed early December.  But I'd understand it.  
At that point I'd have to decide if using points was the best option for that time of year or if using one of the Disney deals offered to AP holders, etc. would be better.  

I'm guessing we'd still end up using points for our December trip rather than sell our VWL contract.  We'd probably alternate between a studio one year and the 1 bedroom the next year.  That would save points but still allow us to use them.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> "Book day by day or you might not get it!"
> "The new reservation system is awful because I'll get blocked by others who can book before me!"
> "Remember you're competing with all of those SSR owners!"
> "Used to be that I could always get something on short notice but now I never can!"



For high DVC occupancy times, yes, I would agree with the above quote Tim.  I mentioned this.  Food & Wine, early Dec and all holiday times (Christmas/New Years/Pres Week/Easter/July 4th/Thanksgiving).   

This still leaves ALOT of time during the year where we have had absolutely no trouble getting into a DVC resort.  I've been able to book often at under 4-5 months.   In 10+ years of Membership, I have been on exactly 2 waitlists :

1)1st week of Nov 2004 for OKW 2 bedroom : I attempted to switch from a 1 bedroom to a 2 bedroom at about 3 months out.  Never came through so MS allowed us to book 5 in a 1 bedroom.  And at that time, there was additional 1 bedrooms available because MS offered me a second 1 bedroom---which I did not want.  


2)mid August 2008 at VBR :  I attempted to add a family member on at 2-3 months out and needed either an Inn room or studio.  I was on a waitlist for about 2-3 weeks when 2 of my 3 nights came through.  

every other time I've booked, I've always found something.  It might not have been my 1st choice, but I usually could find a room and usually had a choice of resorts.  So I just simply cannot believe there is a mad rush and lots of waitlists at OKW for the summer to justify such a hike in nightly weeknight points.  We NEVER book at 11 months.....often times at less than 6 months.  And by people complaining they can't get "last minute" as mentioned in your quote, well I simply don't believe any timeshare works well when booking last minute.  And I'm assuming last minute is at 30 or 60 days out ?  And believe it or not, I've gotten VWL for the first week of Oct in 2006 at 45 days out.  This was for a studio.  And I had a choice of a couple different resorts.  I think BCV was the only one not available for my dates (which was something like Oct 4-8).  

So I've never heard any complaints about calling day by day *except* for those really high DVC occupancy times that I listed Tim.


----------



## bobbiwoz

Inkmahm said:


> I'd be unhappy, too, if they changed early December.  But I'd understand it.
> At that point I'd have to decide if using points was the best option for that time of year or if using one of the Disney deals offered to AP holders, etc. would be better.
> 
> I'm guessing we'd still end up using points for our December trip rather than sell our VWL contract....



December is a must go time for us, too.  We alternate between BWV and VWL.  

Selling, even VB where the new point charts for June's BC are definitely a shock, just isn't on our list of options.

Bobbi


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> For high DVC occupancy times, yes, I would agree with the above quote Tim.  I mentioned this.  Food & Wine, early Dec and all holiday times (Christmas/New Years/Pres Week/Easter/July 4th/Thanksgiving).
> 
> This still leaves ALOT of time during the year where we have had absolutely no trouble getting into a DVC resort.  I've been able to book often at under 4-5 months.



What about 4-5 *weeks* or 4-5 *days*?  You have to think bigger picture--or I should say DVC must think big picture.  

Anytime they are forced to turn-away potential guests due to lack of availability on weekdays--while weekend rooms sit empty--there is a problem.  

I'm sure there are also periods where resorts are at less than 100% occupancy during the weekdays.  But if it's 90% weekday, 50% weekend, there is still an imbalance to be addressed.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Anal Annie : I just hope there are enough studios to go around now for everybody who has to cut back on their unit size to meet the new point requirements. I wonder if they will track these kinds of pattern changes to see how the new charts affect things like this.



This is what I'm wondering Anal Annie.....I think a fair amount of families will be downgrading their room sizes (us included in that), thus increasing demand for studios/1 bedrooms.  I could see 1 bedrooms at AKV and BLT going FAST---since they can sleep 5 and will be a point saver for families now with this allocation.  I can see us now staying in "2" studios vs "1" two bedroom villa at OKW to save points.   It's a difference of 24 weeknight points vs 36 weeknight points.  Yes, we'll miss the laundry most....the full kitchen second.....but I cannot accept 36 points a night up from 30.  Since we own 150 points at OKW, instead of now having to pay 180 points/year for our usual 2 bedroom, we'll be paying 120 points for two studios.  And bank 60 points or use it to try and book AKV at 7 months out (in addition to our 100 points we own there to give us 160 at 7 months out).   We plan to work the points however we can to our advantage.  

Time will tell how the allocation will affect the demand and availability of smaller units.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> What about 4-5 weeks or 4-5 days? You have to think bigger picture--or I should say DVC must think big picture.


I've never tried that late out Tim, so honestly, I don't know what it's like.  But I'll repeat...just don't feel any timeshare is designed to work as efficiently for the owner without planning further out.  But like I said, that one time, I did get VWL at 45 days out in Oct '06.  So I'd say it's possible as long as it's not really high occupancy time.  I just wouldn't recommend it.  I would suppose only locals or those within short driving distance would be interested in 4-5 days out.  Because booking airfare at this late point is definitely not cost effective or even possible at alot of times.


----------



## photobob

Anal Annie said:


> I'll bet Thursdays will be very easy to get now that all the Sun-Thur peeps have to drop a night off their trips.  I just hope there are enough studios to go around now for everybody who has to cut back on their unit size to meet the new point requirements.  I wonder if they will track these kinds of pattern changes to see how the new charts affect things like this.



That's a good point Annie. I'm probably looking at dropping unit size to maximize the time I can go. I think it will make it even more imperative to plan early and may make the seven month window for smaller units even more difficult to get than in the past. I think the "buy where you want to stay" slogan will be more relevant than ever before.

On a positive note, I guess I hadn't looked before but I was pleased to see that the THV are the same point cost as a 2 BDR. I was thinking that they would probably be somewhere between a 2 bdr and a GV.


----------



## DaveH

My experiences since 2001 is that 2BR and studios book first. I have found some studios at last minute, but they were only for 1 or 2 days together. If you wanted a week, you may have to change resorts 2 or 3 times. A 1BR most of the time could be found somewhere. Now some of the changes folks will decide to do could make studios harder at 7 months. I wonder if some 2 BR will come available and 1BR less, we do not know. I honestly believe the developer points have made making some ressies harder at smaller resorts. We had developer points when we added on in 2007. We could use them anywhere at 7 months. We used them at a smaller resort. When we started we could get OKW almost anytime. Now OKW was full, but SSR had some, but getting harder. Most of our ressies are done between 11 and 7 months, but have done some with less time.


----------



## dclfun

My family is lucky to be probably the least affected by the changes- we live locally and other than Jan-March I can put in for vacation time whenever I want. The flexibility involved in our DVC purchases were one of the reasons we didn't look into a traditional timeshare, plus of course being on property. We've used weekend stays but the high point cost has driven me to book cash nights instead at other WDW resorts- either way Disney is getting my money. While I've always understood the difference between "member points" and inventory available for cash only, why is it then that often a CRO promo will include a bigger discount for cash guests booking SSR or OKW- is there really that much space to fill that isn't used by members/can't be used by members using points? Will this allocation also help with that situation? Many cash guests question the value of SSR and/or OKW since they're often left to reserve after other resorts are sold out- why are there so many leftovers at those resorts then even on weekdays- is it unused inventory or inventory that can only be booked via a cash ressie?---Kathy


----------



## DaveH

dclfun said:


> While I've always understood the difference between "member points" and inventory available for cash only, why is it then that often a CRO promo will include a bigger discount for cash guests booking SSR or OKW- is there really that much space to fill that isn't used by members/can't be used by members using points? Will this allocation also help with that situation? Many cash guests question the value of SSR and/or OKW since they're often left to reserve after other resorts are sold out- why are there so many leftovers at those resorts then even on weekdays- is it unused inventory or inventory that can only be booked via a cash ressie?---Kathy



I believe this is because allot of us use to points to do something outside DVC resorts, like cruises, DL and RCI.


----------



## bobbiwoz

I figured out that the lower weekend points will enable me to just about "walk" reservations for 2 weekend nights for the VB BC when I couldn't do so before.  I would have to get rid of Friday night on the next day, but I could do it.  If for me, than for others, and this brings me to my former objection with the new booking system for day of arrival.  Has anyone else found they can do that now/not before?  I'm writing another letter to MS, I know that some don't agree with me, but I do not think that walking should be allowed.  There should be some restrictions other than the number of points a member has.  I am  much more disturbed by walking than the point chart adjustment.

Bobbi


----------



## BobH

It is constantly repeated in our current economic crisis that corporations and banks need to make their operations more "transparent" to instill consumer trust and confidence. I am witholding my judgement (for now) on the necessity to make this most recent point re-allocation.  However, I firmly believe that the Disney Vacation Club could use their annual "feel good" member meetings to give us all a slight clue as to what is going on behind the scene.  After all they do want us to buy more points don't they? It is starting to feel like Jim Lewis is the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, and who knows what the Disney organization is up to. From a public relations standpoint DVC management is treating us all like mushrooms - feeding us bs and keeping us in the dark. I support the whole DVC concept, but I resent the lack of transparency and information regarding these big changes.....


----------



## dclfun

bobbiwoz said:


> I figured out that the lower weekend points will enable me to just about "walk" reservations for 2 weekend nights for the VB BC when I couldn't do so before.  I would have to get rid of Friday night on the next day, but I could do it.  If for me, than for others, and this brings me to my former objection with the new booking system for day of arrival.  Has anyone else found they can do that now/not before?  I'm writing another letter to MS, I know that some don't agree with me, but I do not think that walking should be allowed.  There should be some restrictions other than the number of points a member has.  I am  much more disturbed by walking than the point chart adjustment.
> 
> Bobbi



Bobbi- I feel the same way about "walking". I already know it's shut me out of two different preferred check in dates I wanted in the resort/room type I wanted for December 09 and a very nice MS agent told me how I should book w/in the next two days to get the next week instead. I asked about someone walking a ressie and was told it's no longer allowed, however a member can add on additional days and then I guess they can call back later and cancel off the beginning dates they never wanted to start with. So I guess the only thing that can no longer be done is to move the entire ressie forward day by day. Big deal- someone with lots of points can still walk by adding then removing days later. Fortunately I could choose an alternate date, but some may not be able to do so, or may need more rooms and thus even have a greater challenge. I was on pins and needles calling right at 9 am at exactly the right date and thus did get my third choice option. I could have waitlisted the week I really wanted, but now with restrictions on how many waitlists we can have, eventually that could put people in a bind too....sigh. I guess I'll have to learn to figure new strategies but I detest having to play a game or try to outwit other members who have found a way to cheat the system. Not saying I blame them either if it's the only way to get what you want and I guess it's not really cheating either since it's allowed- it just doesn't sit well with me to book dates I never wanted to start with just to get the dates I do want, and thus prevent another member from getting something I'm holding. ---Kathy


----------



## Chuck S

dclfun said:


> While I've always understood the difference between "member points" and inventory available for cash only, why is it then that often a CRO promo will include a bigger discount for cash guests booking SSR or OKW- is there really that much space to fill that isn't used by members/can't be used by members using points? Will this allocation also help with that situation? Many cash guests question the value of SSR and/or OKW since they're often left to reserve after other resorts are sold out- why are there so many leftovers at those resorts then even on weekdays- is it unused inventory or inventory that can only be booked via a cash ressie?---Kathy




The re-allocation _may_ or may not have any impact on the cash inventory.  If the inventory is available because of breakage (unreserved DVC rooms at 60 days) it may have a small impact.  However, most CRO cash rooms come from member trades, and any unsold inventory DVD may have.  They could have a lot of OKW/SSR inventory because of ROFR, and any unsold points/undeclared units in the SSR treehouse addition.

I know for several trips to OKW they were pushing add-ons at OKW through phone calls, so I assume they had a lot of points available.


----------



## dclfun

Chuck S said:


> The re-allocation _may_ or may not have any impact on the cash inventory.  If the inventory is available because of breakage (unreserved DVC rooms at 60 days) it may have a small impact.  However, most CRO cash rooms come from member trades, and any unsold inventory DVD may have.  They could have a lot of OKW/SSR inventory because of ROFR, and any unsold points/undeclared units in the SSR treehouse addition.
> 
> I know for several trips to OKW they were poushing add-ons at OKW through phoine calls, so I assume they had a lot of points available.



Yikes...I forgot about member trades- it just seems that all the unused inventory is at OKW/SSR- remember a few years back when guests who booked FD at the value resorts got free upgrades to 1 bedroom and studio villas at SSR/OKW? Then the offers for BB promos almost always are at a larger percentage of a discount at those two resorts. It feels then as those two resort properties are devalued. I didn't realize they were pushing add-ons at OKW either- if they are, then you're right- must have alot of inventory from ROFR's. I had wondered how much inventory was from breakage, although you'd think that inventory couldn't be offered until 60 days prior either- seems like there's much more out there available for cash ressies.---Kathy


----------



## DisFlan

bobbiwoz said:


> I figured out that the lower weekend points will enable me to just about "walk" reservations for 2 weekend nights for the VB BC when I couldn't do so before.  I would have to get rid of Friday night on the next day, but I could do it.  If for me, than for others, and this brings me to my former objection with the new booking system for day of arrival.  Has anyone else found they can do that now/not before?  I'm writing another letter to MS, I know that some don't agree with me, but I do not think that walking should be allowed.  There should be some restrictions other than the number of points a member has.  I am  much more disturbed by walking than the point chart adjustment.
> 
> Bobbi



I don't like walking either, Bobbi, but I'm afraid if too many of us complain about it, we'll get another "member requested enchancement" of some kind.  Like a fee to change reservations - or some other kind of restriction.  Heck, we might get it anyway.  

I've legitimately changed our dates and it may have looked like walking to someone else (it wasn't).  We had to shift our plans by a few days.  I'd hate to not have this flexibility - or have to pay for it.

DisFlan


----------



## bookwormde

Just got a call from Joy (member satisfaction), as always she was very nice and took notes as to my thoughts. 

I tried to focus on the following issues

Transparency and honest communication with the members 

Supply point-balancing information (point calculations for each resort)

Giving adequate lead-time not just for MS needs but also for longer term planning needs of members.

Issue with BLT sales and BLT POS wording requiring changing the point charts every year to comply.

More disclosure on reasons behind the needed change, alternates that were in the members interests and reasons for the nature of the final change and how it is in the members best interests and any efforts to lessen the impact of the change through other methods.

Impact on the value of the franchise from perceived lack of candor and the lack of accurate and complete information about the change process. Also my belief that a significant reduction in member satisfaction would show up in independent polls in the next few quarters.

Although my letter did not cover this I also discussed the wait list issue including

Same items as above plus

IT issue and ms workload would not be an issue if IT was adequately supported and competent.

How providing preference for 1st choice and an additional waitlist hierarchy should be easily addressed by effective IT

Addressed the issued or not being able to group waitlist requests (like any 2br BCV or SV AKV studio etc and how with proper IT system this would be simple.

Discussed how members appreciated call from the satisfaction team but since management keeps handling communication and changes in the same poor manner that the impact of concerns did not seem to have much weight.

I would guess that the call was 15-20 minute and was 8 days from the email date.

bookwormde


----------



## jekjones1558

> I've legitimately changed our dates and it may have looked like walking to someone else (it wasn't). We had to shift our plans by a few days. I'd hate to not have this flexibility - or have to pay for it.



I have the same concern.  When we book hard to get reservations at BWV I have sometimes booked a longer stay than I ended up needing.  The 330 rule for airlines means that I have to take a guess about when the cheapest days will be for flying.  Sometimes the difference can be hundreds of dollars or much better flight times so I have dropped a day or 2.  We have also needed to adjust our dates for medical reasons.  I admit that having extra points gives me an advantage in this regard, but that is part of the reason that we bought extra points!  I do always cancel as soon as I am sure that we will not need the days, in order to allow others to book those days.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

<Bob puts on his DUMB hat>

What's "walking"? Before someone explains putting one foot in front of the other, I know what that kind of walking is.  

I'm talking about relative to reservations in a timeshare as noted above.

Thanks.


----------



## hakepb

WilsonFlyer said:


> <Bob puts on his DUMB hat>
> 
> What's "walking"? Before someone explains putting one foot in front of the other, I know what that kind of walking is.
> 
> I'm talking about relative to reservations in a timeshare as noted above.
> 
> Thanks.



Start booking earlier than you need at the exact 11+7 window, then add days until you get the dates you really want, then cancel the earlier days you do not need.

If you get your first 7 days at the 11+7 window (in say room 101), then you are guaranteed your longer stay if you add day by day.  People that call the next day might get (say room 102) for your days 2-8 but no one else can start their trip in your room...

You might be able to walk by adding a day, then cancelling a day, but too many might get your account tagged as commercial (20 cancellations in a year)...


----------



## Buckalew11

I'm not happy with the new points system.   My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125. I had not even looked at 2010 points until last night when I was thinking of booking for 2010.
 I was surprised. I'm thinking of booking at BCV now and then switching to BWV, if possible, at 7 months to save some points. I'm not sure what I'll do.


----------



## DVCDebb

When we bought into OKW we were promised that if points per week increased  we would be given the points to compensate for adjustments.  Needless to say now short for the normal trips and wish we had never extended membership the extra 15 years.  Seem they forgot to tell us what they were doing to those of us that helped build DVC up to all our friends and families.    Haven't heard anything on this  to those of us loyal to Disney.


----------



## Dean

LVSWL said:


> Sounds like a whole lot of wishing and hoping on DVCs part to me,"someone who will very possibly"


No, just explaining how this will work for a segment of the membership that is only doing S-F and that's all the points they have.  EVERY shift from weekday to weekend or vice versa will also shift usage, the question is how much and is it enough or too much.  ARDA and many points based timeshares have a lot of info to back that approach up.  DVC also has the added advantage of a host of info from Disney's resort system.  



Inkmahm said:


> Exactly the same.  I don't care how cheap they make end of Aug / early Sept, I'm not going to Florida at that time of year.


But someone will else they'd have to close the resort down for a period of time.



Buckalew11 said:


> I'm not happy with the new points system.   My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125. I had not even looked at 2010 points until last night when I was thinking of booking for 2010.
> I was surprised. I'm thinking of booking at BCV now and then switching to BWV, if possible, at 7 months to save some points. I'm not sure what I'll do.


It's doubtful BWV standard view will be available.  It's likely AKV standard, OKW & SSR will be your best cheaper options.  



DVCDebb said:


> When we bought into OKW we were promised that if points per week increased  we would be given the points to compensate for adjustments.  Needless to say now short for the normal trips and wish we had never extended membership the extra 15 years.  Seem they forgot to tell us what they were doing to those of us that helped build DVC up to all our friends and families.    Haven't heard anything on this  to those of us loyal to Disney.


That would be a very unusual promise and I hope you have it in writing and signed by a supervisor.


----------



## WolfpackFan

Buckalew11 said:


> My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125.



Sounds just like our situation. We always go to HHI the first week of June and stay in a 1BR. Our stays have been costing us 110 pts., but from now on they will cost 125 pts. Our plans are to make our 11 month ressie for a Studio which takes 65 pts. and then hopefully switch to a 1BR at 7 months using either our VWL or AKV pts. If we can't do it then I'll start backing up weeks until we can get the 1BR. If no luck, we'll just stay in the Studio. What gets me is that all this was done to supposedly reduce the pts. for Friday and Saturday nights. But at HHI, those points are still ridiculously high. Oddly enough, the Studio pts. didn't change that much, it was mainly the 1BR pts. Also, the 2BR's are not that many more pts. than the 1BR's now. It might be that we take a 2BR and waste the extra bedroom. But you do what you have to do.


----------



## TisBit

mickeymom629 said:


> Maybe, but I think you missed my point which was for the reasoning that DVC gave for changing the points - you have to read what I was commenting to, which was that they lowered the weekend points so that more people would want to stay the weekend nights.  I was saying that the people who like to go Sun-Thurs, because it fits their vacation preference (traveling on the weekends, etc) will not necessarily be adding the weekend nights *TOO *, etc. etc., just because they lowered the points.  Those who _already_ go on weekends are benefitted because their typical stay has been lowered.
> 
> Yes, those who spend less points for the time they usually stay *might *add a night (a trip?? - that would be a substantial savings), but I'm sure for some of those there will still be banking and borrowing to add the extra night or vacation.   By the same token, those who are negatively affected will also find a way to bank and borrow to adjust.



No, I understood what the point was.  But understand that the point is that if some lessen due to increase in point costs (most by only 2-10 points per vacation) many will add if it only means a few extra points then what they used to do.

I don't believe that they did this to encourage Sun-Thurs people to stay the weekend, but rather to increase weekend stays, which might be from Sun-Thurs people or people that typically go weekends.  I know that I am more likely to stay a an extra weekend night now that the points don't "break the bank".  

Majority of people in America actually work Mon-Fri jobs and are more likely to stay a weekend on vacation.  While I am not one of those people (I work in law enforcement) my wife is and our vacations are usually from one weekend to another, before we would leave sun and come back saturday to save some points...I am more likely to do Sat to Sat now.  

In the same sense, all the people here on the Dis that rent a room on cash to save points might rethink that theory, because the cost benefit is different now.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

Originally Posted by Buckalew11  
I'm not happy with the new points system.  My trip this year cost me 110 pts. Next year, 125. I had not even looked at 2010 points until last night when I was thinking of booking for 2010.
I was surprised. I'm thinking of booking at BCV now and then switching to BWV, if possible, at 7 months to save some points. I'm not sure what I'll do.



Dean said:


> It's doubtful BWV standard view will be available.  It's likely AKV standard, OKW & SSR will be your best cheaper options.



One interesting thing about the reallocatio is that for certain room sizes during certain Seasons, even BW view rooms are cheaper than a similar sized rooms at BCV (and vice-versa).  There are a lot fewer "no brainer" WL options among BCV, BWV and VWL where the points are exactly the same, so there is no risk of ending up with holding points.  -- Suzanne


----------



## Sammie

hakepb said:


> Start booking earlier than you need at the exact 11+7 window, then add days until you get the dates you really want, then cancel the earlier days you do not need.
> 
> If you get your first 7 days at the 11+7 window (in say room 101), then you are guaranteed your longer stay if you add day by day.  People that call the next day might get (say room 102) for your days 2-8 but no one else can start their trip in your room...
> 
> You might be able to walk by adding a day, then cancelling a day, but too many might get your account tagged as commercial (20 cancellations in a year)...




I really do not see where this makes a difference, I guess I truly am missing something with "walking", because to me it seems all you are doing is making a reservation you don't really want or need; and then trying to get what you want; but see no reason having the one you don't need improves your chances of getting what you want.

I mean it still has to be available.


----------



## Mississippian

Sammie said:


> I really do not see where this makes a difference, I guess I truly am missing something with "walking", because to me it seems all you are doing is making a reservation you don't really want or need; and then trying to get what you want; but see no reason having the one you don't need improves your chances of getting what you want.
> 
> I mean it still has to be available.


Sammie,

You may now make a reservation 11 months and six days ahead of your visit, instead of the old 11-month window.  Under the old system, people were calling day by day.  Now you can call once and get your reservation for the entire week.

The problem is that it is now possible for some dates to NEVER be available at the 11-month mark.  They will be booked by people arriving a day or two earlier and will be completely unavailable when the first day to book on that particular dates comes around.

You are far more likely to get availability by "walking" than you are if you just wait until your desired reservation day arrives and book.


----------



## dcfromva

tjkraz said:


> Anytime they are forced to turn-away potential guests due to lack of availability on weekdays--while weekend rooms sit empty--there is a problem.



  Where is your data that supports weekend rooms go empty?  

   I would be willing to give you that weeknights book up _before _weekends, but I do not believe weekends go empty.  It just doesn't mirror my experience with making reservations.  I'd say 95% of of our stays include a least one weekend night.   Anecdotal, yes, but I'm sitting on the W-L again for _another _Fri/Sat stay.


----------



## tjkraz

dcfromva said:


> Where is your data that supports weekend rooms go empty?



Unless you're accusing DVC of violating Florida law, we need look no further than the reallocation itself.  The only justification for reallocating is to balance demand.  If demand for weekends was equal to weekdays, none of this would have happened.


----------



## dcfromva

tjkraz said:


> Unless you're accusing DVC of violating Florida law, we need look no further than the reallocation itself.


 I am not familar with Fl law, perhaps you could point me to the statue to which you are referring?  


> The only justification for reallocating is to balance demand.  If demand for weekends was equal to weekdays, none of this would have happened.


  I believe it has already been pointed out before that the language states "seasonal demand"   Weekend to weekday changes do not suggest "seasonal" to me.
   As I said before, I would be willing to give you that weeknights might book up prior to weekends, but empty --that is a far reach to make such a conclusion.


----------



## tjkraz

dcfromva said:


> I am not familar with Fl law, perhaps you could point me to the statue to which you are referring?



It's been quoted in this thread at least a dozen times by Dean, myself and others.  I'm not going to go search for it right now.  

It states that the timeshare manager retains the right to reallocate the points in response to member demand.  



> I believe it has already been pointed out before that the language states "seasonal demand"   Weekend to weekday changes do not suggest "seasonal" to me.
> As I said before, I would be willing to give you that weeknights might book up prior to weekends, but empty --that is a far reach to make such a conclusion.



If I used the word "empty" it was hyperbole.  Of course the resorts are not completely empty.  But even if they are at 95% average on weekdays and 80% weekends (hypothetical), demand is still out of balance.  

I think it is obvious that weekend levels are lower than weekdays under the current point structure.  The volume of guests arriving on Sundays and departing on Fridays is very apparent to any resort guest.  The 25% member cash discount is easy to obtain. 

Whatever occupancy level the resorts are able to reach on weekends is also propped-up by the 25% discount bookings and rooms booked thru CRO under the breakage rules.  The rooms should be full of members using their points--not cash-paying guests getting a deal.


----------



## aurorafan

Cmbar said:


> Not to mention that the cost to buy in at lower point structure allowed them to significantly raise the price per point.  Lets just say there is a breakeven point of where most feel comfortable spending on a timeshare.  If that number is 20,000 then people who bought back in the days of 230 minimum at 52.00 a point only spent around 12,000 so they could easily by the minimum and more.  Now a person who wants to buy a 160 point contract will need to spend close 18,000 for 30% less points.  Now for a family to do the point structure that allows a good minimum (lets say 230 again) it would cost 26,000.  So the owners who are advocating a minimum buy in that was higher have a great point that it would allow the system to work better, however the price per point has gone up to a point that make it difficult to get new buyers to buy in with that many points (this also benefits the older buyers as well as the value of their 230 points has gone up).




I definitely see the value to the system of having a higher minimum point buy-in, but I agree with the above statement in that DH and I wouldn't have been able to buy in if there had been a 230 pt. (or thereabouts) minimum at the current price per point.  Our comfort level was definitely $20,000 as a max, preferably less, which is what we ended up with (160 pts. at $101/pt. minus the $8/pt. incentive).

We are one of the people Chuck (or Dean? can't keep track at this point sorry!) are saying Disney was hoping for with the "smaller" buy-ins though.  We always knew we'd add on as soon as we paid off our current contract .


----------



## aurorafan

dandave said:


> One thing that I really don't get, however, are those who plan to verbalize their disgust for DVC at the parks, to your friends, and to anyone else who will listen. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would you follow a potential buyer around your home pointing out the non-existent closet space, the outdated kitchen cabinets, the tacky wallpaper in the den, or the overall feeling of gloom associated with the upstairs bedroom where Grandpa Bernie was found frozen last winter? I'm just curious.



  Okay, I just had to post and say thank you for the laugh this morning!  It is especially amusing to us as we have several of those issues in our house (although not the bedroom with the frozen relative  )


----------



## aurorafan

mickeymom629 said:


> I say that only as it applies to what we were told - "locking in to today's prices for tomorrow".  It should still _apply to all members using their points the way they have been._
> 
> No matter how you look at it, if a member has been booking Sun. to Thurs., their "prices" just went up for the same stay - which goes against what was implied.
> 
> If they had left some weeks in the year with the same points, that might have been a little better - at least the Sun.-Thurs. members would have *some* options at "yesterday's" prices.
> 
> Obviously, this is JMO.



The way I looked at it (and I could be completely off base here) was not that I could always get the same room at the same time of year for the same amount of days at "today's prices", but rather that what I could get in the future would still cost me less than what people going through CRO _at that time _would be paying.  So I would be using points bought at today's prices while they'd be paying whatever the current rate would be at that time.  Does that make sense?


----------



## aurorafan

keishashadow said:


> condescending is the responses that r being given particularly as to the BLT situation re add on points. especially now that those short due to new allocation would be forced to purchase another 100 pts in order to make it work or curtail the plans they so carefully crafted. Never did i think i would be happy about deciding not to add on there.



I respectfully have to disagree with you here--I'm on page 126 of this thread, and so far even the people who say they have no sympathy for most of the situations are still saying they understand and/or agree with those who are upset over the BLT fiasco.

I personally think they should allow (as others have mentioned) those who already own BLT to get the minimum add-ons of 25 pts. to help alleviate the situation they now find themselves in.  I think Tim is right--had they released this a couple of weeks ago before upping the add-on minimum, they would have seen sales increase a bit as those who found themselves short a few points amended their contracts to buy a few points more.

It was badly handled all around, and while I see the need for the reallocation (and will benefit sometimes from it) it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

Sammie said:


> I really do not see where this makes a difference, I guess I truly am missing something with "walking", because to me it seems all you are doing is making a reservation you don't really want or need; and then trying to get what you want; but see no reason having the one you don't need improves your chances of getting what you want.
> 
> I mean it still has to be available.



Walking works when you book at the 11 month window plus additional days for which the 11 month has not yet opened.  To understand, assume you book AKV concierge room 6401 11 months prior to Day 1 for Days 1 -7, but really want Days 5-11.

On Day 5, another member calls at 9 am and wants to book room 6401 for Days 5-11.  They are told that there is no availability for Days 5 & 6 becuase you have already booked it.  Days 7-11 are available, but the other member cannot book them because you cannot book within the 11 month window unless you have a continuous reservation; i.e., you must book Days 5 and 6 to be allowed to book 7 -11.  The other member can WL day 5 but must call back the next day to see if Day 6 becomes available.

You call on Day 5 and want to book Days 7-11.  Since you already have a reservation for Days 5 & 6, you are allowed to book Days 7-11 and can cancel Days 1-4 to free up points to do so.

This is how walking a reservation actually creates availability for days not yet at the 11 month window.

I personally have not problem with walking; members book reservations they do not use all the time.  I much prefer members cancelling unneeded dates  close to 11 months out rather than close to 30 days.  -- Suzanne


----------



## DVC92

tjkraz said:


> Unless you're accusing DVC of violating Florida law, we need look no further than the reallocation itself.  The only justification for reallocating is to balance demand.  If demand for weekends was equal to weekdays, none of this would have happened.



As I previously pointed out, there is nothing in the Fl. law that mandates reallocation for the purpose of balancing. It is a discretionary power of DVC. 

Further, to state that none of this would have happened absent equal demand is making an assumption without factual support. We do not know why the reallocation took place. It could be for balancing, or it could simply be to make a few more dollars. Unless a transcript of some internal meeting turns up, we simply are not privy to the real reason.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

DVC92 said:


> As I previously pointed out, there is nothing in the Fl. law that mandates reallocation for the purpose of balancing. It is a discretionary power of DVC.
> 
> Further, to state that none of this would have happened absent equal demand is making an assumption without factual support. We do not know why the reallocation took place. It could be for balancing, or it could simply be to make a few more dollars. Unless a transcript of some internal meeting turns up, we simply are not privy to the real reason.


I also agree here. There are many assumptions being made. Since this "imbalance" has existed for some time, I feel there are other motives involved for this move ( like money).


----------



## tjkraz

DVC92 said:


> As I previously pointed out, there is nothing in the Fl. law that mandates reallocation for the purpose of balancing. It is a discretionary power of DVC.
> 
> Further, to state that none of this would have happened absent equal demand is making an assumption without factual support. We do not know why the reallocation took place. It could be for balancing, or it could simply be to make a few more dollars. Unless a transcript of some internal meeting turns up, we simply are not privy to the real reason.



Seems pretty clear-cut to me (bold text is my own, of course):



> Prior to offering the multisite timeshare plan, the developer shall create the reservation system and shall establish rules and regulations for its operation. In establishing these rules and regulations, the *developer shall take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand *of each component site that he or she intends to offer as a part of the plan and *shall use his or her best efforts, in good faith *and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the purchasers of the plan as a whole *with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the accommodations and facilities of the plan*. The rules and regulations shall also provide for *periodic adjustment *or amendment of the reservation system by the managing entity from time to time in order to *respond to actual purchaser use patterns and changes in purchaser use demand for the accommodations *and facilities existing at that time within the plan.



http://www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/in....HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0721->Section 56#0721.56

I don't see anything in the statute which gives the timeshare manager (the developer is a separate entity) the right to reallocate on a whim or "to make a few dollars."

If you want to disagree and keep playing the "where is your evidence" game, so be it.  But so far I have yet to any proof to support your argument, either.  While sales may benefit in some ways, they will undoubtedly suffer in others.  And I think Disney has much to lose in terms of reduced breakage bookings due to higher weekend occupancy.


----------



## DVC92

tjkraz said:


> I don't see anything in the statute which gives the timeshare manager (the developer is a separate entity) the right to reallocate on a whim or "to make a few dollars."
> 
> If you want to disagree and keep playing the "where is your evidence" game, so be it.  But so far I have yet to any proof to support your argument, either.  While sales may benefit in some ways, they will undoubtedly suffer in others.  And I think Disney has much to lose in terms of reduced breakage bookings due to higher weekend occupancy.



It is still a discretionary power of DVC to reallocate. The statute merely forced inclusion of a regulation to empower the managing entity to reallocate. 

I also never claimed to have any evidence to support the reallocation was done for the purpose of making money. I have said we don't know. There is no evidence to support any conclusion.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

DVC92 said:


> It is still a discretionary power of DVC to reallocate. The statute merely forced inclusion of a regulation to empower the managing entity to reallocate.
> 
> I also never claimed to have any evidence to support the reallocation was done for the purpose of making money. I have said we don't know. There is no evidence to support any conclusion.


No you didn't.....I am the one who thinks they did it for money!! We don't even know if Disney lost ANY sales due to this change. We all really know NOTHING! One constant is that Disney is hurting....big, big, time. They need to generate revenue, how ever the vehicle.


----------



## Chuck S

Actually, it really isn't all that "discretionary".  It says they SHALL, not that they may at their discretion.  Shall = must, not "if they want to."


----------



## dd08

BWV Dreamin said:


> No you didn't.....I am the one who thinks they did it for money!! We don't even know if Disney lost ANY sales due to this change. We all really know NOTHING! One constant is that Disney is hurting....big, big, time. They need to generate revenue, how ever the vehicle.



I shouldn't be getting into this, and in today's world I understand why people are jaded.....

But, how do you see this as a move "to generate revenue?"

I know the popular, yet completely unfounded opinion on this thread is that they did it to sell add-ons, however.....

Most resorts are sold.  GCV (which is and would have sold quickly anyways), AKV (which is probably mostly sold), THV (which isn't THAT many more points) and BLT are the only truly active ones.  

DVC/D can't just generate new add-on contracts for BWV, OKW, BCV, etc as these resorts are already sold out. 

In regards to the new resorts that aren't sold, the total number of points aren't increasing so therefore they aren't going to sell "more" or generate more revenue from this. 

The ONLY thing IMO, that could be questioned is why BLT is the solitary resort that requires a minimum of 100 points to add-on.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just dont' see how this is was done "to generate more revenue"  

BTW - don't take it personally, I've asked this question to other people who have said this and have yet to receive a response to my recollection.  Just wondering what (if??) I'm missing


----------



## BWV Dreamin

dd08 said:


> I shouldn't be getting into this, and in today's world I understand why people are jaded.....
> 
> But, how do you see this as a move "to generate revenue?"
> 
> I know the popular, yet completely unfounded opinion on this thread is that they did it to sell add-ons, however.....
> 
> Most resorts are sold. GCV (which is and would have sold quickly anyways), AKV (which is probably mostly sold), THV (which isn't THAT many more points) and BLT are the only truly active ones.
> 
> DVC/D can't just generate new add-on contracts for BWV, OKW, BCV, etc as these resorts are already sold out.
> 
> In regards to the new resorts that aren't sold, the total number of points aren't increasing so therefore they aren't going to sell "more" or generate more revenue from this.
> 
> The ONLY thing IMO, that could be questioned is why BLT is the solitary resort that requires a minimum of 100 points to add-on.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just dont' see how this is was done "to generate more revenue"
> 
> BTW - don't take it personally, I've asked this question to other people who have said this and have yet to receive a response to my recollection. Just wondering what (if??) I'm missing


Hey, I'm all about discussion! Well, lets just first state that no resort is "truely" sold out. Again, we have no figures, but you can still ask to purchase sold out resorts. If one must waitlist for them, Disney will simply ROFR some on the resale market, and make profit on the waitlist sale. Many, many BLT posters have already stated they would purchase more points if it was under the 100 pt. minimum. So with time, they will eventually add-on or look for BLT resale (unless Disney ROFR's the smaller contracts). Getting past the emotional "I'm never gonna add-on again" statements, eventually, to continue their desired vacation habits, they WILL add-on. Ok, so are we talking mega bucks in six months? No, but a little here, a little there, etc. will add up over time. Lets not forget future sales....now requires more points for stays. Don't know why the picked BLT for no samll add-ons. Maybe they are setting up a future precedent.


----------



## dd08

BWV Dreamin said:


> Hey, I'm all about discussion! Well, lets just first state that no resort is "truely" sold out. Again, we have no figures, but you can still ask to purchase sold out resorts. If one must waitlist for them, Disney will simply ROFR some on the resale market, and make profit on the waitlist sale.
> 
> _Actually, in terms of "sold out," I meant the initial offerings so they are "sold out" yes you can buy resale via DVC or another entity.....So DVC decides to change the 2010 charts just to make a relatively small number of sales via resales?  Not a good business decision and one I don't think they would have made.  Especially considering that they sell the ROFR contracts they obtained at $104/point.  People can still buy cheaper elsewhere......Their "bread and butter" are selling to the "new" resorts, that's why they push those and not the "small" number of contracts they have obtained via ROFR.  Looking at it from a business perspective, I just don't see the logic here._
> 
> Many, many BLT posters have already stated they would purchase more points if it was under the 100 pt. minimum. So with time, they will eventually add-on or look for BLT resale (unless Disney ROFR's the smaller contracts). Getting past the emotional "I'm never gonna add-on again" statements, eventually, to continue their desired vacation habits, they WILL add-on. Ok, so are we talking mega bucks in six months? No, but a little here, a little there, etc. will add up over time. Lets not forget future sales....now requires more points for stays. Don't know why the picked BLT for no samll add-ons. Maybe they are setting up a future precedent.
> 
> _I agree (and stated originally) that the BLT minimum is odd, but BLT is just one resort out of 4 that they are selling right now.  I can add on to AKV for only 25 points, so if this point chart change was this grand master plan to get me to buy more points that I didn't "need" why not increase the minimum on AKV to 100?  Just doesn't make sense.  Sorry_





Again, just discussing, not arguing, but the logic presented by people here stating this was just to increase sales doesn't appear to be valid.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

We all have our opinions but I don't think that they are going to make any real money on add-on's at existing resorts.  Let's say they ROFR a BCV contract for around $80.00pp.  They turn around and sell you a 25 point contract for $106pp.  That's only $650 gross to Disney.  By the time all the paperwork gets done they probably lose money.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

White_Sox_Fan said:


> We all have our opinions but I don't think that they are going to make any real money on add-on's at existing resorts. Let's say they ROFR a BCV contract for around $80.00pp. They turn around and sell you a 25 point contract for $106pp. That's only $650 gross to Disney. By the time all the paperwork gets done they probably lose money.


I guess the real question is just how many points does Disney sell annually? We don't have those figures....I have read though that they sell many, many more points than on the resales market. So while WE may not think there is much revenue generated, we really have no way of knowing this. Even if some revenue is added, again, in conjuction with other cost savings measures (like laying off 600 Disney excecutives), its all a culminating effect.


----------



## tjkraz

White_Sox_Fan said:


> We all have our opinions but I don't think that they are going to make any real money on add-on's at existing resorts.  Let's say they ROFR a BCV contract for around $80.00pp.  They turn around and sell you a 25 point contract for $106pp.  That's only $650 gross to Disney.  By the time all the paperwork gets done they probably lose money.



Very true.  Yes, this approach allows DVC to effectively re-sell something it already sold once.  But don't ignore all of the dollars paid out to re-acquire that asset in the first place.  "New" sales are far more profitable than the ROFR / re-sell game.  

And I still don't see the reallocation as being driven by potential add-on sales.  When you whittle down all of the people who are not going to add, you get to a pretty small market.  I have a report which states that DVC finances 75% of all purchases.  By and large we are not talking about a group that will collectively shrug its shoulders and commit to a 50-100 pt add-on simply to maintain their current standards.  In this thread alone we've had many people state that they will reduce their trip frequency, shorter their trips by a day, book smaller rooms, take fewer family members, spent more time off-site, visit in cheaper seasons, and so on.  

If there is any sales benefit to DVC, I think it comes in the form of making those small resale contracts less appealing.  I think DVC is torn between accommodating member needs for small add-ons vs. the volume of those add-ons which make it to the resale market.  IMHO, the sales benefit comes in that a 160-pt initial purchase now seems a lot more reasonable than buying 80-100 via resale.  

If DVC were worried about the economy, IMO we would be seeing a lot more attractive incentives than we are now.  The current $5 and $6.25 off are the smallest cash incentives we have ever seen.  Meanwhile DVC just raised the base price an unprecedented 8% from $104 to $112.  Where are the free annual passes?  Where are the $500 gift cards?  Nothing about the current pricing + incentives suggests that DVC is hurting for sales.


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> I guess the real question is just how many points does Disney sell annually?



In 2007 DVC had revenues of approximately $375 million.  Assuming that figure is based upon the $104 published rate for points, it would be about 3.6 million points in '07.  

A separate source reports that DVC sales were up 18% in 2008.  

Not sure what that's supposed to tell us, though...    White_Sox_Fan is right that ROFR is not a very lucrative business for DVC. 

If DVC buys-back BWV at $85 and re-sells for $106, they've grossed $21 per point on the transaction.  On a 25-pt contract that is $525.  On 50 pts that is $1050.  

Then you need to deduct closing cost x2 (first to re-acquire the points, then to re-sell) and all of the administrative overhead associated with the sale.  Costs to write-up the contract, sales salaries / commission, etc.  

DVC stands to make a few dollars on the largest contracts and will probably lose on the smaller ones.


----------



## BroganMc

tjkraz said:


> Very true.  Yes, this approach allows DVC to effectively re-sell something it already sold once.  But don't ignore all of the dollars paid out to re-acquire that asset in the first place.  "New" sales are far more profitable than the ROFR / re-sell game.



Is it anymore than the cash layout of constructing and carrying a new resort? Think about it. On a resale contract there are no construction costs. Maintenance fees have been paid by existing members until ROFR, then carried on again by new add-on buyers.

So while the price differential between ROFR and resale may only net them around $600-700 for a smaller contract, perhaps that is as much as they'd get from a new construction less startup costs. It's doubledipping for DVC with only paperwork as the overhead expense.



> If DVC were worried about the economy, IMO we would be seeing a lot more attractive incentives than we are now.  The current $5 and $6.25 off are the smallest cash incentives we have ever seen.  Meanwhile DVC just raised the base price an unprecedented 8% from $104 to $112.  Where are the free annual passes?  Where are the $500 gift cards?  Nothing about the current pricing + incentives suggests that DVC is hurting for sales.



To play Devil's Advocate here, there does seem to be quite a bit of "koolaid" thinking driving DVC sales of late. What with BLT opening for sale right at the beginning of the Recession bubble burst, then a rate hike and point hike. It's as if those in management are living in a reality a year outdated when sales boomed and the economy was strong. By all accounts, sales have slumped in regards to reaching their quarterly quotas. But instead of looking at the realities of the world at large, managers are concentrating on the deceptive influence of a few new sales for long-awaited resorts.

There had existed a market for BLT and VGC for years just waiting for those resorts to open. Sales Guides predicted BLT would sell out within 6 months due to all its pre-sale "blue sky" hype. Those buyers were just waiting to pull the trigger on a sale. But once they all buy, will DVC be able to stay competitive in the timeshare market? It seems that they have hung their hat solely on sales as a measure of success. So when they meet market saturation will the DVC bubble burst as well and hard reality set in for managers?

What concerns me most about the program in the last year or so is how disenfranchised the membership is becoming. Management seems to have forgotten they have entered into a partnership with owners. What happens if members lose their affection for the program and start selling off en masse? Sure DVC can handle the few resale contracts on the market now, but what if that resale tops 50% of membership? Can they keep up with ROFR on that many contracts at a profitable rate?


----------



## BWV Dreamin

BroganMc said:


> What concerns me most about the program in the last year or so is how disenfranchised the membership is becoming. Management seems to have forgotten they have entered into a partnership with owners. What happens if members lose their affection for the program and *start selling off en masse? *Sure DVC can handle the few resale contracts on the market now, but what if that resale tops 50% of membership? Can they keep up with ROFR on that many contracts at a profitable rate?


What if they don't move via resales....what happens if they all just "walk away" like with housing? That could put a real big hurt on Disney.


----------



## tjkraz

BroganMc said:


> Is it anymore than the cash layout of constructing and carrying a new resort? Think about it. On a resale contract there are no construction costs.



The Bay Lake Tower has been cited as being a $110 million construction project.  According to my quick calculations DVC will sell more than 6 million points.  That makes construction costs at BLT less than $18 per point--a fraction of the +/- $85 it cost to re-acquire via ROFR in my example.  




> To play Devil's Advocate here, there does seem to be quite a bit of "koolaid" thinking driving DVC sales of late. What with BLT opening for sale right at the beginning of the Recession bubble burst, then a rate hike and point hike. It's as if those in management are living in a reality a year outdated when sales boomed and the economy was strong. By all accounts, sales have slumped in regards to reaching their quarterly quotas.



Who are the "all accounts" being cited here?  



> What concerns me most about the program in the last year or so is how disenfranchised the membership is becoming. Management seems to have forgotten they have entered into a partnership with owners. What happens if members lose their affection for the program and start selling off en masse? Sure DVC can handle the few resale contracts on the market now, but what if that resale tops 50% of membership? Can they keep up with ROFR on that many contracts at a profitable rate?



Don't delude yourself into thinking that the select opinions you read on the Internet are in any way representative of "the membership."   The number of DVC owners who frequent these message boards is pretty small (10% may be high) and an even smaller percentage has posted to actually share an opinion.  How many people do you think have posted on this thread?  Maybe 200-300?  And that's out of 300,000 members...

Market Metrix performs independent quarterly customer satisfaction surveys within the hospitality industry.  As of 3Q 2008 (last data published) DVC continued to be the leader in the timeshare category with a satisfaction rating over 90%.  They maintained that through the banking changes (fall '07), through the glassware issues (spring '08), through the booking policy changes (summer '08), and so on.  

Reading this thread it's quite apparent that some folks have had their own bubble burst by DVC.  But come on--that's not exactly a new phenomenon.  DVC (and Disney as a whole) has been gaining and losing customers for decades.  

Will DVC's approval rating dip in the near future?  Perhaps.  This is a pretty big issue that will seemingly impact a lot of members.  But a lot of folks got pretty worked-up over other changes in the last 2 years and DVC's approval remained steady.  

No matter what business you choose--Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Marriott, General Electric, McDonald's--if you look hard enough you'll find these little pockets of disgruntled folks who think that business can do no right.  I think we (and yes, I include myself) are the equivalent for DVC.  We get so caught up in overanalyzing every single move that we lose sight of the big picture.  

And perhaps more importantly, despite making claims that DVC has lost touch with its membership base, we should consider that WE may be the ones who have no idea what our fellow members want/need/desire.  It's certainly OK to say "*I *don't like this change", but 50% of owners considering selling?!?!  Come on, now.   

Emotionally I was as stunned by the reallocation as anyone else.  But intellectually it makes perfect sense.  But DVC isn't a house or a car or a piece of land with a single owner.  There is no democracy in place to vote on how it should be governed.  The resorts are all *shared property *and DVC exists to help protect the interests of *all *owners--not just those of us who are ticked-off because our usage went up.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

tjkraz said:


> The Bay Lake Tower has been cited as being a $110 million construction project.  According to my quick calculations DVC will sell more than 6 million points.  That makes construction costs at BLT less than $18 per point--a fraction of the +/- $85 it cost to re-acquire via ROFR in my example.



I wonder if that is the $110M construction cost includes all the fit out.  The furnishings, artwork, decorations, appliances, TV's, utensils, cookware, etc.  I think the final total for all this work would be more than $110M.  

I also wonder how much Disney spend on marketing, sales, etc.


----------



## DVC92

Chuck S said:


> Actually, it really isn't all that "discretionary".  It says they SHALL, not that they may at their discretion.  Shall = must, not "if they want to."



In my POS, it specifically states that "In order to meet the clubs members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in use day demand at a given DVC resort experienced by DVC during a given calendar year, DVC may in its sole DISCRETION increase or decrease the vacation point requirement for a given use day...." It goes on to say that the right to reallocate is reserved solely for adjusting the reservation system to accommodate member demand. Thus, the adjustment is a discretionary right and the only reason DVC can legally give to support the adjustment is predicated on balancing, whether it is true or not.


----------



## Chuck S

DVC92 said:


> In my POS, it specifically states that "In order to meet the clubs members' needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in use day demand at a given DVC resort experienced by DVC during a given calendar year, DVC may in its sole DISCRETION increase or decrease the vacation point requirement for a given use day...." It goes on to say that the right to reallocate is reserved solely for adjusting the reservation system to accommodate member demand. Thus, the adjustment is a discretionary right and the only reason DVC can legally give to support the adjustment is predicated on balancing, whether it is true or not.



The POS says DVC has the right to do it, Florida Timeshare law says it SHALL (must) be done.  State law trumps POS.


----------



## DVC92

Chuck S said:


> The POS says DVC has the right to do it, Florida Timeshare law says it SHALL (must) be done.  State law trumps POS.



DVC complied with the Fl. statute by providing a regulation to make the adjustment at whatever time they deemed necessary and within their sole discretion. When, and if, they make such an adjustment is clearly within their discretion. You may argue they failed to comply with the Fl. law, but the state of Florida approved their regulation for handling an adjustment.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

I'm actually going to agree with DVC92 on this one.  The statute, which has been referred to several times, states:
_
Prior to offering the multisite timeshare plan, the developer shall create the reservation system and shall establish rules and regulations for its operation. In establishing these rules and regulations, the developer shall take into account the location and anticipated relative use demand of each component site that he or she intends to offer as a part of the plan and shall use his or her best efforts, in good faith and based upon all reasonably available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the purchasers of the plan as a whole with respect to their opportunity to use and enjoy the accommodations and facilities of the plan. *The rules and regulations shall also provide for periodic adjustment or amendment of the reservation system by the managing entity from time to time in order to respond to actual purchaser use patterns and changes in purchaser use demand for the accommodations and facilities existing at that time within the plan.* The person authorized to make additions and substitutions during the term of the multisite timeshare plan shall also comply with the requirements of this subsection in ascertaining the desirability of the proposed addition, substitution, adjustment, or amendment and the impact of same upon the demand for and availability of existing plan accommodations and facilities. _

All the statute says is that the rules shall allow for readjustment from time to time.  Obviously the DVC POS does allow for this readjustment which they have chosen to implement.  

I still believe that this was a necessary move that will better the membership as a whole.


----------



## T-i-double-g-err

DELETED - Not sure it really said what I thought it did... My bad.


----------



## drusba

Can't believe ROFR is looked as a significant source of profit. Undoubtedly some, but my impression has always been that ROFR has been used mainly to make sure the price does not become too low. If it was highly profitable, you would see them doing ROFR far more frequently than they have. Also, I do not look at the current changes as being intentionally done to generate more sales even at BLT or AKV and now SSR, for which they are still selling new points. I suspect they really did the change under a belief that they needed to decrease demand for weekdays  and hopefully raise it for weekends somewhat. They will accomplish at least the former because those who bought enough only for Sun through Thurs night trips will now simply not be able to book as many days/trips as they used to be able to book, and even many who bought more points than that are going to be giving up some days somewhere because of higher point costs -- example: even those who had enough points to do the 12 night trip, arrive on Sunday and leave on a Friday with one weekend in between will find themselves losing a day without more points .

However, I also believe that they did not think through all the issues. The assumption made that Disney does so and has lawyers who must have been advising them on everything is something that very often does not occur in big corporations. Sure their lawyers were involved, and, knowing what really occurs, those lawyers told them they could probably make the change but also noted there were some risks (that quite frankly is the usual opinion given by in-house lawyers on almost anything) and the particular lawyers involved may have been looking at the point chart change without looking at or even knowing of everything else, such as the the planned move to raise the minimum add-on at BLT to 100. Where I feel they dropped the ball is focusing on whether they can do the change while overlooking some particular issues. The main one I see is BLT. They should have had the initial point chart be what the 2010 chart is now if the change was coming. To sell to those purchasers under the impression that no change was close to being made is an oversight that amounts to being misleading. The POS (and the statute) speaks to making a change based on the actual reservation experience Disney has had at a resort and for BLT there was none so management dropped the ball there.  Then the ultimate of "I really forgot to think this through" move came when they raised the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing the point chart change; that is management acting thoughtlessly, unless you want to believe that DVD really sat down and said "Let's see how we can really screw the BLT purchasers." I do not look it as they planned this out to do harm to owners but instead as a series of acts where they missed a few key points (and I have been involved in matters with Fortune 500 corporations enough times to know this occurs far more often than people may believe and Disney is not immune). 

It will be interesting to see what they do now on the issue. For example, they could alleviate their mistake by doing something like allowing BLT buyers to add-on 10 point minimums if they bought before the announced change. However, I suspect they will do what many corporations do when they have acted poorly -- dig in their heels and assert they did nothing wrong. That itself often occurs because to do otherwise means someone in upper mangement has to admit to an error and that is too often impossible for them to do.


----------



## toocherie

drusba said:


> Can't believe ROFR is looked as a significant source of profit. Undoubtedly some, but my impression has always been that ROFR has been used mainly to make sure the price does not become too low. If it was highly profitable, you would see them doing ROFR far more frequently than they have. Also, I do not look at the current changes as being intentionally done to generate more sales even at BLT or AKV and now SSR, for which they are still selling new points. I suspect they really did the change under a belief that they needed to decrease demand for weekdays  and hopefully raise it for weekends somewhat. They will accomplish at least the former because those who bought enough only for Sun through Thurs night trips will now simply not be able to book as many days/trips as they used to be able to book, and even many who bought more points than that are going to be giving up some days somewhere because of higher point costs -- example: even those who had enough points to do the 12 night trip, arrive on Sunday and leave on a Friday with one weekend in between will find themselves losing a day without more points .
> 
> However, I also believe that they did not think through all the issues. The assumption made that Disney does so and has lawyers who must have been advising them on everything is something that very often does not occur in big corporations. Sure their lawyers were involved, and, knowing what really occurs, those lawyers told them they could probably make the change but also noted there were some risks (that quite frankly is the usual opinion given by in-house lawyers on almost anything) and the particular lawyers involved may have been looking at the point chart change without looking at or even knowing of everything else, such as the the planned move to raise the minimum add-on at BLT to 100. Where I feel they dropped the ball is focusing on whether they can do the change while overlooking some particular issues. The main one I see is BLT. They should have had the initial point chart be what the 2010 chart is now if the change was coming. To sell to those purchasers under the impression that no change was close to being made is an oversight that amounts to being misleading. The POS (and the statute) speaks to making a change based on the actual reservation experience Disney has had at a resort and for BLT there was none so management dropped the ball there.  Then the ultimate of "I really forgot to think this through" move came when they raised the minimum add-on for BLT to 100 points just before announcing the point chart change; that is management acting thoughtlessly, unless you want to believe that DVD really sat down and said "Let's see how we can really screw the BLT purchasers." I do not look it as they planned this out to do harm to owners but instead as a series of acts where they missed a few key points (and I have been involved in matters with Fortune 500 corporations enough times to know this occurs far more often than people may believe and Disney is not immune).
> 
> It will be interesting to see what they do now on the issue. For example, they could alleviate their mistake by doing something like allowing BLT buyers to add-on 10 point minimums if they bought before the announced change. However, I suspect they will do what many corporations do when they have acted poorly -- dig in their heels and assert they did nothing wrong. That itself often occurs because to do otherwise means someone in upper mangement has to admit to an error and that is too often impossible for them to do.



Having been in-house counsel for a major corporation I totally agree with you--most decisions are made on the basis of "can this come back and bite me in the rear?"--answers are oftentimes equivocal and a lot of opinions are made in a vacuum.  I'm sure that the question went out to the legal department--can we change the point structure?  and the answer that came back (with the appopriate memo) was  yes, citing the provisions in the POS and--if the lawyer was really on his/her game, the applicable Florida statutes that required the changes.  However, it was probably a different counsel who answered the question about whether the BLT points could be increased to 100 minimum and probably a third who was consulted about the increase in point cost.  Personally, if I were advising Disney and knew all the BLT facts I would also on the QT agree to let a BLT owner increase the number of points below 100--in the long run it will save DVC money and maybe preserve what goodwill is left for that member who now feels like they've been taken.


----------



## LIFERBABE

> The assumption made that Disney does so and has lawyers who must have been advising them on everything is something that very often does not occur in big corporations. Sure their lawyers were involved, and, knowing what really occurs, those lawyers told them they could probably make the change but also noted there were some risks (that quite frankly is the usual opinion given by in-house lawyers on almost anything) and the particular lawyers involved may have been looking at the point chart change without looking at or even knowing of everything else, such as the the planned move to raise the minimum add-on at BLT to 100. Where I feel they dropped the ball is focusing on whether they can do the change while overlooking some particular issues. The main one I see is BLT. They should have had the initial point chart be what the 2010 chart is now if the change was coming. To sell to those purchasers under the impression that no change was close to being made is an oversight that amounts to being misleading.



I agree also.  
To say they considered all the facts relative to the case is a huge assumption.  Jim Lewis admitted that they handled the OKW extension wrong, despite having all this "wisdom".  
A few other things they handled wrong also or flat out lied about.  To say that because they have this army of lawyers on their side who should have advised them of all aspects, and that they are infallible or within their right is wrong.   
Someone knew all the facts and decided it was worth the risk to proceed.  Doesn't mean they were right.


----------



## Dean

DVC92 said:


> It is still a discretionary power of DVC to reallocate. The statute merely forced inclusion of a regulation to empower the managing entity to reallocate.
> 
> I also never claimed to have any evidence to support the reallocation was done for the purpose of making money. I have said we don't know. There is no evidence to support any conclusion.


There is other language that states in essence they must manage DVC for the benefit of the members as a whole.  And there is a lot of evidence to suggest weekends were out of balance and becoming more so.  As I've said on this thread before, if I truly though the reasons were manipulative and mostly money oriented, I'd be out of here.

DVC makes little money on resale points other than as it keeps prices up and those points compete with a sale out of their active selling resorts.



BroganMc said:


> To play Devil's Advocate here, there does seem to be quite a bit of "koolaid" thinking driving DVC sales of late.


Without Koolade this site, DVC and likely Disney itself would not exist.  It's interesting what happens when some have their Mickey glasses removed and then go overboard much like a reformed addict.


----------



## dclfun

{/QUOTE}What concerns me most about the program in the last year or so is how disenfranchised the membership is becoming. Management seems to have forgotten they have entered into a partnership with owners. What happens if members lose their affection for the program and start selling off en masse? Sure DVC can handle the few resale contracts on the market now, but what if that resale tops 50% of membership? Can they keep up with ROFR on that many contracts at a profitable rate?[/QUOTE]

I'm not happy with some of the changes, but then I've been a member for a long time and remember the "good old days". I recall the huge outpouring of angst when the free passes expired and many people threatened to sell their memberships, but new members kept joining and I doubt many people actually sold, although I have no data or evidence to support that. Lots of us "oldtimers" are the ones disenfranchised, but the newcomers are not. Many of us bought when our children were young-the youngest of my four was 9 years old- now he's 22. My "kids" are looking forward to sharing DVC with their young families and don't remember much of what I do- they're just glad to have the feeling of continuity and a Disney home away from home to use with their families for years to come. I intend to share and pass my membership on to them, and they aren't burdened by my memories, lol. So it's all in the eye of the beholder, based on your own past experience. For the posters who have said that besides looking at the financial implications of purchasing our memberships, for many of us it was also an emotional decision based on the "feeling" we get from being a part of Disney. I just don't see people becoming so disenfranchised en masse that there will be a huge sell-off. There will always be new young and excited members anxious to share a legacy with their children/families and seeing the value of DVC.----Kathy


----------



## littlestar

tjkraz said:


> If DVC were worried about the economy, IMO we would be seeing a lot more attractive incentives than we are now.  The current $5 and $6.25 off are the smallest cash incentives we have ever seen.  Meanwhile DVC just raised the base price an unprecedented 8% from $104 to $112.  Where are the free annual passes?  Where are the $500 gift cards?  Nothing about the current pricing + incentives suggests that DVC is hurting for sales.



2009 should be interesting. Take a look at this article. I don't think they would be offering the free cruises for add-ons if the economy wasn't an issue:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a32aa9a2-f246-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Personally, I'm optimistic and I'm trying to buy some more SSR points resale at a bargain. I haven't been happy with DVC's communication skills here lately (late in getting info on point charts) but my last visit to SSR a few weeks ago cemented why I bought DVC in the first place: I enjoy staying at the DVC resorts on property and feel I can get value out of owning DVC points to accomplish that. Even with the point changes, I still feel I can get value out of owning DVC.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

littlestar said:


> 2009 should be interesting. Take a look at this article. I don't think they would be offering the free cruises for add-ons if the economy wasn't an issue:
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a32aa9a2-f246-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1



I read this article in it's entirety. It's not pretty. Just confirms my staement that disney is really hurting.


----------



## toocherie

sorry--read the article after I posted--I was referencing the same thing.


----------



## dcfromva

tjkraz said:


> If DVC were worried about the economy, IMO we would be seeing a lot more attractive incentives than we are now.  The current $5 and $6.25 off are the smallest cash incentives we have ever seen.  Meanwhile DVC just raised the base price an unprecedented 8% from $104 to $112.  Where are the free annual passes?  Where are the $500 gift cards?  Nothing about the current pricing + incentives suggests that DVC is hurting for sales.




_Walt Disney Co. profits dropped 32 percent at close of 2008
Jason Garcia | Sentinel Staff Writer 
4:38 PM EST, February 3, 2009 
Profits at the Walt Disney Co. fell 32 percent during the final three months of 2008, dragged down by falling DVD sales, weakened advertising revenue, and lower attendance at its theme parks.

Disney said it this afternoon it earned $845 million, or 45 cents a share, during its fiscal first quarter, down from almost $1.3 billion, or 63 cents a share, for the same period a year ago....
_

Link to article


----------



## drusba

Disney is undoubtedly worried about the economy but i am guessing it is thinking that it can ride through it without any fire sales. Also, in this economy it faces the issue that creating a bunch of new incentives right now might not make much of difference. You just have a lot of people who in normal times may have bought who are not going to buy now regardless of the incentives.


----------



## CarolAnnC

Just a friendly reminder here that we need to stay on topic which is our 2010 DVC Points Charts.  Thanks!


----------



## tjkraz

drusba said:


> Disney is undoubtedly worried about the economy but i am guessing it is thinking that it can ride through it without any fire sales.



In terms of its DVC business, I agree.  

There is a very important distinction between discounting things like Disney Cruise voyages / theme park vacations and DVC points.  That factor is the supply of what you are selling.

When Disney opens it theme park or resort doors for the day, or a DCL ship leaves the port, the expenses are committed.  It's a sunk cost.  Whether that ship is 50% full or 100% full, it costs about the same amount to operate.  Whether a resort is at 50% occupancy or 100% occupancy, they still have to staff front desk positions, valet parking, housekeeping, food service, etc.  

So even if Disney has to offer those DCL cabins and POFQ hotel rooms at half price, they are much better off than allowing them to sit empty.  

DVC is much different.  Disney has one chance in 50 years to sell points at the Contemporary.  They have one chance in 50 years to sell points at the Animal Kingdom Villas.  For that reason, it doesn't make much sense to have a "fire sale" to use drusba's words.  

The cruise incentive is nice but hardly unprecedented.  2 and 3 years ago DVC was offering double developer's points, 15% discounts, free annual pass vouchers, $500 gift cards, and so on.  In this case, the only sailing dates available are fall (hurricane season) and winter itineraries--periods when DCL is certain to have trouble booking the ship without DVC's assistance.  I think the promotion speaks more to the troubles of DCL than those of DVC--although I'm sure they both see it as helping the other out.   And let's not forget that this comes in the wake of an 8% price hike on the points.  If we factor in the AKV incentive also going from $8 down to $6.25, it's a net 10% price increase over the last 2 months.


----------



## SunnieRN

I've been reading through the thread for several days now and I have a question I will try to phrase as it has me stumped.  Since the contracts holders that are most effected by the changes of the reallocation are the smaller contracts, and the change in weekend points was not really that significant, what is going to happen to all the extra days that are freed up by people traveling less?
Does this make sense?
If a lot of people have to shave a day off their trips, move to smaller units etc, will there be enough people on the other end of the spectrum to make up the difference?  
It seems that even larger point members will end up spending less extra weekdays at some point?  And if everyone  or even half of the members try to conserve points by stepping down to the next smaller villa wont that create even more gridlock and a harder time for the small contract holders?  Also I don't think anyone who suddenly has three points or even 20 pts extra for their yearly trip can add enough days to make up the difference or move to larger units for the same amount of time.
This is like a math word problem to my way of thinking and I hate math!
I know my "logic" is probably skewed, but can someone explain this to me?


----------



## Dean

SunnieRN said:


> I've been reading through the thread for several days now and I have a question I will try to phrase as it has me stumped.  Since the contracts holders that are most effected by the changes of the reallocation are the smaller contracts, and the change in weekend points was not really that significant, what is going to happen to all the extra days that are freed up by people traveling less?
> Does this make sense?
> If a lot of people have to shave a day off their trips, move to smaller units etc, will there be enough people on the other end of the spectrum to make up the difference?
> It seems that even larger point members will end up spending less extra weekdays at some point?  And if everyone  or even half of the members try to conserve points by stepping down to the next smaller villa wont that create even more gridlock and a harder time for the small contract holders?  Also I don't think anyone who suddenly has three points or even 20 pts extra for their yearly trip can add enough days to make up the difference or move to larger units for the same amount of time.
> This is like a math word problem to my way of thinking and I hate math!
> I know my "logic" is probably skewed, but can someone explain this to me?


Any system such as this is an average of members approaches.  You've got those that chose to reserve avoiding weekends likely myself, those that don't have enough to do anything else, those that do stay weekends, those that stay more on weekends and any variation you can think of.  My expectations are that this change will shift the percentages of those type of groups toward more weekend days overall and slightly less weekdays.  Given that you can't go higher than a certain occupancy % and weekdays are still lower, you'll likely see an increase in weekends much more than a decrease in weekdays as some of the orphaned points are put back into play.  Specific to those days freed up related to members who don't have enough to do elsewhere, DVC is banking on the idea that others will MORE than take up the slack and fill the weekends.  I would bet that DVC is correct and that the overall mix of reservations will be more evened out after the change than before.  Of course it'll take some time to see what happens and really a couple of years or more for members to settle in to new reservation patterns.  Like now, we'll likely never have the facts but if we did, we'd only have a 5 page thread here.


----------



## Starr W.

Dean said:


> Any system such as this is an average of members approaches.  You've got those that chose to reserve avoiding weekends likely myself, those that don't have enough to do anything else, those that do stay weekends, those that stay more on weekends and any variation you can think of.  My expectations are that this change will shift the percentages of those type of groups toward more weekend days overall and slightly less weekdays.  Given that you can't go higher than a certain occupancy % and weekdays are still lower, you'll likely see an increase in weekends much more than a decrease in weekdays as some of the orphaned points are put back into play.  Specific to those days freed up related to members who don't have enough to do elsewhere, DVC is banking on the idea that others will MORE than take up the slack and fill the weekends.  I would bet that DVC is correct and that the overall mix of reservations will be more evened out after the change than before.  Of course it'll take some time to see what happens and really a couple of years or more for members to settle in to new reservation patterns.  Like now, we'll likely never have the facts but if we did, we'd only have a 5 page thread here.



I agree Dean, it's going to take a couple of years to see how all this plays out and to be able to get a read on how people are using their points. Plus I think you need to factor in the new reseservation policy along with the new point totals. I think we just got a handle on the res. policy, now we need to see how it works with the new point charts.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

SunnieRN said:


> I've been reading through the thread for several days now and I have a question I will try to phrase as it has me stumped.  Since the contracts holders that are most effected by the changes of the reallocation are the smaller contracts, and the change in weekend points was not really that significant, what is going to happen to all the extra days that are freed up by people traveling less?
> Does this make sense?
> If a lot of people have to shave a day off their trips, move to smaller units etc, will there be enough people on the other end of the spectrum to make up the difference?
> It seems that even larger point members will end up spending less extra weekdays at some point?  And if everyone  or even half of the members try to conserve points by stepping down to the next smaller villa wont that create even more gridlock and a harder time for the small contract holders?  Also I don't think anyone who suddenly has three points or even 20 pts extra for their yearly trip can add enough days to make up the difference or move to larger units for the same amount of time.
> This is like a math word problem to my way of thinking and I hate math!
> I know my "logic" is probably skewed, but can someone explain this to me?



By raising the point values on weekdays they have essentially created more supply on weekdays.  By all reasoning there was enough demand for these days that there will still be no problem filling them.  By lowering weekend points there is less supply so the same amount of point usage will yield a higher occupancy rate.  Will it work as planned?  We'll have to wait and see. I expect that things will hold for the next few years to fully evaluate the changes in the system.  

I would agree with a lot of what has been said that 160 point minimum, along with two very large resorts being added, has helped to create this demand shift.  You see several threads where people asked how many points they need to purchase.  There never is a concrete answer.  When we purchased we felt 160 points was not going to give us enough flexibility (and isn't that one of the best features of DVC) to meet our needs.  I never had any preset expectation as to a certain number of nights I should expect from my purchase and maybe that is why I am not as upset as everyone else.  I just use them as I need them.  For example this March my daughter has a school trip where the band, choir, orchestra and dance academy perform.  My wife and I, along with my parents, friends and my daughters friends relatives are all going to be there but for different lengths of time.  I have a 2BR from F-W, a studio from S-W and another studio from M-W.  This is exactly the kind of flexibility I want from the system.  The price one pays for this flexibility is the possibility that shifting demand may require the type of restructuring that has been done.


----------



## hellerjw

tjkraz said:


> The cruise incentive is nice but hardly unprecedented.  2 and 3 years ago DVC was offering double developer's points, 15% discounts, free annual pass vouchers, $500 gift cards, and so on.  In this case, the only sailing dates available are fall (hurricane season) and winter itineraries--periods when DCL is certain to have trouble booking the ship without DVC's assistance.  I think the promotion speaks more to the troubles of DCL than those of DVC--although I'm sure they both see it as helping the other out.   And let's not forget that this comes in the wake of an 8% price hike on the points.  If we factor in the AKV incentive also going from $8 down to $6.25, it's a net 10% price increase over the last 2 months.



Makes me really glad we did our AKV add-ons last August when we got matching DPs, two $500 gift cards and the $8/pt discount ($96/pt). I may have actually timed something pretty well for a change


----------



## Anal Annie

SunnieRN said:


> I've been reading through the thread for several days now and I have a question I will try to phrase as it has me stumped.  Since the contracts holders that are most effected by the changes of the reallocation are the smaller contracts, and the change in weekend points was not really that significant, *what is going to happen to all the extra days that are freed up by people traveling less?*Does this make sense?
> *If a lot of people have to shave a day off their trips, move to smaller units etc, *will there be enough people on the other end of the spectrum to make up the difference?
> It seems that even larger point members will end up spending less extra weekdays at some point?  And if everyone  or even half of the *members try to conserve points by stepping down to the next smaller villa wont that create even more gridlock and a harder time for the small contract holders*?  Also I don't think anyone who suddenly has three points or even 20 pts extra for their yearly trip can add enough days to make up the difference or move to larger units for the same amount of time.
> This is like a math word problem to my way of thinking and I hate math! Me too!
> I know my "logic" is probably skewed, but can someone explain this to me?



My thoughts exactly.

I think that Thursdays will end up being WIDE open for ressies (as personally, if we were planning a Sun-Thur trip and have to drop a day off it will be Thurs so we can keep one day on the weekend which is less time off work).  In our case, we may drop the _entire trip _as it's harder to justify the airfare for less nights.  Personally, we might go ahead & book the unit then watch for a deal on the air then cancel the whole trip if we can't find a deal to get there.  I think that the frequency of shorter trips are a big unknown now.  I think travel patterns will change for many.

Also, I think that there will be a lot of people dropping in unit size.  Many DVC'ers have previously booked larger units because they like the extra space but not necessarily because they NEEDED the extra space.  Now if they need to conserve points I think more people will bring aerobeds so their teenage boys & girls don't have that taboo sleeping arrangement issue and they will drop from a 2 bedroom to a one bedroom and more who used to use 1 bedrooms will cut back to studios in order to stretch their points.  I think that those of us who only ever intended to use studios will find more competition for our usual accomodations.


_Now,_ what I am wondering is if the guides are being up front about these new charts with new potential buyers.   If I walked up to a kiosk or took the tour today and inquired about how many points I should think about buying would they TELL me I need to consider the new charts before buying?  Just curious how DVC sales are handling this reallocation with potential new members.  Are they showing them what COULD happen by comparing the 2 years of charts with their customers???


----------



## bobbiwoz

Well, there are still people like us who would consider adding Thursday night to the reservation for a long weekend.  I have found in booking long weekends, that it's often Sunday that is hard to get...long weekend people and Sunday to Friday morning people want them.  I've also done Thursday to Monday morning.  I think there are more people who do not always book Sunday to Friday morning who will adjust to what's available.

Sundays are hard, in fact, for this June, (about 6 months from booking) I only wanted 4 nights since I had exactly 50 points to spend.  Sunday night was booked, but I got a combo of BCV 1 night and then AKV standard 3 nights, Monday to Friday Morning, 50 points, exactly right! 

My only waitlist that didn't come through was also for a Sunday night and I have a Sunday night waitlist now.

Bobbi


----------



## BWV Dreamin

bobbiwoz said:


> Well, there are still people like us who would consider adding Thursday night to the reservation for a long weekend. I have found in booking long weekends, that it's often Sunday that is hard to get...long weekend people and Sunday to Friday morning people want them. I've also done Thursday to Monday morning. I think there are more people who do not always book Sunday to Friday morning who will adjust to what's available.
> 
> Sundays are hard, in fact, for this June, (about 6 months from booking) I only wanted 4 nights since I had exactly 50 points to spend. Sunday night was booked, but I got a combo of BCV 1 night and then AKV standard 3 nights, Monday to Friday Morning, 50 points, exactly right!
> 
> My only waitlist that didn't come through was also for a Sunday night and I have a Sunday night waitlist now.
> 
> Bobbi


This is exactly what I am doing next year.....using 50 pts. at 7 mos., will be making a ressie for Thurs., Fri, Sat.....then moving on to my home resort for 6 days! I am hoping I have good luck starting on the Thursday!


----------



## bobbiwoz

BWV Dreamin said:


> This is exactly what I am doing next year.....using 50 pts. at 7 mos., will be making a ressie for Thurs., Fri, Sat.....then moving on to my home resort for 6 days! I am hoping I have good luck starting on the Thursday!



 And here's some pixie dust for you! 

Bobbi


----------



## jenelope

I just got back from a long business trip, so pardon me if this has already been discussed. My first reaction to the news was that they must have a lot of people using their points for S-Th stays, leaving them with a lot of open rooms on the weekends and not enough open inventory on weeknights. It makes sense that they would try to correct that,

For my usual style of vacation, it's not going to make too much difference. I usually stay in a studio for 7-8 nights. However, when I bring my family with me, I usually do a S-Th stay in a two bedroom villa. That's going to put a pinch on my points, but I suppose it's manageable. 

The one thing that really is going to be very different for me is that I may no longer stay in my home resort (SSR) when I travel in October. A week in a studio at SSR in October went up 8 points. Most non-Premier Season points categories went up 0-4 points per week. I haven't looked at every single chart, but it appears that it's one of the biggest jumps in point value that isn't a grand villa during Premier Season. I feel like a) I'm being subtly discouraged from vacationing at that time; and b) those people who complain about SSR owners playing havoc with BWV and BCV availability during Food and Wine Festival are really going to have something to complain about now.


----------



## jana

When Disney originally set up the high cost for weekends the justification was that they were concerned that locals ( Fl residents) would book up all the weekends and that people wanting longer trips would find they may have to check out mid stay and move to another resort or just go home. I will guess that with time and changes in the way many of the members now vacation Disney has realized that perhaps they were a little too extreme with their original costing differences and what has happened is the exact opposite of what they wanted to avoid, but has the same result, in that weekdays are full and weekends not so, still an inconvenience by limiting booking options/availability. 

This is certainly an issue to the members as it is impacting availability. Perhaps more of a driving reason to the change is that the available rooms that Disney has to rent out in order to pay for cash bookings (concierge collection or cruises) are high point cost weekend nights. Disney can earn much more revenue from, for example, 50 points by using it for 5 nights midweek than it can by charging granted slightly more per night but only having 2 nights at a weekend. I.E. 5X$250 per night = $1250   vs 2X$350=$700

By leveling out demand over the week it will, hopefully, benefit members by having more members (mostly Fl residents) using their points at weekends therefore freeing up more weekdays for all of us. I hope that if it does, as I believe, mean Disney can become more efficient at raising revenue from the points members exchange back for cash cost usages. Hopefully it will allow DVC to reduce the points cost for those options as they will be able to raise more money from those cash rentals rather than just pocket the difference.


----------



## photobob

jenelope said:


> I just got back from a long business trip, so pardon me if this has already been discussed. My first reaction to the news was that they must have a lot of people using their points for S-Th stays, leaving them with a lot of open rooms on the weekends and not enough open inventory on weeknights. It makes sense that they would try to correct that,
> 
> For my usual style of vacation, it's not going to make too much difference. I usually stay in a studio for 7-8 nights. However, when I bring my family with me, I usually do a S-Th stay in a two bedroom villa. That's going to put a pinch on my points, but I suppose it's manageable.
> 
> The one thing that really is going to be very different for me is that I may no longer stay in my home resort (SSR) when I travel in October. A week in a studio at SSR in October went up 8 points. Most non-Premier Season points categories went up 0-4 points per week. I haven't looked at every single chart, but it appears that it's one of the biggest jumps in point value that isn't a grand villa during Premier Season. I feel like a) I'm being subtly discouraged from vacationing at that time; and b) those people who complain about SSR owners playing havoc with BWV and BCV availability during Food and Wine Festival are really going to have something to complain about now.



Personally I think it will make studios and 1 bedroom villas much more difficult to get at the 7 month mark. The higher point costs will make people rent smaller rooms. I very well may be wrong, but it is my best guess. I believe it will make it even more important to buy where you want to stay especially for studios. 

As far as SSR owners mucking up the system, that is understandable because there are so many of us, but any DVC member would want to stay at the Epcot resorts during F&W. I would think by the seventh month window rooms for that time would be few and far between anyway. If you don't want to get blocked out of your home resort, make your reservation before the seven month window opens.


----------



## WendyinNC

Well, I was upset by this change at first since I have a small 55 point add on at HH that I was planning on using for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay in a 2BR in the summer every 3 years. I was trying to decide whether I should sell this contract, keep it and just use it for misc. 7 month points, or add on. Well, I guess I'm drinking too much Koolaid because I just put in an offer on a 150 point HH re-sale. Now I will have enough points for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay every summer. That is, until they change the points chart again.


----------



## bobbiwoz

WendyinNC said:


> Well, I was upset by this change at first since I have a small 55 point add on at HH that I was planning on using for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay in a 2BR in the summer every 3 years. I was trying to decide whether I should sell this contract, keep it and just use it for misc. 7 month points, or add on. Well, I guess I'm drinking too much Koolaid because I just put in an offer on a 150 point HH re-sale. Now I will have enough points for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay every summer. That is, until they change the points chart again.



Congratulations, I hope you pass!  I've never been to HH, but as much as I love the Jersey Shore, and VB...I'm sure I would love it as much as you do.  I'm glad you'll be seeing more if it!
Bobbi


----------



## jekjones1558

> Well, I guess I'm drinking too much Koolaid because I just put in an offer on a 150 point HH re-sale. Now I will have enough points for a Sunday - Thurs. night stay every summer



I am green with envy.  I made my first trip to HHI last May and fell in love.  Good luck on ROFR!


----------



## jenelope

photobob said:


> As far as SSR owners mucking up the system, that is understandable because there are so many of us, but any DVC member would want to stay at the Epcot resorts during F&W. I would think by the seventh month window rooms for that time would be few and far between anyway. If you don't want to get blocked out of your home resort, make your reservation before the seven month window opens.



I actually haven't wanted to stay at the Epcot resorts at any time, including F&W. It never seemed worth the hassle of trying to make a ressie at 7 months when my home resort used fewer points for the same time and I could make my plans earlier. Besides, I'm one of those people who likes to leave the theme parks behind at the end of the day, so SSR suits me just fine. But, now that my home resort takes exactly the same number of points for a F&W Festival week, I'm more inclined to try for an Epcot resort. I think if there were other point-thrifty SSR owners out there and they start thinking the same way, it's going to make it next to impossible for anyone to get the Epcot resort studios.


----------



## Anal Annie

jana said:


> When Disney originally set up the high cost for weekends the justification was that they were concerned that locals ( Fl residents) would book up all the weekends and that people wanting longer trips would find they may have to check out mid stay and move to another resort or just go home. I will guess that with time and changes in the way many of the members now vacation Disney has realized that perhaps they were a little too extreme with their original costing differences and what has happened is the exact opposite of what they wanted to avoid, but has the same result, in that weekdays are full and weekends not so, still an inconvenience by limiting booking options/availability.
> 
> This is certainly an issue to the members as it is impacting availability. Perhaps more of a driving reason to the change is that the available rooms that Disney has to rent out in order to pay for cash bookings (concierge collection or cruises) are high point cost weekend nights. *Disney can earn much more revenue from, for example, 50 points by using it for 5 nights midweek than it can by charging granted slightly more per night but only having 2 nights at a weekend. I.E. 5X$250 per night = $1250   vs 2X$350=$700*
> Every time I get a cash price on a DVC unit the weekdays and weekends are the exactly same price.  They don't separate them in any way with their pricing.  A Wed. is the same cash rate as a Saturday.  So this move would solve nothing in that respect.  I just looked on the website today in fact to see what the cash price would've been for our vacation this summer.  All 7 n at BCV were the same price per night.
> 
> By leveling out demand over the week it will, hopefully, benefit members by having more members (mostly Fl residents) using their points at weekends therefore freeing up more weekdays for all of us. I hope that if it does, as I believe, mean Disney can become more efficient at raising revenue from the points members exchange back for cash cost usages. *Hopefully it will allow DVC to reduce the points cost for those options as they will be able to raise more money from those cash rentals rather than just pocket the difference. *



  I'm sorry to laugh.  But that last bit's kinda funny.  I think you might be sipping on the so-called koolaid too!  DVC ain't about to turn around and give us anything back in return, especially a better rate on something.


----------



## tjkraz

Anal Annie said:


> I'm sorry to laugh.  But that's kinda funny.  I think you might be sipping on the so-called koolaid too!  DVC ain't about to turn around and give us anything back in return, especially a better rate on something.



The point values for booking outside of the DVC resorts are reviewed at least once annually and there have been times where they were adjusted in members' favor.  IIRC, about 2 years ago the cost for using points toward DCL went down from the prior year.


----------



## Anal Annie

tjkraz said:


> The point values for booking outside of the DVC resorts are reviewed at least once annually and there have been times where they were adjusted in members' favor.  IIRC, about 2 years ago the cost for using points toward DCL went down from the prior year.



  STOP it!  You're gonna make milk come out my nose!


----------



## BroganMc

jenelope said:


> But, now that my home resort takes exactly the same number of points for a F&W Festival week, I'm more inclined to try for an Epcot resort. I think if there were other point-thrifty SSR owners out there and they start thinking the same way, it's going to make it next to impossible for anyone to get the Epcot resort studios.



I was just thinking that myself. I know seeing points equalize for VWL, BWV, BCV and SSR for Choice sure made me more interested in booking stays elsewhere.

In other news, I had a call from Member Satisfaction Team today. Talked for a long time about the point reallocation and how it affects us. CM said she had gotten a lot of response about how poor the communication was. I also questioned the legality of adjusting the charts for occupancy on BLT before the resort had been booked to show occupancy traits. She wrote down my suggestions about how to address the needs of BLT owners.

My main points were:


raising the weekly totals caused the appearance of devaluing an existing contract with point inflation (That seems to betray Disney's sales approach of locking in resort prices.)
poor communications and the sloppy handling of the website release gives the appearance Disney is trying to mistreat owners by dictating and not being forthright.
violation of BLT contract sitpulation for how and when a point reallocation was made
point chart calculations are not adding up in every calculation I've done or seen, need to see some numbers to justify that the charts are truly balanced
The change will not encourage me to stay weekends but rather to drop a vacation day a year
BLT owners were abused with the minimum point add-on being raised a week before these new charts were released. I suggested Disney allow a one time sub-100 point add-on purchase for all BLT buyers prior to Jan 15 to make up the difference in their contracts.

I'm not sure if upper management will listen or do anything about it. We also talked about unrelated things like the switch to RCI and the 7 day booking. And I made a request to have that RCI announcement on the phone shortened or bypassed. I'm so sick of having to sit through the same spiel again and again.

CM Joy had a good demeanor and tried to stress how much Disney valued its members, but I drove home the point that the latest actions did not give that appearance at all. Changing those weekly totals is probably the biggest no-no on average. She mentioned that the annual DVC Planners will be going out in the next couple weeks and expects a lot more feedback from members as they get the news of the changed charts. We speculated that many members do not know of the change yet and many will react negatively.

And I closed with the mentioned that because of these sudden changes, I'm stilling my tongue in encouraging new buyers. I made the comparison to my Marriott ownership and that it seemed the better program as of now.


----------



## tjkraz

Anal Annie said:


> STOP it!  You're gonna make milk come out my nose!



In 2005, 7-night Eastern cruise, Cat 11, Value season was 141 points per adult.  As of 2008 that same cruise / cabin / season was 133 points per adult.

And that's just one example.  All of the cruise points went down.  

DVC also altered the Disneyland points structure from a flat amount every night of the week to the weighted weekday / weekend rates we have now.  In 2005 a Grand Californian Standard View, Value Season, was a fixed 39 points per night regardless of the day of the week.  By 2008 the same room was 19 points per weeknight and 30 points per Fri-Sat night.

Try not to choke.


----------



## LIFERBABE

BroganMc said:


> I was just thinking that myself. I know seeing points equalize for VWL, BWV, BCV and SSR for Choice sure made me more interested in booking stays elsewhere.
> 
> In other news, I had a call from Member Satisfaction Team today. Talked for a long time about the point reallocation and how it affects us. CM said she had gotten a lot of response about how poor the communication was. I also questioned the legality of adjusting the charts for occupancy on BLT before the resort had been booked to show occupancy traits. She wrote down my suggestions about how to address the needs of BLT owners.
> 
> My main points were:
> 
> 
> raising the weekly totals caused the appearance of devaluing an existing contract with point inflation (That seems to betray Disney's sales approach of locking in resort prices.)
> poor communications and the sloppy handling of the website release gives the appearance Disney is trying to mistreat owners by dictating and not being forthright.
> violation of BLT contract sitpulation for how and when a point reallocation was made
> point chart calculations are not adding up in every calculation I've done or seen, need to see some numbers to justify that the charts are truly balanced
> The change will not encourage me to stay weekends but rather to drop a vacation day a year
> BLT owners were abused with the minimum point add-on being raised a week before these new charts were released. I suggested Disney allow a one time sub-100 point add-on purchase for all BLT buyers prior to Jan 15 to make up the difference in their contracts.
> 
> I'm not sure if upper management will listen or do anything about it. We also talked about unrelated things like the switch to RCI and the 7 day booking. And I made a request to have that RCI announcement on the phone shortened or bypassed. I'm so sick of having to sit through the same spiel again and again.
> 
> CM Joy had a good demeanor and tried to stress how much Disney valued its members, but I drove home the point that the latest actions did not give that appearance at all. Changing those weekly totals is probably the biggest no-no on average. She mentioned that the annual DVC Planners will be going out in the next couple weeks and expects a lot more feedback from members as they get the news of the changed charts. We speculated that many members do not know of the change yet and many will react negatively.
> 
> And I closed with the mentioned that because of these sudden changes, I'm stilling my tongue in encouraging new buyers. I made the comparison to my Marriott ownership and that it seemed the better program as of now.



Thank you Brogan, I think you did an excellent job 

My sentiments exactly!

I haven't liked Kool-Aid since I was a child.  Ever since I watched that made-for-tv movie.  That and we always had a lack of sugar at our house.


----------



## Anal Annie

tjkraz said:


> In 2005, 7-night Eastern cruise, Cat 11, Value season was 141 points per adult.  As of 2008 that same cruise / cabin / season was 133 points per adult.
> 
> And that's just one example.  All of the cruise points went down.
> 
> DVC also altered the Disneyland points structure from a flat amount every night of the week to the weighted weekday / weekend rates we have now.  In 2005 a Grand Californian Standard View, Value Season, was a fixed 39 points per night regardless of the day of the week.  By 2008 the same room was 19 points per weeknight and 30 points per Fri-Sat night.
> 
> Try not to choke.



And our 2008 4 nighter in a Cat 10 went from 392 points last year to 473 points in 2010.  An increase of 81 points for 4 nights.  (I'm still choking on THAT one.)


----------



## tjkraz

Anal Annie said:


> And our 2008 4 nighter in a Cat 10 went from 392 points last year to 473 points in 2010.  An increase of 81 points for 4 nights.  (I'm still choking on THAT one.)



And I would expect future adjustments--either up or down--in response to how the value of points changes following the reallocation.


----------



## SunnieRN

Ok, absolutely no offense ment, I think saratoga springs is absolutely gorgeous and I love the "feel" of the resort and the decor is bright, relaxing and very easy to live with, but... what is the purpose of making it the same point cost as the epcot resorts in Oct during food and wine?
The only thing I could figure out is that being the largest resort, and the popularity of F&W that Disney figures there will be a greater demand for rooms at that time as popularity for the event keeps growing.  This in turn will increase the points used during the food and wine festival as SS can take in a lot of "overflow" from the smaller resorts.  Hmmm smart move disney, inless it clogs up all the other resorts that are the same points and more convienient.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> I was just thinking that myself. I know seeing points equalize for VWL, BWV, BCV and SSR for Choice sure made me more interested in booking stays elsewhere.
> 
> In other news, I had a call from Member Satisfaction Team today. Talked for a long time about the point reallocation and how it affects us. CM said she had gotten a lot of response about how poor the communication was. I also questioned the legality of adjusting the charts for occupancy on BLT before the resort had been booked to show occupancy traits. She wrote down my suggestions about how to address the needs of BLT owners.
> 
> My main points were:
> 
> 
> raising the weekly totals caused the appearance of devaluing an existing contract with point inflation (That seems to betray Disney's sales approach of locking in resort prices.)
> poor communications and the sloppy handling of the website release gives the appearance Disney is trying to mistreat owners by dictating and not being forthright.
> violation of BLT contract sitpulation for how and when a point reallocation was made
> point chart calculations are not adding up in every calculation I've done or seen, need to see some numbers to justify that the charts are truly balanced
> The change will not encourage me to stay weekends but rather to drop a vacation day a year
> BLT owners were abused with the minimum point add-on being raised a week before these new charts were released. I suggested Disney allow a one time sub-100 point add-on purchase for all BLT buyers prior to Jan 15 to make up the difference in their contracts.
> 
> I'm not sure if upper management will listen or do anything about it. We also talked about unrelated things like the switch to RCI and the 7 day booking. And I made a request to have that RCI announcement on the phone shortened or bypassed. I'm so sick of having to sit through the same spiel again and again.
> 
> CM Joy had a good demeanor and tried to stress how much Disney valued its members, but I drove home the point that the latest actions did not give that appearance at all. Changing those weekly totals is probably the biggest no-no on average. She mentioned that the annual DVC Planners will be going out in the next couple weeks and expects a lot more feedback from members as they get the news of the changed charts. We speculated that many members do not know of the change yet and many will react negatively.
> 
> And I closed with the mentioned that because of these sudden changes, I'm stilling my tongue in encouraging new buyers. I made the comparison to my Marriott ownership and that it seemed the better program as of now.


In other words, don't call us, we'll call you.  Exactly the same type of responses many people got when they complained about the 7 day reservation change.


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> In other words, don't call us, we'll call you.  Exactly the same type of responses many people got when they complained about the 7 day reservation change.



That's a bit harsh. It's not like the CMs in Member Services have any decision-making ability. The best they can do is pass along comments and complaints to upper management. If the volume and verocity is sufficient then management may take it to heart.

From what I was told, they already had a lot of people calling to complain about not getting their II requests filled which led to the RCI change. But Joy did mention that they were just as booked on weekends as weekdays so she dismissed the idea that this point reallocation was done solely to encourage weekend stays.

When you think about it, it's counterproductive anyway. Weekend points are still higher and now that weekday points are higher too, members have less surplus to spend on the more expensive weekends.

That all just leads me to believe whatever the thinking employed to reallocate these charts was it did not really address the concerns we've long debated on this thread. It's as if someone looked at the high bookings and decided the points should be changed to match demand not balance demand throughout the schedule. That would explain why we see studios increasing so much in Choice season. It would also explain why someone would think it perfectly reasonable to increase the weekly requirements of a BWV 2bedroom in magic from the even 350 points to 352. No one bothered to consider members may have just purchased enough points to cover a week in their preferred season and found that suddenly taken away.

Like I told Joy, in all the times I've visited the Preview Center and sat in on a sales presentation I have NEVER heard the recommendation to add 20% to a buyer's point purchase for possible reallocation. The conversation has always been "When do you like to travel, what size room do you need, these are the charts to fill those needs". The caveat of rebalancing the charts always takes the form of "nightly totals may change" but with no emphasis that weekly totals are subject to change.

Give the DVC Planners a chance to hit people's mailboxes and then I predict a much larger hue and cry from general membership. We have yet to see the fall out from this change.


----------



## toocherie

BroganMc said:


> Give the DVC Planners a chance to hit people's mailboxes and then I predict a much larger hue and cry from general membership. We have yet to see the fall out from this change.



But how do you get the genie back in the bottle?  I suspect that there are many members who are happy with the change (some of them have posted on this thread) who would not be happy if the charts went back to what they were pre January 15.  And if the original change was based on historical demand, I would think those members would have a much stronger case that something was amiss.

(However, I do agree with your suggestion that pre-BLT buyers be given the chance to purchase less than 100 points)


----------



## BroganMc

toocherie said:


> But how do you get the genie back in the bottle?  I suspect that there are many members who are happy with the change (some of them have posted on this thread) who would not be happy if the charts went back to what they were pre January 15.  And if the original change was based on historical demand, I would think those members would have a much stronger case that something was amiss.
> 
> (However, I do agree with your suggestion that pre-BLT buyers be given the chance to purchase less than 100 points)



Looking at the charts and possible configurations I'm just not seeing how the weekend warriors are benefitting enough to overwhelm those who are now short points. In most cases people saved a couple pooints but not enough to cover another day's stay. And in the scheme of things, it is those who are hurt by a change who squeak the loudest. So while some may see a few more points banked for the next year's use, I doubt Disney will hear from them. It's those who are short who will reach out and complain.

But having said that, I'm a realist. DVC has gone to too much trouble in putting together and releasing these charts. They've already started booking rooms under the new point chart. I have no illusions we'll see a pre-2010 chart reinstituted. What I'm hoping to see is more detailed explanation from DVC to clarify that the charts are indeed balanced (at least giving members a way of obtaining a resort breakdown of total point allotments and/or explanation of how rooms and points were calculated) and a temporary reprieve for BLT owners allowing them to make small add-ons.

And yes, if there's enough negative backlash I doubt we'll be seeing another point chart change for a long while. If they do issue another adjustment for 2011, I'd hope they'd go back and adjust those *weekly* totals for the sold out resorts to 2009 levels. It's incredibly bad form to have members who've owned for years suddenly be short points for a given week.

The ball is in their court. How they react to the feedback they get will be the telling factor of the company's character and how it thinks of members.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> That's a bit harsh. It's not like the CMs in Member Services have any decision-making ability. The best they can do is pass along comments and complaints to upper management. If the volume and verocity is sufficient then management may take it to heart.


That's exactly the point.  There was a larger cry from members on the reservations issues and we saw a number of points exactly like yours that I quoted.  At this point it's about people skills from MS, not substance.  Not intending to be harsh but they have NO authority to change this plus you, I and they know it will not change overall other than possibly another reallocation in a few years once his settles out.  



BroganMc said:


> Looking at the charts and possible configurations I'm just not seeing how the weekend warriors are benefitting enough to overwhelm those who are now short points. In most cases people saved a couple pooints but not enough to cover another day's stay. And in the scheme of things, it is those who are hurt by a change who squeak the loudest. So while some may see a few more points banked for the next year's use, I doubt Disney will hear from them. It's those who are short who will reach out and complain.


I don't think anyone believes this change will make people say they only want to go weekends because it's just as cheap, if everyone did so it'd screw up the system even more than it was before.  What it will do is cause some to stay over a weekend that would not have otherwise and it will cause some to say over just a weekend that would not have done it otherwise.  That added to the rooms freed up because S-F people are using up more of their points is all it really needs to do for the desired effect.  A 3-4% shift across the board will likely be enough to produce the desired balance.


----------



## CheapMom

SunnieRN said:


> Ok, absolutely no offense ment, I think saratoga springs is absolutely gorgeous and I love the "feel" of the resort and the decor is bright, relaxing and very easy to live with, but... what is the purpose of making it the same point cost as the epcot resorts in Oct during food and wine?



no offense taken- and i am a ssr owner/lover/defender. You are so right. It does not make sense. I love SSR but it is hard to deny the fact that it is DVC's overflow property.


----------



## drusba

BroganMc said:


> Looking at the charts and possible configurations I'm just not seeing how the weekend warriors are benefitting enough to overwhelm those who are now short points.
> 
> And yes, if there's enough negative backlash I doubt we'll be seeing another point chart change for a long while. If they do issue another adjustment for 2011, I'd hope they'd go back and adjust those *weekly* totals for the sold out resorts to 2009 levels. It's incredibly bad form to have members who've owned for years suddenly be short points for a given week.
> 
> The ball is in their court. How they react to the feedback they get will be the telling factor of the company's character and how it thinks of members.



Agree this won't really shift demand to the weekends. The more certain result is to lower overall demand for weekdays -- because of higher points there will be overall less demand.

And that raises an interesting question. They are limited to making no more than a 20% change per day (up or down) from the prior year. At HH and VB they essentially went to 20% and come close to it for some of the changes at the WDW resorts. Could this be simply the first step in an already planned further shift for 2011? One question i would like the powers to be to answer is whether there is plan to make another change or whether there has been any discussion about making another change in the next couple of years.


----------



## dcfromva

Dean said:


> I don't think anyone believes this change will make people say they only want to go weekends because it's just as cheap, if everyone did so it'd screw up the system even more than it was before.  What it will do is cause some to stay over a weekend that would not have otherwise and it will cause some to say over just a weekend that would not have done it otherwise.  That added to the rooms freed up because S-F people are using up more of their points is all it really needs to do for the desired effect.  A 3-4% shift across the board will likely be enough to produce the desired balance.



Dean,
  We may not be the average DVCer, but this change _does _work out in our favor.  We mostly go over long weekends because we have limited vacation time (we are at BWV right now  ).  Most likely, we will get another weekend or two when all it said and done.  (I still haven't figured out next years' vacation schedule  ). 

   Another thing that has changed (in the upcoming year anyway) is some of the special events are focused around the weekend as opposed to 7 days.  Example, Flower Power concerts for the F& G.  And Eat to the Beat concerts for Food and Wine.   I think this will make the weekend nights more desirable for some folks.


----------



## BobH

It would be nice to see Disney management exhibit some better people skills.
They have probably sold so many smaller contracts that too much presssure has been put on Sun-Thurs reservation period. Then they go shoot themselves in the foot by changing the point schedule and creating a 100 point add on minimum at BLT, or maybe they are attempting to limit other DVC members from chopping up the available point contracts into too many small pieces. Whatever the reason Disney's management is not promoting future sales by creating all this turmoil. How about a little truth for change? The marketing team and management should have someone on the board that actually reads these discussion boards and has some idea of what the concerns of the members are - giving no explanation, or a poor explanation regarding the point changes just leads me to believe that Disney management is incompetent or does not care to explain anything. Either way they are not advancing their own cause and may be hurting the sales that justify their jobs.


----------



## jodifla

I'm surprised that so many people bought with such specifics in mind. One type of room, one set of dates. That's more of a traditional timeshare.

  I get my annual allotment of points and tend to spend them like a kid in a candy store, not the same thing year in, year out.

 Some years it's studios in the fall, some years it's 2 bedrooms in the winter, some years it's Concierge collection.

  I did buy a small add on for 56 points at BCV thinking I think 4 nights in a studio, but even when I bought it, I completely recognized those numbers could change.


----------



## Mike

jodifla said:


> I'm surprised that so many people bought with such specifics in mind. One type of room, one set of dates. That's more of a traditional timeshare.
> 
> I get my annual allotment of points and tend to spend them like a kid in a candy store, not the same thing year in, year out.
> 
> Some years it's studios in the fall, some years it's 2 bedrooms in the winter, some years it's Concierge collection.



So let me get this straight, someone that lives within a 3-4 hour drive to WDW can't understand why others don't spend their points "like a kid in a candy store"?   

Is it so hard to imagine that silly little details like work schedules, school schedules, kids sports schedules, family size and transportation costs could dictate visiting the same time each year in the same size accomodations????


----------



## drusba

Mike said:


> So let me get this straight, someone that lives within a 3-4 hour drive to WDW can't understand why others dodn't spend their points "like a kid in a candy store"?
> 
> Is it so hard to imagine that silly little details like work schedules, school schedules, kids sports schedules, family size and transportation costs could dictate visiting the same time each year in the same size accomodations????



A bit harsh, Mike, but a valid point. I presume most come from other states and bought with the idea that they could go once a year at specific times -- maybe not the same time every year but often the same "season," e.g., those looking at school schedules likely mainly bought based on going in magic season. The thing is that conceptually many knew that there could be seasonal shifts but that has proven to be their albatross with the recent change. For example many thought they could buy enough for five nights or even a week in the magic season with the belief that if there are seasonal changes magic season, the highest there was except for Christmas and Easter, wasn't going to go up, some other one would. Even the ones who bought on the basis of getting enough points for a week in the magic season now see an increase at some resorts, and particularly for 1 and 2BRs, which is one that is extremely annoying because it is usually only a couple points, but you have to buy at least 25 (and 100 at BLT) new points to rectify the situation and you know the only reason the week total went up was not even because of any attempt to lower demand for weekdays but because it was done just to make the points come out equally for each weekday and each weekend night.


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> That's exactly the point.  There was a larger cry from members on the reservations issues and we saw a number of points exactly like yours that I quoted.  At this point it's about people skills from MS, not substance.  Not intending to be harsh but they have NO authority to change this plus you, I and they know it will not change overall other than possibly another reallocation in a few years once his settles out.



What makes you think the hue and cry over the reservation window was bigger? Just because discussion of this topic has been limited to one thread on this board does not mean it is less of an issue. From talking to Joy yesterday it sounded like they were pretty backlogged with member complaints on this and expected many more over the next couple weeks.

The interesting thing about the reservation change is that it seems time has proven that change did not adversely affect people as much as some feared. We got into a discussion about that one too. This change has yet to reveal itself. My bet is that it doesn't make one iota of difference in room availability but does overall decrease the amount of time members book their trips. My concern for the program is that it will also give DVC a bad name in the industry with the increase in weekly point totals. If another reallocation is implemented in a couple years and sees yet another weekly increase, I'm even more convinced the program will get a bad rep.



> I don't think anyone believes this change will make people say they only want to go weekends because it's just as cheap, if everyone did so it'd screw up the system even more than it was before.  What it will do is cause some to stay over a weekend that would not have otherwise and it will cause some to say over just a weekend that would not have done it otherwise.  That added to the rooms freed up because S-F people are using up more of their points is all it really needs to do for the desired effect.  A 3-4% shift across the board will likely be enough to produce the desired balance.



That just doesn't make sense. S-F people travel then because they like the length of stay. It's a way of stretching your points to get more time at Disney. The point shifts for weekends do not affect that balance.

Look at SSR, for instance. 5 days in a studio in Choice is 65 points (previously 55); a long weekend same season Th-M is 66 points (previously 64). So for 1 more point, you get to stay one less day. That's not appealing to a point stretcher. Even a long weekender is paying 2 more points for their stay.

The only ones who will be encouraged to add more weekend nights to their trips are those already inclined to booking weekends. And they still didn't save enough weekend points to tack on another weekday stay.

I doubt you'll see any shift other than people dropping a day from their stays. Now that may mean Thursdays become more available.


----------



## Chuck S

Mike said:


> So let me get this straight, someone that lives within a 3-4 hour drive to WDW can't understand why others don't spend their points "like a kid in a candy store"?
> 
> Is it so hard to imagine that silly little details like work schedules, school schedules, kids sports schedules, family size and transportation costs could dictate visiting the same time each year in the same size accomodations????




Except that point based times shares are not designed specifically to address the needs of people that must vacation the same week every year, that is the advantage for many people to buying a point based rather than set week timeshare.  Point based timeshares are designed to address the changing vacation patterns of their members throughout the life of the ownership.

For instance, many original purchasers at OKW had young kids in 1992, and   their travel needs were dictated by school vacation schedules, now most of those young kids are adults, their parents can vacation at other times of the year.  Where school vacation times may have been in high demand for reservations in 1992, those same owners may now be requesting Food & Wine season or Early December & January more, increasing demand...or may now be staying fewer weekends than they did originally.  Flexibility has its pros & cons, and adjustments may need to be made from time to time.  That is why it is important to note the maximum possible allocation as mentioned in the POS.

I know or vacation habits have changed since 1992, since Mom stopped substitute teaching when she turned 70.  And it would be wonderful to be able to get a studio at OKW for 69 points for a full week like we could prior to 1996.  But things change, that same week increased to 80 points, Starting in 2010, that week will be 77 points.  Adjustments will be good for some owners, who will not like them, and good for others.  One thing is certain, things WILL change over the course of your DVC ownership,.


----------



## BroganMc

drusba said:


> A bit harsh, Mike, but a valid point. I presume most come from other states and bought with the idea that they could go once a year at specific times -- maybe not the same time every year but often the same "season," e.g., those looking at school schedules likely mainly bought based on going in magic season.



I agree. Which is why changing those weekly totals really troubles me. Especially when the change has been an increase to a rounded number amount such as BWV going from 350 to 352 in Magic season.

What floored me and still gets me is the jump for SSR Studios in Choice over that 100 point amount. (Previously 97 now 105.) If I had purchased just enough to ensure a week then for my small group I'd most likely have picked up 100 points even. Suddenly I'm under my needed amount.

My guess is that the shift in season stays and room sizes is something that takes places over 5-10 years as members' family dynamics change. When the kids are small, they can do studios or 1bedrooms for quick work-only restricted stays. Then as the kids hit school years, they go into Magic and Premier season (Premier if they were able to afford the purchase price). It's only after the kids are teenagers or owners reach empty nest/retirement age that one can start changing up the point usage radically, unless of course they bypassed the whole childrearing scenario and are DINKs.


----------



## BroganMc

Chuck S said:


> For instance, many original purchasers at OKW had young kids in 1992, and   their travel needs were dictated by school vacation schedules, now most of those young kids are adults, their parents can vacation at other times of the year.  Where school vacation times may have been in high demand for reservations in 1992, those same owners may now be requesting Food & Wine season or Early December & January more, increasing demand...or may now be staying fewer weekends than they did originally.



Ah, so what you're saying is this point reallocation is really all OKW owners faults?


----------



## Chuck S

BroganMc said:


> Ah, so what you're saying is this point reallocation is really all OKW owners faults?



 

No, of course not, BWV VWL, HHI, VB and BCV have been around a while, too, and their owners are likely also experiencing the beginnings of change in their vacation habits as the kids grow up.


----------



## BobH

I know their books probably get audited and I understand the total points at a resort per year is not supposed to change no matter how the points get re-allocated. I believe Webmaster Doc once posted a nice chart on the number and types of accomodations at each resort, and it might be possible to roughly figure out the total points at a resort - but does anyone actually know what OKW total points are? Does everyone on these boards just assume Disney is actually adhering to the statement in the POS? If they were not how would owners even know?


----------



## LVSWL

I tend to agree, things will change with the average DVC owner. Children grow up, just as ours did, change from year round schedule to high school, soon to college. We went from traveling off season to busier times of the year and soon will travel when we feel like it. Many families will go through these same cycles. To me it seems that this natural progression would even out things within DVC without them going in and reallocating the points. While my family may be at one point in the cycle, another "younger" family may be at an earlier point in the cycle. I personally think things would have evened out.


----------



## BroganMc

Chuck S said:


> No, of course not, BWV VWL, HHI, VB and BCV have been around a while, too, and their owners are likely also experiencing the beginnings of change in their vacation habits as the kids grow up.



Ah, so it's just all those pre-SSR owners mucking up the works. Glad to see the ball shifting courts. I was getting lonely in the Black Sheep corral.  

Although I agree with the opinion that these paradigm shifts in vacation habits should be evening themselves out. There were a lot more new owners coming in with younger families in the last 3-5 years.

More has to fuel these reallocations than just "vacation habits". If not a push for add-on contracts then I suspect the opposite of making newer properties with higher point requirements seem more legitimate. It's very interesting how a studio at SSR is suddenly worth as much as BWV and BCV during F&W.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> What makes you think the hue and cry over the reservation window was bigger? Just because discussion of this topic has been limited to one thread on this board does not mean it is less of an issue. From talking to Joy yesterday it sounded like they were pretty backlogged with member complaints on this and expected many more over the next couple weeks.
> 
> The interesting thing about the reservation change is that it seems time has proven that change did not adversely affect people as much as some feared. We got into a discussion about that one too. This change has yet to reveal itself. My bet is that it doesn't make one iota of difference in room availability but does overall decrease the amount of time members book their trips. My concern for the program is that it will also give DVC a bad name in the industry with the increase in weekly point totals. If another reallocation is implemented in a couple years and sees yet another weekly increase, I'm even more convinced the program will get a bad rep.


Maybe I should have said, that judging from the reaction on DIS, it seemed the outcry before was more than for this.  More negative posts from more people on the thread about 7 day reservations.  I think you'll see this change too is much ado about nothing for the membership as a whole.  





> That just doesn't make sense. S-F people travel then because they like the length of stay. It's a way of stretching your points to get more time at Disney. The point shifts for weekends do not affect that balance.
> 
> Look at SSR, for instance. 5 days in a studio in Choice is 65 points (previously 55); a long weekend same season Th-M is 66 points (previously 64). So for 1 more point, you get to stay one less day. That's not appealing to a point stretcher. Even a long weekender is paying 2 more points for their stay.
> 
> The only ones who will be encouraged to add more weekend nights to their trips are those already inclined to booking weekends. And they still didn't save enough weekend points to tack on another weekday stay.
> 
> I doubt you'll see any shift other than people dropping a day from their stays. Now that may mean Thursdays become more available.


There are different groups of S-F people and they are not all the same.  Some only had that many points, others chose to go those times simply because it was less points even if they had enough and many other variations such as those that stayed 6 days instead of 7 and those that stayed 12 days with one weekend.  Many of all of those stayed weekend some other way such as cash or off site, others did not.  I think you're assuming that the vast majority of those S-F people only had enough points for those trips.  I don't think that's nearly as true as you seem to think it is, I'd venture to guess that far more than half of that group have enough points to stay the same stay now as a minimum with the changes and a large % have enough to stay weekends too if they so choose.  And a portion of those that only had enough will add on in some way.   It's unrealistic to think that an increase in weekday and decrease in weekends won't shift usage, the only question is how much?, is it enough, is it too much.

I think you're missing one hard fact of DVC and that is that the system is self limiting.  If enough rooms go empty, that means points are not being used and ultimately that points will be lost.  I doubt many people will want to lose points so they will by default, use those points for the days and resorts that are available.  If that happens, you'll see another change in the same direction.  You better hope it does work because if it doesn't, there's another guaranteed reallocation coming in about 2-3 years.


----------



## Mike

Chuck S said:


> Except that point based times shares are not designed specifically to address the needs of people that must vacation the same week every year, that is the advantage for many people to buying a point based rather than set week timeshare.



I never said the same week every year.  Our vacations vary from early July to early August.  We go for a 2 week period within that window.  And that is why I wanted a point based system, not a set week. 

drusba hit the nail on the head. I knew that I would be vacationing in the same season for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Dean

Mike said:


> Is it so hard to imagine that silly little details like work schedules, school schedules, kids sports schedules, family size and transportation costs could dictate visiting the same time each year in the same size accomodations????


Not at all, many guests are like that.  However, it is important to note that the type of ownership dictates your options and RISKS and that each has it's advantages and disadvantages.  A fixed week resort guarantees you have a reservation.  A floating week, set season system (most Marriott's) guarantees you a shot at a specific full week(s) within that season.  A points system guarantees you're competing with a larger group of people, in DVC's case potentially every single member, for the same option.  And it presents the inherent and stated risk that the total points for that option might change. Flexibility is the big draw with a points system though they are not always as flexible in all areas as one might think, exchanges come to mind.


----------



## BroganMc

Mike said:


> I never said the same week every year.  Our vacations vary from early July to early August.  We go for a 2 week period within that window.  And that is why I wanted a point based system, not a set week.
> 
> drusba hit the nail on the head. I knew that I would be vacationing in the same season for the foreseeable future.



Forgive me for being relatively new to the timeshare world, but my experience with Marriott taught me that the industry does not use fixed weeks anymore. Even when you buy a week's timeshare you are really just buying the rights to book a week during a certain season. Some of those weekly timeshares also allow you to do split weeks or lockoffs. And with the advent of timeshare trading organizations such as II and RCI, you're not even limited to a particular resort.

I can easily use my Marriott weeks outside my season or at another resort. The main difference with a point based system is that I can more easily book shorter stays and change my room sizes. 

Isn't it fractional ownership that limits you to a set time and place?


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> Maybe I should have said, that judging from the reaction on DIS, it seemed the outcry before was more than for this.  More negative posts from more people on the thread about 7 day reservations.  I think you'll see this change too is much ado about nothing for the membership as a whole.



Don't mistake the moderator decision to limit discussion of this topic to one thread for less interest. This topic is being discussed on many boards and with much more negative impact than we see here. Another measure is just how much feedback Member Satisfaction has gotten. From what I understood, it has been considerable. And that's just the first wave of internet savvy members. When new planners hit mailboxes we'll see a better representation of member reaction.

As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings. When you look at the charts you find that the totals have gone up in a disproportionate amount to what has gone down. By that I mean, any point savings you may have on a weekend does not begin to make up for the increased point costs of weekdays.

That's why I predict this particular change will prove to be an ill-conceived one. All it does is encourage larger point contract purchases and shorten the divide between newer and older resorts, particularly BLT. And that at the cost of disenfranchising existing members.

Now whether upper management will decide they need to adjust again in 2-3 years time, I expect depends more on how current sales are doing than current booking patterns.


----------



## tjkraz

BroganMc said:


> Don't mistake the moderator decision to limit discussion of this topic to one thread for less interest. This topic is being discussed on many boards and with much more negative impact than we see here.



Oh, I don't know about that.  I can think of one forum in particular which is probably having a field day with it.  Of course, they tend to have a flair for the overly-dramatic.    But I've looked at a dozen other DVC forums and none of them had a discussion that made it beyond page 2.  Even the TUG thread only has 16 posts.   




> As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings.



There will be many different responses to the reallocation.  You can't just shoehorn 300k members into a couple of buckets.  In many cases people will even vary their approach from one time to another.  

My initial reaction is that we may cut down on our trip frequency.  Under the 2009 charts we have enough points to take roughly three 5-night trips every two years.  Now on some occasions we may instead do two 6-night trips every two years.  Obviously we will get fewer nights out of this, but IMO that's not the end of the world.  It will be nice to save the $$$ we would have otherwise spent on the third trip--transportation dollars saved, vacation time saved, etc.  

Other times we may book in cheaper seasons, smaller rooms, cheaper resorts, etc.  We may even add more points in the long run to extend those trips further.  

I just think you're spinning your wheels trying to predict what is yet to come.  The reallocation is a done-deal.  In a few years perhaps we can look back and make some educated statements about how it has impacted the system.  But not now.  

And I fully expect there will be another reallocation.  Perhaps not in 2-3 years, but it will happen.


----------



## tidefan

BroganMc said:


> Forgive me for being relatively new to the timeshare world, but my experience with Marriott taught me that the industry does not use fixed weeks anymore.



Our St Maarten timeshare we bought resale a few years back is Week 45, Sat-Sat.  Every Year.  Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel.  What's funny is that they have talked a few people into giving up their fixed week and going into "the Club" (floating weeks/points) with Diamond Resorts for an extra $3,000, and now all I hear is their complaints about how they can't get into their week anymore...



BroganMc said:


> As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings.



Well, for us, it will probably encourage us to go ahead and extend our vacations a day.  Usually, we go for a week at a time, Saturday to Saturday, but with the lower weekends, we will probably go Saturday to Sunday.  This will allow us to maximize our vacation time and what is an extra day of park tickets from 7 days to 8 days, isn't it like $3 per person?  This type of stay would have been 384 points in a Magic 2-Bdrm (297 in a 1-Bdrm) on the old charts, but now would only be 377 (288 in a 1-Bdrm).


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> Don't mistake the moderator decision to limit discussion of this topic to one thread for less interest. This topic is being discussed on many boards and with much more negative impact than we see here. Another measure is just how much feedback Member Satisfaction has gotten. From what I understood, it has been considerable. And that's just the first wave of internet savvy members. When new planners hit mailboxes we'll see a better representation of member reaction.
> 
> As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings. When you look at the charts you find that the totals have gone up in a disproportionate amount to what has gone down. By that I mean, any point savings you may have on a weekend does not begin to make up for the increased point costs of weekdays.
> 
> That's why I predict this particular change will prove to be an ill-conceived one. All it does is encourage larger point contract purchases and shorten the divide between newer and older resorts, particularly BLT. And that at the cost of disenfranchising existing members.
> 
> Now whether upper management will decide they need to adjust again in 2-3 years time, I expect depends more on how current sales are doing than current booking patterns.


Nothing to do with the limit of a single thread.  My interpretation is that the group was yelling louder with the other issue.  Worst case scenario would be a smaller group of people yelling louder this time but I don't even think that's the case.  Regardless, it really doesn't matter because DVC had the right, the responsibility and will not go back.  Unfortunately we don't have hard facts to compare before and after but I think eventually we will get enough secondary evidence to convince at least the open minded.  If it increases the size of the average points purchase, that's a good think IMO.  If you can't see how lower weekend points encourages people to stay those nights then I'm sorry, with that thinking may as well make all nights the same points because it wouldn't matter anyway.


----------



## Anal Annie

jodifla said:


> *I'm surprised that so many people bought with such specifics in mind.* One type of room, one set of dates. That's more of a traditional timeshare.
> 
> * I get my annual allotment of points and tend to spend them like a kid in a candy store, not the same thing year in, year out.*
> Some years it's studios in the fall, some years it's 2 bedrooms in the winter, some years it's Concierge collection.
> 
> * I did buy a small add on for 56 points at BCV thinking I think 4 nights in a studio*, but even when I bought it, I completely recognized those numbers could change.



Lucky you for living within driving distance!   Some of us have to factor in whether or not their kid should misss school for a day or two + the added cost of airfare for a family & parking at the airport etc. on top of the time involved to get there (an hours drive to the airport, 90 min. to check-in & get thru security, 2 hours flight if there are no delays etc.).   I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to be able to have 3 or 4 long weekends down there but the airfare is just too cost prohibitive so we have to have a set plan every year.  If I could just hop in the car & drive it in 3 hours and use 1/2 tank of gas to get there you'd better believe we'd go more often and "use our points like a kid in a candy store".  We bought with the idea of being able to take at least 2 trips per year but counted on the total number of points required not changing, which some now have.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

BroganMc said:


> Don't mistake the moderator decision to limit discussion of this topic to one thread for less interest. This topic is being discussed on many boards and with much more negative impact than we see here.


 There are also boards where the issue is only getting modest discussion. Boards have personalities. On some, every change is a crisis. One thing we can do is look at the amount of interest a topic gets relative to other issues. This one seems to be getting about the same level of interest as the change to check-in-day-booking. Which is turning out to be a non-issue for most, a modest improvement for many, and a big disappointment for a few. Go back and read all the sky-is-falling posts in that thread. Keep those posts in mind when you read the sky-is-falling posts in this one.



> Another measure is just how much feedback Member Satisfaction has gotten. From what I understood, it has been considerable.


 MS got a ton of feedback on check-in-day too.



> And that's just the first wave of internet savvy members. When new planners hit mailboxes we'll see a better representation of member reaction.


 That's a key point. I suspect most folks don't know. Disney really buried the change in their news section. 



> As for the rest I still haven't seen how any of the point charge changes encourage any change in booking patterns OTHER than to have people downsize or drop days from their bookings.



First, keep in mind there are a lot of people who don't have a set booking  pattern. When I first joined, we did weekday trips in off season. Then as kids got older, that was no longer possible. Now when plane tickets are cheap we squeeze in several long weekend trips. When plane tickets are expensive, we go for longer trips in the summer (ugh). The new charts won't change the way I vacation. But I will now have extra points - which means more trips or inviting more folks on trips. 



> When you look at the charts you find that the totals have gone up in a disproportionate amount to what has gone down. By that I mean, any point savings you may have on a weekend does not begin to make up for the increased point costs of weekdays.


 This is simply not true. People like myself who do long weekends are seeing meaningful decreases.


----------



## TisBit

Anal Annie said:


> Lucky you for living within driving distance!   Some of us have to factor in whether or not their kid should misss school for a day or two + the added cost of airfare for a family & parking at the airport etc. on top of the time involved to get there (an hours drive to the airport, 90 min. to check-in & get thru security, 2 hours flight if there are no delays etc.).   I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to be able to have 3 or 4 long weekends down there but the airfare is just too cost prohibitive so we have to have a set plan every year.  If I could just hop in the car & drive it in 3 hours and use 1/2 tank of gas to get there you'd better believe we'd go more often and "use our points like a kid in a candy store".  We bought with the idea of being able to take at least 2 trips per year but counted on the total number of points required not changing, which some now have.



I think most people are in that position, but I too didn't buy my points with a specific plan in mind.  We alternate our trips every year, sometimes in the summer, sometimes in the fall or spring.  We weigh our options when planning a trip.  I don't go to WDW every vacation, so I am not a large points owner, but I will continue to book what I can when I can. 

We have friends that have larger contracts that will go several times a year, even with all the same hurdles as you.  I would never buy anything with that specific of point totals, just because I know my vacation habits will change over 50 years, even if the points don't.


----------



## Capn Dave

BobH said:


> I know their books probably get audited and I understand the total points at a resort per year is not supposed to change no matter how the points get re-allocated. I believe Webmaster Doc once posted a nice chart on the number and types of accomodations at each resort, and it might be possible to roughly figure out the total points at a resort - but does anyone actually know what OKW total points are? Does everyone on these boards just assume Disney is actually adhering to the statement in the POS? If they were not how would owners even know?



I brought this same point up on this board before. I have not heard a satisfactory response as yet.

Is a total point chart readily available to members for each resort?

I wish/hope that Disney would publish this composite chart each time they reallocate points. Not only because we would like to check on their calculations, although I am sure they are required by law to keep total point allocations per resort the same, but just to make it simplier to see where the point changes did occur. We then could make more informed decisions on where/when to use our points.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> When you look at the charts you find that the totals have gone up in a disproportionate amount to what has gone down. By that I mean, any point savings you may have on a weekend does not begin to make up for the increased point costs of weekdays.


As you know, I've looked at the charts.  The points even out for the year.  Some things have gone up and others have gone down.  For the example you quote, the 2 BR lockoff and 1 BR portion went down as did many other options.  While they did not go down as much as the studio went up, other things did.  Plus I don't think that the limitations in the POS apply to the individual components of a lockoff.  The way I read it they could have increased that unit alone and made absolutely no compensatory changes and still be within the letter of the Fl statutes and POS.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

Capn Dave said:


> I brought this same point up on this board before. I have not heard a satisfactory response as yet.
> 
> Is a total point chart readily available to members for each resort?
> 
> I wish/hope that Disney would publish this composite chart each time they reallocate points. Not only because we would like to check on their calculations, although I am sure they are required by law to keep total point allocations per resort the same, but just to make it simplier to see where the point changes did occur. We then could make more informed decisions on where/when to use our points.


 The problem is that the total point cost allocations do change from year to year. Some years have more/less weekends than others. And even seasons can have more/less weekends in some years than in others. So there is no one, single fixed number of points. 

Buried deep in this thread are some calculations. The total number of points is within about 0.5% between the two charts, though the exact difference depends upon which year and  resort you look at.


----------



## Dean

Capn Dave said:


> I brought this same point up on this board before. I have not heard a satisfactory response as yet.
> 
> Is a total point chart readily available to members for each resort?
> 
> I wish/hope that Disney would publish this composite chart each time they reallocate points. Not only because we would like to check on their calculations, although I am sure they are required by law to keep total point allocations per resort the same, but just to make it simplier to see where the point changes did occur. We then could make more informed decisions on where/when to use our points.


It's not that difficult to do.  You take the number of each room type, ignoring lockoff components, and figure out how many weekdays and weekends are in each season.  Then it's a matter of some fairly simple math to figure out how many points it takes to book an entire resort for the year.  You have to make a choice of which "Base Year" to use and you'd avoid leap year as the POS states it's taken from a 365 day "Base Year".  I used 1992 since that's likely the base year used for OKW and it's unlikely they'd use a different one for other resorts.  I got 14,074,776 points with the old points charts and 14,075,811 using the new points charts.  A difference of 1035  points for the entire year or less than 0.01% difference.  The variance if you chose a different base year is actually far more than is that difference for reasons that DW pointed out above.  Some will say but "it's not a zero difference" and that is true but it would more than satisfy any reasonable test thrown at DVC.

DVC is not going to publish this type of data.  They are smart enough to know to only give what's necessary and not lead fuel to anyone's fire.  Much like explaining rules to a teenage where you just give them points to argue.  I do think they would have been well served to provide a very cursory summary of occupancy info related to this issue but I do realize that any data they provide gives competitors a piece of info they can use as well.


----------



## Disney MAINEiac

as a member who has to travel from a far distance I have complained in the past that weekend points were too high.  If we wanted to do a get away for a long holiday weekend the high weekend points were prohibitive. perhaps the realignment will allow us more than one visit per year (say one long family trip and a shorter adults only get away).  the way we travel and use our points I just don't see this as a big deal frankly


----------



## Capn Dave

Disney MAINEiac said:


> as a member who has to travel from a far distance I have complained in the past that weekend points were too high.  If we wanted to do a get away for a long holiday weekend the high weekend points were prohibitive. perhaps the realignment will allow us more than one visit per year (say one long family trip and a shorter adults only get away).  the way we travel and use our points I just don't see this as a big deal frankly



"the way we travel and use our points I just don't see this as a big deal frankly".

HUH ???? This is the whole "point", no pun intended, of using points and the reallocation of same.


----------



## bcrook

BroganMc said:


> But Joy did mention that they were just as booked on weekends as weekdays so she dismissed the idea that this point reallocation was done solely to encourage weekend stays.



I think it is interesting that this quote was ignored.  This entire thread is based on the argument that there is an imbalance of bookings on the weekends.  We have no data to support this.  But this quote doesn't support it.  

If not to encourage weekend stays, what then? Force people to trim their stays to open up more rooms.   I think that is what most people are upset about.  Losing nights from their vacations.  As Tim said, he might be going 2 six nights instead 3 five nights.  That is 3 days less.  It may be good for DVC, but it is a sad thing for all of us who enjoy our time on site.  

After reading 143 pages on this thread, I am less willing to believe this was done for good of the members now than I was on page 1.


----------



## Dean

bcrook said:


> I think it is interesting that this quote was ignored.  This entire thread is based on the argument that there is an imbalance of bookings on the weekends.  We have no data to support this.  But this quote doesn't support it.


There is a lot of indirect data to support that weekends in general are more available than weekdays.  I would not put much emphasis on the quote you referenced because I believe it to not be correct based on years of accumulative information plus I don't know if it is even a good representation of what was said.  One thing I've seen from DVC, and I referenced it earlier, is they are good about making you feel good without actually providing any commitments or even real information.  Phrases like "I'm writing this down", "I'll definitely pass it on to management", "others have called with the same concerns", etc.  Plus they're also good at making you feel like you're right in such areas.  I'm not saying that's bad, it is what it is.  We saw it time after time on the thread about reserving 7 days at a time.


----------



## bcrook

The best place to find any data would be the DVC - Resort Reservation Availability threads.  http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2050896

If you look at December 2009 for example, you find weekends dates on the lists as -no availability.  Currently the 4th and 5th is the 11th and 12th (weekends are popping up on the thread). Let's just assume that this pattern holds, and weekends are just as booked at weekdays - how does this justify an allocation?

Similar patterns develop in May 2009.  Weekend dates are represented in the no availability reports.  

I realize this is incomplete data, but it is at least something to work with.  I think it supports Joy's statement from DVC and also the idea that weekends are not necessarily deserted wastelands.  

People should keep questioning this, and keep calling member services.


----------



## Dean

bcrook said:


> The best place to find any data would be the DVC - Resort Reservation Availability threads.  http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2050896
> 
> If you look at December 2009 for example, you find weekends dates on the lists as -no availability.  Currently the 4th and 5th is the 11th and 12th (weekends are popping up on the thread). Let's just assume that this pattern holds, and weekends are just as booked at weekdays - how does this justify an allocation?
> 
> Similar patterns develop in May 2009.  Weekend dates are represented in the no availability reports.
> 
> I realize this is incomplete data, but it is at least something to work with.  I think it supports Joy's statement from DVC and also the idea that weekends are not necessarily deserted wastelands.
> 
> People should keep questioning this, and keep calling member services.


It's very limited data over a fairly short period of time.  Eventually it will amass enough info to have more meaning though.


----------



## bcrook

I am not trying to be argumentative, but based on many planning threads, the data collected on the Resort Reservation Availability thread, and other comments about December all resorts weekdays and weekends are booked up and are hard to find.  If that is the case, how could reallocation be justified for that season?  I find many inconsistencies like this, and it goes back to the idea that something other than demand is at work here.


----------



## tjkraz

bcrook said:


> I think it is interesting that this quote was ignored.  This entire thread is based on the argument that there is an imbalance of bookings on the weekends.  We have no data to support this.  But this quote doesn't support it.



Without providing any specifics, I had someone further up in the DVC food chain confirm that lagging weekend bookings were very much part of the motivation for this.  

I tend to agree with Dean's take on the QA rep's statement.  But even if we take it at face value, it was just a general statement about weekend occupancy.  It doesn't address whether the occupants were staying on DVC points, 25% member discount (which is only available when DVC projects that points bookings will not fill the resort) or people who booked via the 60-day breakage rules.  Saying that a resort is "full" doesn't mean "full of members using their points"--which is the true goal of the system.  

As for using the availability reports here to draw any conclusions, that's a pretty flawed method.  Instead of looking at December '09--which is 10 months away--look at March.  There are nearly 100 date/room combinations reported as full at AKV, but the only weekends among those are:  

Value Studio 6, 27
Standard Studio 27
Standard 2B 20, 21
Savanna Studio 27
Concierge Studio 27
Conceirge 2B 20, 21

That's 8 of 91 (8%) reported full dates being weekends.  BWV is 15%.  VWL is 0%.  Weekends are 29% of our week.


----------



## Chuck S

Remember that we have no way of verifying the info submitted to the availability threads, and that availability changes.  There could now be more weekend availability, some folks may have cancelled and/or some of the info could have been submitted while others were "walking" a reservation, thus holding rooms they didn't really want.


----------



## Dean

bcrook said:


> I am not trying to be argumentative, but based on many planning threads, the data collected on the Resort Reservation Availability thread, and other comments about December all resorts weekdays and weekends are booked up and are hard to find.  If that is the case, how could reallocation be justified for that season?  I find many inconsistencies like this, and it goes back to the idea that something other than demand is at work here.


You're not being argumentative at all.  Do realize that December is an novelty that is unlikely to be representative.  Plus we don't know when the days booked up or whether those members really got what they wanted, which would ultimately be important to make any absolute judgments.  Plus I think it's very obvious that one of the changes that might help even out some of this demand is to change the seasons for December totally to likely Dream as a minimum and possibly expand the premier further and/or make at least part of it magic.  NO system and no change to a system will be perfect for everyone.  In some cases the change will benefit some and hurt others, in some situations it may benefit the system and hurt the owners or vice versa.  Even if Dec weren't a problem at all, DVC needs some consistency so it's likely they'd change that time with all the rest that were more out of balance.  It is unfortunate we don't have real data any more.  The State of FL used to require resorts to publish such data but that stopped in 1995 or 1996.


----------



## BroganMc

Dean said:


> plus I don't know if it is even a good representation of what was said.



Uh Dean, I would hope you aren't implying I was less than truthful about the quote. I did not reconstruct her words. She specifically said "we're booked on weekends too". The exact conversation was me saying "I understand DVC needs to balance demand but was disturbed by the changing of the weekly points" and her answering with the comment that weekends were booking as readily as weekdays.

I was taken aback by the comment myself for I assumed, like many here, that weekend nights being unbooked is the norm and the driving force for the point reallocation. Her comment led me to believe something else. I didn't grill her on the subject though. I was more intent on wanting to get the data for the point allocation math.

Until we have access to DVC's booking figures I'd caution anyone to presume what it actually is. All we know for certain is that DVC claimed the point allocation was done to meet member requests. For all we know, it was less about demand and more about complaints that weekend points were double the cost of weekdays. Joy did mention that was a frequent complaint among members to her, at least.


----------



## LIFERBABE

Well I will throw this anecdoctal data in.

I just booked THV today for Christmas/NYE 2009

At first I just booked the weeknights because the Fri/Sat were 95 pts each.  Surely there would be weekend nights available later at that hi cost.  No they are almost sold out!  I went ahead and booked it.

This is the 2009 point chart, no developer points are in play for that time and demand is definitely there even with the double point requirement.


----------



## TisBit

tjkraz said:


> Without providing any specifics, I had someone further up in the DVC food chain confirm that lagging weekend bookings were very much part of the motivation for this.
> 
> I tend to agree with Dean's take on the QA rep's statement.  But even if we take it at face value, it was just a general statement about weekend occupancy.  It doesn't address whether the occupants were staying on DVC points, 25% member discount (which is only available when DVC projects that points bookings will not fill the resort) or people who booked via the 60-day breakage rules.  Saying that a resort is "full" doesn't mean "full of members using their points"--which is the true goal of the system.
> 
> As for using the availability reports here to draw any conclusions, that's a pretty flawed method.  Instead of looking at December '09--which is 10 months away--look at March.  There are nearly 100 date/room combinations reported as full at AKV, but the only weekends among those are:
> 
> Value Studio 6, 27
> Standard Studio 27
> Standard 2B 20, 21
> Savanna Studio 27
> Concierge Studio 27
> Conceirge 2B 20, 21
> 
> That's 8 of 91 (8%) reported full dates being weekends.  BWV is 15%.  VWL is 0%.  Weekends are 29% of our week.



I was going to point out the same thing, you can't pull one out of 12 months data and use it solely to justify your position.  You need to use the availabilities boards full data for all months and then make a determination and still keep in mind that it could be skewed.  

Brogan I think the truth is that there were a number of reasons for the reallocation, none of which is the overwhelming reason.  If you look at what they did during the reallocation, they shifted points in the room sizes, obviously to help adjust bookings between studios through grand villas, they shifted weekends, to help there...and they even shifted resorts, probably to help create demand at different resorts during different times of the year.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> Uh Dean, I would hope you aren't implying I was less than truthful about the quote. I did not reconstruct her words. She specifically said "we're booked on weekends too". The exact conversation was me saying "I understand DVC needs to balance demand but was disturbed by the changing of the weekly points" and her answering with the comment that weekends were booking as readily as weekdays.
> 
> I was taken aback by the comment myself for I assumed, like many here, that weekend nights being unbooked is the norm and the driving force for the point reallocation. Her comment led me to believe something else. I didn't grill her on the subject though. I was more intent on wanting to get the data for the point allocation math.
> 
> Until we have access to DVC's booking figures I'd caution anyone to presume what it actually is. All we know for certain is that DVC claimed the point allocation was done to meet member requests. For all we know, it was less about demand and more about complaints that weekend points were double the cost of weekdays. Joy did mention that was a frequent complaint among members to her, at least.


Certainly no reference to your intention but rather what was intended vs what was said by DVC and what was heard by you that might not have been as intended.  Given we're unlikely to have access to this info, I guess we'll get to keep beating each other up over it.  If you were told that there was no difference, then you were simply told wrong but unfortunately I don't have a way to prove it to you.  Plus you have to look at the entire year and not just one month.  It's entirely possible that some of the times didn't need to be changed but DVC would have changed them anyway to keep the same formula.  Still, there are other factors which included when those times were booked and HOW they were booked plus whether people got what they wanted when they called to make reservations.

As I was looking through the RCI info today I realized that it's entirely possible that one of the factors involved could have been DVC's need to match up to the RCI points formulas for weekend/weekdays.


----------



## bcrook

TisBit said:


> I was going to point out the same thing, you can't pull one out of 12 months data and use it solely to justify your position.  You need to use the availabilities boards full data for all months and then make a determination and still keep in mind that it could be skewed.



I understand about not selecting data that fits an argument.  My point is simply this... IF the entire month of December is booked up weekdays and weekends, then you can't use the argument that usage patterns are behind the point shifts for that month or season. So, December vacation plans have been tampered with because March needs an adjustment.   I think that is odd. 

I would think the first steps for this reallocation would have been to address the high demand for December by moving it to Dream or Magic season along with the other seasonal adjustments like F&W etc..  The seasonal adjustments would make sense.   

I don't think it would be fair to change the points charts simply because people complain that the weekends are too high.  There was a solid reason for setting the points charts up the way they were, hundreds of thousands people bought their points based on their charts, and then the charts were changed dramatically.  

When the planning guides come out soon, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of shocked people. It is still worth our time to pursue answers on this.  What are the long term goals?  Many people have speculated on the next moves.


----------



## bcrook

Dean said:


> As I was looking through the RCI info today I realized that it's entirely possible that one of the factors involved could have been DVC's need to match up to the RCI points formulas for weekend/weekdays.



That would be logical.  If that was given for the reason at the onset, I don't think I would have complained at all.  Somebody from DVC will read that post and use that in their next round of explanations.  

You have put a lot of energy and thought into this entire thread/topic Dean.  I appreciate all of your comments.


----------



## Dean

bcrook said:


> I understand about not selecting data that fits an argument.  My point is simply this... IF the entire month of December is booked up weekdays and weekends, then you can't use the argument that usage patterns are behind the point shifts for that month or season. So, December vacation plans have been tampered with because March needs an adjustment.


DVC needs a formula for weekends to weekdays, there needs to be consistency.  If only one month were out, they wouldn't change anything in all likelihood.  One or two months that are not out will still be included in the change.  This change wouldn't hurt a month that's OK anyway.



bcrook said:


> That would be logical.  If that was given for the reason at the onset, I don't think I would have complained at all.  Somebody from DVC will read that post and use that in their next round of explanations.
> 
> You have put a lot of energy and thought into this entire thread/topic Dean.  I appreciate all of your comments.


As I said, one possible issue but I doubt the main one.  Not a problem on the effort as it is the type of thread I enjoy.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

bcrook said:


> how does this justify an allocation?


 The reallocation is based on the fact that demand is greater for weekdays than for weekends. That doesn't mean the weekends are deserted wastelands that never get booked. 

Weekdays do have more demand than weekends. I can't imagine any long-time DVC owner questioning that (unless they never try to book weekends). I've called many times and been told they have only some of the days I'm looking for. In those situations, weekends are always more available. I've read about and seen the situation over and over.

If you want to call and fight about the way the reallocation was introduced, have at it. If you want to fight and call and say the imbalance wasn't enough to justify the disruption, have at it. If you want to fight and call to say owners should be given some sort of accommodation to help deal with the reallocation (small add-ons etc.) have at it. 

But if you want to fight and call to claim there was no imbalance, I guarantee you are wasting your time.


----------



## bcrook

DisneyWalker44 said:


> The reallocation is based on the fact that demand is greater for weekdays than for weekends. That doesn't mean the weekends are deserted wastelands that never get booked.
> 
> Weekdays do have more demand than weekends. I can't imagine any long-time DVC owner questioning that (unless they never try to book weekends). I've called many times and been told they have only some of the days I'm looking for. In those situations, weekends are always more available. I've read about and seen the situation over and over.
> 
> If you want to call and fight about the way the reallocation was introduced, have at it. If you want to fight and call and say the imbalance wasn't enough to justify the disruption, have at it. If you want to fight and call to say owners should be given some sort of accommodation to help deal with the reallocation (small add-ons etc.) have at it.
> 
> But if you want to fight and call to claim there was no imbalance, I guarantee you are wasting your time.



I was referring to a quote from a DVC employee who dismissed the idea that weekday demand accounts for the change.  I also made the point that that if the Month of December is totally booked based on current charts, why would  December weekday/weekend points be changed.  

But is it really true that weekdays are difficult to get at all resorts and for all seasons? Are SSR 2 bedrooms always full during the week in July and August and November? Is OKW difficult to book S-F in April or June? I haven't had any trouble booking anything at less than 7 months.  Last year I was at HHI in early June and lots of the two bedroom units were empty during the week.  

I think most of the difficult booking situations occur with the special and hard to get locations.  I imagine all the Studios are going to be hard to secure now for all days and all seasons because that is the easiest way to conserve points.  I stayed at a Studio last summer at BCV and vowed I would never settle for less than a 1 bedroom ever again.  So I will have to cut days from my trips.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

DisneyWalker44 said:


> The reallocation is based on the fact that demand is greater for weekdays than for weekends. That doesn't mean the weekends are deserted wastelands that never get booked.
> 
> Weekdays do have more demand than weekends. I can't imagine any long-time DVC owner questioning that (unless they never try to book weekends). I've called many times and been told they have only some of the days I'm looking for. In those situations, weekends are always more available. I've read about and seen the situation over and over.
> 
> If you want to call and fight about the way the reallocation was introduced, have at it. If you want to fight and call and say the imbalance wasn't enough to justify the disruption, have at it. If you want to fight and call to say owners should be given some sort of accommodation to help deal with the reallocation (small add-ons etc.) have at it.
> 
> But if you want to fight and call to claim there was no imbalance, I guarantee you are wasting your time.


Not to keep playing the same 'ole record, but NO ONE KNOWS why Disney reallocated the points chart. There are just way too many exceptions to all of the proposed theories already stated umpteen times. One thing I have noticed....I have noticed posters stating they will be adding on, if not now, in the near future! I have maintained there is a monetary reason behind the change...and my assumption is coming to fruition!


----------



## tjkraz

bcrook said:


> I was referring to a quote from a DVC employee who dismissed the idea that weekday demand accounts for the change.  I also made the point that that if the Month of December is totally booked based on current charts, why would  December weekday/weekend points be changed.



There are three different seasons spread throughout the month of December and each of them would have to be viewed as a whole.  It doesn't so much matter what Dec 1-14 trends look like as much as all of Adventure Season which also includes September and January.  

That said, the adjustments to weekday / weekend ratios appear to be global and not based upon history with each individual season and/or resort.  I suspect there is a sound statistical basis for using that approach.  



> But is it really true that weekdays are difficult to get at all resorts and for all seasons? Are SSR 2 bedrooms always full during the week in July and August and November? Is OKW difficult to book S-F in April or June? I haven't had any trouble booking anything at less than 7 months.  Last year I was at HHI in early June and lots of the two bedroom units were empty during the week.



Weekdays don't have to be at 100% occupancy year-round to justify the change.  As long as bookings are weighted toward the weekday it's still justified.  



> I think most of the difficult booking situations occur with the special and hard to get locations.  I imagine all the Studios are going to be hard to secure now for all days and all seasons because that is the easiest way to conserve points.  I stayed at a Studio last summer at BCV and vowed I would never settle for less than a 1 bedroom ever again.  So I will have to cut days from my trips.



I don't think it would be fair to draw any conclusions about how people will respond at this point.  Not all members are negatively impacted and those who are will have several options available to them.


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> Not to keep playing the same 'ole record, but NO ONE KNOWS why Disney reallocated the points chart.



According to DVC it was:

"To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays..."

and

"...to better [reflect] the changes in Members' vacationing patterns..."

Unless proven otherwise, I'm willing to take that information at face value.  



> There are just way too many exceptions to all of the proposed theories already stated umpteen times. One thing I have noticed....I have noticed posters stating they will be adding on, if not now, in the near future! I have maintained there is a monetary reason behind the change...and my assumption is coming to fruition!



True, but additional sales are only half of the story.  We've also had member say they are considering selling, members who have said they will no longer recommend DVC to friends/family/strangers when asked, and DVC will certainly lose some new sales they would have otherwise gotten simply because 160 points no longer goes as far as it did before.  

Whether or not this ends up being a net gain for DVC is completely unknown.  

Welcome to the Flawed Theory Club, Hope!


----------



## BWV Dreamin

tjkraz said:


> According to DVC it was:
> 
> "To help address a growing Member interest in weekend stays..."
> 
> and
> 
> "...to better [reflect] the changes in Members' vacationing patterns..."
> 
> *Unless proven otherwise, I'm willing to take that information at face value. *
> 
> 
> 
> True, but additional sales are only half of the story. We've also had member say they are considering selling, members who have said they will no longer recommend DVC to friends/family/strangers when asked, and DVC will certainly lose some new sales they would have otherwise gotten simply because 160 points no longer goes as far as it did before.
> 
> Whether or not this ends up being a net gain for DVC is completely unknown.
> 
> Welcome to the Flawed Theory Club, Hope!


Well you just do that........


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> Well you just do that........



Is there some reason I shouldn't?  

A lot of people *have *asked for lower weekend points over the years.  My own observations suggest that the points were out of balance.  Both DVC's statement and a conversation with someone inside corroborates that.  

Occam's Razor.  Given our inability to disprove DVC's statements, the simplest explanation may just be the correct one.


----------



## Dean

BWV Dreamin said:


> Well you just do that........


If I wasn't willing to accept it I'd either move on, selling my points or challenge them formally with a state complaint and/or a legal challenge.  Given the mass change from DVC is so great, to "you can't trust them", I'm surprised we aren't seeing mass postings that many plan to sell now.  I've seen a number of postings that essentially say if anything else happens, they'll sell.  Personally I separate out the sales process from the management process.  IF I felt the way some do about some of these changes and the motivation, I would not cont to be a member.  Complaining on this or similar BBS or Email lists or even calling DVC MS and complaining is not going to get anything done.  If one truly wanted to find out the info and/or push for a change back, there are ways to do so.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

bcrook said:


> I was referring to a quote from a DVC employee who dismissed the idea that weekday demand accounts for the change.


 With all due respect, I believe you are referring to a paraphrase, not a quote, and even the paraphrase was not what you seem to think. Please go back and check - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



> I also made the point that that if the Month of December is totally booked based on current charts, why would  December weekday/weekend points be changed.


 Weekends and weekdays can have different levels of demand and still get fully booked. 



> But is it really true that weekdays are difficult to get at all resorts and for all seasons?


 As far as I know, nobody has made that claim. The claim is simply that weekday demand is greater than weekend.


----------



## Disney MAINEiac

Capn Dave said:


> "the way we travel and use our points I just don't see this as a big deal frankly".
> 
> HUH ???? This is the whole "point", no pun intended, of using points and the reallocation of same.



perhaps I didn't phrase this clearly, for us I see the reallocation as a positive which might allow us to get more use of our points. If that turns out to be the case (I haven't seen the actual final points chart yet) it won't be  a big deal (read not something negative) for us. I think this will turn out to be a tempest in a tea pot.


----------



## TisBit

bcrook said:


> I understand about not selecting data that fits an argument.  My point is simply this... IF the entire month of December is booked up weekdays and weekends, then you can't use the argument that usage patterns are behind the point shifts for that month or season. So, December vacation plans have been tampered with because March needs an adjustment.   I think that is odd.
> 
> I would think the first steps for this reallocation would have been to address the high demand for December by moving it to Dream or Magic season along with the other seasonal adjustments like F&W etc..  The seasonal adjustments would make sense.
> 
> I don't think it would be fair to change the points charts simply because people complain that the weekends are too high.  There was a solid reason for setting the points charts up the way they were, hundreds of thousands people bought their points based on their charts, and then the charts were changed dramatically.
> 
> When the planning guides come out soon, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of shocked people. It is still worth our time to pursue answers on this.  What are the long term goals?  Many people have speculated on the next moves.



I personally think that as others have suggested, we have to be careful thinking that the reallocation is over with.  I wouldn't be surprised if DVC has some ideas on future adjustments, possibly seasonal adjustments that they are holding off on in order not to create an even larger uproar.  This if they adjusted seasons and points this time around.

While December might not be the issue, what about the other months in that same season?  If December is booked regardless of weekend/weekday points, but the other times in the same season aren't, it would be equally unfair not to adjust a season that has problems in all but one month.  Plus, as Dean has already pointed out, there has to be some pattern to point usage.  I don't see DVC making weekends cheap in one season and expensive in another, but rather that there is some rhyme or reason to how many points are needed for weekends vs weekdays throughout the year.


----------



## DVC Mike

This was finally mentioned in the Orlando Sentinel this morning:



> The Walt Disney Co.'s time-share arm is trying to steer more of its customers into spending weekend nights in its resorts.
> 
> Disney Vacation Club, which sells real-estate interests expressed as "points" that guests redeem for nights in its time-share resorts, last month overhauled its point structure to lower the cost of weekend nights and raise the price of weekday nights.
> 
> Disney said it is trying to spread the demand more evenly throughout the week. The company had previously required close to twice as many points for Friday and Saturday nights as it had for Sunday through Thursday nights, which had prompted particularly heavy weeknight reservations.
> 
> Weekend nights will still be more expensive than weekday nights, but the disparity won't be as wide.
> 
> State law allows time-share operators to reallocate points through the year, so long as the total number of points remains the same. Disney said the total point-cost for a full week is largely unaffected by its changes, because the shifts made to the weekend and weekday rates offset each other.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Dean said:


> If I wasn't willing to accept it I'd either move on, selling my points or challenge them formally with a state complaint and/or a legal challenge. Given the mass change from DVC is so great, to "you can't trust them", I'm surprised we aren't seeing mass postings that many plan to sell now. I've seen a number of postings that essentially say if anything else happens, they'll sell. Personally I separate out the sales process from the management process. IF I felt the way some do about some of these changes and the motivation, I would not cont to be a member. Complaining on this or similar BBS or Email lists or even calling DVC MS and complaining is not going to get anything done. If one truly wanted to find out the info and/or push for a change back, there are ways to do so.


As always, I respect your thoughtful opinion. And while I would love to fully buy into this thought, the end result is that it is more expensive as a whole for members to continue to vacation with their points at hand. Further realloclation will continue this trend....the only way to compensate for the changes, and maintain current vacation habits, is to increase or add-on points. Shifting members to include one or both weekends will not save or maintain the current members vacation points needed. So call it what you will, the end result does not change.....members will need more points, our current timeshare is not the same value as before the points reallocation. No denying this.....


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> ...the end result is that it is more expensive as a whole for members to continue to vacation with their points at hand.



This part of your statement is mathematically impossible.  Since the total number of points in a resort cannot change, for every increase there was an offsetting decrease.  Some members will get the same value they always did.  Some will get a lower value.  Some will get a better value.  It all depends on how people use their points.


----------



## palhockeymomof2

BWV Dreamin said:


> As always, I respect your thoughtful opinion. And while I would love to fully buy into this thought, the end result is that it is more expensive as a whole for members to continue to vacation with their points at hand. Further realloclation will continue this trend....the only way to compensate for the changes, and maintain current vacation habits, is to increase or add-on points. Shifting members to include one or both weekends will not save or maintain the current members vacation points needed. So call it what you will, the end result does not change.....members will need more points, our current timeshare is not the same value as before the points reallocation. No denying this.....



maybe I'm missing something...but for us after comparing the 2009 and 2010 point charts...looking at different vacations we have taken or may take......our points needed for various trips vary a few points for the week up or down.... in the some cases..our F & W trip which is usually 2 weeknights & 2 weekend dates....has gone down more than a few points....so I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation......since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points...but looking at 7 night stays the differences seem to be up or down a few points


----------



## BWV Dreamin

palhockeymomof2 said:


> maybe I'm missing something...but for us after comparing the 2009 and 2010 point charts...looking at different vacations we have taken or may take......our points needed for various trips vary a few points for the week up or down.... in the some cases..our F & W trip which is usually 2 weeknights & 2 weekend dates....has gone down more than a few points....so I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation......since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points...but looking at 7 night stays the differences seem to be up or down a few points


That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

tjkraz said:


> This part of your statement is mathematically impossible. *Since the total number of points in a resort cannot change, for every increase there was an offsetting decrease*. Some members will get the same value they always did. Some will get a lower value. Some will get a better value. It all depends on how people use their points.


My comment is not disputing this....it states that the reallocation has made it more expensive for members to vacation with their current vacation habits with the points that they currently own. Again, based on the overwhelming comments, this has been a negative impact on members.


----------



## bevis

For those of you that still don't believe weekends are not as in demand as weekdays, just a little question. Has anyone asked Bell Services staff what particular days are busier with people CHECKING OUT vs. CHECKING IN? I think they would have a better handle on arrival/departure than most. 
Again, folks leaving vs. folks coming in, not just how busy overall.
I know this is, of course, anecdotal, as is most of this whole discussion, but the Bell staff will have a great feel for this.
Also, this in particular may have come up before as I know I've seen polls about what days people check in/out, but I dont know if that would be quite as "accurate" for DVC members as a whole as opposed to just those on the DIS boards.

Anyone reading that is there now?


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> My comment is not disputing this....it states that *the reallocation has made it more expensive for members to vacation with their current vacation habits with the points that they currently own*. Again, based on the overwhelming comments, this has been a negative impact on members.



In reality there probably are more *individuals *who are upset by the change than those who are happy with it.  If so, that fact is what *defines the need *for the reallocation.  Under the 2009 charts approximately 55% of a week's points were spread over the Sun - Thurs timeframe.  If members are collectively attempting to use *more than 55% *of their points for Sun - Thurs, then that is *exactly *why this change was needed.  

As for the win/lose/draw breakout among members, we really have no way of quantifying that.  Whether Fri / Sat occupancy is 50% or 75% or 95%, every person who uses points for those weekend nights will benefit from the reallocation.  

If *every single DVC point is used in 2009 *and *every single DVC point is used in 2010*, the net result is *the same*.  Individual members will pay more or less depending upon their vacation habits, but for every loser there MUST BE a winner.  

Sure the comments posted to this thread have been mostly negative...as is the case with most discussions of this ilk.  There is little motivation for people to post "I'm happy with this change" comments....instead we just get page-after-page of "I'm mad as h*ll at this change" comments.  

It's no different than discussing room cleanliness, quality of bus service, member perks, changes to member policies, etc.  The people who feel they have been wronged drive the discussion while those with a different viewpoint typically sit on the sidelines.


----------



## Anal Annie

palhockeymomof2 said:


> *maybe I'm missing something*...but for us after comparing the 2009 and 2010 point charts...looking at different vacations we have taken or may take......our points needed for various trips vary a few points for the week up or down.... in the some cases..our F & W trip which is usually 2 weeknights & 2 weekend dates....has gone down more than a few points....so I *don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation......*since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points...but looking at 7 night stays the differences seem to be up or down a few points



You are getting off lucky.  It is pretty much a negative impact on any trip that is less than 7 nights.  Personally, the impact it will have on us is that after we plan the rest of the 3 trips that we WERE going to plan instead of having 18 points left to bank we will be 3 points SHORT.  One trip goes up by 10 points for 5 nights and the other goes up by 11 points for 6 nights.  And the same trip we've already planned for this summer would cost us 6 more points in 2010.  In comparison, we're getting off easy.  There are some people who for years & years USED to be able to vacation for a full week in a given size unit during a given season for 350 points and now they need 35*2* points.  So they're now 2 points short!!  That's awful because they thought they needed 350 points so that's what they bought.  NOW they either need to shave a night off their trip, downsize a unit OR shell out more money for a 25 point add-on to fulfill this 2 point shortage.  How would you feel if you've been taking the same vacation for 10 years and now all of a sudden you've got this lousy 2 point shortage to deal with?  Not happy I'm pretty sure.  I'm glad that we've only been members for a couple of years and have not established this set vacation pattern - it's hard enough to swallow being new.


----------



## tjkraz

Anal Annie said:


> You are getting off lucky.  It is pretty much a negative impact on any trip that is less than 7 nights.



That's not a very accurate generalization.  

A trip of Monday - Saturday (6 nights) is cheaper under the new system.

A trip of Thursday - Sunday (4 nights) is cheaper.

A trip of Wednesday - Monday (6 nights) is cheaper. 

Better to say that a trip of less than 7 nights with *fewer than 2 weekend nights *is now more expensive.




> There are some people who for years & years USED to be able to vacation for a full week in a given size unit during a given season for 350 points and now they need 35*2* points.  So they're now 2 points short!!  That's awful because they thought they needed 350 points so that's what they bought.  NOW they either need to shave a night off their trip, downsize a unit OR shell out more money for a 25 point add-on to fulfill this 2 point shortage.



Or they could just borrow the 2 points every year and it won't catch up with them until the final year of ownership (assuming they even keep the contract for another 30-50 years.)


----------



## palhockeymomof2

BWV Dreamin said:


> That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.



yes your right I was referring to our particular situation...as most posters on this thread have done..... I rechecked the point requirements for our trips after reading your post stating that "the reallocation made it more expensive for members has a whole to vacation".......I thought I had looked at the new charts wrong when figuring out points needed for our trips.....everyone vacations differently...so the reallocation will affect everyone in a different manner....I totally understand the frustration of those who have been negatively affected.....


----------



## palhockeymomof2

Anal Annie said:


> You are getting off lucky.  It is pretty much a negative impact on any trip that is less than 7 nights.  Personally, the impact it will have on us is that after we plan the rest of the 3 trips that we WERE going to plan instead of having 18 points left to bank we will be 3 points SHORT.  One trip goes up by 10 points for 5 nights and the other goes up by 11 points for 6 nights.  And the same trip we've already planned for this summer would cost us 6 more points in 2010.  In comparison, we're getting off easy.  There are some people who for years & years USED to be able to vacation for a full week in a given size unit during a given season for 350 points and now they need 35*2* points.  So they're now 2 points short!!  That's awful because they thought they needed 350 points so that's what they bought.  NOW they either need to shave a night off their trip, downsize a unit OR shell out more money for a 25 point add-on to fulfill this 2 point shortage.  How would you feel if you've been taking the same vacation for 10 years and now all of a sudden you've got this lousy 2 point shortage to deal with?  Not happy I'm pretty sure.  I'm glad that we've only been members for a couple of years and have not established this set vacation pattern - it's hard enough to swallow being new.



actually the 2 points short situation your referring to is our situation for our
August trip in a 2br villa....honestly it does not bother me...we'll borrow the 2 points...we've been members for 8 years now..sometime borrowing, sometimes banking points.....so for me borrowing is not a big deal.....but I do understand that everyone is different and it may not be what someone else would like to do


----------



## bub

Anal Annie said:


> You are getting off lucky.  It is pretty much a negative impact on any trip that is less than 7 nights.  Personally, the impact it will have on us is that after we plan the rest of the 3 trips that we WERE going to plan instead of having 18 points left to bank we will be 3 points SHORT.  One trip goes up by 10 points for 5 nights and the other goes up by 11 points for 6 nights.  And the same trip we've already planned for this summer would cost us 6 more points in 2010.  In comparison, we're getting off easy.  There are some people who for years & years USED to be able to vacation for a full week in a given size unit during a given season for 350 points and now they need 35*2* points.  So they're now 2 points short!!  That's awful because they thought they needed 350 points so that's what they bought.  NOW they either need to shave a night off their trip, downsize a unit OR shell out more money for a 25 point add-on to fulfill this 2 point shortage.  How would you feel if you've been taking the same vacation for 10 years and now all of a sudden you've got this lousy 2 point shortage to deal with?  Not happy I'm pretty sure.  I'm glad that we've only been members for a couple of years and have not established this set vacation pattern - it's hard enough to swallow being new.




I fall into the group that tends to vacation at the same time each year, for about the same amount of time. Jobs and school schedules don't allow us to be too flexible. I also fall into the group whose usual week has gone up in points, so even though we have stayed one or two weekend nights on our past several trips, with these changes we will now need to cut back on the number of days we stay. So, not a happy camper, and even less happy to have to learn of this change on these boards, since I never received an email (though I used to).

A few in this discussion seem to indicate that those of us who are disappointed in the change are wrong, since Disney had the right to do this, and we should have anticipated it. Maybe so, but as no changes were made in the 13 years that I have been an owner, I have gotten used to the current point schedules.

Maybe it's true that I should have purchased a week-based timeshare, but I bought Disney because it is Disney and I want to stay on property...I have no interest in any other timeshare. It's true that I don't have lots of points...we bought in as a family group and share some of the points. Up until now that has not been a problem (even with some like us staying on weekends). Now most of us will be a few points short. Adding on is not an option...with two kids approaching college age, vacations are important, but I do like to live within my means.

So in the end, I am part of the group that will stay fewer days and make fewer trips. Like almost everything else financial in my life days, the value of my Disney points has gone down. (Admittedly, this is just my situation.)

Thanks to Brogan for presenting the point of view of many of us on these boards to the CM from Disney. And, even though I am waiting to see how this benefits me, thanks to tjkraz and Dean for trying to make us see Disney's side of the change.

One more thing...while it's great to have these boards to share ideas and opinions, as I keep reading through this 145 page thread, I can't help but feel that limiting discussion of this change (which is major to some) to one thread feels as though we're all stuck in a little soundproof room together, when some of us just want to scream.  It seems to minimize the impact of the change on many members' vacations. (And the moderators are saying, that screaming thing is exactly why we have put you all together!)


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

bub said:


> A few in this discussion seem to indicate that those of us who are disappointed in the change are wrong, since Disney had the right to do this, and we should have anticipated it. Maybe so, but as no changes were made in the 13 years that I have been an owner, I have gotten used to the current point schedules.



I don't know if anyone is saying that anyone is wrong for being upset about the change. Most of the conflicts are about the right to reeallocate, the need to reallocate, the balance of the reallocation, etc.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Originally Posted by palhockeymomof2
> maybe I'm missing something...but for us after comparing the 2009 and 2010 point charts...looking at different vacations we have taken or may take......our points needed for various trips vary a few points for the week up or down.... in the some cases..our F & W trip which is usually 2 weeknights & 2 weekend dates....has gone down more than a few points....so I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation......since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points...but looking at 7 night stays the differences seem to be up or down a few points






BWV Dreamin said:


> That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.




Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something.  My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs.  That's 30 points short every single year for us.  




> Anyone reading that is there now?
> Today 10:48 AM


beavis....I was at SSR Wed and Thurs....and hung around for several hours on Friday.  I can't say I spoke with Bellhop, but I can definitely say there was a HUGE difference in the lobby check-in area on friday.  It was much more crowded on Friday than it was on Wed or Thurs.  We walked right up to the desk and checked in at 4 pm on Wed---only 3 other parties there.  On Friday, there was a line to check-in (around 2-3 pm ).   I'd say maybe 12-15 parties checking in when we passed by a few times.   Just an observation....nothing scientific.  I'm at POP now............


----------



## Sabor

BWV Dreamin said:


> My comment is not disputing this....it states that the reallocation has made it more expensive for members to vacation with their current vacation habits with the points that they currently own. Again, based on the overwhelming comments, this has been a negative impact on members.



You cannot judge the majority of DVC members by those on these boards. As a genreal rule the people that post on this site are more savvy just by the fact they research about their vacations. By doing this they get all the tricks of the trade and either learn how to or are already manipulating thier vactaion habits to the system to maximize their time.

Most people really are not like most of us who patrol these boards.

I would wager that the Sun-Thurs traveler is large enough that something needed to be done to balance the system but are not the huge majority that they think they are.


----------



## palhockeymomof2

MiaSRN62 said:


> Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something.  My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs.  That's 30 points short every single year for us.
> 
> 
> I was responding to BWV dreamin's post a page or so back. that stated .. with the reallocation vacations were more expensive for members as a whole....I thought I had missed something in figuring out the number of points needed for our trips...trying to see how our vacations would be more expensive...since I thought I had calculated that on one trip the points needed would be 2 more and on another a few less.....I had figured out our points correctly......I get that for any trips booked for 5 week nights the points required per trip when up....and I understand your frustration..30 points... ugh


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something.  My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs.  That's 30 points short every single year for us.



What exactly is *palhockeymomof2 * "missing"?  All she said is that she is not impacted by the reallocation for some trips and for others will benefit. As a statement of fact, those comments are no different than others' frequent reminders that they are impacted.   

She also specifically said "_I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points..._"  

This statement would also be accurate:  "._..I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members *as a whole *to vacation..._"  Since the total points cannot change, she is quite correct that the *net impact *to members is zero.  Individual members will undeniably win or lose, but as a whole nothing has changed.  

Sounds to me like palhockeymomof2 has a good grasp of the situation.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

palhockeymomof2 said:


> MiaSRN62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something. My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs. That's 30 points short every single year for us.
> 
> 
> I was responding to BWV dreamin's post a page or so back. that stated .. with the reallocation vacations were more expensive for members as a whole....I thought I had missed something in figuring out the number of points needed for our trips...trying to see how our vacations would be more expensive...since I thought I had calculated that on one trip the points needed would be 2 more and on another a few less.....I had figured out our points correctly......I get that for any trips booked for 5 week nights the points required per trip when up....and I understand your frustration..30 points... ugh
> 
> 
> 
> For those that book 7 days at a time, preferably, 7 days that include a total weekend, the totals do only change 2,4,pts. etc. per WEEK. However, this timeshare is a flexible timeshare, not based on WEEK vacation stays, and not based on Sun-Sat stays at that. Yes, many vacation that way, many do not, and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility encompasses 2, 3, 4 day stays, the points re-allocations have now cost you more points to vacation. I understand where your comments were coming from.....
Click to expand...


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Forums like this are great resources for data. Yes, one is correct in stating that DISBOARDS does not reflect the general membership as a whole, yet it does reach every segment of membership, and the data here is a valuable tool. You can bet "the man" does read these boards!!


----------



## MiaSRN62

> As a genreal rule the people that post on this site are more savvy just by the fact they research about their vacations. By doing this they get all the tricks of the trade and either learn how to *or are already manipulating *thier vactaion habits to the system to maximize their time.



There are MANY people I know that do whatever they can to maximise their vacations who are not on these boards too.  I even know cash paying guests who do this. They don't book weekend nights at POP because it's $10 extra....they book in value season....etc

The whole "manipulating" word bothers me a little in your post sabor.  My husband and I became Members in Aug 2000.  We purchased as many points as we felt we needed to do a Sun-Thurs stay. We explained to our guide, that we had an offsite timeshare and HAD to stay weekend to weekend there.  So we had no use for staying weekends with DVC.  So I don't feel we "manipulated" anything.  We knew we wanted and neeed Sun thru Thurs so that is what we purchased and that is what we have used.  No manipulation there.  I will say, now with this reallocation, dvc will force us to do some manipulating. So beginning in 2010, yes...we will be manipulating to maximise our vacation (i.e., booking smaller units and switching over to larger ones during the weeknights we stay).    But for the past 9 years, we have not done this.  We vacationed as we had planned from the very beginning.   But starting 2010, we will have to get a little more crafy.....


----------



## MiaSRN62

> BWV Dreamin :  *and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility *



This is it in a nutshell.  We chose DVC for #1) ability to stay onsite/perks  #2) flexibility !


----------



## palhockeymomof2

MiaSRN62 said:


> Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something.  My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs.  That's 30 points short every single year for us.
> 
> 
> 
> beavis....I was at SSR Wed and Thurs....and hung around for several hours on Friday.  I can't say I spoke with Bellhop, but I can definitely say there was a HUGE difference in the lobby check-in area on friday.  It was much more crowded on Friday than it was on Wed or Thurs.  We walked right up to the desk and checked in at 4 pm on Wed---only 3 other parties there.  On Friday, there was a line to check-in (around 2-3 pm ).   I'd say maybe 12-15 parties checking in when we passed by a few times.   Just an observation....nothing scientific.  I'm at POP now............





tjkraz said:


> What exactly is *palhockeymomof2 * "missing"?  All she said is that she is not impacted by the reallocation for some trips and for others will benefit. As a statement of fact, those comments are no different than others' frequent reminders that they are impacted.
> 
> She also specifically said "_I do see looking at the point charts that members using their points for a weeknight only stay will have to use more points..._"
> 
> This statement would also be accurate:  "._..I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members *as a whole *to vacation..._"  Since the total points cannot change, she is quite correct that the *net impact *to members is zero.  Individual members will undeniably win or lose, but as a whole nothing has changed.
> 
> Sounds to me like palhockeymomof2 has a good grasp of the situation.



Thanks tjkraz,,,,I thought I understood the system & situation....had to double check my calculations though


----------



## logan115

Please forgive me for not going thru all 146 pages of posts (I'm guessing it's embedded somewhere in this thread but I gave up after a while  ), but could someone please post the link that has the 2010 point charts ?

Thanks,

Chris


----------



## BWV Dreamin

logan115 said:


> Please forgive me for not going thru all 146 pages of posts (I'm guessing it's embedded somewhere in this thread but I gave up after a while  ), but could someone please post the link that has the 2010 point charts ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris


www.dvcnews.com


----------



## logan115

BWV Dreamin said:


> www.dvcnews.com




Thanks Dreamin - and to think I was just hoping to have an answer by the time I got home tonite.  When will I figure out that DIS really stands for Data In Seconds  

Chris


----------



## drusba

logan115 said:


> Please forgive me for not going thru all 146 pages of posts (I'm guessing it's embedded somewhere in this thread but I gave up after a while  ), but could someone please post the link that has the 2010 point charts ?



The one I like was posted by a member who created comparison charts where one chart for each site shows both 2009 and 2010 points needed: http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081


----------



## BWV Dreamin

logan115 said:


> Thanks Dreamin - and to think I was just hoping to have an answer by the time I got home tonite. When will I figure out that DIS really stands for Data In Seconds
> 
> Chris


You might want to wait till you get home to read the "charts".......


----------



## palhockeymomof2

BWV Dreamin said:


> palhockeymomof2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those that book 7 days at a time, preferably, 7 days that include a total weekend, the totals do only change 2,4,pts. etc. per WEEK. However, this timeshare is a flexible timeshare, not based on WEEK vacation stays, and not based on Sun-Sat stays at that. Yes, many vacation that way, many do not, and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility encompasses 2, 3, 4 day stays, the points re-allocations have now cost you more points to vacation. I understand were your comments where coming from.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that DVC is a flexable timeshare..for us a week system based on a Sun-Sat stay would not have worked with the kids school/sports schedules.....  we bought into BWV 8 years ago because of the flexability   to take trips of different lengths/seasons and villa size......I feel really bad for everyone who bought an exact amont of points for a set season/villa size and has now needs more points per year to vacation the same way
Click to expand...


----------



## logan115

drusba said:


> The one I like was posted by a member who created comparison charts where one chart for each site shows both 2009 and 2010 points needed: http://gallery.me.com/drowells#100081



Thanks - didn't see your post at first........like this one too !


----------



## Sabor

MiaSRN62 said:


> There are MANY people I know that do whatever they can to maximise their vacations who are not on these boards too.  I even know cash paying guests who do this. They don't book weekend nights at POP because it's $10 extra....they book in value season....etc
> 
> The whole "manipulating" word bothers me a little in your post sabor.  My husband and I became Members in Aug 2000.  We purchased as many points as we felt we needed to do a Sun-Thurs stay. We explained to our guide, that we had an offsite timeshare and HAD to stay weekend to weekend there.  So we had no use for staying weekends with DVC.  So I don't feel we "manipulated" anything.  We knew we wanted and neeed Sun thru Thurs so that is what we purchased and that is what we have used.  No manipulation there.  I will say, now with this reallocation, dvc will force us to do some manipulating. So beginning in 2010, yes...we will be manipulating to maximise our vacation (i.e., booking smaller units and switching over to larger ones during the weeknights we stay).    But for the past 9 years, we have not done this.  We vacationed as we had planned from the very beginning.   But starting 2010, we will have to get a little more crafy.....



Manipulate

1. to manage or influence skillfully
2. to handle, manage, or use, esp. with skill, in some process of treatment or performance  
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage 

The word was not meant to be a negative , however if the "normal" vacation pattern is 7 days or ususally includes weekends for most vacations (all not just dvc or disney) and people who buy dvc start vacation Sun through Thursday they are manipulating there vacation habits to maximize their points.

If one is handling their points in a matter to purely get the most of them , thay are manipulating the system to ones advantage. I am not passing judgement or calling out anyone who does this as wrong, I have done some Sun -Thurs trips myself.


----------



## jekjones1558

Obviously it is perfectly fine to book only or mostly bargain weekdays.  It seems like a greater percentage of members have done this than Disney anticipated so some members were disappointed when they did not get their weekday dates (I am one of those).  Whether the point reallocation changes the booking patterns remains to be seen.  I just called today to check on a waitlist for a BW view room for one week in December.  Only the 2 weekend days (in the middle of the trip) were available.  This has been a common pattern in my experience.  I may be in the minority, but if the reallocation helps to free up a few weekdays it will be worth it to me.


----------



## TisBit

Sabor said:


> You cannot judge the majority of DVC members by those on these boards. As a genreal rule the people that post on this site are more savvy just by the fact they research about their vacations. By doing this they get all the tricks of the trade and either learn how to or are already manipulating thier vactaion habits to the system to maximize their time.
> 
> Most people really are not like most of us who patrol these boards.
> 
> I would wager that the Sun-Thurs traveler is large enough that something needed to be done to balance the system but are not the huge majority that they think they are.



I will even go so far to say that a lot of DVC'ers will probably not even notice the change in point requirements, because they don't study the charts and just book a room for the nights they decide to go.  There will probably be a fleeting thought, or checking back on the 2009 chart if it crosses their mind that it seems higher.


----------



## TisBit

Sabor said:


> Manipulate
> 
> 1. to manage or influence skillfully
> 2. to handle, manage, or use, esp. with skill, in some process of treatment or performance
> 3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage
> 
> The word was not meant to be a negative , however if the "normal" vacation pattern is 7 days or ususally includes weekends for most vacations (all not just dvc or disney) and people who buy dvc start vacation Sun through Thursday they are manipulating there vacation habits to maximize their points.
> 
> If one is handling their points in a matter to purely get the most of them , thay are manipulating the system to ones advantage. I am not passing judgement or calling out anyone who does this as wrong, I have done some Sun -Thurs trips myself.



Exactly...and most people have taken the same vacation every year because it maximizes the return on their investment.  And those same people very well will study the charts and find the best time to go to continue to maximize their investment.  

Look at the first two weeks of Decmeber....why is so busy, check these boards and they tell you that it is very cheap on points, christmas decorations are out and the park attendance is historically low.  This is not the "normal" vacation pattern of most WDW visitors as evidenced by resort bookings and the park attendance patterns.


----------



## Dean

BWV Dreamin said:


> As always, I respect your thoughtful opinion. And while I would love to fully buy into this thought, the end result is that it is more expensive as a whole for members to continue to vacation with their points at hand. Further realloclation will continue this trend....the only way to compensate for the changes, and maintain current vacation habits, is to increase or add-on points. Shifting members to include one or both weekends will not save or maintain the current members vacation points needed. So call it what you will, the end result does not change.....members will need more points, our current timeshare is not the same value as before the points reallocation. No denying this.....


That's not really true.  Some members will need more points to vacation the same way they did, others will need less and many, if not most, will end up about the same overall.  I think you're going on the assumption that the S-F crowd was a major group.  While I think they were/are a significant group, I do not believe they are a major group in terms of number.  And many of those still had enough points to make different choices and simply chose the S-F route, often staying weekends by other means. The truth is that it matters not (from a system standpoint) whether reallocation increases the costs for a subset of members because it's the overall usage that will drive this issue if further reallocations are needed.


BWV Dreamin said:


> That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.


Again, don't take this to represent the majority of the members either here on DIS or otherwise.  People with a vested interest are more likely to post or even care plus bashing DVC has become the preferred view lately on the DVC portion of DIS and thus those with an opposing view are less likely to post.  It's still a relatively small portion of the membership.  Overall this change is likely neutral or nearly so to most members.  Assuming the reallocation was needed, you would expect a larger group unhappy than happy, by definition.  But still both groups added together are likely much smaller combined than those that are mostly unaffected.



BWV Dreamin said:


> For those that book 7 days at a time, preferably, 7 days that include a total weekend, the totals do only change 2,4,pts. etc. per WEEK. However, this timeshare is a flexible timeshare, not based on WEEK vacation stays, and not based on Sun-Sat stays at that. Yes, many vacation that way, many do not, and is why they chose a point based system. So if that flexiblility encompasses 2, 3, 4 day stays, the points re-allocations have now cost you more points to vacation. I understand where your comments were coming from.....


It seems I'm only responding to your posts.  I'm really not trying to single you out or beat you up, sorry if it seems that way.    People throw around the word flexibility like it means something unto itself.  Flexibility means something different to different people.  In many ways my Marriott timeshares is MORE flexible than DVC and the weeks I own are all full weeks and float within high season.  No doubt some people's stay will go up and that's how it should be given the information and needs at hand.  IMO, that fact that some people's stay will increase in points really has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the decision.  I'm still sad for those it affects in a negative way but without that sadness spilling over to affecting the decisions at hand.


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> The whole "manipulating" word bothers me a little in your post sabor.


To a degree beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  One person's use is another persons misuse.  I'd personally put walking in this category of misuse.  I would have put day by day as a use of an unintended ability.  



> A few in this discussion seem to indicate that those of us who are disappointed in the change are wrong, since Disney had the right to do this, and we should have anticipated it. Maybe so, but as no changes were made in the 13 years that I have been an owner, I have gotten used to the current point schedules.


As I noted above, these are two separate issues.  I certainly see one being unhappy with the change if they are affected negatively.  IMO, that is an unrelated judgement of a personal situation that does not carry over to the reasonableness of the decision itself.  I think that's the philosophical difference in that some are having trouble sorting out their personal situation and the effect therein compared to the system needs while many of us see them as different if not unrelated issues.  Here's an example that I think is somewhat applicable.  Most states do not have a way to collect sales tax on internet or similar sales that occur across state lines.  Many try to shift the responsibility to the consumer to pay it instead but I don't know anyone who actually has gone to the trouble to do so.  IF the states figure out a way to enforce the state taxes on such sales, I'm sure some will be unhappy but it's hard to argue with an enforcement of the state laws even though it's been this way for decades where no one way paying the tax.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Dean said:


> That's not really true. Some members will need more points to vacation the same way they did, others will need less and many, if not most, will end up about the same overall. *I think you're going on the assumption that the S-F crowd was a major group*. While I think they were/are a significant group, I do not believe they are a major group in terms of number. And many of those still had enough points to make different choices and simply chose the S-F route, often staying weekends by other means. The truth is that it matters not (from a system standpoint) *whether reallocation increases the costs for a subset of members because it's the overall usage that will drive this issue if further reallocations are needed.*
> Again, don't take this to represent the majority of the members either here on DIS or otherwise. People with a vested interest are more likely to post or even care plus bashing DVC has become the preferred view lately on the DVC portion of DIS and thus those with an opposing view are less likely to post. It's still a relatively small portion of the membership. Overall this change is likely neutral or nearly so to most members. Assuming the reallocation was needed, you would expect a larger group unhappy than happy, by definition. But still both groups added together are likely much smaller combined than those that are mostly unaffected.
> 
> It seems I'm only responding to your posts. I'm really not trying to single you out or beat you up, sorry if it seems that way. People throw around the word flexibility like it means something unto itself. Flexibility means something different to different people. In many ways my Marriott timeshares is MORE flexible than DVC and the weeks I own are all full weeks and float within high season. No doubt some people's stay will go up and that's how it should be given the information and needs at hand. IMO, that fact that some people's stay will increase in points really has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the decision. I'm still sad for those it affects in a negative way but without that sadness spilling over to affecting the decisions at hand.


  Thats okay.....just a couple of highlighted comments. If the S-F crowd was not that major a group, who was driving the imbalance? Secondly, if the overall usage of Sun-Fri was not the causing factor for point reallocation.....what was? Oh Dean, this topic was exactly what prompted my first and lengthy thread back in 2007 when it was indeed you and tjkraz discussing these very same issues!!!


----------



## Carl Aird

Lets just stop now everyone is driving the moderators CRAZY
YES IT WAS/IS Shady
Some of us may have to buy more points
I've learned thats how ALL these point system time share rackets are running (after you pay it off they look for ways to make you buy more points)
I know A LOT of people are worring about THE FUTURE
Who knows what we'll want by then 
Most of us will not be going to Disney 30 years from now anyway
GOD we'll be BOARD WITH IT!!
And Hopefully if you really enjoy it you will have the money and not mind buying more points!!!!!
And I hope everyone who does enjoy it and love it, and is in fear they made a bad purchase or will not be able to afford to go has more than enough money to buy as many points as they want!!
Dreams come true!


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> If the S-F crowd was not that major a group, who was driving the imbalance? Secondly, if the overall usage of Sun-Fri was not the causing factor for point reallocation.....what was?



I'll take a crack at this.  Let's see if I'm reading Dean's mind...

I assume the largest group would be people who use points for some combination of weekdays and weekends.  

Once you eliminate them you're left with two other groups:  The Sun - Thurs night crowd and the Fri - Sat night weekenders.  Assuming there are more Sunday to Thursday people than Friday / Saturday people, the Sun - Thurs would certainly be big enough to influence the system despite not being the largest group overall.


----------



## Dean

BWV Dreamin said:


> Thats okay.....just a couple of highlighted comments. If the S-F crowd was not that major a group, who was driving the imbalance? Secondly, if the overall usage of Sun-Fri was not the causing factor for point reallocation.....what was? Oh Dean, this topic was exactly what prompted my first and lengthy thread back in 2007 when it was indeed you and tjkraz discussing these very same issues!!!


Because it doesn't take a large % of people to make the balance out of whack.  A 5% shift is enough to throw things off if it's consistent.  Remember this is a conglomeration of usages.  Some will be S-F, some will be 6 days with 1 weekend day, some will be 12 days with only one weekend, others a full week, etc.  5% is major in this context as is a 5% difference when talking SSR points at the 7 month window but it's not a MAJORITY which was the context in which you were using it.  I do believe that the weekend/weekday imbalance was the main driving force in the change if not the only factor.  So you should not have been surprised if we'd warned you already.  One thing I can bet you is this won't be the last change that is negative to a group of members.


----------



## mickeymom629

I'm sad to say that I am seriously ready to sell my points.  We have been members for 10 years and it has been wonderful.  I was a cm and got my points less than it would have been.  But having to pay yearly dues and now having to figure I can't use them yearly because I have to save up unless I want to take shorter stays than we already did (4-5 nights on weeknights - already seemed short!), it just doesn't seem worth it. With 6 of us, this was a wonderful value! But, two of my kids are graduating college soon and two more are getting ready to go, so this may be a good time to sell anyway -who knows when we will get to vacation at the same time.   

...who am I kidding?  I was going to say that I could take advantage of staying in another resort since we may be a group of 4 or less.  We've stayed offsite and been pretty happy, though not as magical.  

I'm going to miss it!


----------



## MiaSRN62

> pahockeymom : *so I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members as a whole to vacation*......since everyones vacation habits are different... I also have no need to add on points and don't see any decrease in my DVC value......





> tjkraz : What exactly is palhockeymomof2 "missing"? All she said is that she is not impacted by the reallocation



Right Tim....she is missing why some of us are complaining and not as happy as some others are and why some of us feel our DVC has lost some value for us......because SHE is not impacted.  She is not just talking about how "she" is impacted, but states she doesn't see how *"members"* are affected.   So she is "missing" the point, that for some, the pasture is not quite as green as it is for her.  Some, like me, are going to be short 30 points every year.  And she says she doesn't "understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members".    That's all I meant by saying she was "missing" something.  She's missing the ability to see the flip side of the coin, and that this reallocation does indeed impact alot of us.  I think about recent AKV purchases and even more so, recent BLT purchases.  People would have made much different point purchases had this allocation been released much earlier.  This is what I meant Tim.  Sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Look at the post right before mine (mickeymom629).....she's selling because she sees a loss of value in her DVC.  So pahockeymom doesn't see how members were negatively impacted ?


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> Right Tim....she is missing why some of us are complaining and not as happy as some others are and why some of us feel our DVC has lost some value for us......because SHE is not impacted.  She is not just talking about how "she" is impacted, but states she doesn't see how *"members"* are affected.



She said "members as a whole" not just "members."  

If you look at the progression, the post she was replying to first implied the changes were an overall net reduction in value for *everyone*.  That lead to confusion on pahockeymom's part since her numbers did not show it as being a net loss.  

She made it quite clear that she sees how *some *are negatively affected by the change (quoted in my last post.)  But she is also correct in observing that the net change--collectively--is zero.  The reallocation did not add new points to the system.  Some have seen their value increase...others have had their value decrease...but as a whole there is zero change.


----------



## palhockeymomof2

MiaSRN62 said:


> Right Tim....she is missing why some of us are complaining and not as happy as some others are and why some of us feel our DVC has lost some value for us......because SHE is not impacted.  She is not just talking about how "she" is impacted, but states she doesn't see how *"members"* are affected.   So she is "missing" the point, that for some, the pasture is not quite as green as it is for her.  Some, like me, are going to be short 30 points every year.  And she says she doesn't "understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members".    That's all I meant by saying she was "missing" something.  She's missing the ability to see the flip side of the coin, and that this reallocation does indeed impact alot of us.  I think about recent AKV purchases and even more so, recent BLT purchases.  People would have made much different point purchases had this allocation been released much earlier.  This is what I meant Tim.  Sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
> 
> Look at the post right before mine (mickeymom629).....she's selling because she sees a loss of value in her DVC.  So pahockeymom doesn't see how members were negatively impacted ?



Wow......I never said I didn't see how some members were negatively impacted...or that I didn't understand why some members were upset....I actually said the opposite....that I understood and felt very bad for those members so please don't put words in my mouth.......yes the reallocation made it more expensive for some members....but not all members... as was said in the post I read this morning...and the one I responded to.....I do see the flip side of the coin and did say I felt bad for you being short 30 points.....please go back  and read what I said....


----------



## MiaSRN62

> *She made it quite clear *that she sees how some are negatively affected by the change



Well sorry Tim....I guess her post didn't seem quite as clear to me as it did to you.   I didn't see it the way you did.   Interpretation can be a difficult thing on internet boards.  Enough said by me on this point.


----------



## palhockeymomof2

tjkraz said:


> She said "members as a whole" not just "members."
> 
> If you look at the progression, the post she was replying to first implied the changes were an overall net reduction in value for *everyone*.  That lead to confusion on pahockeymom's part since her numbers did not show it as being a net loss.
> 
> She made it quite clear that she sees how *some *are negatively affected by the change (quoted in my last post.)  But she is also correct in observing that the net change--collectively--is zero.  The reallocation did not add new points to the system.  Some have seen their value increase...others have had their value decrease...but as a whole there is zero change.



thanks again for explaining things much clearer that I do....


----------



## DVCDebb

Yes there are those of up upset due to the increase in points Sun-Thur as with school schedules and work this is what we can do and now points have gone up 5 points each night.  That is a huge impact on family travel for some of us the value has gone down now.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Wow......I never said I didn't see how some members were negatively impacted...or that I didn't understand why some members were upset....I actually said the opposite....that I understood and felt very bad for those members so please don't put words in my mouth.......yes the reallocation made it more expensive for some members....but not all members... as was said in the post I read this morning...and the one I responded to.....I do see the flip side of the coin and did say I felt bad for you being short 30 points.....please go back and read what I said....


I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said pahockeymom.  Honestly, I read and re-read your post and still see it differently.   I'm on vacation in WDW right now....I probably shouldn't be on this particular thread.   

I'm having some down-time after a long day in the parks (fighting cheerleader crowds) and staying up to 1 am last night for EMH.  So I'm probably overly tired.   *So again, if I understood your post to say or mean something different, then I apologize. * Don't know what else to say except I just keep missing the jist of what you were trying to say.  Or I was concentrating on certain sentences and not looking at the post as a whole.  Like I said.....I'm backing off from this thread while I'm in WDW because I don't need the heat.....   I'm glad Tim is backing you up on what you said.   Have a good night.........


----------



## palhockeymomof2

palhockeymomof2 said:


> MiaSRN62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you BWV Dreamin and Anal Annie....because I do think palhockeymomof2 is missing something.  My trips went up 6 points per night for our usual stays of Sun-Thurs.  That's 30 points short every single year for us.
> 
> 
> I was responding to BWV dreamin's post a page or so back. that stated .. with the reallocation vacations were more expensive for members as a whole....I thought I had missed something in figuring out the number of points needed for our trips...trying to see how our vacations would be more expensive...since I thought I had calculated that on one trip the points needed would be 2 more and on another a few less.....I had figured out our points correctly......I get that for any trips booked for 5 week nights the points required per trip when up....and I understand your frustration..30 points... ugh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MiaSRN62..how exciting  at WDW now..wish I was there too ...have to wait another 6 months or so.....
> 
> I think these threads get confusing sometimes and I never meant anything negative by posting...the only reason I posted on it yesterday was because of the statement made about members as a whole needing more points & vacations being more expensive...I had thought I understood the reallocation....and didn't understand that statement....I've since made a few more post on this thread trying to answer different points...but the bottom line is I do understand and sympathize with anyone negatively affected...my brother is a member who will need more points to vacation as well...
> 
> Enjoy the rest of your trip Mary
Click to expand...


----------



## MiaSRN62

Thanks for understanding Mary.......this thread has become quite the monster.   I guess I've read so many negative/snarky comments (and several directed right at me), that you get the defensive guard up a bit.   

I was reading through this thread and trying to catch up from 2/3 (the last day I had checked before leaving for FL), and I guess it was just too much to tackle while in "vacation mode"  

We're on our final day in WDW and I'm planning on just going out and having some fun    Thanks again Mary........


Oh....and btw, I was able to get dh out to see the BLT model (before we left, I mentioned he was refusing because he was so ticked !)........so I think a few posters said that this point reallocation frenzy would die down a little and the dust settle.....
Being that my dh was willing to look at the models showed he's softening a little bit on it.  He's not sure he wants to buy any more points right now as he feels a bit deceived for lack of a better word.   
Not happy.....but accepting it all a little more........

Off to play............... 


Maria


----------



## tjkraz

mickeymom629 said:


> I'm sad to say that I am seriously ready to sell my points.  We have been members for 10 years and it has been wonderful.  I was a cm and got my points less than it would have been.  But having to pay yearly dues and now having to figure I can't use them yearly because I have to save up unless I want to take shorter stays than we already did (4-5 nights on weeknights - already seemed short!), it just doesn't seem worth it. With 6 of us, this was a wonderful value! But, two of my kids are graduating college soon and two more are getting ready to go, so this may be a good time to sell anyway -who knows when we will get to vacation at the same time.
> 
> ...who am I kidding?  I was going to say that I could take advantage of staying in another resort since we may be a group of 4 or less.  We've stayed offsite and been pretty happy, though not as magical.
> 
> I'm going to miss it!



I can understand the initial negative reaction (believe me!) but you might want to take a close look at your numbers before you decide to sell.  

According to your post you bought the points 10 years ago at a much lower price than we see today plus a CM discount.  The points are long paid for.  It also sounds like you only have enough points for 4-5 nights even under the 2009 charts.

If I'm reading that correctly, you can't own too many points.  150, perhaps?  

Assuming Walt Disney World (or Disneyland, or Vero, or HHI) still appeals to you as a vacation destination, consider what you'll pay out-of-pocket as a cash guest compared to your current annual dues payments.  

Even if you can't visit for 4-5 days every year, you should still be able to do that pattern 4 out of every 5 years with your current points by banking and borrowing.  Or you could look at combining points from 2 years and making a longer stay every-other-year.  Or you could look into visiting during a cheaper season.  Sounds like your family may be getting a bit smaller--perhaps you could get by with a smaller room size.  

Despite being a change that will impact many established vacation patterns, the reallocation doesn't completely eliminate the value of DVC ownership.  And there are multiple approaches people can take to deal with it.


----------



## mickeymom629

Thanks *tjkraz* for the thoughtful words!  

Actually we own 150 at HH and 50 VB and have never financed.  But our dues are the highest and we never go to HH or VB, so I am thinking of selling ours and buying at WDW.  I just got off the phone with someone at the Timeshare Store, and he gave me an idea of what my points might sell for.  The interesting thing is that VB points are going for less than we bought them for and HH points are going for slightly more.  Part of the reason for this is because I've already borrowed most of the points for 2009.    

I've thought of some of the scenarios you've stated, but I wonder how difficult the smaller rooms will be to book, especially now with the point chart increase.  I always knew we could get a 2 bedroom at OkW.

I don't want to jump the gun.  But I'm also worried about no one wanting to buy my points if/when I am ready to sell.


----------



## jamstew

mickeymom629 said:


> I've thought of some of the scenarios you've stated, but I wonder how difficult the smaller rooms will be to book, especially now with the point chart increase.



That's my problem. I can't downsize from a studio  I have 150 at BCV & 150 at VWL, but I bought them with the intention of sharing the points with my adult children. The combined contracts are *plenty* for me to do whatever I want to, but I have to consider their trips too (actually, since I bought the points and pay the MFs, I don't _really_ have to, but YKWIM). I was pretty freaked out at first, but after running some comprehensive spreadsheets, it's going to be at least six years before we're in a deficit (assuming the points don't change another 20% between now and then  ). By that time, I seriously doubt I'll be traveling solo any more, so I'm not going to worry about it. I'm also not going to add on. I think I like the idea of a transfer when and if it becomes necessary.


----------



## disneynutz

mickeymom629 said:


> I'm sad to say that I am seriously ready to sell my points.  We have been members for 10 years and it has been wonderful.  I was a cm and got my points less than it would have been.  But having to pay yearly dues and now having to figure I can't use them yearly because I have to save up unless I want to take shorter stays than we already did (4-5 nights on weeknights - already seemed short!), it just doesn't seem worth it. With 6 of us, this was a wonderful value! But, two of my kids are graduating college soon and two more are getting ready to go, so this may be a good time to sell anyway -who knows when we will get to vacation at the same time.
> 
> ...who am I kidding?  I was going to say that I could take advantage of staying in another resort since we may be a group of 4 or less.  We've stayed offsite and been pretty happy, though not as magical.
> 
> I'm going to miss it!



I hate to see Disney push anyone into giving up on what was once a good thing, but I understand your dismay.

You may want to investigate your contractual requirements should you decide to sell. Some CM's have reported that they are required to sell their points back to Disney.

Good luck and best wishes.


----------



## disrailfan

This is interesting.  I am glad that we will be making short trips usually during the months of October and December from now on now that we are Empty Nesters.


----------



## BroganMc

tjkraz said:


> This statement would also be accurate:  "._..I don't understand how the reallocation made it more expensive for members *as a whole *to vacation..._"  Since the total points cannot change, she is quite correct that the *net impact *to members is zero.  Individual members will undeniably win or lose, but as a whole nothing has changed.



Ah but the issue is whether DVC has kept to the agreement that total points per resort remain the same.

This is at the heart of many questions and the myriad of mathematical calculations popping up across the member community. As of yet, DVC has not produced the figures that demonstrate totals have remained the same. And even some in Member Services are suggesting that they are not with some resorts having fewer points in 2010 than 2009. All we have to say that the reallocation preserved point totals is that brief PR announcement and what statements were in our contracts laced with a lot of faith that DVC wouldn't dare shortchange membership.

It all reminds me of a science fiction story I once watched. The supercomputer was inflating people's electric bills by 1-2 cents and embezzling billions with the net effect.

Second issue here is your definition of "membership as a whole". Without access to the data of "total points owned by each member" and "most frequent booking pattern", we simply do not know if more members suffered, gained or had no issues with this change. The best we can do is total up different types of vacations and see if they cost more or less points in 2010. This is where weekly points come in handy. It's very easy to see how vacations compare.

I'm one of those who will take a hit but can afford to adjust my way out of it. So my concern is based more on principle than anything else. Now if weekly totals had remained balanced throughout the year, I'd have much fewer issues with it.


----------



## Dean

BroganMc said:


> Ah but the issue is whether DVC has kept to the agreement that total points per resort remain the same.
> 
> This is at the heart of many questions and the myriad of mathematical calculations popping up across the member community. As of yet, DVC has not produced the figures that demonstrate totals have remained the same. And even some in Member Services are suggesting that they are not with some resorts having fewer points in 2010 than 2009. All we have to say that the reallocation preserved point totals is that brief PR announcement and what statements were in our contracts laced with a lot of faith that DVC wouldn't dare shortchange membership.
> 
> It all reminds me of a science fiction story I once watched. The supercomputer was inflating people's electric bills by 1-2 cents and embezzling billions with the net effect.
> 
> Second issue here is your definition of "membership as a whole". Without access to the data of "total points owned by each member" and "most frequent booking pattern", we simply do not know if more members suffered, gained or had no issues with this change. The best we can do is total up different types of vacations and see if they cost more or less points in 2010. This is where weekly points come in handy. It's very easy to see how vacations compare.
> 
> I'm one of those who will take a hit but can afford to adjust my way out of it. So my concern is based more on principle than anything else. Now if weekly totals had remained balanced throughout the year, I'd have much fewer issues with it.


All you have to do is make arrangements to go down and spend the day in Celebration with DVC looking over the books as is allowed under FL law.  While I think we do know that most members will be essentially unaffected (no more than a few points up or down), it really doesn't matter nor affect the appropriateness of the change.  ASAMOF, the more people truly affected the more likely the change was needed.


----------



## MELSMICE

Dean said:


> While I think we do know that most members will be essentially unaffected (no more than a few points up or down), it really doesn't matter nor affect the appropriateness of the change.


I realize this is just rehashing the same old scenario, by my Easter break vacation in a 2BR at OKW from S-F will increase by 40 points.  That's more than a few points.


----------



## dcfromva

Dean said:


> While I think we do know that most members will be essentially unaffected (no more than a few points up or down), it really doesn't matter nor affect the appropriateness of the change.  *ASAMOF, the more people truly affected the more likely the change was needed*.



  I don't follow your point here (bolded).   100% of the people could be affected--50% up and 50% down.  That would not speak to whether or not the change was needed--to me it would mean that the redistribution worked out favorable for some and not favorable for others.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

dcfromva said:


> I don't follow your point here (bolded).   100% of the people could be affected--50% up and 50% down.  That would not speak to whether or not the change was needed--to me it would mean that the redistribution worked out favorable for some and not favorable for others.



Because of an apparent higher demand for the lower point weekdays it would probably be more like 60-70% negatively effected and 30-40% positively effected IMO.



BroganMc said:


> Ah but the issue is whether DVC has kept to the agreement that total points per resort remain the same.



I guess you have to determine what you consider "the same".  By no means do the charts seem to balance to exactly zero.  I did calulations for a few resorts and found SSR to balance to 0.017%, BCV to 0.011% and OKW to 0.026%.  All statisically insignificant IMO. However, as pointed out several times, the variation in number of weekends and seasons can account an even greater variation.  There is a lot of unknowns in all of our caclulations.  How does DVC take into account the yearly variations (like leap years), what percentage of lock-off occupancy do they consider, etc.  Regardless, the fact that the numbers seem to be so close is evidence that there is no great imbalance in the reallocation as some have suggested.


----------



## jana

> Originally Posted by BWV Dreamin
> That is your particular situation....there have by far been more posters that have stated the negative impact the reallocation has had on their vacation habits, as have positive.


 While it may be that more people have been negatively impacted, it is far more likely the imbalance in the *POSTERS* stating they have been negatively impacted is more down to human nature than the true numbers. Human nature makes those who feel they have been disadvantaged (AKA cheated) *MUCH* more likely to take the time and effort to let someone (anyone) know about it. This multiplies quickly for repeat posts. Someone whose pleased or neutral with a change in circumstances may post once to say so, but is unlikely to labor the point. Someone whose seriously Peed off is likely to vent until their anger has dissipated (which may take several posts). That's just the way humankind is wired

As has been stated a resort can be full ( at weekends) but not with members. If Disney has rented those rooms out in order to earn $$ for members using cash purchases ( DCL or CC) outside of Disney, it is a very inefficient use of those points. It results in Disney having to charge many more points for cruises, concierge collection and the Disney collection than may be required if there were more efficient ways of using those points. Lowering weekends at the very least means Disney would raise more $$ from the same number of points, either by lower cost per weekend or by being able to access lower point cost weekdays that are freed up by changing member usage. I hope the increased efficiency this change should bring about is passed onto the members in better value in non DVC options (waiting with breath baited) 

Dean makes a great point ( among many) that perhaps the move to RCI has required Disney to bring their weekday/weekend points allocations more into line with RCI's. Either as a "legal" requirement of offering exchanges or just a realization of the practicalities of working together. 
 Perhaps ( and I find this hard to say because I love a good conspiracy theory) Disney, aware the current usage was already putting a large strain on the availability, realized when the RCI customers were added, it would be too much for an already over stretched system to take. That does require a range and ability of thought I'm a long way from convinced they possess, however I'm prepared to at least consider the notion.


----------



## Disneyhappy

jana said:


> Dean makes a great point ( among many) that perhaps the move to RCI has required Disney to bring their weekday/weekend points allocations more into line with RCI's. Either as a "legal" requirement of offering exchanges or just a realization of the practicalities of working together.
> Perhaps ( and I find this hard to say because I love a good conspiracy theory) Disney, aware the current usage was already putting a large strain on the availability, realized when the RCI customers were added, it would be too much for an already over stretched system to take. That does require a range and ability of thought I'm a long way from convinced they possess, however I'm prepared to at least consider the notion.



If your theory is correct, DVC could have simply stayed with II and there would have been no need to reallocate the points.


----------



## Sabor

Disneyhappy said:


> If your theory is correct, DVC could have simply stayed with II and there would have been no need to reallocate the points.



I don't understand why people cannot understand that there WAS a need to reallocate whether you like it or not. It was long overdue.


----------



## tjkraz

jana said:


> Dean makes a great point ( among many) that perhaps the move to RCI has required Disney to bring their weekday/weekend points allocations more into line with RCI's. Either as a "legal" requirement of offering exchanges or just a realization of the practicalities of working together.



I'd say it's *possible *that RCI asked--or DVC offered--to reallocate in order to make for a fundamentally sound start to the RCI relationship.  

But RCI could not dictate how the points would be structured.  Only historical booking trends can make that determination.


----------



## Chuck S

tjkraz said:


> I'd say it's *possible *that RCI asked--or DVC offered--to reallocate in order to make for a fundamentally sound start to the RCI relationship.
> 
> But RCI could not dictate how the points would be structured.  Only historical booking trends can make that determination.



And I think it is highly unlikely that the re-allocation had anything to do with RCI, as RCI was the original trading partner for DVC, and the charts were fine with them, then.


----------



## tjkraz

Chuck S said:


> And I think it is highly unlikely that the re-allocation had anything to do with RCI, as RCI was the original trading partner for DVC, and the charts were fine with them, then.



I agree, Chuck, I don't really think the two had anything to do with one another.  But even if they did on some level, RCI couldn't have made demands or set terms specific to the way points were reallocated.


----------



## Dean

MELSMICE said:


> I realize this is just rehashing the same old scenario, by my Easter break vacation in a 2BR at OKW from S-F will increase by 40 points.  That's more than a few points.


It is my suspicion that the S-F crowd, of which I've been one, is a relative minority.  Thus most members won't be affected that much.  Some will be and IMO, that is OK.



dcfromva said:


> I don't follow your point here (bolded).   100% of the people could be affected--50% up and 50% down.  That would not speak to whether or not the change was needed--to me it would mean that the redistribution worked out favorable for some and not favorable for others.


If you read further you'll realize that I qualified essentially unaffected as being a few points up or down, say under 10% as an arbitrary value (yes I'd consider this a few points).  It was just another way of saying that the more people doing S-F, the more the change was needed.


----------



## bcrook

OK, After 150 pages, I know I am supposed to be thankful to DVC for reallocation.  I should be happy that I can't take as many trips to WDW so I can save myself some money on flights and gasoline.  I am also very happy that I can give up some of my time on site so the locals (or other weekend travelers) can have cheaper weekends.   I get that.  I really do.  

I still just can't believe that there is that much more demand for weekdays, or so much so that people can't get a week stay.  I find it hard to believe that weekdays are booked and block 7 day trips or more.  I understand that maybe certain locations or certain times are unavailable, but I just don't buy that this is a common occurrence.  How often has somebody tried to book a week and not be able to get a nice room at Saratoga? 

I went through every week in March and April (Magic Season and Premier) and all within 2 months.  I tried to book a room through the Disney World site for cash.  I could book an 8 night stay for any week at every resort except Beach Club.   two-bedrooms were not as common, but 1 bedrooms were available always.  I could get a studio everywhere.  

If these rooms are available right now for cash, how are they are not available for points (or weren't available for points)?   I just don't get it.  

I could book anything I want to right now.   Of course I wouldn't be able to book a BLT MK view (if it was ready).  And I probably can't get a Savannah view at AK.   Beach Club is tough, but there is plenty of inventory left everywhere else.   

It shouldn't matter what demand looks like, if rooms are always available reallocation is not necessary - unless the sole reason is to find the best formula to eat up the most points per person.  This is definitely possible, and probably just as important.  That is significantly different than saying that it is based on effort to even out demand.

I have borrowed all of my 2010 points to have a big blowout 4th of July funfest this summer with my family and another family. I got to use my points at their highest value. We are looking forward to Kidani and the Beach Club.   I don't have to worry about keeping or selling for another year. I was planning on adding on, but that will never happen now, and my friends won't be taking any tours.  

All that being said, I do envy Maria and her family getting to spend the last week or more at Disney. I enjoy the magic, but DVC has tarnished the experience.  It is unfortunate, and think there will be many more thousands of people shocked when they get their new DVC planners.


----------



## Dean

bcrook said:


> OK, After 150 pages, I know I am supposed to be thankful to DVC for reallocation.  I should be happy that I can't take as many trips to WDW so I can save myself some money on flights and gasoline.  I am also very happy that I can give up some of my time on site so the locals (or other weekend travelers) can have cheaper weekends.   I get that.  I really do.
> 
> I still just can't believe that there is that much more demand for weekdays, or so much so that people can't get a week stay.  I find it hard to believe that weekdays are booked and block 7 day trips or more.  I understand that maybe certain locations or certain times are unavailable, but I just don't buy that this is a common occurrence.  How often has somebody tried to book a week and not be able to get a nice room at Saratoga?
> 
> I went through every week in March and April (Magic Season and Premier) and all within 2 months.  I tried to book a room through the Disney World site for cash.  I could book an 8 night stay for any week at every resort except Beach Club.   two-bedrooms were not as common, but 1 bedrooms were available always.  I could get a studio everywhere.
> 
> If these rooms are available right now for cash, how are they are not available for points (or weren't available for points)?   I just don't get it.
> 
> I could book anything I want to right now.   Of course I wouldn't be able to book a BLT MK view (if it was ready).  And I probably can't get a Savannah view at AK.   Beach Club is tough, but there is plenty of inventory left everywhere else.
> 
> It shouldn't matter what demand looks like, if rooms are always available reallocation is not necessary - unless the sole reason is to find the best formula to eat up the most points per person.  This is definitely possible, and probably just as important.  That is significantly different than saying that it is based on effort to even out demand.
> 
> I have borrowed all of my 2010 points to have a big blowout 4th of July funfest this summer with my family and another family. I got to use my points at their highest value. We are looking forward to Kidani and the Beach Club.   I don't have to worry about keeping or selling for another year. I was planning on adding on, but that will never happen now, and my friends won't be taking any tours.
> 
> All that being said, I do envy Maria and her family getting to spend the last week or more at Disney. I enjoy the magic, but DVC has tarnished the experience.  It is unfortunate, and think there will be many more thousands of people shocked when they get their new DVC planners.


Cash inventory comes from several locations but much of it is exchange Inventory reserved early in the process and developer owned inventory.  Given we've seen hundreds of threads where the subject is cash was available but not points, I don't think cash inventory gives us any insight as to how the units are available or when.  Add to that the idea that SSR has been the most available resort and your example totally breaks down as an argument against reallocation.  If you don't believe weekends were more available than weekdays, there is no common ground to discuss this issue.

For sold out resorts there cannot be openings throughout the year without an even distribution of usage both for different seasons and different times of the week.  There is no real buffer to absorb the extra points.  And that brings up another issue we've touched on somewhat.  IF the demand varies enough for different times of the year, expect a reallocation of seasons as well, esp Dec and early Jan.


----------



## bcrook

I partly understand cash issues, but if you combine it with DIS availability boards, and other comments from posters - only certain resorts at certain times have issues with being crowded. It seems HHI island should be adjusted according to its seasonal needs and should not be lumped in with OKW, or vice versa.



Dean said:


> If you don't believe weekends were more available than weekdays, there is no common ground to discuss this issue.
> 
> *Wow - it is a consensus now that this is all legit and above board? Everybody's fine, and there need be no more grappling with the issue?*
> 
> For sold out resorts there cannot be openings throughout the year without an even distribution of usage both for different seasons and different times of the week.  There is no real buffer to absorb the extra points.  And that brings up another issue we've touched on somewhat.  IF the demand varies enough for different times of the year, expect a reallocation of seasons as well, esp Dec and early Jan.



I think this would have been the first step.  It makes total sense.  It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.  Management still needs to be held to flame for the shady and deceptive manner they have distributed this information.  It is much too early to give in and say everything is fine.


----------



## codina818

There was a post on another board that mentions that the reservations for BLT for S=View are now about the same as for the other resorts, at least for the weekday nights.

There thinking was that the points changes were made to make BLT the same or cheaper because BLT weren't selling so good.

I don't think I can post it here but they got tables and everything which shows that during weekdays, the new point changes show BWV-Pref/BW, VWL, BCV and AKV- Savanah view are now about the same as BLT s=viiw.

Seems like a good argument, was that posted at all?

Another question, how can they change the BLT charts and say that is from increased demand when they didn't have any reservations at that time?  How could they know demand at a resort, BLT, where no reservations had been made?  Ain't that illegal?

Sorry if this was brought up before, but this thread is so long, I ain't got the time to look thought the whole darn thing.


----------



## tjkraz

bcrook said:


> OK, After 150 pages, I know I am supposed to be thankful to DVC for reallocation.  I should be happy that I can't take as many trips to WDW so I can save myself some money on flights and gasoline.  I am also very happy that I can give up some of my time on site so the locals (or other weekend travelers) can have cheaper weekends.   I get that.  I really do.



I don't recall anyone saying you should be thankful for or happy about the reallocation, but it is what it is.  Like it or dislike it, we're all stuck trying to best deal with it.   



> I still just can't believe that there is that much more demand for weekdays, or so much so that people can't get a week stay.  I find it hard to believe that weekdays are booked and block 7 day trips or more.  I understand that maybe certain locations or certain times are unavailable, but I just don't buy that this is a common occurrence.  How often has somebody tried to book a week and not be able to get a nice room at Saratoga?



You're looking at it from a very black and white approach--either available or unavailable.  Consider the gray area.  

If a Sun - Thurs period in early-December is reaching 100% occupancy 10 1/2 months out while the Fri - Sat does not reach 100% occupancy until 2 months out, the points are out of balance.  Both periods are still sold out, but the weighted point charts did not serve their intended purpose of *balancing *the demand.

Similarly if a slower Sun - Thurs period only reaches 80% occupancy while the bookend Fri - Sat nights are at 60%, the points are out of balance.

And there are certainly periods where weekdays get to full occupancy while the weekends still have vacancies.

I an understand disappointment over these changes.  Believe me, I share it myself.  But from what I have personally witnessed at the DVC resorts and my own experiences booking, the weekends were obviously out of whack.  And the only remedy available to DVC (and its members) is to reallocate.  

DVC already has more members wanting to use points for weekday stays than there actually are nights available.  And without a reallocation, they would only continue to attract more weekday vacationers.  DVC can't just keep falling back on "first come, first served" and leave a greater and greater percentage of owners unable to book the dates and accommodation they desire.


----------



## tjkraz

codina818 said:


> There was a post on another board that mentions that the reservations for BLT for S=View are now about the same as for the other resorts, at least for the weekday nights.
> 
> There thinking was that the points changes were made to make BLT the same or cheaper because BLT weren't selling so good.



BLT will sell out all in due time--reallocation or no reallocation.  I really don't see some perceived uptick in sales as being motivation to make such drastic changes to the program.



> Another question, how can they change the BLT charts and say that is from increased demand when they didn't have any reservations at that time?  How could they know demand at a resort, BLT, where no reservations had been made?  Ain't that illegal?



That argument has been raised and I agree it's the...shadiest...part of these changes.  I suspect DVC would argue that similar trends are witnessed at each of their properties and that thee changes are still justified.  But it certainly seems like there is reason to question the move.


----------



## MELSMICE

Dean said:


> It is my suspicion that the S-F crowd, of which I've been one, is a relative minority.  Thus most members won't be affected that much.  Some will be and IMO, that is OK.


I respectfully disagree with this and here is why............ 

We are a family that spends almost every day at the resort pools.  We head to dinner & the parks in the evenings.  S-TH the pools are very crowded.  On Fridays there are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the guests there.  Many Fridays we have spent the day at are our DVC resort (OKW) & then transfered to a cash resort later in the day, spending the day at the DVC pool.  There is a definite difference in the # of guests.  

Now this could be for different reasons - people leaving to return home, people getting one last day in the parks before returning home on a Saturday, or anything else, but there is a noticeable difference in the # of guests at the resort on Friday afternoons.


----------



## Dean

bcrook said:


> I think this would have been the first step.  It makes total sense.  It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.  Management still needs to be held to flame for the shady and deceptive manner they have distributed this information.  It is much too early to give in and say everything is fine.


While it wasn't with fanfare, it certainly wasn't shady and deceptive in distribution.  They did have the hiccup where it was posted too early and removed, likely while they were still checking or approving it.  It was placed on the website with an announcement and will be mailed to members.



> Another question, how can they change the BLT charts and say that is from increased demand when they didn't have any reservations at that time? How could they know demand at a resort, BLT, where no reservations had been made? Ain't that illegal?


I'm sure they are referring to the overall demand in the system, not BLT.  There is a need for consistency between resorts in any issue such as this.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> melsmice : We are a family that spends almost every day at the resort pools. We head to dinner & the parks in the evenings. S-TH the pools are very crowded. On Fridays there are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the guests there. Many Fridays we have spent the day at are our DVC resort (OKW) & then transfered to a cash resort later in the day, spending the day at the DVC pool. There is a definite difference in the # of guests.



And my observations have always been that it's been busier on the weekends.  Dh and I used to think maybe it was more local Members booking stays for a weekend or extended weekend.  Just checked out of SSR on Feb 6.  When we checked in on Wed, barely anyone in the lobby.  But on Friday, the lobby was packed with guests entering and checking in.


----------



## jakenjess

Dean said:


> It is my suspicion that the S-F crowd, of which I've been one, is a relative minority.  Thus most members won't be affected that much.  Some will be and IMO, that is OK.



Dean, I've been following your reasonings throughout the thread and agree (though I'm not happy with the reallocation  ) but I don't understand this.  If most members won't be affected much, why do the reallocation at all?  The S-F crowd couldn't be throwing the balance off that much if the majority aren't affected, or am I missing something here?  If most aren't affected, that should mean that most are already booking weekend nights; if you've been staying S-F you're most definitely going to be affected, and not just by a few points.


----------



## MELSMICE

MiaSRN62 said:


> And my observations have always been that it's been busier on the weekends.  Dh and I used to think maybe it was more local Members booking stays for a weekend or extended weekend.  Just checked out of SSR on Feb 6.  When we checked in on Wed, barely anyone in the lobby.  But on Friday, the lobby was packed with guests entering and checking in.



I guess it could also be the time of year we are each staying.  The times that I have noticed it the most are at peak times, when point values are higher, especially for weekends.  

Also, I would think that a Wednesday would be a less busy check-in day to begin with, although I could be wrong, as everyone vacations different.  

These were just my observations.  We've also noticed many people sitting at the pools with their Welcome Packets waiting for their rooms to be ready on a Sunday afternoon - although that is not surprising.


----------



## tjkraz

MELSMICE said:


> I respectfully disagree with this and here is why............
> 
> We are a family that spends almost every day at the resort pools.  We head to dinner & the parks in the evenings.  S-TH the pools are very crowded.  On Fridays there are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the guests there.  Many Fridays we have spent the day at are our DVC resort (OKW) & then transfered to a cash resort later in the day, spending the day at the DVC pool.  There is a definite difference in the # of guests.
> 
> Now this could be for different reasons - people leaving to return home, people getting one last day in the parks before returning home on a Saturday, or anything else, but there is a noticeable difference in the # of guests at the resort on Friday afternoons.



Generally speaking you could lump members' travel patterns into three buckets:

1.  Those who vacation exclusively Sun - Thurs
2.  Those who vacation exclusively Fri - Sat
3.  Those whose vacations include both weekdays and weekends

When Dean speaks of the "S - F crowd", I believe he is referring to group #1 above--those who use their points ONLY for Sunday to Thursday nights.  

I would agree with your assessment that the resorts are at much greater occupancy on the weekdays.  But that occupancy is driven by groups 1 AND 3 above.  And it's certainly possible that the exclusive Sun - Thurs vacationers are a minority...yet are still throwing the system out of balance.


----------



## dianeschlicht

MELSMICE said:


> I respectfully disagree with this and here is why............
> 
> We are a family that spends almost every day at the resort pools.  We head to dinner & the parks in the evenings.  S-TH the pools are very crowded.  On Fridays there are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the guests there.  Many Fridays we have spent the day at are our DVC resort (OKW) & then transfered to a cash resort later in the day, spending the day at the DVC pool.  There is a definite difference in the # of guests.
> 
> Now this could be for different reasons - people leaving to return home, people getting one last day in the parks before returning home on a Saturday, or anything else, but there is a noticeable difference in the # of guests at the resort on Friday afternoons.



I think you are right about the "crowd" within DVC resorts on the weekends, but I think the REASON is that people learned to "work the system" with the five lower point days...saving points by not staying the weekends.  I think you just nailed the real reason this allocation was necessary.  

None of us has the "real" new charts in hand yet, and I'm reserving judgement until we do.  AS far as I can tell, it will only require me to make minor adjustments to use the same number of points, and in most cases, I actually will be using LESS points now over the old charts.


----------



## Dean

jakenjess said:


> Dean, I've been following your reasonings throughout the thread and agree (though I'm not happy with the reallocation  ) but I don't understand this.  If most members won't be affected much, why do the reallocation at all?  The S-F crowd couldn't be throwing the balance off that much if the majority aren't affected, or am I missing something here?  If most aren't affected, that should mean that most are already booking weekend nights; if you've been staying S-F you're most definitely going to be affected, and not just by a few points.


I think I explained the thinking a few pages back.  Basically it doesn't take a large percentage to throw the system out of balance.  For sake of discussion assume you have a 95% usual occupancy and 85% of people do 7 days which start and/or end on a weekend.  Then 10% of people do S-F either alone or as part of a 12 day stay.  That leaves you a discrepancy of 10% from weekdays to weekends.  Obviously it's far more complicated than that with many variations and nuances but this is essentially the end point of the thinking.  As I and a few others have stated, it comes down to more than just the end point occupancy.  It also is important to look at HOW and WHEN you got there.  Cash reservations should be looked at differently than points and times that book up 3 months out should be looked at differently than those booked at 11 months or even 7 months.  Even then you have to look at how/who.  Were those rooms booked up by S-F guests and back filled by default from those who would have preferred weekdays also but they weren't available and may have complained about this pattern of availability.  DVC will also look at HOW guests visit.  If they stay S-F on points then weekends on cash (DVC or otherwise), this becomes important info as well.  

As I've also said, I believe DVC needs some consistency.  By that I mean that if Magic and Dream seasons were not a problem, but the rest of the times were, I believe they would change everything to keep the ratio's in the same ballpark.  Same from one resort to another.  If VWL were not an issue but SSR, OKW & BWV were, then I believe they would change all or none regardless.  



MELSMICE said:


> I guess it could also be the time of year we are each staying.  The times that I have noticed it the most are at peak times, when point values are higher, especially for weekends.
> 
> Also, I would think that a Wednesday would be a less busy check-in day to begin with, although I could be wrong, as everyone vacations different.
> 
> These were just my observations.  We've also noticed many people sitting at the pools with their Welcome Packets waiting for their rooms to be ready on a Sunday afternoon - although that is not surprising.


Far too anecdotal to draw conclusions from plus there's no way to tell how that time is compared to others and whether these are points or cash guests, which makes a big difference.  See my explanation above as to my thinking.


----------



## Disneyhappy

Sabor said:


> I don't understand why people cannot understand that there WAS a need to reallocate whether you like it or not. It was long overdue.



No where in my post did it state I had an issue with the point reallocation. I didn't understand the logic that was used in the theory and was only questioning it. Smile! Life is too short!


----------



## Mick West

I apologize if this has been discussed on here and I missed it. I've been a DVC owner for 7 years. One important question I had when I was considering this was wether the point values for a nights stay would change. I knew what the points currently were but I was concerned about what they would be 10 to 20 years down the road. I remember being told the "seasons" could change within the 5 point tiers, but if a stay was 12 points per night in the lowest season it would always be 12 points in that low season. I looked at the 2009 and 2010 charts and see that the point charts have changed. For example in 2009, from May 1 to 31 a studio at BCV is 13 points. During that same time in 2010 it is 15 points. I guess I'm just chacking to see if any of you were told the same thing at purchase or wether I just heard one thing and took it to mean something else.


----------



## LisaS

The discussion is going on here: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2066946 The thread is currently up to 150 pages and 2238 posts!  Get a cup of coffee and settle in for a long read.


----------



## wtpclc

Mick - There was a little discussion here.   

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2066946

Basically, DVC can change all the points however they wan as long as the points for teh eyar balance out.  There are limitations of ~20% for any given day, with teh exception that high seasons can do more.  (Best example is that Easter changes and the weeks before and after are high season, whereas that specific day may not have been in a previosu year).

Yeah, it ook many of us by surprise.  Generally, teh evened out weekend adn week nights a bit.


----------



## SonicGuy

I do not want to start a whole big thing here, but when I called my guide this morning about doing a BLT add-on for the free cruise, I told her that I needed to sit down the the charts and figure out what I would need.  She told me to keep in mind that the charts change from time to time and that there may even be a "season change" coming soon.  She mentioned that early December has become a very popular time and that it may be changing seasons.

We are still new to DVC  - has this happened before? If so, does it happen often?

I dont want to buy just enough points for the season we like to travel and have it change seasons all together.


----------



## disneynutz

Disney has recently proved that they don't really care about members after the sale and they will makes changes to the program if it makes them more money. 

Many members are now short points due to the 2010 point chart change, we are 30 points short.


----------



## Chuck S

disneynutz said:


> Disney has recently proved that they don't really care about members after the sale and they will makes changes to the program if it makes them more money.
> 
> Many members are now short points due to the 2010 point chart change, we are 30 points short.


A reallocation proves nothing of the kind, unless you also think the 1996 OKW reallocation indicated they didn't care about members in 1996?  

It does indicate that Disney is being responsible and reallocating to equalize demand.  The fact that many members bought "just exactly" enough points is  Disney's fault how, exactly?


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Chuck S said:


> A reallocation proves nothing of the kind, unless you also think the 1996 OKW reallocation indicated they didn't care about members in 1996?
> 
> It does indicate that Disney is being responsible and reallocating to equalize demand. The fact that many members bought "just exactly" enough points is Disney's fault how, exactly?


We have no real facts on this, only Disney's response...so people can choose to believe that on face value or not. I am skeptical about their statement, it does not explain the REASON, only that they can do it based on those terms.


----------



## dianeschlicht

disneynutz said:


> Disney has recently proved that they don't really care about members after the sale and they will makes changes to the program if it makes them more money.
> 
> Many members are now short points due to the 2010 point chart change, we are 30 points short.



On the contrary, I think it is good for members when the points are evened out a bit.  The only reason folks are upset is because they have gotten into a habit of touring a specific way (to save points), and that way of touring has CAUSED the NEED to reallocate.  It has NOTHING to do with money for DVC.  We have been members for 12 years.   We have the number of points that works well for us, and we utilize banking and borrowing in the manner it was designed to be used.  

I think the only reason people are whining now is because they tried to get by with a minimum buy-in.  In fact, if DVC was at fault for any of this, it was when they reduced the buy in price to  150 or, worse yet, 100 points!


----------



## BWV Dreamin

dianeschlicht said:


> On the contrary, I think it is good for members when the points are evened out a bit. The only reason folks are upset is because they have gotten into a habit of touring a specific way (to save points), and that way of touring has CAUSED the NEED to reallocate. It has NOTHING to do with money for DVC. We have been members for 12 years. We have the number of points that works well for us, and we utilize banking and borrowing in the manner it was designed to be used.
> 
> I think the only reason people are whining now is because they tried to get by with a minimum buy-in. In fact, if DVC was at fault for any of this, it was when they reduced the buy in price to 150 or, worse yet, 100 points!


I am not whining, I am really not too affected. The fact is no one knows the real REASON for the change. You can accept Disney's statement at face value, however I am skeptical. Just because they CAN make the change, does not mean they won't BENEFIT from it. Oh, they will. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but they will. Considering Disney's fiancial situation, they need many pots to pull their profits from.


----------



## mjfox

Chuck S said:


> A reallocation proves nothing of the kind, unless you also think the 1996 OKW reallocation indicated they didn't care about members in 1996?
> 
> It does indicate that Disney is being responsible and reallocating to equalize demand.  The fact that many members bought "just exactly" enough points is  Disney's fault how, exactly?



Here, Here... I with you "Chuck S".  I'm just happy that I'm not tied up with using the same week number every year as some traditional timeshares are or only having Fri, Sat or Sun as the only check in days!  Things could be worse and I not complaining that DVC is just trying to level the playing field so unused days could be usable days again.  If there are unused days by points or cash that hurts all of us.


----------



## SonicGuy

SonicGuy said:


> I do not want to start a whole big thing here, but when I called my guide this morning about doing a BLT add-on for the free cruise, I told her that I needed to sit down the the charts and figure out what I would need.  She told me to keep in mind that the charts change from time to time and that there may even be a "season change" coming soon.  She mentioned that early December has become a very popular time and that it may be changing seasons.
> 
> We are still new to DVC  - has this happened before? If so, does it happen often?
> 
> I dont want to buy just enough points for the season we like to travel and have it change seasons all together.




Not sure why my post got moved into this monster - all I really wanted to know is if I can expect the seasons to change often.


----------



## TSMIII

SonicGuy said:


> I do not want to start a whole big thing here, but when I called my guide this morning about doing a BLT add-on for the free cruise, I told her that I needed to sit down the the charts and figure out what I would need.  She told me to keep in mind that the charts change from time to time *and that there may even be a "season change" coming soon.  She mentioned that early December has become a very popular time and that it may be changing seasons.*
> We are still new to DVC  - has this happened before? If so, does it happen often?
> 
> I dont want to buy just enough points for the season we like to travel and have it change seasons all together.



Others here have mentioned this possibility if DVC identified a demand imbalance with regard to the seasons as they are currently configured.

I wonder too, depending upon how large of a seasonal demand imbalance there was, if the season configurations may at some point differ from resort to resort.  Something similar to the way in which VB differs from the WDW resorts.

Imagine if the first two weeks of December remained Adventure season for say AKV, but were moved to Choice or Dream season for VWL due to the higher demand at that time of year.   Or if the F&W weeks were moved into a higher point cost season for BWV & BCV only.

I'm not certain DVC would want to "fine tune" the point charts to that degree but it's another possibility should one or more resorts exhibit disproportionate demand within a season relative to the other resorts.


----------



## wtpclc

mjfox said:


> If there are unused days by points or cash that hurts all of us.



Ding ding!  NOt thrilled with the change, but if weekends were ogoing empty, that's bad for us.  

SOnice - It hasn't happend in a very long time.  WHile ou would nto expect it to happen for along itme, you just never know.  I thougth this was only liek teh 2nd time it happend.BTW, it wasn't jsut your post.  Teh wnole thread got moved because the topic is the same.


----------



## DVC92

Chuck S said:


> It does indicate that Disney is being responsible and reallocating to equalize demand.  The fact that many members bought "just exactly" enough points is  Disney's fault how, exactly?



You are stating a conclusion without any factual support. That conclusion may/may not be true. The only legal reason DVC can put forth is one relating to demand. IMHO, further reallocations are necessary to truly balance demand. We'll see what happens next year.

Disney did help contribute to this problem by lowering minimum point purchases allowing buyers to acquire just enough points for S-F stays. If the 230 minimum had been retained, members might not feel the necessity to only stay weekdays. I know I certainly don't.


----------



## MELSMICE

Mick West said:


> I apologize if this has been discussed on here and I missed it. I've been a DVC owner for 7 years. One important question I had when I was considering this was wether the point values for a nights stay would change. I knew what the points currently were but I was concerned about what they would be 10 to 20 years down the road. I remember being told the "seasons" could change within the 5 point tiers, but if a stay was 12 points per night in the lowest season it would always be 12 points in that low season. I looked at the 2009 and 2010 charts and see that the point charts have changed. For example in 2009, from May 1 to 31 a studio at BCV is 13 points. During that same time in 2010 it is 15 points. I guess I'm just chacking to see if any of you were told the same thing at purchase or wether I just heard one thing and took it to mean something else.


DH & I recall being told the same thing.


----------



## FIVEFANS

We were also told points would never change...... and after freaking out from this thread I looked at all the points.  In general the week totals are the same.......... and in the end, I understand, that if there is not change then things can go downhill..... I would rather them not wait till a potential problem gets worse.

In the end, we will all be having dole whips in the next year or so........ so smile.


----------



## disneynutz

I am amazed that so many people refuse to believe that money is the motive for *every* change Disney makes. That isn't a bad thing for business but when the changes continue to take away value, eventually people will protest.

Lowering the point requirements for Friday & Saturday wasn't done to be nice to members who want to book weekends, it was done for specific reasons that we can only guess.

Here are some possibilities:
Get members to buy more points? Several DISers have posted that they modified their contracts because of the change.

Increase Florida member stays on Fridays and Saturdays since so many members can't afford to travel.

Get members to change their vacation patterns to better utilize Disney facilities and personal.

Set the stage for the next change.


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> I am not whining, I am really not too affected. The fact is no one knows the real REASON for the change. You can accept Disney's statement at face value, however I am skeptical. *Just because they CAN make the change, does not mean they won't BENEFIT from it. *Oh, they will. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but they will. Considering Disney's fiancial situation, they need many pots to pull their profits from.



It's possible that Disney will benefit...but it's also largely irrelevant, IMO.  

Does Disney benefit from our $100 AP discount?  Do they benefit from giving us free Internet service?  Do they benefit from the Member Mixers?  Do they benefit from putting nicer mattresses in the rooms?  

Perhaps, but since members also benefit from those changes I don't see the reason to split hairs over it.  

In today's economic climate I doubt Disney has a good enough crystal ball to predict that DVC sales will indisputably tilt in their favor after the reallocation.  As I've said, DVC may gain some sales from small add-ons but they are also likely to lose sales due to a lowering of DVC's financial benefits (Sun-Thurs stays no longer as good of a value) and the perceived loss of goodwill from some members.  

I think the most likely beneficiary would be the parks & resorts division (rather than DVC/DVD) if overall occupancy levels rise at the DVC resorts.  Higher occupancy theoretically means more guest spending on food, groceries, souvenirs, etc.  

You're welcome to question DVC's motivation.  There's enough gray area in discussing the tipping point for the reallocation...especially when we've gone 14 years since the last one.  But unless you're accusing them of lying to members, DVC's public statement about the reallocation being to "balance demand" is all the justification they need.  



SonicGuy said:


> Not sure why my post got moved into this monster - all I really wanted to know is if I can expect the seasons to change often.



Nobody really knows.   

It has always been within DVC's right--some of us would say it's their obligation--to adjust for changes in demand patterns.  They did it back in 1996 and now for 2010.  For years many have been questioning why there had not been a reallocation.  

I agree with others who think some of the seasons are still out of whack.  This 2010 adjustment could just be a precursor to another adjustment in 2011.  DVC is limited to only changing the points 20% for any given day from one year to the next.  And in some cases they did adjust the full 20%.  Does that mean further adjustments will immediately follow?  

DVC could also could wait a few years to completely re-evaluate things.  

At this point I think the only safe bet is to count on DVC adjusting every few years.  If they do so on a consistent basis, the adjustments should be very minor.  It's because they waited so long this time that the modifications were so extreme.


----------



## Dean

Mick West said:


> I apologize if this has been discussed on here and I missed it. I've been a DVC owner for 7 years. One important question I had when I was considering this was wether the point values for a nights stay would change. I knew what the points currently were but I was concerned about what they would be 10 to 20 years down the road. I remember being told the "seasons" could change within the 5 point tiers, but if a stay was 12 points per night in the lowest season it would always be 12 points in that low season. I looked at the 2009 and 2010 charts and see that the point charts have changed. For example in 2009, from May 1 to 31 a studio at BCV is 13 points. During that same time in 2010 it is 15 points. I guess I'm just chacking to see if any of you were told the same thing at purchase or wether I just heard one thing and took it to mean something else.


If you were told the points for a given night would not change, you were told incorrectly and not consistent with the POS.



disneynutz said:


> Disney has recently proved that they don't really care about members after the sale and they will makes changes to the program if it makes them more money.
> 
> Many members are now short points due to the 2010 point chart change, we are 30 points short.


I don't get that at all.  The willingness to make changes is a plus to a degree and all changes I've seen are appropriate.  One could quibble with the timing of the reallocation in response to new buyers, esp at BLT, but to say these show DVC doesn't care is not supported by the facts or reason.



BWV Dreamin said:


> We have no real facts on this, only Disney's response...so people can choose to believe that on face value or not. I am skeptical about their statement, it does not explain the REASON, only that they can do it based on those terms.


While we don't have current spread sheets, we do have a lot of historical factual information as well as oversight by the state of FL.  As I noted a page or two ago, anyone can go look over the books, you just have to do it in person.  



mjfox said:


> Here, Here... I with you "Chuck S".  I'm just happy that I'm not tied up with using the same week number every year as some traditional timeshares are or only having Fri, Sat or Sun as the only check in days!  Things could be worse and I not complaining that DVC is just trying to level the playing field so unused days could be usable days again.  If there are unused days by points or cash that hurts all of us.


LOL!!!  I have just arranged two weeks this fall in 1 BR (AKV 7 OKW) using those traditional timeshares you mention (or a version thereof, RCI points) at a cost of about $450 a week including the exchange fee and $95 resort services fee.  That's far less than the maint fees would be on the points for those weeks.  I was worried that availability would be worse with RCI than II trading in and this appears to be exactly the opposite so far.



SonicGuy said:


> Not sure why my post got moved into this monster - all I really wanted to know is if I can expect the seasons to change often.


I'd say about 50/50 or slightly better chance you'll see season changes in about 2-3 years, if it happens, there will likely be some fine tuning along the lines of this reallocation as well.


----------



## Dean

disneynutz said:


> I am amazed that so many people refuse to believe that money is the motive for *every* change Disney makes. That isn't a bad thing for business but when the changes continue to take away value, eventually people will protest.
> 
> Lowering the point requirements for Friday & Saturday wasn't done to be nice to members who want to book weekends, it was done for specific reasons that we can only guess.
> 
> Here are some possibilities:
> Get members to buy more points? Several DISers have posted that they modified their contracts because of the change.
> 
> Increase Florida member stays on Fridays and Saturdays since so many members can't afford to travel.
> 
> Get members to change their vacation patterns to better utilize Disney facilities and personal.
> 
> Set the stage for the next change.


LOL, it's been interesting to see long term koolade drinkers turn on Disney and DVC so quickly.  And in the long run it really doesn't matter why they did it.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

Dean said:


> I'd say about 50/50 or slightly better chance you'll see season changes in about 2-3 years, if it happens, there will likely be some fine tuning along the lines of this reallocation as well.



I agree that a change for the dates in some Season may be likely in the future and may be part of the reason for the 2010 reallocation.

Because DVC could not change the points required for any one night by more than 20%, some weekday studios at OKW (formerly, 8 points per night) could not increase or decrease by more than 1 point in any reallocation.  Nor can they go from 9 to anything higher than 10 in the next reallocation.  As a result, we may see more than one change in the near future in order for the dates in some Seasons to be modified.  -- Suzanne


----------



## bcrook

This is really a great discussion based on an exciting controversial issue.  How about this one...

In another post: Off-Season  What is it Really?  Dean says: "There are certain room types you should not count on though (sometimes even if you own at that resort), these include the 2 Q dedicated 2 BR at BCV, any GV, standard view at BWV and concierge at AKV."

If all GV are booked at the 7 month window - there should be no problem with balancing demand.  With this pattern, if one GV fills up, people move to the next choice.  The points don't much matter - the amount dedicated to GV are always used.  That being said, you know the next question...

Why change the point allocation?  Just to mess with people?  What's weird is that some resorts went up dramatically on the WEEKENDS and others went down on the weekend - but they are all booked all the time???  

This would make total sense if GV were heavily booked at SSR (the GV there went up a whopping 18 points in Magic season for F/S SSR must be popular on weekends), and OKW GV must be empty because they went DOWN 24 points on F/S.  

Those are really large fluctuations for units that are booked solid.  Seems random to me.


----------



## Dean

bcrook said:


> This is really a great discussion based on an exciting controversial issue.  How about this one...
> 
> In another post: Off-Season  What is it Really?  Dean says: "There are certain room types you should not count on though (sometimes even if you own at that resort), these include the 2 Q dedicated 2 BR at BCV, any GV, standard view at BWV and concierge at AKV."
> 
> If all GV are booked at the 7 month window - there should be no problem with balancing demand.  With this pattern, if one GV fills up, people move to the next choice.  The points don't much matter - the amount dedicated to GV are always used.  That being said, you know the next question...
> 
> Why change the point allocation?  Just to mess with people?  What's weird is that some resorts went up dramatically on the WEEKENDS and others went down on the weekend - but they are all booked all the time???
> 
> This would make total sense if GV were heavily booked at SSR (the GV there went up a whopping 18 points in Magic season for F/S SSR must be popular on weekends), and OKW GV must be empty because they went DOWN 24 points on F/S.
> 
> Those are really large fluctuations for units that are booked solid.  Seems random to me.


As noted, there's more to it than just when it's booked.  Do people who want the weekend get shut out because of S-F.  Are S-F booked at 11 months and weekends closer to 7 months.  Are they booked on cash or points as some days are booked for cash prior to the 7 month window opening.  Also as noted, there needs to be come consistency so it may be some time change that didn't need to be changed.  Even if some things didn't need to be changed, it's unlikely the change would make things any worse so it's still appropriate.  Even if there were not a specific problem, it would be appropriate for DVC to be proactive if they deemed it helpful overall.  One thing to remember for OKW is that the weekend/weekday formula has been different than the rest of the resorts, even with the 1996 change.  To a degree, this is not fixable when you compare to other DVC resorts but it does create some unique issues in such a reallocation.


----------



## jamstew

Dean said:


> I have just arranged two weeks this fall in 1 BR (AKV 7 OKW) using those traditional timeshares you mention (or a version thereof, RCI points) at a cost of about $450 a week including the exchange fee and $95 resort services fee.  That's far less than the maint fees would be on the points for those weeks.  I was worried that availability would be worse with RCI than II trading in and this appears to be exactly the opposite so far.



Owning a fixed week only means that I'm guaranteed to be able to stay in my unit at my home resort if I choose to. I think what some people (not you obviously) may not understand about fixed weeks is that you can trade for any time you want (subject to availability). Although I don't have the trading power to get into DVC, I can use exchanges to extend my S-F DVC trips. Would I rather be on-site the whole time? Absolutely, but by trading my traditional TS (a summer week in Hot Springs, Arkansas) for a May week at Sheraton Vistana (or Bonnet Creek if it comes through with an ongoing search), I'll have a total of 12 nights  The MF at my home resort, plus the exchange fee is $559.


----------



## bcrook

Dean said:


> One thing to remember for OKW is that the weekend/weekday formula has been different than the rest of the resorts, even with the 1996 change.  To a degree, this is not fixable when you compare to other DVC resorts but it does create some unique issues in such a reallocation.



VWL and BLT followed the same pattern as OKW.  They all went down on weekend substantially, but AKV, SSR, and BWV all went up.  It is weird if there is 100% filled.  So it doesn't appear that OKW is that unique.   At least VWL, BLT and OKW went down on weekends like all other units, but the increase in SSR, BWV, and AKV on F/S seems odd. 

I did fall in love with those GV at SSR though.  Sun-Thur dropped 8 points a night.  That is some consolation for those S-F travelers.


----------



## Dean

jamstew said:


> Owning a fixed week only means that I'm guaranteed to be able to stay in my unit at my home resort if I choose to. I think what some people (not you obviously) may not understand about fixed weeks is that you can trade for any time you want (subject to availability). Although I don't have the trading power to get into DVC, I can use exchanges to extend my S-F DVC trips. Would I rather be on-site the whole time? Absolutely, but by trading my traditional TS (a summer week in Hot Springs, Arkansas) for a May week at Sheraton Vistana (or Bonnet Creek if it comes through with an ongoing search), I'll have a total of 12 nights  The MF at my home resort, plus the exchange fee is $559.


I was purposefully cryptic in the previous post trying not to confuse people too much.  A point I've made a number of times lately it seems is that there is no such thing as a traditional timeshare anymore.  Fixed week/fixed unit resorts are a thing of the past other than when a resort carves out the best units during peak times so they can make more money.  While I own both RCI weeks and RCI points, I do not own ANY fixed week/fixed unit options any more.  My current holdings are Bluegreen points which I use directly, use for RCI AND II deposits and use for the RCI points for deposit program.  I own a 1 BR RCI points unit in LV which has a points to fees ratio that is very good.  I own points in MX enough for a peak season studio or 1 BR depending on the view and which trades with II.  I also own 5 weeks with Marriott, all Platinum season floating week units mostly HH and HI.  Then there's DVC.  I use them all for different things.  My model is diversity so I can take the best that each has to offer.  Then I rent out the things that are applicable on the off years I'm not using them.  Fixed weeks can have a significant trading advantage in that you can often deposit earlier (18 months with Marriott compared to 12/13) and have control over your week, view, etc.

Timeshares have saved me tons of money compared to paying out of pocket and have been a great source of enjoyment and education for myself and my family.  Much of the savings I've plowed back in to group family trips like this past summer at Gatlinburg where we had 35 people and 9 2 BR units all of which I provided.  This summer we have 3 two BR units for HH, beachfront Marriott with family.  The interesting and scary thing is that this summer will cost me more for 3 units than last did for 9 units.



bcrook said:


> VWL and BLT followed the same pattern as OKW.  They all went down on weekend substantially, but AKV, SSR, and BWV all went up.  It is weird if there is 100% filled.  So it doesn't appear that OKW is that unique.   At least VWL, BLT and OKW went down on weekends like all other units, but the increase in SSR, BWV, and AKV on F/S seems odd.


Look at both the total points and ratios for OKW compared to the other resorts and look at the premium for GV over say a 2 BR plus a studio.  Add in to that the idea that OKW came with free passes for several years with 2 for a studio, 2 for a 1 BR, 4 for a 2 BR and 6 for a 3 BR.


----------



## TisBit

SuzanneSLO said:


> I agree that a change for the dates in some Season may be likely in the future and may be part of the reason for the 2010 reallocation.
> 
> Because DVC could not change the points required for any one night by more than 20%, some weekday studios at OKW (formerly, 8 points per night) could not increase or decrease by more than 1 point in any reallocation.  Nor can they go from 9 to anything higher than 10 in the next reallocation.  As a result, we may see more than one change in the near future in order for the dates in some Seasons to be modified.  -- Suzanne



I think that another big adjustment that will be looming will be the THV's at SSR.  THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.

By bring THV's in at a lower point total (in comparison) they allow demand for them to sky rocket and create a situation where they can charge more for THV's, reducing other units total points.  

Basicly, they will be able to gobble up points at SSR (which could help stir demand by making it more value oriented) with the THV's which could be seen as a great value right now.


----------



## doconeill

TisBit said:


> I think that another big adjustment that will be looming will be the THV's at SSR.  THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.
> 
> By bring THV's in at a lower point total (in comparison) they allow demand for them to sky rocket and create a situation where they can charge more for THV's, reducing other units total points.
> 
> Basicly, they will be able to gobble up points at SSR (which could help stir demand by making it more value oriented) with the THV's which could be seen as a great value right now.



This an interesting point, to a certain degree. Since they gave the THVs their own room classification, I don't believe there is anything restricting them from diverging the point costs from those of the 2BRs. However, I believe because they are being declared into the inventory with a certain point cost, then the total number of points per year for booking the THVs could not change, much like for the entire resort. I could be wrong about that though...


----------



## doconeill

One more thing...I've stayed out of this discussion to this point since the change didn't largely affect me (I bought points on what I felt I could afford, not for any particular schedule), but I understand the plight of those that did.

I'm posting this only because we do know that Disney does have its "spies" reading these things...

Would people be more amenable to the change if Disney were to offer, for a limited time, the purchase of additional points as an add-on contract to resorts they already own, with a much smaller minimum - say, 5 points? Or if they could, 1 point? This might be a bit problematic at the sold out resorts, but it at least might be seen as a gesture of goodwill to the members who were most severely affected.


----------



## tjkraz

TisBit said:


> I think that another big adjustment that will be looming will be the THV's at SSR.  THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.



I think you're right--they probably could do that.  

But it's worth noting that DVC had at least two opportunities to do that in the 2010 reallocation and decided not to.  The most obvious example is the two Preferred View categories at BWV.  The BoardWalk View rooms fill up much quicker than the Garden/Pool view, yet they still cost the same.  The other example would be the near-Hospitality House categor at OKW, which seems like it would have higher demand since that was the reason for creating the category in the first place.  

We should probably file all of those possibilities away under the heading of "things that could happen down the road."


----------



## jamstew

Dean said:


> Much of the savings I've plowed back in to group family trips like this past summer at Gatlinburg where we had 35 people and 9 2 BR units all of which I provided.  This summer we have 3 two BR units for HH, beachfront Marriott with family.  The interesting and scary thing is that this summer will cost me more for 3 units than last did for 9 units.



Now *that's* scary! BTW, where in Gatlinburg? My daughter & her family would love to go next summer, but I have no idea where to try & book them. I've stayed in rental homes in Pigeon Forge several times, but my exposure to Gatlinburg is limited to shopping in the downtown area and a couple of restaurants.


----------



## Dean

TisBit said:


> I think that another big adjustment that will be looming will be the THV's at SSR.  THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.
> 
> By bring THV's in at a lower point total (in comparison) they allow demand for them to sky rocket and create a situation where they can charge more for THV's, reducing other units total points.
> 
> Basicly, they will be able to gobble up points at SSR (which could help stir demand by making it more value oriented) with the THV's which could be seen as a great value right now.


I would agree that some type of differential might be appropriate between THV and regular 2 BR at SSR.  I personally don't think they'll be quite as popular as some do .  Their relative small numbers may prove me wrong, we'll see.  Regardless, I don't think the demand will be enough to make any difference at the 7 month window or affect the number of SSR points vying for other options at 7 months.  



doconeill said:


> OWould people be more amenable to the change if Disney were to offer, for a limited time, the purchase of additional points as an add-on contract to resorts they already own, with a much smaller minimum - say, 5 points? Or if they could, 1 point? This might be a bit problematic at the sold out resorts, but it at least might be seen as a gesture of goodwill to the members who were most severely affected.


It's worth noting that DVC is set up the way it is from a deed/registration standpoint due to choice, not necessity.  DVC could have held the deeds in trust themselves and simply assigned the rights to individuals making it much easier to make such changes on the fly.  Given the current set up, I don't see them doing anything less than 25 points other than possibly for NEW member who bought retail between the time BLT was announced and the new points charts came out.  They would not do it for less than 25 points but what they might do is offer to swap the entire contract to a different registration.


----------



## Dean

jamstew said:


> Now *that's* scary! BTW, where in Gatlinburg? My daughter & her family would love to go next summer, but I have no idea where to try & book them. I've stayed in rental homes in Pigeon Forge several times, but my exposure to Gatlinburg is limited to shopping in the downtown area and a couple of restaurants.


It could be scary but I have rules about the visit and I am not tied to any group or their vacation style.  For this strip especially, anything from we didn't see you the entire week to you spent all the time with us would have been fine.  We had my siblings and their families, one of my wife's siblings with their family including adult kids and their family, college room mate, cousins, High School Friends, etc.  Some stay 2 nights, some stayed the entire week or most of it.  I'd have to say it was the best vacation we've ever had with the family cruise that included my mom before she passes as second.  

To be honest, there is no place in Gatlinburg I'd consider comparable to DVC or that I'd trade DVC points for.  In RCI, Crown Park, Tree Tops, Bent Creek and Mountain Loft are likely the top options.  Further out, the Wyndham in Sevierville is likely even nicer than mot of those but not as good a location.  I don't know Sunrise Ridge, the Grande Crown (? new) or Day Springs enough to know to recommend them.  Several of theses are in II also, I'd add Westgate for II to the list.  It also depends on the type of experience you want.  Crown Park and GTS are in town, Wyndham away from the mountains across from the outlets.

You could look at redweeks, TUG, the Bluegreen Yahoo group, etc for places to find private timeshare trades or rentals.  There are a host of rental companies for private homes in Gatlinburg as well.  We much prefer Gatlinburg (White Oak Flats) due to the mountains but if you're into shows, PF offers advantages there.  The ONE show Gatlinburg has is "Sweet Fanny Adams".  It's a wonderful, funny, slightly off color Vaudeville type show.  I would highly recommend it but wouldn't take preteens or younger.


----------



## jamstew

Dean said:


> To be honest, there is no place in Gatlinburg I'd consider comparable to DVC or that I'd trade DVC points for.  In RCI, Crown Park, Tree Tops, Bent Creek and Mountain Loft are likely the top options.  Further out, the Wyndham in Sevierville is likely even nicer than mot of those but not as good a location.  I don't know Sunrise Ridge, the Grande Crown (? new) or Day Springs enough to know to recommend them.  Several of theses are in II also, I'd add Westgate for II to the list.  It also depends on the type of experience you want.  Crown Park and GTS are in town, Wyndham away from the mountains across from the outlets.
> 
> You could look at redweeks, TUG, the Bluegreen Yahoo group, etc for places to find private timeshare trades or rentals.  There are a host of rental companies for private homes in Gatlinburg as well.  We much prefer Gatlinburg (White Oak Flats) due to the mountains but if you're into shows, PF offers advantages there.  The ONE show Gatlinburg has is "Sweet Fanny Adams".  It's a wonderful, funny, slightly off color Vaudeville type show.  I would highly recommend it but wouldn't take preteens or younger.



I'd never trade my DVC for anything or anybody! I'd be trading Hot Springs RCI resort to Gatlinburg for my daughter, her husband, and my 3-year-old grandson. They'd only be interested in the mountains, so I'll be looking for Crown Park, Tree Tops, Bent Creek and Mountain Loft. I think Sevierville is a little too far out. The whole area is obviously gorgeous, but I think if they're looking for hiking in the national park, Gatlinburg would be a better fit. Thanks for the tips.


----------



## TisBit

doconeill said:


> This an interesting point, to a certain degree. Since they gave the THVs their own room classification, I don't believe there is anything restricting them from diverging the point costs from those of the 2BRs. However, I believe because they are being declared into the inventory with a certain point cost, then the total number of points per year for booking the THVs could not change, much like for the entire resort. I could be wrong about that though...



It was added as a phase, not stand alone resort.  Similar to how studios came in with a specific point requirement, but can change, only the overall numbers have to stay the same, THV's just increased the total available points at SSR.



Dean said:


> I would agree that some type of differential might be appropriate between THV and regular 2 BR at SSR.  I personally don't think they'll be quite as popular as some do .  Their relative small numbers may prove me wrong, we'll see.  Regardless, I don't think the demand will be enough to make any difference at the 7 month window or affect the number of SSR points vying for other options at 7 months.



Which is why I believe that they did not change them now, it gives them options later.  If they are popular they could increase their point requirements significantly (like between 2 br and GV) or they could leave them alone.  But, to note, when they announced what the point cost would be, everyone was surprised that it was the same cost as a 2 BR.

Time will tell.....


----------



## TisBit

tjkraz said:


> I think you're right--they probably could do that.
> 
> But it's worth noting that DVC had at least two opportunities to do that in the 2010 reallocation and decided not to.  The most obvious example is the two Preferred View categories at BWV.  The BoardWalk View rooms fill up much quicker than the Garden/Pool view, yet they still cost the same.  The other example would be the near-Hospitality House categor at OKW, which seems like it would have higher demand since that was the reason for creating the category in the first place.
> 
> We should probably file all of those possibilities away under the heading of "things that could happen down the road."



Actually, the near HH at OKW is not in the POS, so I am not sure they could translate a "booking categorey" or basicly a room assignment to more points for the same type of room.  Plus, they could remove that near HH just as easily as they added it.

Now the Preferred Views I am not sure how they were set up, but yes, the could possibly change those, if they were set up as different categories from the start, such as SV at AKV.  But I think there they might have BW views fill up fast, but the preferred views help keep points low for the standard rooms, so they do serve a purpose, giving a value option to the resort.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

TisBit said:


> THV's are being brought in at a relatively cheap point requirement and will obviously be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 month windows.


 I don't think that's obvious at all. The THV's sound very cool. But after the initial ballyhoo dies down, the negatives are going to be obvious (remember their slogan, "THV, we're like the Carousel, only less convenient). There's a reason the original treehouses failed. There's a reason all the various flavors of Dinsey villas failed. There's a reason why Ft Wildersess Cabins have only average popularity. In the end, the THV's will be a nice addition and somewhat popular, but I believe they won't be swamped with demand. I may be wrong (been wrong about a lot of things) but it's certainly not obvious they will be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 months.


----------



## jodifla

DisneyWalker44 said:


> I don't think that's obvious at all. The THV's sound very cool. But after the initial ballyhoo dies down, the negatives are going to be obvious (remember their slogan, "THV, we're like the Carousel, only less convenient). There's a reason the original treehouses failed. There's a reason all the various flavors of Dinsey villas failed. There's a reason why Ft Wildersess Cabins have only average popularity. In the end, the THV's will be a nice addition and somewhat popular, but I believe they won't be swamped with demand. I may be wrong (been wrong about a lot of things) but it's certainly not obvious they will be booked solid and very hard to get at 7 months.



 Yeah, I totally agree with this watching WDW over the last 30 plus years. Too many other prime properties for that one to be that popular.


----------



## doconeill

TisBit said:


> It was added as a phase, not stand alone resort.  Similar to how studios came in with a specific point requirement, but can change, only the overall numbers have to stay the same, THV's just increased the total available points at SSR.



I understand it is not a standalone resort, but as an added phase. What I'm wonder is that because the phase only consists of one type of room class and a different class from anything else, whether such point adjustments may have a smaller scope than the whole resort.

Are all the points declared for the different classes of rooms all just considered one giant lump sum, or are they declared per class of room? I remember some confusing language in the documents with regards the room classes, and "maximum reallocation" and something like that. I think I understood it once... 



DisneyWalker44 said:


> There's a reason the original treehouses failed. There's a reason all the various flavors of Dinsey villas failed. There's a reason why Ft Wildersess Cabins have only average popularity.



Did the treehouses truly fail because of popularity, or because they were expensive to maintain and the regulations made it expensive to do something about it? What other villas failed and why?

The THVs are a novelty. They have drawbacks, but they also sleep more and have more privacy than a 2BR. There are only 60 "rooms" to fill, so I expect there won't be a problem filling them. Again, we're not talking about an entirely new resort to fill.


----------



## drusba

My take on the THVs is that will be quite popular but ultimately there will be some available at 7 months out many times of year but you will still have close to maximum occupancy year round. Problems with the prior treehouses were usually high cost and an audience for reserving -- the general public -- that couldn't be sold on a place of seclusion at WDW. Personally believe making them DVC is a master stroke because they are hitting the right audience, DVC members who go a lot and many of whom would appreciate a shot at a THV once in a while.


----------



## Dean

TisBit said:


> Actually, the near HH at OKW is not in the POS, so I am not sure they could translate a "booking categorey" or basicly a room assignment to more points for the same type of room.  Plus, they could remove that near HH just as easily as they added it.
> 
> Now the Preferred Views I am not sure how they were set up, but yes, the could possibly change those, if they were set up as different categories from the start, such as SV at AKV.  But I think there they might have BW views fill up fast, but the preferred views help keep points low for the standard rooms, so they do serve a purpose, giving a value option to the resort.


Ultimately none of the booking views are protected by the POS, quite the contrary, DVC has the right to administer reservations and adjust points accordingly as long as they balance them.  Each POS carries a (presumably) worst case scenario chart that states what the costs would be if all days were the same for a given unit type as well as a guarantee you can reserve at least one day for a given number of points though not necessarily your days.  I guess some would argue about what would constitute a worst case scenario based on this issue.

Given the requirement that each "unit" (usually collection of rooms) stay the same, it's likely difficult to think they could change the points requirements for a given view late in the game or after sell out.  It did happen at BWV after it opened and after quite a few contracts were sold.  I understand they had to do quite some legal ramblings to get that done but I'm not sure specifics and I've never heard anything that would give me clues.  For example, it's likely this change did involve a change to the points costs of units though it was a decrease and actually a benefit to the members.  I'm assuming they had to amend their state paperwork and specifically get their approval.  I'm also assuming they had to change certain deeds or generate a second deed to anyone who'd bought in to any affected unit but I have never seen a report that anyone knows of this happening.


----------



## tjkraz

TisBit said:


> But, to note, when they announced what the point cost would be, everyone was surprised that it was the same cost as a 2 BR.



IMO, that surprise was mostly driven by ignorance of the product.  Now that we know that they are essentially a two bedroom villa with an extra dividing wall (same sq footage, same number of bathrooms, same occupancy), I believe they are priced appropriately.  

Demand could justify slightly higher costs than a normal 2B, but as I said there were opportunities to go down that road and DVC declined.  



TisBit said:


> Actually, the near HH at OKW is not in the POS, so I am not sure they could translate a "booking categorey" or basicly a room assignment to more points for the same type of room. Plus, they could remove that near HH just as easily as they added it.



Sure they could reprice certain segments of rooms.  As long as the resort remains balanced. 



> Now the Preferred Views I am not sure how they were set up, but yes, the could possibly change those, if they were set up as different categories from the start, such as SV at AKV.  But I think there they might have BW views fill up fast, but the preferred views help keep points low for the standard rooms, so they do serve a purpose, giving a value option to the resort.



Standard View doesn't really have any bearing on it.  I'm just referring to the two Preferred View categories.  Nightly costs are the same--both before and after the reallocation--yet we know that most folks will happily take the BoardWalk view over a Garden or Pool view.  



jodifla said:


> Yeah, I totally agree with this watching WDW over the last 30 plus years. Too many other prime properties for that one to be that popular.



The THVs may not be high on many folks' lists of favorite destinations, but while priced the same as the 400 other Two Bedroom villas at SSR, they are certain to be in high demand.  Again it's a lot like the BWV BoardWalk and Garden/Pool views.  Given the opportunity to book either room class for the same number of points, the scales are likely to tip toward the THVs.  Not all people will like the remoteness or the bunk beds, but since the 60 THVs are only a fraction of all Two Bedrooms at the resort, they are certain to be popular.  

Down the road, raising the nightly costs for the THVs 1-2 points per night (while lowering elsewhere) probably wouldn't change that much either.


----------



## Tribe0701

jodifla said:


> Yeah, I totally agree with this watching WDW over the last 30 plus years. Too many other prime properties for that one to be that popular.



We also need to remember that the world has changed a lot in 30 years including the inception of DVC.  Remember that there are probably quite a few folks out there that will love the fact that they can get a villa that is secluded away from a main area where they may find it to be too much hustle and bustle.  I have to disagree and feel there is no reason to believe that they would fail.


----------



## jodifla

Tribe0701 said:


> We also need to remember that the world has changed a lot in 30 years including the inception of DVC.  Remember that there are probably quite a few folks out there that will love the fact that they can get a villa that is secluded away from a main area where they may find it to be too much hustle and bustle.  I have to disagree and feel there is no reason to believe that they would fail.



  I never said they would fail. I'm only saying I think they'll be plenty bookable at 7 months down the road after the newness wears off.

  As a 12 year member, I've never been blocked out anywhere at the 7 month window that I've wanted to go. (But, I don't book Christmas/New Year's.)


----------



## TisBit

jodifla said:


> I never said they would fail. I'm only saying I think they'll be plenty bookable at 7 months down the road after the newness wears off.
> 
> As a 12 year member, I've never been blocked out anywhere at the 7 month window that I've wanted to go. (But, I don't book Christmas/New Year's.)



Being a relatively new member, I have been blocked out at 7 months, both at the beginning of December and in June.  But that is just saying that you never get blocked out at 7 months is a stretch...there are lots of reports of that on these boards alone.

As I said in the original post, I think DVC made the right choice of brining them in at a 2 BR costs and have the option of going up.  Truthfully it would have been a mistake to "assume" their popularity, let the booking patterns dictate if there needs to be a change.  But, there could be a benefit of lowering other room costs if they turn out to be very popular.  

As with the new reallocations, only time will tell how booking patterns will change.


----------



## 4DisneyNUTS

Wow this totally stinks.  For those of us who have smaller contracts it is locking us out of being able to stay at the treehouse villas or a grand villa.  I could afford one of those Sun -thurs now I can't. THAT STINKS


----------



## jodifla

TisBit said:


> Being a relatively new member, I have been blocked out at 7 months, both at the beginning of December and in June.  But that is just saying that you never get blocked out at 7 months is a stretch...there are lots of reports of that on these boards alone.
> 
> As I said in the original post, I think DVC made the right choice of brining them in at a 2 BR costs and have the option of going up.  Truthfully it would have been a mistake to "assume" their popularity, let the booking patterns dictate if there needs to be a change.  But, there could be a benefit of lowering other room costs if they turn out to be very popular.
> 
> As with the new reallocations, only time will tell how booking patterns will change.



 True, but to me, it's the location of SSR that drives down the desirability of the Treehouses. Just like the location did in the original treehouses and also the townhomes near DD. 

 One of the reasons I'm never blocked out at 7 months or below is that ALL the DVC locations are OK with me, and I don't try to book busy times of the year at 7 months. I use my 11 month booking window for those times.

 I just booked AKV at 7 months...but of course, it's for a low time of year. HHI might be impossible to get at 7 months in the summer....not so much in January.


----------



## tjkraz

jodifla said:


> I never said they would fail. I'm only saying I think they'll be plenty bookable at 7 months down the road after the newness wears off.
> 
> As a 12 year member, I've never been blocked out anywhere at the 7 month window that I've wanted to go. (But, I don't book Christmas/New Year's.)



I would probably question use of the phrase "plenty bookable", but there certainly will be 7 month availability on occasion.  

I can't think of another situation within DVC where a certain room class:

1.  Represents less than 7% of the total resort, and
2.  Costs the same number of points per night as 90% of the resort.  

Unless the Treehouse Villas gain some sort of unsavory reputation, IMO it's a no-brainer for most SSR owners to book them first at 11 months.  People may still try to move elsewhere at 7 months, which could free up some space.  But with 360 dedicated Two Bedrooms, 432 Lockoffs and only 60 Treehouses--all costing the same amount per night--I suspect the THVs will be in *much *higher demand among owners.  

YMMV.


----------



## jodifla

tjkraz said:


> I would probably question use of the phrase "plenty bookable", but there certainly will be 7 month availability on occasion.
> 
> I can't think of another situation within DVC where a certain room class:
> 
> 1.  Represents less than 7% of the total resort, and
> 2.  Costs the same number of points per night as 90% of the resort.
> 
> Unless the Treehouse Villas gain some sort of unsavory reputation, IMO it's a no-brainer for most SSR owners to book them first at 11 months.  People may still try to move elsewhere at 7 months, which could free up some space.  But with 360 dedicated Two Bedrooms, 432 Lockoffs and only 60 Treehouses--all costing the same amount per night--I suspect the THVs will be in *much *higher demand among owners.
> 
> YMMV.



  I think some of that will depend on how far removed they feel from everything else, and what amenities are nearby, and what the bus service is like.

  For those only using ME, they may be too far of a schlep (think of all the complaining that goes on about the Boardwalk hallways!)


----------



## Dean

tjkraz said:


> Unless the Treehouse Villas gain some sort of unsavory reputation, IMO it's a no-brainer for most SSR owners to book them first at 11 months.  People may still try to move elsewhere at 7 months, which could free up some space.  But with 360 dedicated Two Bedrooms, 432 Lockoffs and only 60 Treehouses--all costing the same amount per night--I suspect the THVs will be in *much *higher demand among owners.
> 
> YMMV.


Only time will tell and I won't be surprised if they are hard to get simply due to their numbers and occupancy.  However, I think the average SSR owner who wants a 2 BR size unit will opt more for the traditional 2 BR than THV due to location and distance.  I'm sure they will have their following but likely not enough to make the difficult.  IMO, if they routinely make it to 7 months out, the demand would be proven to be relatively low simply due to the low numbers.  I predict a 2-3 year surge as people try them out then demand will likely lessen.  OTOH, the reverse will likely be true at the 7 month window due to the number of people wanting to try them out and the slightly higher occupancy.


----------



## DISNEY FIX

Dean said:


> I predict a 2-3 year surge as people try them out then demand will likely lessen.  OTOH, the reverse will likely be true at the 7 month window due to the number of people wanting to try them out and the slightly higher occupancy.



Dean, would this fit for BLT MK views as well due to the high point value?


----------



## DisneyWalker44

tjkraz said:


> I can't think of another situation within DVC where a certain room class:
> 
> 1.  Represents less than 7% of the total resort, and
> 2.  Costs the same number of points per night as 90% of the resort.
> 
> Unless the Treehouse Villas gain some sort of unsavory reputation, IMO it's a no-brainer for most SSR owners to book them first at 11 months.


 That's what the Carousel would look like if it were a separate booking category. Someone I doubt owners would book up the Carousel at the 11 month mark. Small doesn't mean "really popular". 

THV's will only be a no-brainier if they most people prefer them. They don't need to be "unsavory" to have availability at the 7-month mark.


----------



## doconeill

DisneyWalker44 said:


> That's what the Carousel would look like if it were a separate booking category. Someone I doubt owners would book up the Carousel at the 11 month mark. Small doesn't mean "really popular".



Carousel is different - its more of the same rooms, but very far away from the main part of the resort. THVs are very different. Standalone bungalows - no noise through the walls from you neighbors, more privacy between the guests in the villa, etc. All the amenities of of a villa, but the rustic separation of a campground.



> THV's will only be a no-brainier if they most people prefer them. They don't need to be "unsavory" to have availability at the 7-month mark.



Actually, only 7% of SSR owners who book 2BRs need to prefer them, or at least look for the variety...


----------



## Dean

doconeill said:


> Carousel is different - its more of the same rooms, but very far away from the main part of the resort. THVs are very different. Standalone bungalows - no noise through the walls from you neighbors, more privacy between the guests in the villa, etc. All the amenities of of a villa, but the rustic separation of a campground.


I would agree that THV are somewhat different than would be certain areas if there were booking categories.  Each will have it's following, the question is how that numbers come down.





> Actually, only 7% of SSR owners who book 2BRs need to prefer them, or at least look for the variety...


Given that no all 2 BR L/O units will be booked as 2 BR, the number will be slightly higher.  Assuming that the % of SSR members who prefer the THV is exactly the same as the % of 2 BR that are booked as 2 BR, they should book up at exactly the same time.  In that situation, the same % of units of each should make it to 7 months.  Now booking cat at SSR would certainly change things.  My guess is you'd see demand come down to Grandstands and CP at the top followed by THV next then Springs (pretty close) followed by Paddock then Carousel. It'll take about 3 years for the novelty to wear off.



DISNEY FIX said:


> Dean, would this fit for BLT MK views as well due to the high point value?


Again, simply my opinion.  My feeling is no, MKV will continue to be a sought after option ongoing because it has a draw independent of the novelty involved just like BWV has continued to be of high demand. There likely will be a surge for BLT and certain views in general as new members try it out but I doubt the difference will be nearly as great as it has been for SSR in general for example.


----------



## DisneyWalker44

doconeill said:


> Actually, only 7% of SSR owners who book 2BRs need to prefer them, or at least look for the variety...


 Let's thing about this a bit. In order for the THVs to be booked at the 7 month mark, you need the % of SSR owners who (1) are looking for 2BR, (2) are able to book more than 7 months out and (3) prefer to THV to any other use of their points. 

Taking compete wild guesses here, 50% of folks want 2BR (I think that's probably high) and 60% of those can and will book 7+ months out. So now we are down to 30% and we need almost 25% of them to prefer a THV over everything else, over BLT, BCV, BWV, AKV, VWL, OWK and the standard 2BR's at SSR. Do we really think 25% of folks each year will put a THV over everything else?

We can get some idea of the potential popularity by looking at the CRO world. There something like 99% of people choose to be in a resort, while 1% choose the peace and isolation of a cabin. There's a lot of reasons to expect the THVs to be more popular than the cabins. But I don't see you getting anywhere close to 25%.


----------



## tjkraz

I don't know that it's worth a calculation since things vary so greatly from season-to-season.  And demand for the treehouse villas may well buck any resort-wide trends.  Not much reason to book a SSR 2B in September at 11 months--but if you want a THV it certainly wouldn't hurt.  

My own unscientific measure is that availability will be similar to the Grand Villas at OKW.  For certain peak periods there will be nothing available at 7 months.  During slower times there will be limited availability--but it's going to be difficult to really plan your vacation around it until that reservation is in-hand.  

Also the new booking rules will come into play at 7 months.  If there are 5 or 6 THVs available for a Sunday check-in at 7 mos, first dibs will go to members who can afford to arrive the Friday / Saturday before or the lucky few who get thru to MS first on Sunday morning.  

I understand the remoteness of the villas and that how "house in the trees" aspect will not appeal to everyone.  But if I've learned one thing over the years it's that members tend to let one or two aspects of a room/resort really drive their decisions.  People LOOOOVE to book BCV and BWV for the location and/or Stormalong Bay, even though the rooms at OKW are much bigger and other resorts have much nicer guest rooms.  In that vein, I think the THVs will appeal to many because of that 3rd bedroom, the presence of the bunk beds, and the fact that they are the only SSR rooms with the flat panel TVs and other ultra-modern appointments which the rest of the resort just missed out on.  

The sort of backwoods/outdoors themes of AKV and VWL don't really do much for me.  But I spent extra points to book a THV for our upcoming trip because the third bedroom really fits our travel party and the kids will enjoy the bunk beds.  The other day I asked my son what he was most looking forward to on our upcoming trip and believe it or not his response was "staying in that treehouse hotel."  

All of this is just my $.02 but I think there are other families who view the THVs as the closest they will ever come to staying in a Grand Villa.  And you can't beat the price.


----------



## doconeill

DisneyWalker44 said:


> Let's thing about this a bit. In order for the THVs to be booked at the 7 month mark, you need the % of SSR owners who (1) are looking for 2BR, (2) are able to book more than 7 months out and (3) prefer to THV to any other use of their points.
> 
> Taking compete wild guesses here, 50% of folks want 2BR (I think that's probably high) and 60% of those can and will book 7+ months out. So now we are down to 30% and we need almost 25% of them to prefer a THV over everything else, over BLT, BCV, BWV, AKV, VWL, OWK and the standard 2BR's at SSR. Do we really think 25% of folks each year will put a THV over everything else?
> 
> We can get some idea of the potential popularity by looking at the CRO world. There something like 99% of people choose to be in a resort, while 1% choose the peace and isolation of a cabin. There's a lot of reasons to expect the THVs to be more popular than the cabins. But I don't see you getting anywhere close to 25%.



Well, its easy to take random percentages and come up with numbers, but they don't mean much. But with your numbers, at 7+ months out it doesn't matter what they prefer outside of SSR, unless they have points at more than one resort, no? Since we are talking about availability or lack thereof right at the 7 month mark, I don't think we should add yet another factor of how many who have already booked THVs will move to another resort at the 7 month mark, since they won't all do that right at the 7 month mark anyways, they won't be available at 9am anyways when people first call, etc. Inside the 7 month mark things become even more murky.

There is another factor here...the addition of the points from the THV currently dilutes the point pool at SSR, assuming those points have not sold out yet and aren't likely to before we get to the point where the 7 month mark matters. But which way will this factor affect things? Will this mean that THV will be booked, but other 2BRs (or 1BR/studios) will be available? Or will THV have openings because not many want to try them or don't really know about/understand them?

Anyways, I think making up percentages about preferences is a useless exercise.


----------



## Mick West

BillPA said:


> Just one more reason to sell. The new management team needs to be replace.
> 
> Good bye folks.



I must say that I agree. I knew the term "owner" was not truly refective as to my status, but it is abundantly clear that the management could care less about current "owners" - my point totals, combined with my DW travel habits, will afford me less nights in 2010. It's not right, but what can a person do? Vote with their feet - there's lots of places I enjoy just as well.


----------



## Mick West

For me - nothing but bad! I can't imagine that this change benefits but a small portion of "owners" - but certainly benefits managements desires!


----------



## disrailfan

This is actually coming at a good time for DW and I.  My youngest daughter graduates this year from High School and this summer will be the last family trip to the world for a while.

we will still be using our points, but instead of spending the couple grand at a time at the World, we will spending that money in other places while staying on our DVC Points.  Now whether that is the DCL, trips to New York, or eventually Hawai'i, we will not be spending money at the World so that is their loss at this point (no pun intended).   

We do intend to visit DisneyLand but that will be a few years down the road and it won't be for a whole week.


----------



## tjkraz

Mick West said:


> For me - nothing but bad! I can't imagine that this change benefits but a small portion of "owners" - but certainly benefits managements desires!



If true--that only a small portion of owners would benefit--then it pretty much illustrates the need for the reallocation.  Under the old system only 55% of the year's points were allocated to weekday nights.  If you have members attempting to use 60-70% of of their points for those nights, there's a big problem brewing.  

After the reallocation weekdays still only represent about 60-65% of the year's points.  Hopefully that will better reflect member usage.


----------



## Dean

Mick West said:


> For me - nothing but bad! I can't imagine that this change benefits but a small portion of "owners" - but certainly benefits managements desires!


The question isn't really whether it benefits (or harms) a given owner, but the needs of the system overall.  Still, the more people are affected in a negative way, the more the change was needed given that would represent a higher number of those with some version of S-F type stays.  DVC may indeed no longer make sense for a segment of owners as is true of any change.  Worse case scenario would be that one loses 20% of their room buying power and can get at worst, 80% of the days they could have before the change.


----------



## Robo-Daddy 3000

I've got no problem with the new points charts for 2010. We've got a trip coming up in June-4 nights at Kidani(including Fri-Sat) and 3 at Vero- and the difference btwn taking the trip now and if we went in 2010 for the same nights is just 2 more points.  I never liked that weekend points were so much higher than weekday points so I'm okay with this change.


----------



## Disney1fan2002

OK..I thought in order for Disney to go up on points, they had to go down somewhere lese? Keeping the total points the same?

The overall points for OKW is actually down in 2010 from 2009. In 2009, the overall points are 5294. In 2010, they are 5232. Where are 62 points?

It looks like the points are down in all seasons except the dream season. Dream season is up 7 points. (OKW)

Can anyone explain the 62 points discrepency?


----------



## dianeschlicht

tjkraz said:


> If true--that only a small portion of owners would benefit--then it pretty much illustrates the need for the reallocation.  Under the old system only 55% of the year's points were allocated to weekday nights.  If you have members attempting to use 60-70% of of their points for those nights, there's a big problem brewing.
> 
> After the reallocation weekdays still only represent about 60-65% of the year's points.  Hopefully that will better reflect member usage.



I totally agree.  The only place we were really affected was at AKV, and then the result was actually better, because it means I will no longer have those extra 3 points hanging out in space with an every 3rd year use!

I still think the reallocation will be just fine once people get into the habit of using the new points table the way they used the old ones.  The only reason weekend points went up in the past was to encourage the use of weekdays.  Now it needs to be reversed, and that's why the reallocation was needed.


----------



## dianeschlicht

Disney1fan2002 said:


> OK..I thought in order for Disney to go up on points, they had to go down somewhere lese? Keeping the total points the same?
> 
> The overall points for OKW is actually down in 2010 from 2009. In 2009, the overall points are 5294. In 2010, they are 5232. Where are 62 points?
> 
> It looks like the points are down in all seasons except the dream season. Dream season is up 7 points. (OKW)
> 
> Can anyone explain the 62 points discrepency?



I'd have to look more closely at it to see if there is a discrepency, but perhaps they are thinking of making the HH catagory a higher point option?


----------



## tjkraz

Disney1fan2002 said:


> OK..I thought in order for Disney to go up on points, they had to go down somewhere lese? Keeping the total points the same?
> 
> The overall points for OKW is actually down in 2010 from 2009. In 2009, the overall points are 5294. In 2010, they are 5232. Where are 62 points?
> 
> It looks like the points are down in all seasons except the dream season. Dream season is up 7 points. (OKW)
> 
> Can anyone explain the 62 points discrepency?



There are always variations from one year to the next based upon when weekends fall and how many days are in February.  The point charts were created by using a "base year" which should be a sort of lowest-case scenario--28 days in February, more weekends falling into the cheaper seasons, etc.  

You can't just add up all of the points on the chart. You would have to plug the 2009 and 2010 values into the appropriate Base Year and sum up the totals for the entire resort--all rooms, all nights.  A couple of people did it in this thread and reported before/after variances of much less than 1%.  Without having access to any actual workpapers related to the reallocation, that's about the best we're going to see.


----------



## dianeschlicht

tjkraz said:


> There are always variations from one year to the next based upon when weekends fall and how many days are in February.  The point charts were created by using a "base year" which should be a sort of lowest-case scenario--28 days in February, more weekends falling into the cheaper seasons, etc.
> 
> You can't just add up all of the points on the chart. You would have to plug the 2009 and 2010 values into the appropriate Base Year and sum up the totals for the entire resort--all rooms, all nights.  A couple of people did it in this thread and reported before/after variances of much less than 1%.  Without having access to any actual workpapers related to the reallocation, that's about the best we're going to see.



AHA!  I knew there had to be some logical reason!


----------



## Dean

Disney1fan2002 said:


> OK..I thought in order for Disney to go up on points, they had to go down somewhere lese? Keeping the total points the same?
> 
> The overall points for OKW is actually down in 2010 from 2009. In 2009, the overall points are 5294. In 2010, they are 5232. Where are 62 points?
> 
> It looks like the points are down in all seasons except the dream season. Dream season is up 7 points. (OKW)
> 
> Can anyone explain the 62 points discrepency?


Agree with what Tim said in terms of being based on a "base year" of 365 days.  I did the numbers for ALL units at SSR assuming the base year of 1992, likely the one used for OKW and thus for all.  The variance was significantly less than 0.01%.  I assumed no lockoff which is definitely the way it was done at OKW and likely for all resorts with L/O.  Also, each unit type does not have to be the same for the year, only each "unit" which is usually a collection of rooms.


----------



## mickeymom629

After following this thread from the beginning, I contacted the TimeShare Store to sell our points, thinking that we would either be done with DVC or would buy an equivalent amount or a little more points at OKW or SSR points on resale.  

But after seeing what my points value listing was, minus the commission, I called and took them off the market.  

My way of thinking was:
1. if we sell (_if both of our contracts even sold_) and _if_ we do purchase at OKW or SSR, we would be spending several thousands more.  Even though the dues would be less (and they may go up at those properties too), it's money we don't want to spend right now because of the economy;

2.  if we leave DVC altogether, we would have basically the money that we paid for the points to begin with (that's about the reality of value this year if our contracts even sold at the price we asked), no more yearly dues, and we wouldn't have to worry about how to use our points  - I could plan vacations at will!  

3. However, when I thought about our future Disney vacations (if we did option #2) it gets the same argument that made us buy into DVC to begin with - because, like someone pointed out, rack rates continue to go up too.*And* being a DVC member means we have to take vacations and the money can't be spent on something else and that's a good thing.


I guess I'm not really ready to not be a DVC member, and we will find a way to deal with the new point allocations for now.


----------



## Dean

mickeymom629 said:


> 3. However, when I thought about our future Disney vacations (if we did option #2) it gets the same argument that made us buy into DVC to begin with - because, like someone pointed out, rack rates continue to go up too.*And* being a DVC member means we have to take vacations and the money can't be spent on something else and that's a good thing.


That's the issue I pointed out some time back.  IF DVC made sense before, it really does now for almost everyone even those adversely affected.  The benefit may be less (or more) under the current version.


----------



## eporter66

I will have to check out the charts, but our usual vacation is to arrive on a Saturday and leave Friday.  Not sure how this will change our points usage, but it should stay fairly even for a weeks visit.  We dont get to do short trips often, usually a week once a year.


----------



## Dean

eporter66 said:


> I will have to check out the charts, but our usual vacation is to arrive on a Saturday and leave Friday.  Not sure how this will change our points usage, but it should stay fairly even for a weeks visit.  We dont get to do short trips often, usually a week once a year.


I think you'll find most 6 day stays of this nature went up a few points, but only a few, maybe 6-10 points for a 1 or 2 BR.


----------



## O&PsDad

These point changes could move a twice a year member to visit only once a year or twice one year and once the following.  How does that make Disney money?


----------



## Dean

O&PsDad said:


> These point changes could move a twice a year member to visit only once a year or twice one year and once the following.  How does that make Disney money?


Actually if that were the case it'd likely make more money for Disney.  Since it'd free up space, if two families go once, they will likely spend more on average than one family who goes twice.  However, this change does not do that overall because the max change was 20% so on average you'd lose at most, one stay out of every 5 in the worst case scenario.  Plus, for every points that one person is increased, others are decreased and may go more, or go on weekends when they wouldn't have otherwise.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Dean : Since it'd free up space, if two families go once, they will likely spend more on average than one family who goes twice. However, this change does not do that overall because the max change was 20% so on average you'd lose at most, one stay out of every 5 in the worst case scenario. Plus, for every points that one person is increased, others are decreased and may go more, or go on weekends when they wouldn't have otherwise.



Dean, I appreciate what you're saying, but also struggling a bit with it.  Isn't some of this presumption ?  Isn't it presumption to say that two families will spend more than one family who goes twice ?  I can definitely say I know families who go often and spend ALOT---more than some who only go once a year.    I think that's all based on individual budgets and finances of those families.   
Also, to say the Members whose points dropped will go more often....but on the flip side, you have Members like me who will probably go less because the points jumped by 30 points per trip every year  ?  So isn't that all a wash in the end too ?  I could be missing something here of course.....but this is the way I am seeing it right at this moment.  

Maria


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> Dean, I appreciate what you're saying, but also struggling a bit with it.  Isn't some of this presumption ?  Isn't it presumption to say that two families will spend more than one family who goes twice ?  I can definitely say I know families who go often and spend ALOT---more than some who only go once a year.    I think that's all based on individual budgets and finances of those families.
> Also, to say the Members whose points dropped will go more often....but on the flip side, you have Members like me who will probably go less because the points jumped by 30 points per trip every year  ?  So isn't that all a wash in the end too ?  I could be missing something here of course.....but this is the way I am seeing it right at this moment.
> 
> Maria


I don't think it's at all presumption to say that two families for a week each will spend more in total than one family for 2 weeks.  How much is the question and I'd estimate that for a family of 6 in a 2 BR, you're talking maybe $2000-3000 total difference ON AVERAGE when you account for tickets, dining etc.  Certainly it will vary from one family to another, just as the amount one family spends for the same trip will vary.  

Certainly the number of unit days should be fairly close before and after, the question is who is in that unit.  I think it's likely the total number of unit days will go up with the change a modest amount, else there really was no reason to make the change.  I don't think that will be enough to make a big difference in revenue.  I was simply addressing the issue posed by O&PsDad.  My guess is that for MOST people the change will not affect their length of stay one bit given that MOST people didn't stay S-F and that is the main group that is adversely affected.  Even for us S-F folks, I'd guess that most would still go the same length overall.  Earlier in this thread someone was complaining because the stay changed 2 points on 250 (I think it was) for a 2 BR.  That change won't cost them a full stay in the life of any of the current contracts, one or two weekend cash nights would easily make them whole for the life of the RTU.


----------



## TECHJPM

How is everyone taking the changes that Disney has put in place for 2010?  I personally don't like the change, which jacks up the weekday points, and lowers the weekend points.  Most of us true DVC'rs always left our villas by Friday, and returned on Sunday.  In all reality they should be the same value all the time, as they got their money from us in the beginning, and it would give everyone a chance to use the system a bit better.


----------



## tjkraz

TECHJPM said:


> How is everyone taking the changes that Disney has put in place for 2010?



Go back a few pages.  You've got 2000+ posts' worth of opinions on the change.  



> I personally don't like the change, which jacks up the weekday points, and lowers the weekend points.  Most of us true DVC'rs always left our villas by Friday, and returned on Sunday.



Not sure how you would qualify a "true DVC'r", but what you said pretty much underscores the need for the reallocation.  DVC resorts are sold to be at 98% occupancy year-round.  If too many people are checking-out on the weekends as you describe, there's a big problem brewing.  You can't cram 98% of member points into the Sunday-Thurs block.  



> In all reality they should be the same value all the time, as they got their money from us in the beginning, and it would give everyone a chance to use the system a bit better.



If the points were the same every night of the week, locals (people within a 2-3 hour drive) would fill the resorts in much greater numbers during the weekends right at 11 months.  It would be very difficult to put together 7-night stays with the Friday and Saturday nights being gobbled up quickly. 

The reason for any weighted system is to balance supply with demand.  It's no different than the seasons DVC has created.  A flat system wouldn't work well there, either.  Does it seem fair to charge the same number of points for New Year's Eve as for a Wednesday night in September?  

What is really happening is the seasons and days of the week with low demand are being discounted while the peak seasons and weekends are being inflated to mitigate reduce demand.  If DVC went to a flat system, the costs for weekdays and lower-priced seasons (Adventure, Choice) would go up further to compensate for the reductions in weekend and peak season prices.


----------



## TECHJPM

I am posting my opinion... You actually sound like a Disney employee with the way you defend them.  Opinions are like ****.  Everyone has one.


----------



## tjkraz

TECHJPM said:


> I am posting my opinion... You actually sound like a Disney employee with the way you defend them.  Opinions are like ****.  Everyone has one.



I don't believe I was really defending anything.   

Personally I've used my points for exactly *two *weekend nights in 6 years of ownership.  So I'm going to be "hurt" by this move as much as anyone else.  My only *opinion *on the change is that it stinks for me personally.

Beyond that, my comments simply reflect the realities of a point-based timeshare system.  Too many people--like you and me--were apparently using points exclusively for weekday stays.  It appears DVC set the weekday rates too low to begin with.  So if there's any silver lining to this, it's that we were able to enjoy XX years of the low weekday rates when they should have been raised years ago.  

The only way to help balance that demand is to raise weekdays and lower weekends.  Don't be surprised if the seasons are also adjusted at some point in the future.


----------



## TECHJPM

That is what I was basically saying.  They should be able to limit what the Florida residents do in respect to the points.  The rest of the world should have unbiased points.


----------



## Towncrier

tjkraz said:


> I don't believe I was really defending anything.
> 
> Personally I've used my points for exactly *two *weekend nights in 6 years of ownership.  So I'm going to be "hurt" by this move as much as anyone else.  My only *opinion *on the change is that it stinks for me personally.
> 
> Beyond that, my comments simply reflect the realities of a point-based timeshare system.  Too many people--like you and me--were apparently using points exclusively for weekday stays.  It appears DVC set the weekday rates too low to begin with.  So if there's any silver lining to this, it's that we were able to enjoy XX years of the low weekday rates when they should have been raised years ago.



This is exactly our situation. Sounds like we're both "guilty" of getting the most vacation for our points by booking 12 night trips. It WAS good while it lasted. Your "silver lining" comment is apropos.


----------



## palhockeymomof2

TECHJPM said:


> That is what I was basically saying.  They should be able to limit what the Florida residents do in respect to the points.  The rest of the world should have unbiased points.



I'm trying to figure out if your joking or not with your posts...if your serious..that would be discrimination


----------



## TECHJPM

Florida residents get preferred treatment by all of the industry in Florida, as do California residents getting preferred treatment by the industry in California.  Why should the Florida residents get preferential treatment if they did what I said with the points... They shouldn't...
And if we are going to get into the discrimination part...
Florida residents get bigger discounts on their Annual passes.

"Check your facts before ye speak."

Just because they live in Florida they get a better price... That is garbage, as I know several Floridians that go to Disney 2-3 times a year, but buy the Annuals... Well, I go 2-3 times a year, and get Annuals.  Maybe I should also get the discount...

Point followed?


----------



## tjkraz

TECHJPM said:


> Florida residents get preferred treatment by all of the industry in Florida, as do California residents getting preferred treatment by the industry in California.  Why should the Florida residents get preferential treatment if they did what I said with the points... They shouldn't...
> And if we are going to get into the discrimination part...
> Florida residents get bigger discounts on their Annual passes.
> 
> "Check your facts before ye speak."
> 
> Just because they live in Florida they get a better price... That is garbage, as I know several Floridians that go to Disney 2-3 times a year, but buy the Annuals... Well, I go 2-3 times a year, and get Annuals.  Maybe I should also get the discount...
> 
> Point followed?



Disney has business reasons for offering extra perks to locals. 

DVC is a timeshare and there are certain legal restrictions on what they can and cannot do to owners.  200 points is 200 points regardless of whether the owner is a FL resident or a NY resident or a UK resident.  DVC cannot legally create a system in which one owner's 200 points go further than another owner's 200 points.  

DVC could offer varying perks to members depending upon where/how/how much they purchased, but I think you would find that most are not in favor of such a tiered system--particularly those who would find themselves standing on the outside looking in.  FL residents are very important to the economy of Walt Disney World, as are CA residents to Disneyland.  If DVC were to consider adding perks based upon residency or other subjective criteria, I think you would find that the FL/CA residents would be treated *more *favorably, not less.


----------



## Chuck S

TECHJPM said:


> Florida residents get preferred treatment by all of the industry in Florida, as do California residents getting preferred treatment by the industry in California.  Why should the Florida residents get preferential treatment if they did what I said with the points... They shouldn't...
> And if we are going to get into the discrimination part...
> Florida residents get bigger discounts on their Annual passes.
> 
> "Check your facts before ye speak."
> 
> Just because they live in Florida they get a better price... That is garbage, as I know several Floridians that go to Disney 2-3 times a year, but buy the Annuals... Well, I go 2-3 times a year, and get Annuals.  Maybe I should also get the discount...
> 
> Point followed?



The FL resident AP is only $10 less than a DVC AP.

Since DVC is a real estate interest, I don't think DVC can legally limit the use of points by residency, as FL residents have has much legal right to real property they own as the resident of any other state.

As far as being a "True DVCer" I know several people that don't live in Florida that stay over weekends and are not "Sun to Friday owners."  I hate to move once I'm settled in at OKW, always stay over one weekend, and I usually never arrive on a Sunday, it is usually a Wednesday to Thursday or Friday stay, of 8 to 12 nights, occasionally 14 nights.


----------



## OneMoreTry

The people that benefit THE MOST from this are those staying THIS NYE -- if staying over the weekend.  I know this because I was pleasantly surprised to find we didn't need as many points as I had planned.

We get the cheaper weekday points for the last week of Dec 2009 and the cheaper weekend points for the first week of Jan 2010.

After that we definitely won't have the incentive to stay Sun-Thurs.  Overall that's good, because it's always nice to stay over Sat night.  However, it makes it harder to budget points by just staying weekdays.  And it will be harder to get weekends.

I don't see this as a big, big deal.  If I had voted, I would have voted in favor.


----------



## DaveH

I must not be a true DVC member since 2001. We have done all kinds of stays. We have done long weekends from VA. We have done Sun to Fri. We have done 7 to 10 day stays including weekends. We decided to use points on weekends for numerous reasons. When we joined we were told many times that the charts could change. I looked at ways that things could go a way we did not want. At first we did mostly Sun to Fri stays. Later we added on for more flexibility and stay weekend without changing rooms or resorts. I have mixed feelings on the changes. Looking at our past vacations we tend to break even. Some cost more and others less. I have a larger problem with the way DVC communicated the change than the change itself. Please leave name calling out of this. I have read here where many folks set up there purchases for Mon to Fri only at certain times and bought that many points only for many reasons. Some of those had there vacation points needs rise alot. I do feel for them and they have to adjust in one way or another.


----------



## GazB

Maybe it's not just me then, I live over here in the UK and stay in my home resort of SSR twice a year for 14 days at a time. Has anyone noticed that the October season has increased the highest here than in any of the other resorts?? I have 419 points and now find I need to buy another 12 to go during my vacation times. NOT HAPPY.
Oh and now it seems harder to actually book a fortnights vacation in one go than it did before. 
I've phoned and emailed member services but it seems no-one wants to reply to me. Must be easier to ignore everyone now.


----------



## palhockeymomof2

TECHJPM said:


> Florida residents get preferred treatment by all of the industry in Florida, as do California residents getting preferred treatment by the industry in California.  Why should the Florida residents get preferential treatment if they did what I said with the points... They shouldn't...
> And if we are going to get into the discrimination part...
> Florida residents get bigger discounts on their Annual passes.
> 
> "Check your facts before ye speak."
> 
> Just because they live in Florida they get a better price... That is garbage, as I know several Floridians that go to Disney 2-3 times a year, but buy the Annuals... Well, I go 2-3 times a year, and get Annuals.  Maybe I should also get the discount...
> 
> Point followed?



I understand that FL residents get different discounts etc...but there's a difference between offering discounts for tickets, rooms etc to various groups ie..FL/CA residents, DVC members, Annual Passholders....and doing what you said.... putting a limit how a certain group can use their points


 DVC members do get a $100 discount on Annual Passes....which brings our price about the same as a FL resident...so if your a member you can take advantage of this ...and any other discounts DVC offers...and since you have an Annual Pass you can also take advantage of those discounts as well..... I guess those who aren't DVC members could complain about our discounts too

We're just trying to have a friendly, informative discussion...I found parts of your post in regard to check facts & point taken rather harsh


----------



## Chuck S

GazB said:


> Maybe it's not just me then, I live over here in the UK and stay in my home resort of SSR twice a year for 14 days at a time. Has anyone noticed that the October season has increased the highest here than in any of the other resorts?? I have 419 points and now find I need to buy another 12 to go during my vacation times. NOT HAPPY.
> Oh and now it seems harder to actually book a fortnights vacation in one go than it did before.
> I've phoned and emailed member services but it seems no-one wants to reply to me. Must be easier to ignore everyone now.


If you've called and spoken to Member Services, what type of reply do you wish?  Member services really is the reservation arm of DVC.  To them, either your dates are available when you call, or they aren't avalable when you call and they offer to put you on a wait list.

If you need to discuss specific policies with DVC, or tell them something has impacted you negatively, you need to contact Member Satisfaction at: DVCMemberSatisfactionTeam@DisneyVacationClub.com or contact your guide.


----------



## TECHJPM

I love the DVC membership deal, but don't like the subtle changes that Disney throws at us whenever they feel like it.  They have changed a lot of things in comparison to when I originally purchased.

I refered to checking facts to the discrimination idea that someone came up with...  If they placed limits on when a Fl. resident could book, similar to how they limit a home resort owner can book, it could have helped everything with my contention of level the playing field, and make all days the same cost.  The seasons could have changed slightly.

I am from NJ, and we usually fly out, but we have to drive now because the flight companies are getting a bit outrageous.  Keeping that in mind... Disney is jacking up everything, and offering nothing drastic in discounts to the DVC.  Yes, we get a discount on Annuals.  Yes, we get a discount on CERTAIN shopping, and dining.

I just personally believe that DVC membership should be like a government.  Everything they do should have to be put to a vote.  Kinda like a town council.  Disney is out for themself at this point in time.  Disney being one of the biggest names on this planet, they should realize that, and take care of the people that made Disney what it is today.

In reality... I know it makes no difference, but what would Walt think of this greed?  What can we do to change this?  Nothing.  We are prisoners.

We are all trying to voice our frustration, and maybe we all have said something that wouldn't make legal, or ethical sense.  That is what a discussion forum is all about.


----------



## GazB

Chuck S said:


> If you've called and spoken to Member Services, what type of reply do you wish?  Member services really is the reservation arm of DVC.  To them, either your dates are available when you call, or they aren't avalable when you call and they offer to put you on a wait list.
> 
> If you need to discuss specific policies with DVC, or tell them something has impacted you negatively, you need to contact Member Satisfaction at: QUOTE]
> 
> I sent a mail through the website asking why there had been such a large increase in points for SSR regarding October. I had a reply to my original email via a message on my telephone from a lady named Joy. Unfortunately I was on vacation at the time. Subsequently I rang back using the direct number she specified. 5 phone calls later, messages left, no reply.
> I've even left messages on her mail box. Nothing.  Tried to contact her through member services, again nothing.  four emails, nothing! Ever get the feeling someones avoiding you!! All this from February 6th.


----------



## Chuck S

TECHJPM said:


> I love the DVC membership deal, but don't like the subtle changes that Disney throws at us whenever they feel like it.  They have changed a lot of things in comparison to when I originally purchased.
> 
> I refered to checking facts to the discrimination idea that someone came up with...  If they placed limits on when a Fl. resident could book, similar to how they limit a home resort owner can book, it could have helped everything with my contention of level the playing field, and make all days the same cost.  The seasons could have changed slightly.
> 
> I am from NJ, and we usually fly out, but we have to drive now because the flight companies are getting a bit outrageous.  Keeping that in mind... Disney is jacking up everything, and offering nothing drastic in discounts to the DVC.  Yes, we get a discount on Annuals.  Yes, we get a discount on CERTAIN shopping, and dining.
> 
> I just personally believe that DVC membership should be like a government.  Everything they do should have to be put to a vote.  Kinda like a town council.  Disney is out for themself at this point in time.  Disney being one of the biggest names on this planet, they should realize that, and take care of the people that made Disney what it is today.
> 
> In reality... I know it makes no difference, but what would Walt think of this greed?  What can we do to change this?  Nothing.  We are prisoners.
> 
> We are all trying to voice our frustration, and maybe we all have said something that wouldn't make legal, or ethical sense.  That is what a discussion forum is all about.



Everything put to a vote? Do you seriously think anything productive would come of that?

I mean, seriously, even with local government, we don't vote on the amount of taxes we pay, or who we hire, or whether to pass a local ordinance against jaywalking.  They city council and mayor or city manager handle that.

In real life there are decisions made by government that negatively impact some people, and positively impact others. 

It is the same with DVC.  We have legally assigned our voting right to a board to make those decisions for us, if we weren't happy with that provision of our contracts, no one forced us to purchase. I really don't know of any timeshare that puts much of anything to a vote of the owners.   And how would the votes be decided, one vote per member...or like stocks, the more you own, the greater your voting power?  Would a member with 25 points have as much voice as a member with 1000 points?  And what would benefit members with 25 points may not be of benefit members with 1000 points. DVC does seem to try to balance the needs of the overall membership pretty well, considering there is no "average member,"  we all have unique travel habits and needs.


----------



## Chuck S

GazB said:


> I sent a mail through the website asking why there had been such a large increase in points for SSR regarding October. I had a reply to my original email via a message on my telephone from a lady named Joy. Unfortunately I was on vacation at the time. Subsequently I rang back using the direct number she specified. 5 phone calls later, messages left, no reply.
> I've even left messages on her mail box. Nothing.  Tried to contact her through member services, again nothing.  four emails, nothing! Ever get the feeling someones avoiding you!! All this from February 6th.



I would try sending an email to the Member Satisfaction Team address, and specifically request a reply and listing your telephone number.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

TECHJPM said:


> I just personally believe that DVC membership should be like a government.  Everything they do should have to be put to a vote.  Kinda like a town council.  Disney is out for themself at this point in time.  Disney being one of the biggest names on this planet, they should realize that, and take care of the people that made Disney what it is today.



If every issue where up to the whim of the people we would really have problems.  Such a system, in order to work properly, would require every member to fully inform themselves on every issue.  It would require a thoughtful process of what-if's and data analysis.  Decisions like the reallocation require "big picture" thinking and most members would look only at their personal impact and use that as a guide to generate their opinion.  IMO the only thing that would come out of that would be a convoluted, dysfunctional system.


----------



## DisFlan

Chuck S said:


> Everything put to a vote? Do you seriously think anything productive would come of that?



lol!  We wouldn't get past what the shower curtains should look like.  I'll happily leave all the day-to-day operational stuff to DVC and just enjoy my vacation.  If we have complaints, I'm all for voicing them, but other than that - well, that's what our MFs are for.

DisFlan


----------



## WebmasterDoc

TECHJPM said:


> ...
> I just personally believe that DVC membership should be like a government.  Everything they do should have to be put to a vote.  Kinda like a town council.  Disney is out for themself at this point in time.  Disney being one of the biggest names on this planet, they should realize that, and take care of the people that made Disney what it is today.
> 
> In reality... I know it makes no difference, but what would Walt think of this greed?  What can we do to change this?  Nothing.  We are prisoners.
> 
> ...



Actually, it is like a government - in the same way our country's government is run where we elect representatives at all levels to make the laws and create operating budgets and taxes for our city, state and federal needs. In the case of DVC, we have contractually agreed to allow our condominium association representatives to make those same policy and budgetary decision for us. They are voted on at the Annual Meeting each December and members are invited to attend to watch.

As members we also have the right to replace DVC as the managing entity. If that were done by any resort however, that resort would become a stand-alone and would no longer have access to the DVC reservation system, DVC perks and the new managers would need to negotiate for any services wanted by the owners - whether with Disney or other service providers.

Be careful what you wish for!


----------



## OneMoreTry

TECHJPM said:


> .....
> I refered to checking facts to the discrimination idea that someone came up with...  If they placed limits on when a Fl. resident could book, similar to how they limit a home resort owner can book, it could have helped everything with my contention of level the playing field, and make all days the same cost.  The seasons could have changed slightly.
> 
> I am from NJ, and we usually fly out, but we have to drive now because the flight companies are getting a bit outrageous.  Keeping that in mind... Disney is jacking up everything, and offering nothing drastic in discounts to the DVC.  Yes, we get a discount on Annuals.  Yes, we get a discount on CERTAIN shopping, and dining.
> 
> I just personally believe that DVC membership should be like a government.  Everything they do should have to be put to a vote.  Kinda like a town council.  Disney is out for themself at this point in time.  Disney being one of the biggest names on this planet, they should realize that, and take care of the people that made Disney what it is today.
> 
> In reality... I know it makes no difference, but what would Walt think of this greed?  What can we do to change this?  Nothing.  We are prisoners.
> 
> We are all trying to voice our frustration, and maybe we all have said something that wouldn't make legal, or ethical sense.  That is what a discussion forum is all about.....





I expect DVC to monitor usage and adjust point charts accordingly.  If weekend popularity or lack of popularity does not justify the point disparity, I expect them to adjust the point charts accordingly.

Evidently, so many people were AVOIDING weekends that point readjustment was needed to balance demand.  

The reverse is that weekdays had become so popular that weekday points needed to be raised -- that way stays are appropriately distributed weekday/weekend and units are used evenly through the entire week.

I would expect them to do the same if seasonal demand changed.  IF THE LOW seasons become more popular, point requirements for them will increase and point requirements for other times will decrease.  That's just the way it is.

The "true DVCers" may not like it.  But overall, benefit evens out among members.


REGARDING perks, the perk for buying DVC is OWNING DVC.  That's it.  If that isn't a good enough perk, just sell it.  There are plenty of other great things to do in life.


----------



## Dean

TECHJPM said:


> How is everyone taking the changes that Disney has put in place for 2010?  I personally don't like the change, which jacks up the weekday points, and lowers the weekend points.  Most of us true DVC'rs always left our villas by Friday, and returned on Sunday.  In all reality they should be the same value all the time, as they got their money from us in the beginning, and it would give everyone a chance to use the system a bit better.


Did you really say true DVC members are S-F?  We have been (and we live in FL) but I'd definitely disagree with the idea that only true DVC members do this.  A lot stay a week or more and don't move to save points.  Also, did you really say that FL residents should be penalized to give others a chance to book over them?



TECHJPM said:


> I just personally believe that DVC membership should be like a government.  Everything they do should have to be put to a vote.  Kinda like a town council.  Disney is out for themself at this point in time.  Disney being one of the biggest names on this planet, they should realize that, and take care of the people that made Disney what it is today.
> 
> In reality... I know it makes no difference, but what would Walt think of this greed?  What can we do to change this?  Nothing.  We are prisoners.


You are not a prisoner, you can get out fairly easily anytime.  And they do put it to a vote, it's just that we have signed our voting rights over to a voting rep for most things with DVC.  I'd generally like DVC to be run better than the government.  In reading your post I'm reminded of a quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".


----------



## Dean

GazB said:


> I sent a mail through the website asking why there had been such a large increase in points for SSR regarding October. I had a reply to my original email via a message on my telephone from a lady named Joy. Unfortunately I was on vacation at the time. Subsequently I rang back using the direct number she specified. 5 phone calls later, messages left, no reply.
> I've even left messages on her mail box. Nothing.  Tried to contact her through member services, again nothing.  four emails, nothing! Ever get the feeling someones avoiding you!! All this from February 6th.


I've always found them responsive but sometimes slow.  What did you want to hear from them other than to complain about it.  The reservation system is in place and it works the same for everyone.  There are timeshares and other options where you can guarantee 14 nights, DVC isn't one of them.  Obviously the option to make the changes has always been there, they did it 13 years ago as well.  As for 12 points per year difference and given your circumstance, buying additional points would be a poor choice unless you had other plans for the points.  13 nights instead of 14 for a small part of the trips and/or a cash night or two for weekends once or twice would make it a non issue for the full length of your contract.


----------



## LOLA2

Did everyone get their new point charts books because I didn't?


----------



## Chuck S

LOLA2 said:


> Did everyone get their new point charts books because I didn't?


Not yet.  They seem to be arriving this week for many members.  We're always a few days later here on our rural route.


----------



## Mick West

I have or will complete the following stays in 2009. All reservations have been made.  The first number is 2009 points, the second is 2010 points. Yes, all stays begin on Sunday and are for either 4 or 5 nights.That's predominately how I use my points.

SSR  44/48
BCV  48/52
VB    60/70
AKV  153/173 (2 BR)
BCV  48/52

2009 points needed - 353
2010 points needed - 395

comparing apples to apples - my stays in 2010, due to the changes in points, is 42 points. So in 2010 I come very close to losing the equivalant of one of my trips. OK - I know it's not gonna change and I have to live with it, or sell. Still deciding between those two!!


----------



## DVCGeek

I did my math.  I currently have 3 rooms booked, all BLT studios:

LV view, arrive Sun. 11/29/2009, 6 nights; 2 S-T choice, 3 S-T Adv., 1 F-S Adv.
@ 2009 chart: 98; @ 2010 chart: 98

MK, Sat. 01/30/2010, 6 nights;  1 F-S Adv., 1 S-T Adv., 4 S-T dream
@ 2009 chart: 124; @ 2010 chart: 127

SV, Mon. 02/01/2010, 3 S-T dream {for my parents...}
@ 2009 chart: 42; @ 2010 chart: 45

So my grand total on 2009 charts would be 264, 2010 = 270, and my actual happens to be 270 as well.  A net change of 6 points.  Not a big deal to me...

I can do my annual 6 night trip (only 1 Friday or Saturday) any season except Premier each year and have some of my 160 points left over.  I don't want to deal with the 'Peak Season' crowds so I don't plan to ever go higher than dream!  Will it cost me more?  Sometimes, but not by much.  Over the 5 different times of year I want to make trips, the grand total for DW & myself is costing us at most 3 additional points, over 5 years!  Sometimes we may even end up saving a few points depending on when her BD or Thanksgiving fall in a year that we go around them.


----------



## disneynutz

We are short 30 points starting in 2010.


----------



## DVCGeek

Chuck S said:


> Not yet.  They seem to be arriving this week for many members.  We're always a few days later here on our rural route.



The new vacation planners have shipped and people are actually getting them now?  COOL!  I hope you are right about that.  No joy in northeast Ohio as of Saturday's mail, but fingers are crossed!


----------



## circhead

I own 350 points at VWL which gave me 1 week during magic season.  Now that Disney has changed the points it will cost 352 pts for the same period and they won't allow me to buy only 2 points so that I can continue to go for a week.  I am really upset about this.  I know 25 points is the minimum add on but I didn't change the point requirement they did and I should be allowed to purchase what I need to continue to go for 1 week every year.  President's week btw.


----------



## Chuck S

circhead said:


> I own 350 points at VWL which gave me 1 week during magic season.  Now that Disney has changed the points it will cost 352 pts for the same period and they won't allow me to buy only 2 points so that I can continue to go for a week.  I am really upset about this.  I know 25 points is the minimum add on but I didn't change the point requirement they did and I should be allowed to purchase what I need to continue to go for 1 week every year.  President's week btw.




And what happens when they change again?  Wouldn't it be better to have a little buffer of 25 points?  At worst, you be banking a few points every year, and could maybe add an extra night every few years.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

circhead said:


> I own 350 points at VWL which gave me 1 week during magic season.  Now that Disney has changed the points it will cost 352 pts for the same period and they won't allow me to buy only 2 points so that I can continue to go for a week.  I am really upset about this.  I know 25 points is the minimum add on but I didn't change the point requirement they did and I should be allowed to purchase what I need to continue to go for 1 week every year.  President's week btw.


As noted earlier, next year borrow 2 points, the year after that 4, ... 6, ... 8, etc.  Of course that will leave you short in 2042.


----------



## Dean

White_Sox_Fan said:


> As noted earlier, next year borrow 2 points, the year after that 4, ... 6, ... 8, etc.  Of course that will leave you short in 2042.


Less than 1 weekend night for the life of the contract for a 2 BR during the season quoted, assuming no further changes.  Not worth getting upset over regardless.  Of course some might see it as an excuse to add on but only of adding on makes sense anyway.


----------



## Mick West

I have read with interest many of these posts during the last two weeks. I have even posted a couple of times myself. Two things I totally understand. 1) Disney Management could care less if the changes are liked or not liked by a single owner in DVC and 2) It ain't gonna change! With that said I'm gonna make my last comments on the subject. I think the changes are absolutely horrible! I hate them! Why? Because it negatively impacts me! My 2009 trips total 353 points. The exact same trips in 2010 total 395 points. Based on this one startling fact I'm supposed to like this change why? Yes, my travel habits are primarily to use my points on Sun - Fri. I don't do this 100% of the time but that is my routine. And I know this will sound horrible and I don't mean it that way, but I'm not concerned with anyone's travel habits but mine! I read with great interest many of the sponsor's comments defending this change to the hilt. I expect that. The one I found really intersting was the reply to a person that stated they needed 3 more points now, and the sponsor answered by saying get a 25 point add on to cover any future changes. I've always thought that part of this change was to prompt add-on contracts. Now some will say I whine, some will say I need to think of all, sponsors will again spit out the "facts" of why this is a good thing - and I keep coming back to MY bottom line: 353 points in 2009/395 in 2010 - good for me how??


----------



## bobbiwoz

Mick West, who is the sponsor? 


Bobbi


----------



## mickeymom629

I believe he was referring to Chuck S's post a few back - a Dis Sponsor.


----------



## Dean

Mick West said:


> I have read with interest many of these posts during the last two weeks. I have even posted a couple of times myself. Two things I totally understand. 1) Disney Management could care less if the changes are liked or not liked by a single owner in DVC and 2) It ain't gonna change! With that said I'm gonna make my last comments on the subject. I think the changes are absolutely horrible! I hate them! Why? Because it negatively impacts me! My 2009 trips total 353 points. The exact same trips in 2010 total 395 points. Based on this one startling fact I'm supposed to like this change why? Yes, my travel habits are primarily to use my points on Sun - Fri. I don't do this 100% of the time but that is my routine. And I know this will sound horrible and I don't mean it that way, but I'm not concerned with anyone's travel habits but mine! I read with great interest many of the sponsor's comments defending this change to the hilt. I expect that. The one I found really intersting was the reply to a person that stated they needed 3 more points now, and the sponsor answered by saying get a 25 point add on to cover any future changes. I've always thought that part of this change was to prompt add-on contracts. Now some will say I whine, some will say I need to think of all, sponsors will again spit out the "facts" of why this is a good thing - and I keep coming back to MY bottom line: 353 points in 2009/395 in 2010 - good for me how??


You don't have to like it and I wouldn't expect you to given how it affects you.  It affects me in exactly the same way given essentially all my stays on points have been S-F.  But you should understand it and the reasons it was needed.  I think it's harsh to say DVC doesn't care though caring doesn't mean the change shouldn't happen even if it affects you negatively.  And given that I believe the change was necessary, and had been for several years, it shouldn't change back no matter how many don't like it.  Unfortunately your post reflects the attitude of many, basically to heck with the majority and what's best for the system and what's in it for that person.  At least you're honest about it.


----------



## bobbiwoz

mickeymom629 said:


> I believe he was referring to Chuck S's post a few back - a Dis Sponsor.



Thanks, I thought he was referring to the Timeshare Store...I didn't understand.

Bobbi


----------



## gszen

Thanks for the update, will definitely alter my plans!


----------



## OneMoreTry

Mick West said:


> I have read with interest many of these posts during the last two weeks. I have even posted a couple of times myself. Two things I totally understand. 1) Disney Management could care less if the changes are liked or not liked by a single owner in DVC and 2) It ain't gonna change! With that said I'm gonna make my last comments on the subject. I think the changes are absolutely horrible! I hate them! Why? Because it negatively impacts me! My 2009 trips total 353 points. The exact same trips in 2010 total 395 points. Based on this one startling fact I'm supposed to like this change why? Yes, my travel habits are primarily to use my points on Sun - Fri. I don't do this 100% of the time but that is my routine. And I know this will sound horrible and I don't mean it that way, but I'm not concerned with anyone's travel habits but mine! I read with great interest many of the sponsor's comments defending this change to the hilt. I expect that. The one I found really intersting was the reply to a person that stated they needed 3 more points now, and the sponsor answered by saying get a 25 point add on to cover any future changes. I've always thought that part of this change was to prompt add-on contracts. Now some will say I whine, some will say I need to think of all, sponsors will again spit out the "facts" of why this is a good thing - and I keep coming back to MY bottom line: 353 points in 2009/395 in 2010 - good for me how??




I THINK the whole point of the change is to get people like you (and me) to rethink their vacation plans -- so some will start using more weekend days and even out unbalanced demand.

I will definitely take advantage of this because I frequently end up with extra points so will now find weekends more attractive.  I used to spend only one weekend night but will now be much more likely to spend 2.  If I end up running out of points I will either bank/borrow or rent.  And when the economy improves I'll likely buy.  If DW approves.

(This is a good example of hedonism versus utilitarianism.)


----------



## vascubaguy

This completely alters our vacation plans and will ultimately result in less visits to Disney because I have no plans to add-on more points.

We purchased enough points to travel to Disney twice each year (or once each year booking 2 rooms to take family/friends). The new point structure throws all that off and requires more points, meaning I would have to start borrowing points and occassionally skip trips.

They want to make weekend stays more accessible to owners by subsidizing the costs to those who stay on weekdays! I hate it and can't believe DVC management is this stupid. For those who were already staying the weekends, it won't be much of a change, it only penalizes those of us who stayed Sun-Thurs nights.

I hate to say it, but it has me rethinking ownership... maybe by 2010 the resale market will be "better".


----------



## tjkraz

vascubaguy said:


> They want to make weekend stays more accessible to owners by subsidizing the costs to those who stay on weekdays! I hate it and can't believe DVC management is this stupid.



If that's your perspective, then we cannot ignore that DVC has been subsidizing weekday stays since the program's inception.  

The only reason that members were able to get a SSR Studio for 11 points per weeknight in Adventure season is because DVC forced weekend guests to pay 20 points per night.  Now apparently the trends show that 12 weekday / 18 weekend is a more appropriate balance.  

I don't see where stupidity even enters into the equation.  The resorts are designed to be at 98% occupancy year-round and the point distribution (seasons, weekday/weekend) should be representative of member demand.  IMHO, their biggest mistake was ignoring the problem for so long.


----------



## vascubaguy

Dean said:


> ... Unfortunately your post reflects the attitude of many, basically to heck with the majority and what's best for the system and what's in it for that person.  At least you're honest about it.




Here's the problem with that statement... that "majority" bought into DVC knowing the point structure for the weekends, and I say "majority" because do we have any actual numbers to verify it is a majority?

We all bought in knowing the point structure and many of us bought the number of points we needed to support our travel plans. This change completely throws that off. Disadvantaging the "minority" for the sake of the "majority"....


----------



## DaveH

vascubaguy said:


> Here's the problem with that statement... that "majority" bought into DVC knowing the point structure for the weekends, and I say "majority" because do we have any actual numbers to verify it is a majority?
> 
> We all bought in knowing the point structure and many of us bought the number of points we needed to support our travel plans. This change completely throws that off. Disadvantaging the "minority" for the sake of the "majority"....



It appears to me that an imbalance in use has occurred and by the passionate responses that it there is/was an imbalanced. That way the minority has been helping the majority. It has been needing to balanced out for several years. Now more weekdays will be available to others.


----------



## vascubaguy

tjkraz said:


> If that's your perspective, then we cannot ignore that DVC has been subsidizing weekday stays since the program's inception.
> ...



True, you could look at it that way... BUT, those who bought in knew the point structure when they decided to become a member. So whether they liked it or not, they accepted it.

And, while I agree that the weekend nights were too costly, this change will not alter my plans to stay the weekend (it still costs more than the weekday!)...


----------



## tjkraz

vascubaguy said:


> Here's the problem with that statement... that "majority" bought into DVC knowing the point structure for the weekends, and I say "majority" because do we have any actual numbers to verify it is a majority?



But you're assuming that people were actually buying into DVC to use points on weekends.  About 45% of the weekly points were assigned to Friday and Saturday nights in the older charts.  If only 15% of people were buying DVC for weekend stays, there's a big problem.

Only 55% of all points were spread over Sun - Thurs nights.  If 60 or 70 or 80% of all members are buying in with the expectation of using their points for those weekends, we are headed for trouble.


----------



## doconeill

vascubaguy said:


> Here's the problem with that statement... that "majority" bought into DVC knowing the point structure for the weekends, and I say "majority" because do we have any actual numbers to verify it is a majority?



I'd just as easily venture to say the "majority" bought into DVC knowing that the point structure _could _change. Yes, they did say things that made it seem very unlikely based on the past, but it was always possible (not accounting for those who were supposedly told that they would never change).


----------



## MiaSRN62

Due to the point restructuring, we have placed our OKW contract up for sale. 

We thought long and hard about it.  But the reallocation is causing us to come up 30 points short every year (as I've mentioned before....just restating for some who may not have read this entire thread).  

For us, 30 points is a bit much to swallow or cause us to "readjust" or "rethink" our vacation plans.  It's too big a departure of why we purchased OKW in the first place back in 2000.  Just wish we could have foreseen a jump *this large *for our situation.  But alas, while we have loved our stays at OKW, we just don't feel "she" is worth the extra 6 points PER NIGHT or 30 points for our traditional stay. 

My dh and I spoke.  We would have been really MUCH more upset than we are had we gone ahead and extended our OKW contract.....I just can't help but to think, disney was really deceptive with us all about this.  
I wonder how many who did the OKW extension are disappointed now or would have made another choice had they known about this prior to signing the extension deed ?  There were opportunities for disney to have let Members know awhile back.  Because I know for one thing, had we had knowlege of this reallocation 90 days before we purchased AKV, we would have added on alot more points.  


I find myself a bit distrustful of disney now....

I am more upset about the poor timing and slightly deceptive way disney announced this....so OKW is officially on the resale market for us.  


Maria


----------



## Mississippian

MiaSRN62 said:


> We would have been really MUCH more upset than we are had we gone ahead and extended our OKW contract.....I just can't help but to think, disney was really deceptive with us all about this.


Why would you even consider extending the OKW contract if the rules were to stay the same?  It's a terrible deal.  You get extra years worth about three dollars in present value and you pay $15 or $20 for them.

This is a bad deal no matter what and the people who are doing it are making a really dumb choice.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

MiaSRN62 said:


> Due to the point restructuring, we have placed our OKW contract up for sale.
> 
> We thought long and hard about it. But the reallocation is causing us to come up 30 points short every year (as I've mentioned before....just restating for some who may not have read this entire thread).
> 
> For us, 30 points is a bit much to swallow or cause us to "readjust" or "rethink" our vacation plans. It's too big a departure of why we purchased OKW in the first place back in 2000. Just wish we could have foreseen a jump *this large *for our situation. But alas, while we have loved our stays at OKW, we just don't feel "she" is worth the extra 6 points PER NIGHT or 30 points for our traditional stay.
> 
> My dh and I spoke. We would have been really MUCH more upset than we are had we gone ahead and extended our OKW contract.....I just can't help but to think, disney was really deceptive with us all about this.
> I wonder how many who did the OKW extension are disappointed now or would have made another choice had they known about this prior to signing the extension deed ? There were opportunities for disney to have let Members know awhile back. Because I know for one thing, had we had knowlege of this reallocation 90 days before we purchased AKV, we would have added on alot more points.
> 
> 
> I find myself a bit distrustful of disney now....
> 
> I am more upset about the poor timing and slightly deceptive way disney announced this....so OKW is officially on the resale market for us.
> 
> 
> Maria


And did you know that it was a lawsuit filed against DVC that made non-extenders exempt from paying the increase in dues that will come from the extension? Before that lawsuit, EVERY OKW OWNER was going to be assessed higher dues due to the extension.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Why would you even consider extending the OKW contract if the rules were to stay the same? It's a terrible deal.


Mississippian, 
We pondered the extension for all of about 5 min honestly.  We sent in our decline paperwork last Fall....but had decided agains it earlier than that.  I was more thinking about the people who did....and then this reallocation comes through.  Magic season at OKW went up significantly----and it was almost trickery to offer the extension...and then LATER announce the reallocation.  Same with the recent AKV/BLT addons.  We should have been devulged this info prior to when we did hear.   So that was more or less my point.   And this whole thing has led dh and I to list our OKW contract.   

BWV Dreamin.......no, didn't realize there was a lawsuit !  
Wow...so if DVD was going to try that maneuvar with OKW owners.....I guess this lack of reallocation disclosure in a more timely manner is small change compared to what they planned to do with OKW.......trusting less and less....... 

Maria


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> And did you know that it was a lawsuit filed against DVC that made non-extenders exempt from paying the increase in dues that will come from the extension? Before that lawsuit, EVERY OKW OWNER was going to be assessed higher dues due to the extension.



I don't believe that is true.  

My recollection is that it was a complaint filed with the Florida Timeshare Commission--not a lawsuit.  

Additionally, I don't think we can automatically conclude that non-extenders would have suffered harm if not for the complaint.  It was certainly an issue that DVC did not properly address from the start.  No question about that.  

However, I'd say there was a high likelihood that it would have been resolved one way or another over the next 25 years.  Internal auditors, external auditors, Florida state auditors...someone would have made the connection over the next 3 decades.  It just so happens that it was a member who raised the concerns and DVC responded appropriately.  

I think it's fair to fault them for not addressing the issue in advance--just one of many areas where the extension fell flat, IMO.  But this isn't a case where DVC dug its heels in for months or years and our legal system had to intervene in order to protect members.


----------



## waltfan1957

Chuck S said:


> If you've called and spoken to Member Services, what type of reply do you wish?  Member services really is the reservation arm of DVC.  To them, either your dates are available when you call, or they aren't avalable when you call and they offer to put you on a wait list.
> 
> If you need to discuss specific policies with DVC, or tell them something has impacted you negatively, you need to contact Member Satisfaction at: DVCMemberSatisfactionTeam@DisneyVacationClub.com or contact your guide.



i read it as he called but not spoken to, i think thats whats annoying him


----------



## MiaSRN62

As far as there being a lawsuit involving the OKW extension.....I truthfully have nothing to back it up either way.  I don't know 100% what exactly happend.  Does anyone ?    Even if it was just a couple of complaints filed.....I still find the fact that disney was considering holding OKW Members accountable for higher extension fees unacceptable.     But I could see a lawsuit as possibly happening.....disney is very good about sweeping things under the carpet (they have great lawyers).....regardless......either way, complaint or lawsuit, it was wrong of them to even think it.  Because an extension was never discussed with us when we signed our deed back in 2000, so why would disney feel holding non-extenders up to paying the fees for this acceptable ?  

So for us, it's something that has caused us to have a breaking down of faith in disney, and thus, we are forced to readjust and live with things as they are now.  I had just wanted to say, the allocation convinced us to sell OKW. 


Maria


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> Even if it was just a couple of complaints filed.....I still find the fact that disney was considering holding OKW Members accountable for higher extension fees unacceptable.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> .....either way, complaint or lawsuit, it was wrong of them to even think it.  Because an extension was never discussed with us when we signed our deed back in 2000, so why would disney feel holding non-extenders up to paying the fees for this acceptable ?



I think you're reading too much into it.  I don't recall Disney explicitly stating that non-extenders would be disenfranchised.  

Based upon what I read on-line, there were some individuals who had no interest in extending.  When they questioned DVC on how dues would be handled, the front-line Disney reps either couldn't answer the question sufficiently or had no information about any sort of subsidy for non-extenders.  

Some individuals admitted to contacting the Florida Timeshare Bureau.  Whether it was one person or 100, I have no idea.  But they acted on behalf of members...questioned the situation with DVC...and DVC later stated that dues would be adjusted in the latter years for non-extenders.  

You seem to be suggesting that there was malice on DVC's part--that they intended to defraud members.  I don't see any evidence of that.  It was just another aspect of the extension that wasn't thought-out very well.  

I highly doubt there were any lawsuits or threats of lawsuits.  The losses, if any, were decades down the road and DVC resolved the issue quickly and amicably.


----------



## Hushaby

We bought OKW through resale ~ no extension.  What does this mean for us, higher maintenance fees?   Ugh, now I am worried.  Did we err in buying OKW?  We chose OKW because it's our son's favorite, and the points fit our needs, and the fees manageable for us ~ if they're going to be higher than for other OKW owners, does anyone know how high?  I am getting worried now ...


----------



## Chuck S

Hushaby said:


> We bought OKW through resale ~ no extension.  What does this mean for us, higher maintenance fees?   Ugh, now I am worried.  Did we err in buying OKW?  We chose OKW because it's our son's favorite, and the points fit our needs, and the fees manageable for us ~ if they're going to be higher than for other OKW owners, does anyone know how high?  I am getting worried now ...



The dues will not be higher for those that did not extend.  And at some point in the future, there will be a dues subsidy, make non-extended dues lower than extended dues to compensate for the portion of dues that would go into the reserve fund for maintenance/upkeep on the buildings after the extension.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> You seem to be suggesting that there was malice on DVC's part--that they intended to defraud members. I don't see any evidence of that. It was just another aspect of the extension that wasn't thought-out very well.



Well Tim....lately, respectfully we tend to see things differently.  

IF....even it was a consideration on disney's part and no more, just the fact that they "pondered" charging OKW non-extenders higher fees to help cover the extension was wrong imo.  Sure this was "poor planning" as you put it.  Poor planning that would have impacted non-extenders in a negative way.  Why would I want to pay more in fees for a service I would not be reaping ?

So my opinions differ from yours, but don't think you can convince me otherwise.  And I do find it underhanded, that they baited OKW members with this extension without devulging the upcoming reallocation of points.  I'm just glad we didn't snap up the bait they were sending us.  I got several mailings claiming what a great deal it was.   Hmmmm.....perhaps they did this because they could already foresee OKW'ers like myself, not real thrilled with a 6 point PER NIGHT increase.   Maybe they could foresee an influx of resales on the market due to this.  I don't know.....but then why weren't they more upfront with letting Members know about the reallocation ?  I can come to no other plausible explanation for it.  I am quite certain DVD worked on that idea for quite some time.  

I know you say you "highly doubt" there were any lawsuits or threats of any.....but again, none of us here really truly knows that.   And from the way this whole announcement of the reallocation has gone (announced so soon after the add-on incentives for AKV and BLT ended).....well, I just hope to keep my wits about me a bit more where DVD is concerned.   Now I see how they prefer to operate.  
So I know you like to defend them frequently, but I'm not on that team right now Tim.  Not now. 

Maria


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> IF....even it was a consideration on disney's part and no more, just the fact that they "pondered" charging OKW non-extenders higher fees to help cover the extension was wrong imo.



It was an error of omission, not a malicious act.  

The non-extenders will be receiving a subsidy to offset the fact that they will not fund refurbishments which have a useful life beyond 1/31/2042.  

When the question was first raised, DVC didn't have an answer.  It was simply something they did not consider.  Again poor planning but I don't see that as any indication that they were attempting to slip a fast one past thousands of members and every auditor reviewing association finances over the next 33 years.  



> And I do find it underhanded, that they baited OKW members with this extension without devulging the upcoming reallocation of points.



I don't see how anyone could call the existence of a reallocation "underhanded"--particularly OKW owners.  It happened in 1996 and everyone should have had the expectation that it would happen again.  



> I know you say you "highly doubt" there were any lawsuits or threats of any.....but again, none of us here really truly knows that.



Here is a post from the one individual I am aware of who actually got involved in this matter:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=24768515&postcount=31

It confirms the sequence of events I described.  

If Disney were convinced it had a legal right to avoid a subsidy, no threat of a lawsuit would have dissuaded them from acting.  

This was simply a case of our government working as it should.  Complaint was filed.  Investigation occurred.  Situation resolved.  



> So I know you like to defend them frequently, but I'm not on that team right now Tim.  Not now.



I have no desire to blindly defend DVC's actions.  I'm simply looking at this from a logical perspective and trying to draw conclusions from the information we have available.  I've admitted a number of times that I do think the OKW extension was completely botched.  But again, I don't see any indication of malice.  (And I also think the reallocation could have been handled MUCH better--but it's also something we should have expected and prepared ourselves for.)

I do think some others here are speaking more from an emotional perspective which can cloud one's judgment.  I'm trying to stick to facts.  

If this had stretched out for several years and lawsuits were involved, then I would have a very different opinion.  But in reality it was resolved in about 6 months' time--perhaps quite less depending upon exactly when the complaints were filed.  That's a reasonable timeframe given the pace at which government can move and the fact that they would have had to give Disney time to respond to inquiries.


----------



## OneMoreTry

tjkraz said:


> If that's your perspective, then we cannot ignore that DVC has been subsidizing weekday stays since the program's inception.
> 
> The only reason that members were able to get a SSR Studio for 11 points per weeknight in Adventure season is because DVC forced weekend guests to pay 20 points per night.  Now apparently the trends show that 12 weekday / 18 weekend is a more appropriate balance.
> 
> I don't see where stupidity even enters into the equation.  The resorts are designed to be at 98% occupancy year-round and the point distribution (seasons, weekday/weekend) should be representative of member demand.  IMHO, their biggest mistake was ignoring the problem for so long.



fwiw i agree 100%


----------



## OneMoreTry

As DVCers retire and children leave home, it is likely that even more of them will move to weekday stays.  In that case weekday points will go up even more.

And working parents trying to squeeze in vacations on long weekends with their kids will benefit.

It's a long way between now and 2042.  As society and the demographic of owners changes the point structure will change with it.  That is DVCs obligation to members.  Not just vocal members, but all members including what I am sure is a fairly silent majority.

I appreciate tjkraz looking at this from the perspective of the whole and not just "special interests."

I believe it is utilitarianism that states the highest good is what results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number.


----------



## Mick West

tjkraz said:


> It was an error of omission, not a malicious act.
> 
> The non-extenders will be receiving a subsidy to offset the fact that they will not fund refurbishments which have a useful life beyond 1/31/2042.
> 
> When the question was first raised, DVC didn't have an answer.  It was simply something they did not consider.  Again poor planning but I don't see that as any indication that they were attempting to slip a fast one past thousands of members and every auditor reviewing association finances over the next 33 years.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone could call the existence of a reallocation "underhanded"--particularly OKW owners.  It happened in 1996 and everyone should have had the expectation that it would happen again.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a post from the one individual I am aware of who actually got involved in this matter:
> 
> http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=24768515&postcount=31
> 
> It confirms the sequence of events I described.
> 
> If Disney were convinced it had a legal right to avoid a subsidy, no threat of a lawsuit would have dissuaded them from acting.
> 
> This was simply a case of our government working as it should.  Complaint was filed.  Investigation occurred.  Situation resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no desire to blindly defend DVC's actions.  I'm simply looking at this from a logical perspective and trying to draw conclusions from the information we have available.  I've admitted a number of times that I do think the OKW extension was completely botched.  But again, I don't see any indication of malice.  (And I also think the reallocation could have been handled MUCH better--but it's also something we should have expected and prepared ourselves for.)
> 
> I do think some others here are speaking more from an emotional perspective which can cloud one's judgment.  I'm trying to stick to facts.
> 
> If this had stretched out for several years and lawsuits were involved, then I would have a very different opinion.  But in reality it was resolved in about 6 months' time--perhaps quite less depending upon exactly when the complaints were filed.  That's a reasonable timeframe given the pace at which government can move and the fact that they would have had to give Disney time to respond to inquiries.




I  am totally speaking from "Facts" - in 2010 the same trips that I'm taking in 2009 will cost me 40+ more points. That's not "emotions". In this thread I see lots of communications from "sponsors". Please enlighten me on who/what are sponsors and what is their role?


----------



## MiaSRN62

> tjkraz :It was an error of omission, not a malicious act.


I never said the potential charging of non-extenders was a malicious ACT.  How could it be ?  It never happened.....rather that they were CONSIDERING charging us higher fees along with those that did extend is what I WOULD have found a bit underhanded and not fair.  But it's a non issue anyway because their initial thoughts/plans or whatever u want to refer to them as, never came to fruition.  




> tjkraz :The non-extenders will be receiving a subsidy to offset the fact that they will not fund refurbishments which have a useful life beyond 1/31/2042.


I totally GET this Tim....I was commenting on what COULD have happened if disney did decide to go ahead with charging non-extenders.  Just commenting on the fact that this was considered in the gestational phase of the extension plans.....that's ALL....that's it.   




> tjkraz : I don't see how anyone could call the existence of a reallocation "underhanded"--particularly OKW owners. It happened in 1996 and everyone should have had the expectation that it would happen again.


Tim...I really am beginning to think you just want to debate any and all opinions I have.   

BUT...what I actually said is this :  





> And I do find it underhanded, that they baited OKW members with this extension *without devulging the upcoming reallocation of points. *



I don't find the reallocation underhanded....but rather the fact that they gave a cut-off for OKW Members to extend PRIOR to devulging the plans to reallocate.  And, we're not talking about a couple points per stay here.  We're talking 6 points per night for a 2 bedroom in Magic season.  For us, a deficit of 30 points.   I was just saying, it would have been more upfront and respectful of them (for lack of a better term), to let potential extenders aware that there was an upcoming reallocation ---and that it was a BIGGIE.  I think OKW Magic season was hit significantly.  More so than any other reallocation in the past.  This is my opinion Tim....might not be yours.  Let's just let it rest at that please ?   I feel like everything I say is made to be out something else or flat out wrong when it's just my opinion.   I'm entitled to it.  



> tjkraz :  I do think some others here are speaking more from an emotional perspective which can cloud one's judgment. I'm trying to stick to facts.



Sorry Tim....but I find this very much self-righteous of you.  I'm offended by your insinuation that my statements were not held in "fact".   

Fact : OKW offered and sung the praises of an extension to OKW Members strenuously.  I got many mailings singing the praises of what a bargain it was.   HAD I gone through with it, which I had no intentions of anyway, I would have felt it was a bit underhanded in that they didn't let us know they were planning on jacking up the points.  Offer Members that fact and let them make a truly informed decision as to extend or not.  *I didn't say I thought the allocation was wrong*, but the lack of timely disclosure. 

FACT : Disney offered enticing add-ons for AKV and BLT *just a few months *prior to allocation news.  Again, a bit under-handed imo when they HAD to have known the announcement of the allocation was coming.  I feel alot of people who did add-ons wished they had known PRIOR to adding on about this allocation.   I don't feel we (dh and I) made as informed a decision as we would have because we didn't find out about the allocation prior to our AKV add-on.  I would have most likely purchased double the amount of points at AKV and decided to sell OKW earlier.   

FACT : I stated I had no reference to back up whether or not there was a lawsuit vs a formal complaint about the OKW extension fees snafu.    But I said, to me, it didn't matter either way if disney even considered charging the extra fees to non-extenders.   

So where, in what I said, is there not fact ?  So I'm offended that you insinuate I'm making statements based on emotion and not fact---like you.  

Last time I checked, I am entitled to my personal opinion.   It's TERRIFIC that many will benefit from lower weekend points.   I wasn't even talking about this.  Just saying, for us, it's made us put our contract up for sale.   Because 30 points is just too much to accept for us PERSONALLY.   Now this is, once again,  FACT Tim.  

Maria


----------



## Mick West

OneMoreTry said:


> As DVCers retire and children leave home, it is likely that even more of them will move to weekday stays.  In that case weekday points will go up even more.
> 
> And working parents trying to squeeze in vacations on long weekends with their kids will benefit.
> 
> It's a long way between now and 2042.  As society and the demographic of owners changes the point structure will change with it.  That is DVCs obligation to members.  Not just vocal members, but all members including what I am sure is a fairly silent majority.
> 
> I appreciate tjkraz looking at this from the perspective of the whole and not just "special interests."
> 
> I believe it is utilitarianism that states the highest good is what results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number.



Again, please enlighten me on who are "sponsors" - are they elected, paid by Disney, or just folks who sign up for this? I'm really just curious about this as I've never seen so many post's, all defending this points change strongly by the way, in any other threads I go to.


----------



## Chuck S

Mick West said:


> I  am totally speaking from "Facts" - in 2010 the same trips that I'm taking in 2009 will cost me 40+ more points. That's not "emotions". In this thread I see lots of communications from "sponsors". Please enlighten me on who/what are sponsors and what is their role?




Sponsors on the DIS are simply like Sponsors on Public Broadcasting.  They have donated some $ to help offset the cost of operating the site.  They have no direct operational connection to the DIS site or to Disney/DVC.  

There are also Forum sponsors, like the Timeshare Store that pay an advertising fee for forums that may relate to their type of business.

Moderators are volunteers that help to make the DIS a welcoming place for all.  We basically steer people towards staying on topic, and make sure there is no foul language or personal attacks.


----------



## Dean

vascubaguy said:


> Here's the problem with that statement... that "majority" bought into DVC knowing the point structure for the weekends, and I say "majority" because do we have any actual numbers to verify it is a majority?
> 
> We all bought in knowing the point structure and many of us bought the number of points we needed to support our travel plans. This change completely throws that off. Disadvantaging the "minority" for the sake of the "majority"....


We all bought knowing (or should have known) that there had been a previous reallocation in 1996 and that it was a possibility to happen again.  Timeshares change over time, often not for the better, another absolute that anyone buying a timeshare should have known up  front.  The truth is this is a minority of members but IF it were a majority doesn't make it any less appropriate.  The truth is the larger the spread from weekend to weekdays, the more the need for the change.  But it's more than simply absolute numbers, you've got to look at when the rooms are book, cash vs points and the LOS.  LOL applies to costs for housekeeping.



Mick West said:


> I  am totally speaking from "Facts" - in 2010 the same trips that I'm taking in 2009 will cost me 40+ more points. That's not "emotions". In this thread I see lots of communications from "sponsors". Please enlighten me on who/what are sponsors and what is their role?


Sponsors are simply members who gave money to keep DIS afloat and make sure it stayed around as a free site.  It was essentially a voluntary payment.  A flag was added to their online listing that identified what level they donated at (my paraphrase of what happened).  While it may be fact that your situation is affected, it is emotion as to the reasonableness of the change.


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> Well Tim....lately, respectfully we tend to see things differently.
> 
> IF....even it was a consideration on disney's part and no more, just the fact that they "pondered" charging OKW non-extenders higher fees to help cover the extension was wrong imo.  Sure this was "poor planning" as you put it.  Poor planning that would have impacted non-extenders in a negative way.  Why would I want to pay more in fees for a service I would not be reaping ?
> 
> So my opinions differ from yours, but don't think you can convince me otherwise.  And I do find it underhanded, that they baited OKW members with this extension without devulging the upcoming reallocation of points.  I'm just glad we didn't snap up the bait they were sending us.  I got several mailings claiming what a great deal it was.   Hmmmm.....perhaps they did this because they could already foresee OKW'ers like myself, not real thrilled with a 6 point PER NIGHT increase.   Maybe they could foresee an influx of resales on the market due to this.  I don't know.....but then why weren't they more upfront with letting Members know about the reallocation ?  I can come to no other plausible explanation for it.  I am quite certain DVD worked on that idea for quite some time.
> 
> I know you say you "highly doubt" there were any lawsuits or threats of any.....but again, none of us here really truly knows that.   And from the way this whole announcement of the reallocation has gone (announced so soon after the add-on incentives for AKV and BLT ended).....well, I just hope to keep my wits about me a bit more where DVD is concerned.   Now I see how they prefer to operate.
> So I know you like to defend them frequently, but I'm not on that team right now Tim.  Not now.
> 
> Maria


Maria, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest they had planned (or not) to charge those that didn't extend the same dues the last few years.  I doubt they had formalized this issue given it's 3 decades away and it's possible they hadn't even addressed it until that point.  The complaint simply forced them to address it and finalize the distinction, we'll see complaints in 28-30 years about the breakdown of the dues.  If DVC no longer works for you certainly you should get out.  OTOH, I see many people who seem to me as fair weather fans.  They held DVC too high before and are being overly harsh now.  DVC is a timeshare, always had been, it will change again in a few years, possibly sooner.  It may be my view is jaded because I never saw them as the end all, though it is my first timeshare love.  I've been chastised in the past for lumping DVC guides in the group of timeshare sales people and then comparing that group to used car sales people to give you an idea of my position, I'm guessing I won't get nearly as much criticism right now for using that analogy.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Dean : Maria, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest they had planned (or not) to charge those that didn't extend the same dues the last few years. I doubt they had formalized this issue given it's 3 decades away and it's possible they hadn't even addressed it until that point. The complaint simply forced them to address it and finalize the distinction, we'll see complaints in 28-30 years about the breakdown of the dues. If DVC no longer works for you certainly you should get out. OTOH, I see many people who seem to me as fair weather fans. They held DVC too high before and are being overly harsh now.



Dean...that's fine there is no evidense.  It wasn't even my initial point. I wasn't even the OP of that statement ?  I was simply acknowledging another poster's statement on the fact about the intentioned higher dues for OKW non-extenders.  Before a few hours ago, I didn't even know a thing about it.   I don't get why I am being called out like this.   

And I am NOT a fair weather fan Dean.  If you are insinuating that towards me---perhaps you are speaking generally.  I'm going to hope you were referring to other DVC'ers here on the DIS.  Because I clearly state in an above post that if I had had disclosure of the re-allocation in a timely manner, I would have felt more informed about how I wanted to handle my Membership.  I would have been more informed about my add-on.    I clearly state we most likely would have purchased at least double the amount of AKV points that we did and put OKW up for sale.  Sorry if you or anyone misunderstood.

So if you consider me a "fair weather" fan....you are entitled to your opinion.   I feel like I never should have come back to this thread....that's for sure.  I simply came back to say we had thought about the reallocation in relation to OKW specifically and our membership specifically.   I wasn't speaking for anyone else but myself in that regard.  I feel OKW was hit hard in Magic season and we just don't feel she is worth the extra 6 points per night or the extra 30 points every year.  I never said DVC wasn't for me  

Does anyone "get" what I was trying to say here..........?  Was I totally lacking in FACTS ?

Maria ---> feeling more and more like the misunderstood DIS'er


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> And I am NOT a fair weather fan Dean.  If you are insinuating that towards me---perhaps you are speaking generally.  I'm going to hope you were referring to other DVC'ers here on the DIS.  Because I clearly state in an above post that if I had had disclosure of the re-allocation in a timely manner, I would have felt more informed about how I wanted to handle my Membership.  I would have been more informed about my add-on.    I clearly state we most likely would have purchased at least double the amount of AKV points that we did and put OKW up for sale.  Sorry if you or anyone misunderstood.
> 
> So if you consider me a "fair weather" fan....you are entitled to your opinion.   I feel like I never should have come back to this thread....that's for sure.  I simply came back to say we had thought about the reallocation in relation to OKW specifically and our membership specifically.   I wasn't speaking for anyone else but myself in that regard.  I feel OKW was hit hard in Magic season and we just don't feel she is worth the extra 6 points per night or the extra 30 points every year.  I never said DVC wasn't for me
> 
> Does anyone "get" what I was trying to say here..........?  Was I totally lacking in FACTS ?
> 
> Maria ---> feeling more and more like the misunderstood DIS'er


I am speaking generally, my impression was you made a decision that DVC no longer worked for you and are going with it, that's what those should to that DVC no longer works for them.  I will say that you had disclosure in that it was in the POS and you investigated DVC including on this site if I recall correctly.  I suspect you also knew about the previous reallocation.


----------



## MiaSRN62

I had heard about the previous allocation Dean....
I'm sorry you misunderstood,  in that you thought that DVC was no longer for me and it was probably best to get out.   This is/was not my line of thinking nor what I stated in my post, but I know how things can get misconstrued on message boards.  Especially threads that have gone on this long.  

DVC is still for me......just in a different way........rather, it is OKW that is no longer for me.   Because, to reiterate, I don't feel the same paying 6 points more per night there in Magic season.  Some DVC'er had small changes to their vacation stays.  Some gained a point or a few....some lost 1, 2, 5 points per trip.   We're losing 30 points a trip at OKW.    I view points and how I choose to use them based on what I feel the resort has to offer me.   This was just too big a jump for us.  And don't feel OKW is "worth" that big a jump.   But as I said, would have much preferred to have known about the reallocation 90 days before we did our AKV add-on.   Would have made the bulk of my points there instead especially with the incentive going on back then. 
Maria


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> I had heard about the previous allocation Dean....
> I'm sorry you misunderstood,  in that you thought that DVC was no longer for me and it was probably best to get out.   This is/was not my line of thinking nor what I stated in my post, but I know how things can get misconstrued on message boards.  Especially threads that have gone on this long.
> 
> DVC is still for me......just in a different way........rather, it is OKW that is no longer for me.   Because, to reiterate, I don't feel the same paying 6 points more per night there in Magic season.  Some DVC'er had small changes to their vacation stays.  Some gained a point or a few....some lost 1, 2, 5 points per trip.   We're losing 30 points a trip at OKW.    I view points and how I choose to use them based on what I feel the resort has to offer me.   This was just too big a jump for us.  And don't feel OKW is "worth" that big a jump.   But as I said, would have much preferred to have known about the reallocation 90 days before we did our AKV add-on.   Would have made the bulk of my points there instead especially with the incentive going on back then.
> Maria


Great, glad you're not getting out altogether.  I do wonder though if you'd be better off keeping the OKW points and using them elsewhere or at least waiting a couple of years hoping the economy turns around.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> I do wonder though if you'd be better off keeping the OKW points and using them elsewhere or at least waiting a couple of years hoping the economy turns around.



We did mull this over for quite some time Dean.  

But dh, at this point, is thinking sell OKW and use $ to put down on BLT or another contract on AKV.  He's saying he'd rather have "home" advantage there.   Before the point reallocation, we were thinking just hold on to OKW.   But honestly, we don't feel we want to pay the 6 points extra per night there.   But if OKW doesn't sell.....we will def use the points elsewhere.  


Maria


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> Sorry Tim....but I find this very much self-righteous of you.  I'm offended by your insinuation that my statements were not held in "fact".



Maria:

I don't think it was any harsher than your statement claiming that I "like to defend them frequently."  

I agree that the timing of the reallocation announcement was suspect.  They certainly could have given us more advance notice than 11 months + 7 days (or whatever it ended up being.)  

But I have to disagree with your comments about any relationship to the OKW extension.  The OKW extension became public knowledge in September 2007 and the reallocation wasn't until January 2009.  That's nearly 18 months' separation between the two.  

If the reallocation had been announced a couple of weeks after the deadline for extending, then I'd be inclined to agree with you.  But 18 months' separation should be enough to suggest there was no relationship.  

Whether the points were reallocated in 2009, 2010, 2011, etc., those extending should have done so with the knowledge that it would eventually happen.  

If you really want to put the reallocation timing under a microscope, there would never have been a perfect time.  If they had announced it 6 months earlier, you could make the same argument about it being unfair to people who had just added on / purchased before that announcement date.  

It would have been more member-friendly to give us another month or two's notice.  It wouldn't surprise me if there was a financial motivation for their delaying the announcement as long as possible.  But I do think any relationship to other events like the RCI contract, OKW extension and even the changing BLT minimums is purely coincidental.  

Tim


----------



## MiaSRN62

> I don't think it was any harsher than your statement claiming that I "like to defend them frequently."



Well...sorry Tim...but I do feel your insinuation that my posts are not based in fact, much more of an insult.  You do dispute almost everything negative I have as an opinion about this reallocation and the OKW extension.  So I came to the conclusion that you side with the DVD way of thinking. It's not an insult or harsh in my eyes....it may very well be the way many here see things.  I may be in the minority in my way of thinking.  I've seen others voice the same comments in regards to your posts.    

There's been more than a couple posts between you and I throughout this thread that are like this (so there's a tradition starting here).

So if you find me being "harsh" towards you by stating this,  I must let you know that I feel as though I've become compelled to come to this conclusion from your responses towards me.  I can't seem to speak my mind or voice my opinion without a retort from you in DVC's favor.   You may not be intending this, but it is perceived by me as such.  I just feel like I can't comment generally to this thread and to everyone without getting a retort from you.  I get that you don't agree with me.  Believe me.  Many posts throughout this thread substantiate this.  

But to accuse someone (me) of not speaking facts is a bit different in my book.  Particularily my posts from today.  They were based in fact. 

So I promise not to comment on your posts anymore if you would kindly do the same with mine.  There are more things I could comment on in your most recent post, but I'm dropping it between you and I.  I just feel we'll go round and round.  Let's just say we respectfully agree to disagree.  I feel that's best for everyone. Hope you understand. Thanks Tim. 


Maria


----------



## tjkraz

MiaSRN62 said:


> Well...sorry Tim...but I do feel your insinuation that my posts are not based in fact, much more of an insult.



If you will go back and re-read my comment, I *never *said that your posts were not based in fact.  Certainly you have made many keen observations and that's one of the reasons I enjoy these exchanges with you.  

What I said was that emotions can sometimes taint discussions such as this.  

Correct me if I'm wrong but when you state that you have experienced "a breaking down of faith in disney", I read that as meaning that you are predisposed to distrust their actions.  You've talked about being hurt by the reallocation and not being able to trust "them."  

It goes without saying there are a lot of strong emotions flavoring the discussion.

For my part, I am predisposed to neither trust nor distrust them.  (At least, that's what I strive for!)  If I seem to be defending DVC over this, I would propose it's only because I'm trying to be a voice of reason an a thread filled with strong negative emotions.  

Does that mean I'm always right and you're always wrong?  Of course not!  

That said, I'm still disappointed that you view me as some sort of DVC apologist.  I've been openly critical of their actions on many fronts.  But in situations like this I will not simply grab my torch and pitchfork and join with the majority looking to roast them over a spit.  

My nature is to evaluate data in as analytical a manner as possible.  Admittedly that can be very difficult to do when few hard facts are available.  But that shouldn't keep us from drawing logical conclusions.  And my goal is to eliminate any emotional influences from my conclusions.  It doesn't matter what I think of Jim Lewis, Jay Rasulo or Bob Iger (never met any of them) or how I am personally impacted by the change.  

Does that mean I'm right all the time?  No way!  But if nothing else, hopefully some of my comments will give other readers new perspectives to ponder.   

Be well.
Tim


----------



## MiaSRN62

> tjkraz : Does that mean I'm right all the time? No way! But if nothing else, hopefully some of my comments will give other readers new perspectives to ponder.




I'm not necessarily saying you are a DVC "apologist" Tim.  But your views/opinions seem more closely aligned with recent changes/policies etc and reflect as such in recent discussions here.  It's not meant as a harsh or insultive comment.  People will think and view things as disney does, or in a more business-like/clinical way.  Nothing wrong with that.  I just think this is fact.  Some people are dead set against disney's way of thinking and carrying out their policies/administrative decisions.  Some see what they do as perfectly normal and legit, while others see quite the opposite.   And then there is the in-between crowd.   I don't think there's anything that can be done to change this situation.  People will be on one side or the other of a debate for the most part.  


And I did go back re-read your post....before I posted last time.  You state : "I'm trying to stick to facts" in a reply to my posts.  That posts contains several quotes and they are all from me.  So I stated you insinuated that my comments were more emotional and not fact-based like you.  You insinuated that some peoples' judgement were clouded by emotion.  And this statement was made by you in the post where you quote me throughout.  So sorry.....this is how I took what you were saying.  It was a back and forth discussion between you and I.  

I just feel when someone like myself voices a thought/view/opinion.....we don't necessarily want someone to combat our personal views each and every time.  I realize you have valid things to say Tim, but though I may not be as analytical in my approach (that's not in my nature), I still have valid opinions that are factual as well.   Nothing worse than being called out on a forum that you have frequented for years and having someone say your comments are muddled up in emotion and perhaps prudent judgment is muddled by such emotion.   Makes one feel like they might as well just shut-up and keep their thoughts/opinions to themselves.  No, admittedly, I don't know all the political/legality angles of the timeshare industry.  That's fact.  But does this mean I should not voice my thoughts/views/ideas etc ?  I'm beginning to think that from the outcome of my recent posts.  

And I feel the same as you do in the above quoted statement you make, as does pretty much everyone who posts their opinions/experiences/thoughts here.  *We all hope to give a new perspective or offer a different thought process.*  And we all deserve to do this without being called-out each and every time.  We're all gonna agree or disagree from time to time.....I know for a fact that there are some people who are timid about posting on this thread for fear of being called-out or having their comments dissected. And it's not just this thread.....any thread that gets sort of heated or serious, some really do shy away from.  Something I'm sort of wishing I had done.  But too late now  

You be well also Tim.............I'm off to the airport to catch a plane to Orlando now..........so I probably won't be on here for awhile.  


Maria


----------



## vascubaguy

tjkraz said:


> ...  Again poor planning ...



This is something I can agree with and seems to becoming a trend with DVC... which doesn't mesh well with some of us who do try and plan well (though I guess you could argue that if I was planning well I would have spent more money buying points I really didn't need in preparation for these type of changes)...

All I know now is that my vacation plans will have to change some and the "value" of my ownership has been reduced. For me, this has definitely been a cure for add-onitis.


----------



## Princess Tink

I must be in the minority here....I have peeked in every once in a while to see what everyone's thoughts are.  An mostly, there have been a lot of negative reacton surrounding this 'change'.  I have to admit, change is never easy.  But, I do personally like this one.  I remember way back when we made our first purchase, the rep making a 'big selling point' out of the weekday points being so much lower.  Which I thought was really odd, for some reason.  We initially bought in with intentions of staying at our home resort for 8 days in a studio, but then we made the mistake of staying in our first 1BR.  We were hooked, and luckily because of the cheaper weekday points we have managed to stay in a 1BR here and there.  But, I must admit it, it bothered me that I had to pay double points for weekends.  Don't get me wrong, I knew about it....and we planned accodingly.  But, it has always bothered me....partially because I remember staying in regular rooms at WDW, and the rooms were the same price 7 DAYS A WEEK.  Again, I knew this going into it....and I love my DVC, but I've always had a litte mouse on my shoulder reminding me of it!  FFW to last year, we more than doubled our points, so that we could stay in a 1BR for every trip.  And I did this with intentions of using points for those HIGH PRICED weekends.  Well, I have to say I am happy I made the ADD ON...as I feel with the recent news of the "balancing of points", that although my vacation seems to 'cost' the same amount, I no longer feel guilty for staying weekends now!  

Micaela


----------



## Chuck S

A gentle reminder that argumentative/sarcastic posting and personal attacks are not allowed on the DIS.  

It is fine to discuss the reallocation, and discuss the pros and cons of each others points.  The reallocation will be good for some, and detrimental to others, but the realitity is...what's done is done. We will not change the reallocation simply by discussing it on the DIS.  If you feel DVC is no longer a value for your vacation needs, then you really, unfortunately, only have limited options.  You can go with the flow and continue using your membershaip as best you can, you can sell your contract (and for long-term OKW owners that is likely at a small profit), or you can rent/transfer your points.

Regardless, it is both a financial AND emotional issue, and any decision you reach will likely be based on both aspects.  We don't know what the future may hold for reallocations, but surely most members should have known they were possible, and I thnk we should all expect more reallocations at some point in the future.  I will agree that the announcement of it could have been handled better...but that is far from uncommon. Almost all changes within the DVC program have come with very short (if any) notification...like the removal of mugs from studios, the change from II to RCI, the changes in the Concierge collection resorts, etc.  The ONLY thing we are truly guaranteed is the ability to reserve stays at our home resort, based upon availability.  Everything else can, and likely will, change during the course our ownership.

Again, it is fine to respond to each others points, but please don't make your responses personal.


----------



## jodifla

MiaSRN62 said:


> Due to the point restructuring, we have placed our OKW contract up for sale.
> 
> We thought long and hard about it.  But the reallocation is causing us to come up 30 points short every year (as I've mentioned before....just restating for some who may not have read this entire thread).
> 
> For us, 30 points is a bit much to swallow or cause us to "readjust" or "rethink" our vacation plans.  It's too big a departure of why we purchased OKW in the first place back in 2000.  Just wish we could have foreseen a jump *this large *for our situation.  But alas, while we have loved our stays at OKW, we just don't feel "she" is worth the extra 6 points PER NIGHT or 30 points for our traditional stay.
> 
> My dh and I spoke.  We would have been really MUCH more upset than we are had we gone ahead and extended our OKW contract.....I just can't help but to think, disney was really deceptive with us all about this.
> *I wonder how many who did the OKW extension are disappointed now or would have made another choice had they known about this prior to signing the extension deed ?*  There were opportunities for disney to have let Members know awhile back.  Because I know for one thing, had we had knowlege of this reallocation 90 days before we purchased AKV, we would have added on alot more points.
> 
> 
> I find myself a bit distrustful of disney now....
> 
> I am more upset about the poor timing and slightly deceptive way disney announced this....so OKW is officially on the resale market for us.
> 
> 
> Maria



  We extended our OKW purchase. We are still very happy with it and have no plans to sell, but we felt our OKW purchase would maintain its value better with the extension.

  We vacation different amounts of times in different units at different times of year, so I'm not upset about the point changes.

 In fact, I'm HAPPY that weekends aren't as expensive now. I bought fully knowing that the point allocations could change.


----------



## Mick West

Dean said:


> We all bought knowing (or should have known) that there had been a previous reallocation in 1996 and that it was a possibility to happen again.  Timeshares change over time, often not for the better, another absolute that anyone buying a timeshare should have known up  front.  The truth is this is a minority of members but IF it were a majority doesn't make it any less appropriate.  The truth is the larger the spread from weekend to weekdays, the more the need for the change.  But it's more than simply absolute numbers, you've got to look at when the rooms are book, cash vs points and the LOS.  LOL applies to costs for housekeeping.
> 
> Sponsors are simply members who gave money to keep DIS afloat and make sure it stayed around as a free site.  It was essentially a voluntary payment.  A flag was added to their online listing that identified what level they donated at (my paraphrase of what happened).  While it may be fact that your situation is affected, it is emotion as to the reasonableness of the change.



Thanks for filling me in on sponsors - and thanks for helping to support the site! We may "agree to disagree" on this reallocation, but on many occassions my wife and I "agree to disagree" - and we've been married 32 years!!


----------



## TECHJPM

When we all bought in we all saw how the points were structured.  Now that they are changing that structuring, I think they should really be willing to put it to a vote of owners.  I think it is a little shrewd of them to do something like this, as a lot of us bought enough points to do a certain amount of things, and now a lot of us are finding that it will be hard...

On the flip of that... I have been planning at all times for the last year of my ownership.  I am under the understanding that our points are only good for a certain amount of months in the last year, so I always calculate in borrowing, as the last year will get the least amount of use.


----------



## Chuck S

TECHJPM said:


> When we all bought in we all saw how the points were structured.  Now that they are changing that structuring, I think they should really be willing to put it to a vote of owners.  I think it is a little shrewd of them to do something like this, as a lot of us bought enough points to do a certain amount of things, and now a lot of us are finding that it will be hard...
> 
> On the flip of that... I have been planning at all times for the last year of my ownership.  I am under the understanding that our points are only good for a certain amount of months in the last year, so I always calculate in borrowing, as the last year will get the least amount of use.



What would voting accomplish?  Assuming that the reallocatioin is for the legitimate reason of equalizing demand, and that perhaps weekends were being underutilized leading to an imbalance of occupancy, if a reallocation was voted down, you would still be left with a problem.  

The right solution isn't always the popular solution.  And how would you divide the votes?  One vote per membership or one vote per point owned?  The two types of voting could have very different outcomes.

Who pays to conduct the poll, since a legally binding vote would require a written ballot, with 100,000+ members, you are looking at about $50,000 in mailing and paper costs, plus the fee for an accounting firm to tally the votes.


----------



## TECHJPM

Disney mails each of us something.  If not they email all of us if they have our email address...

Well, they could get a legal document drafted, and email it to us.  Have us pay the 42 cents to mail back the vote.

They wouldn't have to pay that much at all....

Disney is looking to get more money out of the DVC owners that now need more points due to this change.


----------



## Chuck S

TECHJPM said:


> Disney mails each of us something.  If not they email all of us if they have our email address...
> 
> Well, they could get a legal document drafted, and email it to us.  Have us pay the 42 cents to mail back the vote.
> 
> They wouldn't have to pay that much at all....
> 
> Disney is looking to get more money out of the DVC owners that now need more points due to this change.




They still need to mail us the ballots, not everyone has email.  And again, one vote per point, or one vote per membership, or one vote per member (some memberships have several deeded owners).  

Should a 150 point membership have the same vote as a 1000 point membership?  Should a 150 point membership with 5 owners on the deed have a greater vote than a 1000 point membership with 2 owners on the deed?

Who tallies the vote?  Accounting firms aren't cheap.

But no matter what, voting is a pretty moot discussion, as we've all already legally agreed that any votes required would be done on our behalf by a representative on the board.  Most timeshares work that way.

As far as needing more points...perhaps many members do need more points, many also do not.  I generally bank points every year and the reallocation has little impact on my vacation habits.  Reallocations were always a possibility according to our documents.  In fact, there is even a maximum reallocation listed for each resort in the paperwork.


----------



## doconeill

Chuck S said:


> They still need to mail us the ballots, not everyone has email.  And again, one vote per point, or one vote per membershsip, or one vote per member (some memberships have several deeded owners).



And when a quorum of vote proxies do not respond, they have to do it again...and again...until there is a quorum. More cost.


----------



## TECHJPM

Well, then they could send out a letter stating that they would be doing a vote.  Tell everyone that they need to respond, or everything stays the same.  Total the votes.  Votes are votes... if the votes come in at any quantity showing for, or against, then it rides through with any change necessary.


----------



## Chuck S

TECHJPM said:


> Well, then they could send out a letter stating that they would be doing a vote.  Tell everyone that they need to respond, or everything stays the same.  Total the votes.  Votes are votes... if the votes come in at any quantity showing for, or against, then it rides through with any change necessary.



Honestly, they had trouble getting all the OKW members to respond to the extension paperwork.  

And again, define votes.  One per point, one per membership, or one per member.  I think it would be terribly unfair for a person who bought a 25 point resale to have the same voting clout as a person who owns several hundred points.  Stocks are voted "per share owned", and make no mistake, with the amount of developers points out there in new resorts and retained ownership, DVD pretty much would trump anyone else's vote anyway.  It would be an expensive exercise in futility, as long as DVD/Disney doesn't break a regulatory law.


----------



## TECHJPM

One per property per person on deed.


----------



## tjkraz

Right now, a BCV Studio is 12 pts per weekday / 22 pts per weekend during Adventure season.  That's 104 per week.  

Why not change it to *5 points per weeknight *and *40 points per weekend*?  I bet we could get members to vote in favor of that change, right?  

But consider the outcome.  Everyone's points would go 2-3 times further than they do now on weekdays.  It would be a dogfight at 11 months to book the available rooms, and then millions of points would be left unused because nobody wants to book the weekends.  

Still, if you put it to a popular vote, any reallocation which lowered weekend rates would pass with flying colors.  Imagine a BCV studio for just *FIVE points per night*.  _Who wouldn't vote for that?!?!_

But that's exactly why members are in no position to vote on something like this.  DVC's primary goal should be the health of the points system.  The values should remain commensurate to demand.  

My example also illustrates why I have trouble accepting the premise that the reallocation is sales driven.  If the only reason for the reallocation were to sell more points, the logical move would have been to lower weekdays further.  DVC would attract FAR more new business if you could get a Studio room for 5 points per night (or 7 points, or 10 points) rather than the 13 PPN that the Studio night will increase to in 2010.  

Sure there are current members who find their points don't go as far as they did in the past.  But in and of itself, that doesn't go far to support the notion that the reallocation was designed to sell more.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

I see no reason why they should allow the members to vote on something that is DVC's responsible, and well within ther rights and obligations, to handle.  The right course of action in many cases is not the most popular.  Imagine the trouble this country would be in if the constitution could be changed by a simple majority.


----------



## Chuck S

TECHJPM said:


> One per property per person on deed.




So a deed with 5 people and 50 points should have 5 votes, and a single  person with 1000 points should have 1 vote?  That makes no sense.


----------



## TECHJPM

Each contract had to have owners.  You have maximum of one property per contract.  You can have multiple people on the contract though.

It isn't going to do anything anyway.  They would never let the public determine the outcome of a situation.  We are all venting, and it is going to go nowhere.


----------



## Chuck S

TECHJPM said:


> Each contract had to have owners.  You have maximum of one property per contract.  You can have multiple people on the contract though.
> 
> It isn't going to do anything anyway.  They would never let the public determine the outcome of a situation.  We are all venting, and it is going to go nowhere.



But just like company stocks, if I own 150 shares, I get 150 "votes".  If someone else owns 2000 shares, they get 2000 votes.  DVC votes would certainly have to follow the same type of format, number of votes relative to number of points owned.

But, I agree with the ohers, this is NOT somethong that should even be put to a vote.


----------



## OneMoreTry

Mick West said:


> Again, please enlighten me on who are "sponsors" - are they elected, paid by Disney, or just folks who sign up for this? I'm really just curious about this as I've never seen so many post's, all defending this points change strongly by the way, in any other threads I go to.



I paid $60 to Disboards to support it this year.  I realized that I receive a valuable service from this web site on an ongoing basis and decided I should contribute  my fair share.  So I'm a sponsor. They sent me a visor.

You can be a sponsor, too, if you continue to use the site and find it useful.  I can tell you it in no way affects my opinions, and as far as I know, sponsors have no more influence on the workings of these boards than you or anyone else.


----------



## OneMoreTry

TECHJPM said:


> Each contract had to have owners.  You have maximum of one property per contract.  You can have multiple people on the contract though.
> 
> It isn't going to do anything anyway.  They would never let the public determine the outcome of a situation.  We are all venting, and it is going to go nowhere.



Members essentially "vote"  when they book vacations.  Every time you book a weekday night you cast a little teeny weeny "vote" to increase weekday points.  When you book a weekend , you cast a vote to increase weekend points.

People with more points get to "cast" more of those "votes."

More popular = more points must be charged for that night to offset demand

Ballots would have a completely misleading effect.  Members would have a HUGE DISINCENTIVE to vote for the greatest benefit for all.  We would all vote to make OUR OWN VACATIONS COST LESS POINTS, which would mean the more popular nights would end up costing the least.  That would be bad for everyone..


----------



## vascubaguy

I don't think a vote would be ideal because we'd most likely pay for it from a rise in dues...

However, I would like to hear from DVC exactly why the changes are necessary and what considerations did they make for the members who will ultimately be hurt with the change.

Not just... ta da... it's changing.


----------



## Dean

Mick West said:


> Thanks for filling me in on sponsors - and thanks for helping to support the site! We may "agree to disagree" on this reallocation, but on many occassions my wife and I "agree to disagree" - and we've been married 32 years!!


That's fine, it is OK to disagree.  But where do we disagree, I feel what I posted was factual, not opinion.  I'll break it down.


Happened before - Fact
Knew or should have known - Fact, happened previously, clearly stated in the POS.
Timeshare Change - Fact
Minority of members - no data but hard to dispute
The more members did S-F, the more disruption to the system and therefore the larger need for the change - Fact
Some want to throw in ulterior motives for DVD/DVC and that's fine.  If I personally felt that was the case, I'd get out, file a complaint or file a lawsuit.  And I'm far more cynical in general than most of this group, or at least I have been in the past.



TECHJPM said:


> When we all bought in we all saw how the points were structured.  Now that they are changing that structuring, I think they should really be willing to put it to a vote of owners.  I think it is a little shrewd of them to do something like this, as a lot of us bought enough points to do a certain amount of things, and now a lot of us are finding that it will be hard...


Why vote.  DVC is tasked with the responsibility of doing what's best for the system and membership as a whole.  Any change will be negative to some and some changes may be negative to all.



TECHJPM said:


> Well, then they could send out a letter stating that they would be doing a vote.  Tell everyone that they need to respond, or everything stays the same.  Total the votes.  Votes are votes... if the votes come in at any quantity showing for, or against, then it rides through with any change necessary.


Timeshare do this all the time, usually at least once a year.  If they get 10-20% to respond, they are thrilled.  With DVC we have signed away our rights under all but the most unusual of circumstances and if I read the rules correctly, only each unit gets a vote but then each owner in that unit has to vote to see what the overall vote for the "unit" is.  They could pole the owners if they wanted to get an idea, they have done so in the past.  The problem with a vote or poll is they are somewhat obligated to go that route and given they have legal and fiduciary responsibilities that may be in conflict with a vote, no reason to confuse the picture to satisfy a few egos.



TECHJPM said:


> One per property per person on deed.


The designated contact would be the legal rep to vote but as noted above, it ends up deferring to each unit as 1 vote.


----------



## Dean

vascubaguy said:


> I don't think a vote would be ideal because we'd most likely pay for it from a rise in dues...
> 
> However, I would like to hear from DVC exactly why the changes are necessary and what considerations did they make for the members who will ultimately be hurt with the change.
> 
> Not just... ta da... it's changing.


Marriott in particular has weekly working meetings usually with the GM and various other reps from different departments.  They discuss things like refurbishment plans, units assignments, budgets, planning and bring things like fabric boards.  As a nuts and bolts type of person, I much enjoy this rather than the fluff you get from DVC's weekly meetings.  To heck with snacks, punch and hats, give me real info.


----------



## OneMoreTry

vascubaguy said:


> .....
> 
> However, I would like to hear from DVC exactly why the changes are necessary and what considerations did they make for the members who will ultimately be hurt with the change.
> 
> Not just... ta da... it's changing.



A positive, constructive, feasible suggestion.  Even though I agree with the changes and was actually hoping for changes like this, I think it important that everyone have their grievances heard as well as receive both consideration and explanation of WHY this was done.

"Communication is the problem to the answer." -Hall and Oates.


----------



## Mike

nothing like a good Hall and Oates quote


----------



## Dean

OneMoreTry said:


> A positive, constructive, feasible suggestion.  Even though I agree with the changes and was actually hoping for changes like this, I think it important that everyone have their grievances heard as well as receive both consideration and explanation of WHY this was done.
> 
> "Communication is the problem to the answer." -Hall and Oates.


While it sounds good, I suspect it'd cause more problems on the surface much like a lot of explanations with a teenager who wants something different than the parents will allow.  I suspect it'd just give points for people to argue over.  Also, as I mentioned earlier, anyone can go look at the info if they make an appointment and ask specifically for what they want.  All of the DVC info should be available but none of the DVD info.


----------



## Buckalew11

This is old info, I know. 

This change will affect me by using more points on my weekdays (I stay else where on weekends, cheaper). In the end, I will have less points to use for more trips. Last year I did 3 WDW trips and one VB trip. From now on, I'll just use my points for weekdays at WDW, still staying elsewhere on the weekends, and go fewer times. If I add a trip, it'll be at the S/D and not a WDW resort. I won't be adding more points to  make up for using more weekday points.

Welcome Wednesdays have never happened on ANY of my trips! They are always cancelled. DH would love to attend and the meetings are always cancelled!


----------



## OneMoreTry

Dean said:


> ......, I suspect it'd cause more problems on the surface much like a lot of explanations with a teenager who wants something different than the parents will allow.  I suspect it'd just give points for people to argue over.  .......



I'm glad you said this because I wanted to make the analogy, but didn't want to get people more upset than they are.

However, as with teenagers, allowing them to BE HEARD and have their point of view CONSIDERED is very important.  I think the explanation for the change, it seems to me, would be pretty simple and straightforward.  It doesn't take much common sense to see why such a change would be needed -- just a little maturity.  Those who reject it would be making a conscious decision to do so.

Among the reasonable, the explanation may face resistance at first, but at some point the light bulb goes on.  I've got some good stories on that, including times when i was the one who was the complainer needing the explanation.


----------



## Dean

OneMoreTry said:


> I'm glad you said this because I wanted to make the analogy, but didn't want to get people more upset than they are.
> 
> However, as with teenagers, allowing them to BE HEARD and have their point of view CONSIDERED is very important.  I think the explanation for the change, it seems to me, would be pretty simple and straightforward.  It doesn't take much common sense to see why such a change would be needed -- just a little maturity.  Those who reject it would be making a conscious decision to do so.
> 
> Among the reasonable, the explanation may face resistance at first, but at some point the light bulb goes on.  I've got some good stories on that, including times when i was the one who was the complainer needing the explanation.


DVC did give a basic explanation and my expectation of the reaction has already occurred.  Same was true for the reservation change last year to reserve a week at a time.  Still, I think DVC would have been better served to anticipate the contention and give a more factual based prelude.  In no way should they show weakness including the idea that this issue is negotiable.  Given the assumption they had to force more  use of weekdays and less use of weekends, there were other ways to do so.   They could have offered a poll for the various options.  I see 3 options which could have sought to do the same thing.  Reallocation, a minimum stay that required at least 1 weekend day or a priority for those reserving a min of 7 days.  The current system would do that also if they made changes a cancellation and rebooking which they are very likely to do eventually anyway.  I know some want DVC to spell out the occupancies and the like and they are not going to do so.


----------



## OneMoreTry

Dean,

I don't think allowing people to officially vent would be showing weakness, if that is what you meant.

I think your other 2 options involve more restriction and would be more difficult to program into computer, more difficult to work with and plan stays -- and easier to circumvent.  Their current plan is more  elegant and fair, I think.

As I said in my post, how to reallocate HAS been put to a vote -- people vote with their stays.  Any balloting on how to allocate points would result in the majority, obviously, voting to their own benefit, which would then result in LOWEST POINTS FOR MOST POPULAR and MOST-USED DAYS.  Which would be counterproductive and unmouselike.

Voting is unmouselike too.  Disney does what disney does.  I've never seen much weakness there.


----------



## Dean

OneMoreTry said:


> Dean,
> 
> I don't think allowing people to officially vent would be showing weakness, if that is what you meant.
> 
> I think your other 2 options involve more restriction and would be more difficult to program into computer, more difficult to work with and plan stays -- and easier to circumvent.  Their current plan is more  elegant and fair, I think.
> 
> As I said in my post, how to reallocate HAS been put to a vote -- people vote with their stays.  Any balloting on how to allocate points would result in the majority, obviously, voting to their own benefit, which would then result in LOWEST POINTS FOR MOST POPULAR and MOST-USED DAYS.  Which would be counterproductive and unmouselike.
> 
> Voting is unmouselike too.  Disney does what disney does.  I've never seen much weakness there.


I don't think anyone is preventing venting, seems to be plenty going on now.  I don't know that the other options would be easier to circumvent, I see them all about the same assuming they stick to the plan.  Still, the reallocation best fits with the program in place though I do expect at some point they will make any change a cancelation and rebooking and won't be surprised to see a min stay at some point.  As for voting, the only real option is to adjust your plan, complain or move on or some combo.


----------



## OneMoreTry

Dean said:


> I......and won't be surprised to see a min stay at some point.  .......



Now that would really get me UPSET.  So far we've never stayed less than 3 nights, and that was at HH.  At WDW we always stay 6 or 7.  But that would be the first change that really violates the spirit of the original presentation of these condos, which is flexibility.

I'm not a resort swticher, but can you imagine what the outcry from them wold be if they HAD to spend a minimum time per resort??  what about the weekenders at HH or Vero or even WDW?

I seriously doubt DVC will ever go this far.


----------



## Dean

OneMoreTry said:


> Now that would really get me UPSET.  So far we've never stayed less than 3 nights, and that was at HH.  At WDW we always stay 6 or 7.  But that would be the first change that really violates the spirit of the original presentation of these condos, which is flexibility.
> 
> I'm not a resort swticher, but can you imagine what the outcry from them wold be if they HAD to spend a minimum time per resort??  what about the weekenders at HH or Vero or even WDW?
> 
> I seriously doubt DVC will ever go this far.


We'll see.  As I said it may or may not happen but I won't be surprised.  I'd give it around a 50/50 at some point.  I'd expect that to be 3 days if done purely as a min stay though it's possible (though less likely) they'd tie the nights together such as at least one weekend night.  Given the POS clearly says this, spells it out, I don't think it violates anything since I don't put any stock in something that a guide said or implied if not backed up in writing.  There are other ways to push a min stay, actually the reservation change last year does to a degree and will further if (when) they make changes to that type reservation a cancelation and rebooking.


----------



## dianeschlicht

Dean said:


> We'll see.  As I said it may or may not happen but I won't be surprised.  I'd give it around a 50/50 at some point.  I'd expect that to be 3 days if done purely as a min stay though it's possible (though less likely) they'd tie the nights together such as at least one weekend night.  Given the POS clearly says this, spells it out, I don't think it violates anything since I don't put any stock in something that a guide said or implied if not backed up in writing.  There are other ways to push a min stay, actually the reservation change last year does to a degree and will further if (when) they make changes to that type reservation a cancelation and rebooking.



I too think that is highly likely.  The only reason folks are so upset now is because they have to learn to use the new point system.  Work it, so to speak.....just like everyone did by not staying weekends before.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

Dean said:


> We'll see.  As I said it may or may not happen but I won't be surprised.  I'd give it around a 50/50 at some point.  I'd expect that to be 3 days if done purely as a min stay though it's possible (though less likely) they'd tie the nights together such as at least one weekend night.  Given the POS clearly says this, spells it out, I don't think it violates anything since I don't put any stock in something that a guide said or implied if not backed up in writing.  There are other ways to push a min stay, actually the reservation change last year does to a degree and will further if (when) they make changes to that type reservation a cancelation and rebooking.



According to Section 4.2e of my Mebership Agreement for BWV, DVC may require that each reservation shall be for a minimum number of consecutive use days in the same season, which number of days shall not exceed 5. So this is another instance where the legal documents have warned the members that a minimum stay may be adopted.  -- Suzanne


----------



## BWV Dreamin

SuzanneSLO said:


> According to Section 4.2e of my Mebership Agreement for BWV, DVC may require that each reservation shall be for a minimum number of consecutive use days in the same season, which number of days shall not exceed 5. So this is another instance where the legal documents have warned the members that a minimum stay may be adopted. -- Suzanne


 Nice find. This would really put a big hurt on split stays.


----------



## chalee94

OneMoreTry said:


> "Communication is the problem to the answer." -Hall and Oates.



wait, is this hall and oates or 10cc?  (the things we do for love.)


----------



## DVCGeek

So this minimum stay possibility has me wanting to verify that I have enough points going forward, particularly for the VGC add-on I have a proposal out on that should execute tomorrow!  That leaves me with two main questions:

1)  Do VGC contracts carry the same 4.2e verbiage of a minimum being possible, but not to exceed 5 nights?

2)  Assuming yes to that "5 night max. for min. stay", does my method of determining the size of my contracts make sense to others here:

I calculated average point costs for the entire year at the two resorts I plan to own at because those are the only ones I'm guaranteed to able to book (subject to availability...).  Knowing that, at some point during the year I will always be able to stay for that many or fewer points by definition.  Take that number times a minimum of 5, and that is how many points I need to own to cover all my bases and definitely be able to use my membership as long as I'm flexible with my dates.

Specifically, I want to stay in a VGC studio for <= 5 nights every 3-4 years.  Dates are flexible but I generally prefer to arrive on a Sat or Sun.  40 point add-on * 3 (bank + use + borrow) = 120 to play with.  I added things up and got 8,552 points TOTAL for a full year in a studio.  Divide by 365, average is a tad under 23.5 per night.  Round up to 24 * 5 = 120.

I also crunched my existing master (and currently ONLY) contract.  160 points @ BLT {which I THINK has the same wording, but I'd have to look at home tonight}; I want 6 nights at WDW every year, with Sat. or Sun. arrivals again.  8702 points for a year for a MK view studio [also OK with less 'expensive' ones, used as worst case scenario], rounds up to 24 avg. per night.  24 * 6 {more than possible minimum} = 144.

That boils down to having enough points on both coasts for my desired stays under any contractually possible conditions (provided I remain flexible with my dates), right?


----------



## MiaSRN62

> dianeschlicht : The only reason folks are so upset now is because they have to learn to use the new point system. Work it, so to speak.....just like everyone did by not staying weekends before.



This may be.......on average, the people who are upset are those coming up with larger point deficits every year (for me it's 30 points yearly short).   The people who like the allocation, are those who have a very small deficit or no deficit at all....and of course, those that are saving points.  

I am currently "working" it out.  We can only vacation in Magic Season now.  Have college and high school aged kids.   

I know disney wants to push people into weekend stays, but this allocation will not do that for us.  We will still "work" the weekday points.   Because quite frankly, I refuse to accept having less days to use every year.  Using weekend points puts us way over....and we never purchased DVC 9 years ago with the intent to use the weekends.  I have an offsite timeshare for which we do that.  So for now, while we have to stick with Magic season, we will get a little creative I guess.   I'm sure one day will come when I can vacation in lower point seasons...but not for the immediate future.  

So with us, our "working it" will be : instead of 5 weeknights in a two bedroom, it will now be : 2 nights in two studios, then switch over to a two bedroom for the remaining 3 nights.   I still get 5 weeknights in Magic season and housekeeping, unfortunately, has to turn over more rooms.   But this is what disney pretty much forced me into.  

I have a choice to just stick us all in one studio the first night, then add a second studio for night #2 to save points.  It's 144 vs 156 points.  So we'll work it depending on whether we want to save points or borrow 6 points every year.  

I do have my OKW up for sale.....but if it doesn't sell, this is our plan.  So not sure what disney is really saving with us ?  They are incurring extra housekeeping fees to turn over those two studios for the two nights ?   Sure, we're getting two less nights in a 2 bedroom villa.  In my experience, there was never a big shortage of 2 bedrooms in early to mid Aug.  

So I guess I'm learning how to use the new point system to my advantage. And still not doing weekends..........


Maria


----------



## dianeschlicht

> So not sure what disney is really saving with us ? They are incurring extra housekeeping fees to turn over those two studios for the two nights ?



Marie, that's not Disney's cost, that's a cost we members swallow.  I'm sure there IS a financial reason for the change, I just don't quite know exactly what it is.


----------



## MiaSRN62

Oh I agree Diane.   And I hate to have to cause extra housekeeping costs....but I really have no choice with the allocation.  I've been put between a rock and hard place with this.   I know the benefit is more people will be utilizing weekend points.   Just not us.  And I'm sure there will be people like us who will continue to bypass the weekends and find other ways to make their points work.  I know I can't be unique in this respect.  So I agree....there is a financial reason for this as far as disney is concerned.  Disney wouldn't do this if there weren't a viable reason.  I was just saying I don't know what it is either.  


Maria


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> This may be.......on average, the people who are upset are those coming up with larger point deficits every year (for me it's 30 points yearly short).   The people who like the allocation, are those who have a very small deficit or no deficit at all....and of course, those that are saving points.


Not completely true Maria.  There are also those of us that think it's good for the system even if it does cost us more points personally, count me in that group.  One of the differences is I'll learn and adapt better than most.



> I know disney wants to push people into weekend stays, but this allocation will not do that for us. We will still "work" the weekday points. Because quite frankly, I refuse to accept having less days to use every year. Using weekend points puts us way over....and we never purchased DVC 9 years ago with the intent to use the weekends. I have an offsite timeshare for which we do that. So for now, while we have to stick with Magic season, we will get a little creative I guess. I'm sure one day will come when I can vacation in lower point seasons...but not for the immediate future.


It's the overall effect, not a given individual that is important.  Many were staying a full week under the old system as well.



> I do have my OKW up for sale.....but if it doesn't sell, this is our plan. So not sure what disney is really saving with us ? They are incurring extra housekeeping fees to turn over those two studios for the two nights ? Sure, we're getting two less nights in a 2 bedroom villa. In my experience, there was never a big shortage of 2 bedrooms in early to mid Aug.


Putting a timeshare up for sale and actively trying to sell are two different things.  Just like houses, many list for sale and then see what happens.  Often they are not serious about selling.  It's not difficult to sell a good timeshare, you just have to price it right and below essentially everyone else with a comparable contract.

Another approach DVC could take, and they may yet independently, is to charge extra housekeeping for shorter stays.  Many RCI points resorts do this now.  As DVC moves more people to 7 day stays, pay as you play becomes more feasible in this area.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Dean : Not completely true Maria. There are also those of us that think it's good for the system even if it does cost us more points personally, count me in that group. One of the differences is I'll learn and adapt better than most.



I did say "on average" Dean if you check my quote......and I get what you say that there are people who thinks it's good.  That's great that you'll be able to learn and adapt better than most Dean.  I totally respect that you know your timeshare stuff.  

And I realize I'm a grain of sand on the beach where DVC is concerned.....I realize this believe me............I was just speaking "individually" on how I personally intend to "work" the new allocation to my benefit.  That's all.  Diane had made the statement : 





> dianeschlicht: The only reason folks are so upset now is because they have to learn to use the new point system. Work it, so to speak.....just like everyone did by not staying weekends before.


 and I was just responding to that specifically in terms of how my family plans to react---I know there will be all kinds of different reactions and plans to how to best make the allocation work for individuals.  As a whole, how it affects DVC Members is up for observation.   


Maria


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Putting a timeshare up for sale and actively trying to sell are two different things. Just like houses, many list for sale and then see what happens. Often they are not serious about selling. It's not difficult to sell a good timeshare,



Fair enough Dean.  I put it on the resale market.  So I guess you feel I'm not actively trying to sell it ?   I feel it's been assigned a fair price.  I don't have a burning desire to sell it super fast.  If it sits, so be it.  I don't NEED the money from a sale any time soon.   We are serious about selling, but not overly anxious for it to be tommorrow or anything.   I have no plans to use our OKW points this year.....so we can wait.  No biggie for us.  


Maria


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> Fair enough Dean.  I put it on the resale market.  So I guess you feel I'm not actively trying to sell it ?   I feel it's been assigned a fair price.  I don't have a burning desire to sell it super fast.  If it sits, so be it.  I don't NEED the money from a sale any time soon.   We are serious about selling, but not overly anxious for it to be tommorrow or anything.   I have no plans to use our OKW points this year.....so we can wait.  No biggie for us.
> 
> 
> Maria


Maria, I don't know how aggressively you're trying to sell.  I am simply pointing out if you truly want to sell you easily can and that the approach of price it like everyone else and see what happens is NOT truly trying to sell from the standpoint of someone who is unhappy and wants out of that home resort/contract.  It doesn't matter to me, but if you want out, you can certainly get out.  Every member has to take the changes and adapt, some more than others.  In some cases that may require an add on and for some, possibly combining with an off property timeshare option.  



MiaSRN62 said:


> I did say "on average" Dean if you check my quote......and I get what you say that there are people who thinks it's good.  That's great that you'll be able to learn and adapt better than most Dean.
> 
> And I realize I'm a grain of sand on the beach where DVC is concerned.....I realize this believe me............I was just speaking "individually" on how I personally intend to "work" the new allocation to my benefit.  That's all.


Fair enough but would you expect those that aren't affected to be esp upset.  Given your line of thinking I'd think the question isn't which group those that are upset come (they should essentially all be related to a neg change) from but rather what % of those negatively affected (and I don't mean 2 or 3 points a stay) are truly upset.  Not that the % should affect the decision DVC has made.  This isn't about one member being insignificant but right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate, needed/not needed, contractually allowed/not allowed, etc.  My view is it's right, appropriate, needed and allowed.  I'll point out there are many other ways to approach the issue for a S-F person who needs more points than before, it could be a blessing in disguise.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Maria, I don't know how aggressively you're trying to sell. I am simply pointing out if you truly want to sell you easily can and that the approach of price it like everyone else and see what happens is NOT truly trying to sell from the standpoint of someone who is unhappy and wants out of that home resort/contract. It doesn't matter to me, but if you want out, you can certainly get out. Every member has to take the changes and adapt, some more than others.



I agree Dean.  We could drop our price and sell alot more quickly.  Our agent suggested if we did this we would get a quicker sale.  But...as I mentioned, since we have no plans to use our OKW this year (have AKV and SSR developer points to use).....we can sit on it a little longer.   It's not costing us anything....we're not losing anything at this point.   I appreciate your input.  




> Dean :Fair enough but would you expect those that aren't affected to be esp upset. Given your line of thinking I'd think the question isn't which group those that are upset come (they should essentially all be related to a neg change) from but rather what % of those negatively affected (and I don't mean 2 or 3 points a stay) are truly upset. Not that the % should affect the decision DVC has made. This isn't about one member being insignificant but right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate, needed/not needed, contractually allowed/not allowed, etc. My view is it's right, appropriate, needed and allowed. I'll point out there are many other ways to approach the issue for a S-F person who needs more points than before, it could be a blessing in disguise.



Of course I wouldn't expect people to be upset that aren't affected ?  I get this.  Of course they're gonna be happy about it or at the very least, ambivalent about it.  I'm just saying, it's pretty obvious to figure out why those who are upset, are.  And why those who are not upset, are not.  Makes total sense. 

And yes, repeatedly in many of my past posts, I have acknowledged that what DVC has done is allowed.   I'm not debating this at all ?  I hope u didn't read this in my most recent post (response to Diane's statement).   I don't see anywhere that I said it was wrong of DVC to do the allocation.   I am trying to very carefully word my posts but I guess they're stilll coming off misconstrued.   I don't know how else to get my thoughts across besides how I am doing it.   I am not disagreeing with you or Diane on the above statements of DVC did what was allowed/right etc or how people have to learn how to work the new point system.     


Maria


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> Of course I wouldn't expect people to be upset that aren't affected ?  I get this.  Of course they're gonna be happy about it or at the very least, ambivalent about it.  I'm just saying, it's pretty obvious to figure out why those who are upset, are.  And why those who are not upset, are not.  Makes total sense.
> 
> And yes, repeatedly in many of my past posts, I have acknowledged that what DVC has done is allowed.   I'm not debating this at all ?  I hope u didn't read this in my most recent post (response to Diane's statement).   I don't see anywhere that I said it was wrong of DVC to do the allocation.   I am trying to very carefully word my posts but I guess they're stilll coming off misconstrued.   I don't know how else to get my thoughts across besides how I am doing it.   I am not disagreeing with you or Diane on the above statements of DVC did what was allowed/right etc or how people have to learn how to work the new point system.
> 
> 
> Maria


It's cool, we're just batting it around and I suspect saying much the same things in a different way for most of this.  However, I don't see how anyone can be upset with DVC on principle unless they feel it was wrong of them to make the change.  They could certainly be upset at their bad luck, to me, that's different.  As noted before, I do think BLT and other new member buyers have some reason to be upset if they fit into the window where the bought, couldn't get out and DVC changed the rules before they could even reserve.


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> I agree Dean.  We could drop our price and sell alot more quickly.  Our agent suggested if we did this we would get a quicker sale.  But...as I mentioned, since we have no plans to use our OKW this year (have AKV and SSR developer points to use).....we can sit on it a little longer.   It's not costing us anything....we're not losing anything at this point.   I appreciate your input.


A valid approach but not the one of someone upset and looking to get out from under a given contract.  Your initial post on this subject made me think you had decided to sell because you were upset at the change.  Now I realize you're taking a different approach, that of divesting a given contract if you get enough for it, one I had taken with my BWV contract.


----------



## DVCGeek

Dean said:


> As noted before, I do think BLT and other new member buyers have some reason to be upset if they fit into the window where the bought, couldn't get out and DVC changed the rules before they could even reserve.



I definitely feel bad for that group, but hopefully it is very small!  When I joined DVC in Oct. 2008 w/ BLT as my home my guide made it VERY clear that although it had only happened once and wasn't very likely point charts COULD change and that it was possible for everything to go to "Dream Season" rates all year and/or for differences between weeknights and weekends to change or everything to theoretically eventually go to a single rate every day of the year.

So while I didn't expect the change, I felt I was warned it could happen and advised to make sure I had enough points "just in case", rather than count things out to a single point, ESPECIALLY if planning for regular banking / borrowing (I was contemplating starting w/ 100 points @ AKV and every so often trying to B/B to get a MK view studio @ BLT).  My hope is that other guides, especially for recent purchases, were equally forthcoming.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> A valid approach but not the one of someone upset and looking to get out from under a given contract.



If I didn't have AKV and my SSR developer points to fall back on this year, I would be more aggressive in selling.  So you might not see my actions as those of someone who is as upset as you perceive, but.....had the reallocation not come along, I probably wouldn't even be talking about selling OKW.   I don't know.  It was tossed around between dh and I, but the reallocation just sank it in for us.    Not selling this year is not holding us up any-----now if I'm unable to sell it by this time next year, I will get more aggressive.    

We purchased OKW back in 2000, thinking 30 points per night for a 2 bedroom on a weeknight in Magic season was great.  Now, we don't feel 36 points per night is as good a deal.   IOW, the low points per night were a big selling feature with us.   It's not coming out like that for us now at 30 points additional per year required for our stays.   Thus the appeal of OKW has lessened for us.   I can get a bright new shiny resort with longer years on the contract (AKV) for just about the same amount of points for their 2 bedroom in Magic Season.   

We used to say about OKW :  it's ok we don't have valet parking, rooms a littlle dated, no room service, no concierge, no indoor corridors, not more impressive themeing, less food options etc......because I'm getting a 2 bedroom villa for only 30 points/night. All these issues were more easily dismissed at 30 points a night.  Now it's 36 points for that same 2 bedroom villa at OKW.  Now I can get a 2 bedroom at AKV for the same season for actually less @ 35 points.  Doesn't mean DVC isn't for me anymore.....just OKW isn't for us anymore.....

So when we look at the whole picture, while we still enjoy our stays at OKW, it just doesn't seem quite as worth it to me as it did a year ago.  And this is why we would like to sell.   As I stated before, had we known about the reallocation a mere 90 days before we purchased our AKV add-on, we would have purchased double the amount of points there we did.   This is what irks me.  Disney had to have known they were going to announce the reallocation of points and left people like us in the dark.  AKV points can't even be used yet.  So I felt we deserved to know earlier, same as BLT owners.    Dh and I would have felt like disney was alot more timely and upfront with us if they had announced it earlier than they did.  We would have planned a whole lot differently than we did.   So just a little "grrr" on disney.   And of course, as always, this is just my personal opinion and may not be shared by another DVC Member anywhere.....I get that I'm just a grain of sand in the DVC ocean.   

Maria


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> I get that I'm just a grain of sand in the DVC ocean.
> 
> Maria


As are we all to a degree but it doesn't really have any bearing on this issue.


----------



## Mick West

Dean said:


> It's cool, we're just batting it around and I suspect saying much the same things in a different way for most of this.  However, I don't see how anyone can be upset with DVC on principle unless they feel it was wrong of them to make the change.  They could certainly be upset at their bad luck, to me, that's different.  As noted before, I do think BLT and other new member buyers have some reason to be upset if they fit into the window where the bought, couldn't get out and DVC changed the rules before they could even reserve.



Wow - Dean and I finally agree on something! I feel it is/was wrong for the change being made and upset at my bad luck. I fully realize this DVC ownership ain't like being in the Micky Mouse Club. "Owners" are just a number to Disney and I realize that. They have a captive customer base of 2 or 3 hundred thousand and what's the worst case a member can do? Sell? This does nothing to them as someone else just fills the void. Rent/Transfer - To them it's still just feet on the property, spending money. Not go. They would love this - then they can rent the units! And what I really don't get is how this change will have much of an effect. Week days are still much lower than weekends. I won't now include a weekend in my stay just because the weekend points lowered a bit. I will still go on Saturday, stay off site in a very nice and reasonably priced room and check in early Sunday morning and hit the parks. My guess is that the next change will come much sooner than we'd like. This change won't do much so they will have to get together and come up with another plan that is "best for all".


----------



## dianeschlicht

> I agree Dean. We could drop our price and sell alot more quickly. Our agent suggested if we did this we would get a quicker sale. But...as I mentioned, since we have no plans to use our OKW this year (have AKV and SSR developer points to use).....we can sit on it a little longer. It's not costing us anything....we're not losing anything at this point. I appreciate your input.


Well, it IS costing  you something....a year of maintenance fees for points you wont be using.  The advantage to that is the fact that you will then have a "loaded contract" next year if you end up with it that long.


----------



## DaveH

I think one thing just about everyone agrees on DVC did a lousy job of communicating the change. It seems Disney in general and DVC for sure has had this kind of problem for years now. I doubt that enough of us will just go and used the villas and not go into the parks. A large % of us not spending money in the parks is what would get WDW Co's attention.


----------



## dianeschlicht

DaveH said:


> I think one thing just about everyone agrees on DVC did a lousy job of communicating the change. It seems Disney in general and DVC for sure has had this kind of problem for years now. I doubt that enough of us will just go and used the villas and not go into the parks. A large % of us not spending money in the parks is what would get WDW Co's attention.



That non-communication is nothing new for DVC.  I've come to expect it.  There is no way I would go to WDW and not go to the parks though.  That's the whole reason I purchased DVC, and so I'll go with the flow.


----------



## DaveH

dianeschlicht said:


> That non-communication is nothing new for DVC.  I've come to expect it.  There is no way I would go to WDW and not go to the parks though.  That's the whole reason I purchased DVC, and so I'll go with the flow.



I agree, I was pointing out the way we could get Disney's attention. We joined in May 2001. I remember the parks being very empty in late Nov 2001, our first trip home. I honestly believe the answers they got from the surveys in 2002 and 2003 got the ticket discount to annual passes. Until I read this thread I did not realize that more folks did sun to Fri trips. I did see a difference in levels at resorts in the last couple of years. I guess I was slow noticing this and just enjoying our stays. We bought at 150 points. We have added on twice and I do not see no more add ons for us. We just decide when we will like to go each year and see what we can do with our points. We are empty nesters with no grand kids. At first I was trying to understand the high emotion here. I think I finally understand it now.


----------



## Mick West

DaveH said:


> I agree, I was pointing out the way we could get Disney's attention. We joined in May 2001. I remember the parks being very empty in late Nov 2001, our first trip home. I honestly believe the answers they got from the surveys in 2002 and 2003 got the ticket discount to annual passes. Until I read this thread I did not realize that more folks did sun to Fri trips. I did see a difference in levels at resorts in the last couple of years. I guess I was slow noticing this and just enjoying our stays. We bought at 150 points. We have added on twice and I do not see no more add ons for us. We just decide when we will like to go each year and see what we can do with our points. We are empty nesters with no grand kids. At first I was trying to understand the high emotion here. I think I finally understand it now.



We also became a member about 9 years ago and have seen a significant increase in the amount of traffic during the slower times, which I'm assuming is in large part due to the growth of DVC. So I fully expect that the next change will be another reallocation of points and a change to the "seasonal" point distribution. The low points times will shrink, decreasing further the overall worth of our points contracts. They've got us now and we are a built in cash cow.


----------



## DVCGeek

Mick West said:


> The low points times will shrink, decreasing further the overall worth of our points contracts. They've got us now and we are a built in cash cow.



How could they do that?  The total number of points for a year is fixed, so to "shrink" one area they'd have to balance that with increasing another & vice-versa...


----------



## DaveH

Mick, remember the total number of points for each resort can not be increased overall without adding rooms. If they make a season longer that cost more the cheaper season or another season that is cheaper to increase. I understand many bought a certain number of points for a certain season for so many days. Many of those had the value decrease. Others who travel at a different time had their value increase. They can decrease the number of seasons, but the total number of points for that resort per year can not change. More points have been added to SSR due to the addition of the treehouse villas. More villas available. I know the majority of the folks posting on this thread have had their value decreased. Many who had their value increase have nothing to say. We break even for the most part. We do not have much of a set time or length of stays. I expect one of our favorite times to increase sometime in the future. I am talking the first 2 weeks of Dec. I am sorry but the blanket statement that everyone's value has decrease is not totally true. To most on this thread they have. You included in that. This change like many others over the years we both have seen, means we have to evaluate it and decide what is best for each of us to do.


----------



## DVCGeek

DaveH said:


> They can decrease the number of seasons, but the total number of points for that resort per year can not change. More points have been added to SSR due to the addition of the treehouse villas. More villas available.



Isn't it that the total number for a given type of room per year can't change?  That was how my guide explained it- I believe she said 'total points in a [vertical] column are fixed for the year'.  Similar in concept to owning 1 week for a certain type of room in a traditional timeshare, a week is always a week, or 1/52nd of that unit.  Similarly, x points is 1/y per year for that unit, and the amount each point is per year is what I thought couldn't change.  The number of days that number of points get you at a particular time certainly can (and in this case did) change, BUT the fraction of a year averaged out can not.

When you add on more rooms, they might have to be a separate class, thus part of the reason Treehouse Villas have a separate column on the point charts?    Either that, or each room might have to be identical in points per year for the existing rooms of that class (For a studio of 8,700 points / year means that adding 10 new studios requires adding another 87,000 salable points (perhaps minus 2%?) to the resort overall...)


----------



## MiaSRN62

> I know the majority of the folks posting on this thread have had their value decreased. Many who had their value increase have nothing to say. We break even for the most part.



It is the people, like me, who will be coming up 30 points short every year that feel a decrease in value.  But when I've said this over the past weeks....or is it months now we've been talking about this, I am totally referring to that decrease in value as a personal one to us.   I don't feel DVC's value has gone down overall.  Rather, just how it is for our personal usage with specifically OKW.   My points were affected at AKV too, but not nearly to as large a degree.  

I feel new people buying in (those just discovering DVC), won't even know the difference.   They may not have never known that 2 bedroom villas at OKW in the summer used to go for 30 points a night for Sun-Thurs.    They are coming in and seeing the 36 points a night now and able to make an informed decision whether they think OKW is worth that per night.   I'm looking at it from a totally different perspective.  Having paid 30 points per night for our 2 bedroom at OKW for years, and now seeing I will be paying 36/night, makes an impact in my thoughts about this situation.  

I look at my AKV ownership and see I can actually pay 1 point less per night there for a 2 bedroom Sun-Thurs in the summer.   I just wonder if more will see this and think why not pay a little less for a 2 bedroom in a brand new resort ?   OKW already had some more difficulty keeping herself booked (along with SSR).  These were always the two resorts that were more likely to have vacancies.   

Now I wonder if the new point reallocation will make it even harder for OKW ?    I know I plan to use my points to stay at AKV over OKW since it's one point less per weeknight and 6 points LESS per weekend.   I'm getting a more modern and lushly decorated room with more amenities the resort has to offer.   I'm getting 3 bathrooms (at Kidani) vs 2 at OKW.  I'm getting the ability to sleep an additional guest in the sleeper chair.   

So I just feel the incentive (or personal value for me) is now taken away as far as using my points at OKW and thus why I wish to sell.   Time will tell, if this point reallocation jump at OKW will help or hurt it in way of keeping it booked in Magic season.   I just feel AKV has more to offer guests and they will see this.  I could be wrong.  So I hope some can see a little bit more why I'm a bit disappointed with such a large point jump at OKW starting 2010. If you can't....that's perfectly ok.   I totally get DVD had to and had the right to do this.  



Maria


----------



## Mick West

DaveH said:


> Mick, remember the total number of points for each resort can not be increased overall without adding rooms. If they make a season longer that cost more the cheaper season or another season that is cheaper to increase. I understand many bought a certain number of points for a certain season for so many days. Many of those had the value decrease. Others who travel at a different time had their value increase. They can decrease the number of seasons, but the total number of points for that resort per year can not change. More points have been added to SSR due to the addition of the treehouse villas. More villas available. I know the majority of the folks posting on this thread have had their value decreased. Many who had their value increase have nothing to say. We break even for the most part. We do not have much of a set time or length of stays. I expect one of our favorite times to increase sometime in the future. I am talking the first 2 weeks of Dec. I am sorry but the blanket statement that everyone's value has decrease is not totally true. To most on this thread they have. You included in that. This change like many others over the years we both have seen, means we have to evaluate it and decide what is best for each of us to do.



Could they not eliminate the low point season (Adventure I think it's called) and redistribute those points into the four remaining seasons, thus increasing the points needed during each of those seasons? If that could happen wouldn't everyone's "value" decrease?


----------



## doconeill

Mick West said:


> Could they not eliminate the low point season (Adventure I think it's called) and redistribute those points into the four remaining seasons, thus increasing the points needed during each of those seasons? If that could happen wouldn't everyone's "value" decrease?



You can't eliminate the dates in Adventure season...those would have to go somewhere else.

To eliminate Adventure season, those dates would have to be absorbed by other seasons. Then you'd take all the points that were tied up in Adventure season dates and whatever season it merged with, and have to reallocated them. In principle, they would average out with the new season lowering in points.

If you "eliminated" Premiere season, the opposite would happen. On average the merged season would be higher.

In theory, they could eliminate all seasons and have one point level. It would never happen because the seasons are based on demand - but demand DOES shift...


----------



## tjkraz

Mick West said:


> Wow - Dean and I finally agree on something! I feel it is/was wrong for the change being made and upset at my bad luck. I fully realize this DVC ownership ain't like being in the Micky Mouse Club. "Owners" are just a number to Disney and I realize that. They have a captive customer base of 2 or 3 hundred thousand and what's the worst case a member can do? Sell? This does nothing to them as someone else just fills the void.



True but DVC wants to continue selling points for decades to come.  I don't think we will see them running roughshod over members just because they can.  At least not if they intend to continue selling points. 



> Rent/Transfer - To them it's still just feet on the property, spending money.



Overall Disney's isn't enamored with rentals because it hurts their own business.  It's a little harder to demand $400 per night for a room when guests can "rent" the same room from a DVC member for $150 per night.  



> Not go. They would love this - then they can rent the units!



Disney doesn't benefit from this.  They can only rent rooms for profit equivalent to the number of points they hold at a resort.  

If rooms are going unbooked because members aren't using their points, the revenues will go as a credit to member dues.  It appears under the heading of "breakage."



> And what I really don't get is how this change will have much of an effect. Week days are still much lower than weekends. I won't now include a weekend in my stay just because the weekend points lowered a bit. I will still go on Saturday, stay off site in a very nice and reasonably priced room and check in early Sunday morning and hit the parks.



Even if you still follow the same pattern (Sunday - Thursday stays), you are using more points for each stay.  In and of itself, that creates more weekday capacity at the resorts.  

And to be blunt...you are only one person.  Others WILL change their patterns as a result of the reallocation.  



> My guess is that the next change will come much sooner than we'd like. This change won't do much so they will have to get together and come up with another plan that is "best for all".



Well, I do think it will have an impact.  If your points previously would buy you 15 weekdays per year and now you can only get 13 per year, then added capacity has been created.  Some other member can step in and take those other nights.  

And when you spread those effects over hundreds-of-thousands of members and millions of points, things will certainly change.  

That said, a change to the seasons wouldn't surprise me one bit.  early-December has been under-priced for just as long as the weekends have been over-priced.  We'll just have to wait and see if DVC makes more changes for 2011 or waits longer than that.


----------



## Mick West

doconeill said:


> You can't eliminate the dates in Adventure season...those would have to go somewhere else.
> 
> To eliminate Adventure season, those dates would have to be absorbed by other seasons. Then you'd take all the points that were tied up in Adventure season dates and whatever season it merged with, and have to reallocated them. In principle, they would average out with the new season lowering in points.
> 
> 
> 
> If you "eliminated" Premiere season, the opposite would happen. On average the merged season would be higher.
> 
> In theory, they could eliminate all seasons and have one point level. It would never happen because the seasons are based on demand - but demand DOES shift...




I must be missing something. The current season weekly points at BCV for a 1br (Low to High) is 200/214/252/270/350. If the eliminated this season, moving the dates to a newly created 4 seasons that would be the current point totals for those four PLUS the 1286 point from the eliminated season, thus increasing the point allocation, not lowering it. I think if you eliminated any season and moved those dates to a newly structured 4 season calendar the points would increase. 

I agree with the fact that the first two weeks of Dec will change. I'm really surprised it hasn't since that's my favorite time to go!


----------



## doconeill

Mick West said:


> I must be missing something. The current season weekly points at BCV for a 1br (Low to High) is 200/214/252/270/350. If the eliminated this season, moving the dates to a newly created 4 seasons that would be the current point totals for those four PLUS the 1286 point from the eliminated season, thus increasing the point allocation, not lowering it. I think if you eliminated any season and moved those dates to a newly structured 4 season calendar the points would increase.
> 
> I agree with the fact that the first two weeks of Dec will change. I'm really surprised it hasn't since that's my favorite time to go!



You are missing the fact that yes, the total number of points in the season went up, but so did the number of dates you need to spread those points across...


----------



## The Prophet

DVC fails to take into account that some members such as myself will change their vacation plans to continue to maximize their point value.

This year a 2 bedroom at Saratoga Springs was 175 points during President's week.
Next year, the same accommodations increase to 192 points.

Since we don't do much on Sunday (aside from swimming and shopping) we will probably stay off-site and check in around 7:00 AM Monday morning.

This way a 17 point deficit becomes a 19 point surplus


The Prophet


----------



## tjkraz

It is within DVC's power to alter the seasons.  They certainly could go from 5 seasons down to 4 or 3, or even increase to 6.  There are very few restrictions.  

But what they cannot do is change the total annual points at a resort.  They cannot simply eliminate Adventure season, move those dates to Choice Season, and call it a day.  

If DVC is to increase the number of points required per night for January, September and early-December, they must decrease the nightly points somewhere else on the calendar.  

Personally I don't think there's justification for eliminating Adventure Season altogether.  The most needed change is to move the early-December weeks to a more expensive period.  If you look at the month of September and much of January, those dates NEED the heavy discounting of Adventure Season in order to fill the resorts.  Early-December doesn't need that and it shouldn't be lumped in with those other low-priced dates.  

In my mind's eye, I view Dream season (the middle one) as your baseline.  From there, DVC charges a premium for Magic and Premier Season dates because demand would otherwise exceed supply.  And for Adventure and Choice Seasons, DVC is discounting the rooms because of low demand.  

December 1-14 obviously bucks this wisdom and is the best candidate to move.  You could make an argument for increasing most of October as well.  On the flip side, there are dates in the spring (mid-April and May) which are overpriced and late-August is sorely overpriced.  

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if DVC made these adjustments in the new few years.


----------



## tjkraz

The Prophet said:


> DVC fails to take into account that some members such as myself will change their vacation plans to continue to maximize their point value.



Not at all.  That's exactly what all of us who are impacted will be doing.  It's just the method of coping which will change from one member to the next.


----------



## Chuck S

The Prophet said:


> DVC fails to take into account that some members such as myself will change their vacation plans to continue to maximize their point value.
> 
> This year a 2 bedroom at Saratoga Springs was 175 points during President's week.
> Next year, the same accommodations increase to 192 points.
> 
> Since we don't do much on Sunday (aside from swimming and shopping) we will probably stay off-site and check in around 7:00 AM Monday morning.
> 
> This way a 17 point deficit becomes a 19 point surplus
> 
> 
> The Prophet




I think they probably considered that, because ultimately, by reserving one less weekday night, you are dropping demand for a weekday, and helping to even out demand between weekdays and weekends.


----------



## Dean

DaveH said:


> I think one thing just about everyone agrees on DVC did a lousy job of communicating the change. It seems Disney in general and DVC for sure has had this kind of problem for years now. I doubt that enough of us will just go and used the villas and not go into the parks. A large % of us not spending money in the parks is what would get WDW Co's attention.


I think their timing was poor but agree with their method up to a point.  I think they could have done better but not the way most seem to think.  TMI or the appearance of a choice where there is none are usually  bad things in such situations.



DVCGeek said:


> Isn't it that the total number for a given type of room per year can't change?  That was how my guide explained it-


You were told wrong.  Technically each unit (usually a collection of rooms) is to stay the same but ultimately it's simply the entire resort can't change.  And lockoff's are only legally restricted by the 20% change per year.



The Prophet said:


> DVC fails to take into account that some members such as myself will change their vacation plans to continue to maximize their point value.


Quite the contrary, not only do they expect it, they are trying to control it to a degree and they should.  I think members unreasonably assume that DIS members are the norm, they are not.  I think the contrary is the case.  DVC delayed the reallocation for years due to previous member reaction.  This change should have happened about 91 or 92.  One of the trendy management styles currently is to make quick decisions, implement them and then evaluated where you are and change again quickly if necessary.  Many feel that you can over analyze situations.  Many also feel that if you wait for a consensus from a group, you never get anything done.  IMO, there is a lot of truth to those opinions though I also don't think one should be too hasty.  Actually DVC doesn't really care much what some members do but rather what the membership as a whole do, budgets and to keep within the legal constraints of FL law and the POS.  For DVD, add sales to that list.


----------



## Deb & Bill

The Prophet said:


> DVC fails to take into account that some members such as myself will change their vacation plans to continue to maximize their point value.
> 
> This year a 2 bedroom at Saratoga Springs was 175 points during President's week.
> Next year, the same accommodations increase to 192 points.
> 
> Since we don't do much on Sunday (aside from swimming and shopping) we will probably stay off-site and check in around 7:00 AM Monday morning.
> 
> This way a 17 point deficit becomes a 19 point surplus
> 
> 
> The Prophet



You still bought the same number of points, still paying the same dues, still going to eventually use those 19 points.


----------



## DaveH

Maria I it stinks for you and others whose vacation needs are the same. My point is to others who think all of us vacation the same. I hope things work out for you. You could always get more VWL points.  Hang in there, things may change in the future in your favor later on.


----------



## OneMoreTry

chalee94 said:


> wait, is this hall and oates or 10cc?  (the things we do for love.)



I think it's from "The Things We Do for Love."  Isn't that Hall and Oates?


----------



## Pete W.

OneMoreTry said:


> I think it's from "The Things We Do for Love."  Isn't that Hall and Oates?



No, it is definitely 10cc.  They also did the song "I'm not in Love."  Funny juxtaposition -- these were their 2 big hits.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Isn't that Hall and Oates?



John Oates just recently appeared at my dd's school for a small impromptu concert.  He sounds good as ever......they're Philly guys.........




> I hope things work out for you. You could always get more VWL points.  Hang in there, things may change in the future in your favor later on.



Thanks so much for the kind words Dave.....appreciate it....


Maria


----------



## Mick West

doconeill said:


> You are missing the fact that yes, the total number of points in the season went up, but so did the number of dates you need to spread those points across...



I'm not missing this fact. I just don't see the relevance of it. Worst case scenario: ther is only one season of use; 1 Jan - 31 Dec. Of course theres more dates, but the points per night would be extremely high. And if that were the case my "value" as everyone else's, would decline. I'm defining value as my points give me XX amount of stays now and with changes that XX amount lowers. Totally do not get your ... number of dates... reference.


----------



## DaveH

Mick West said:


> I'm not missing this fact. I just don't see the relevance of it. Worst case scenario: ther is only one season of use; 1 Jan - 31 Dec. Of course theres more dates, but the points per night would be extremely high. And if that were the case my "value" as everyone else's, would decline. I'm defining value as my points give me XX amount of stays now and with changes that XX amount lowers. Totally do not get your ... number of dates... reference.



Mick because some dates will go down, therefore folks who use those dates get more dates.


----------



## tjkraz

Mick West said:


> Worst case scenario: ther is only one season of use; 1 Jan - 31 Dec. Of course theres more dates, but the points per night would be extremely high. And if that were the case my "value" as everyone else's, would decline.



That is not entirely correct.

If there was only one season, the points per night would be some equilibrium point among all of the seasons offered now.  The points per night compared to what were "Adventure" and "Choice" seasons would probably go up, while the points per night for dates in "Premier" and "Magic" seasons would go down.

YOUR value (as you have defined it) may go down, but a relatively equal number of owners who use points for the higher-priced seasons would see their value go up.  

Given that the total points over the entire resort cannot change, there really aren't any circumstances in which chart adjustments would cause everyone's value to diminish.  In any change some will win and some will lose.


----------



## DVCGeek

Dean said:


> You were told wrong.  Technically each unit (usually a collection of rooms) is to stay the same but ultimately it's simply the entire resort can't change.  And lockoff's are only legally restricted by the 20% change per year.



Uh oh.  That theoretically could blow my entire plans (detailed in post #2431) where I thought I was "safe" with my # of points into a brick wall since I usually plan to go for studios @ 11 months every time and then eventually try other resorts @ 7 months...  We'll see.  If I have to add more points or use cash some trips then so be it.  I might end up with an add on at the next new FL resort and alternate years or something, maybe even up myself to 1 bedrooms depending on what $$$ is like for me by then.  Time will tell!


----------



## LisaS

Mick West said:


> I'm not missing this fact. I just don't see the relevance of it. Worst case scenario: ther is only one season of use; 1 Jan - 31 Dec. Of course theres more dates, but the points per night would be extremely high. And if that were the case my "value" as everyone else's, would decline. I'm defining value as my points give me XX amount of stays now and with changes that XX amount lowers. Totally do not get your ... number of dates... reference.


If DVC did this, the points would not be extremely high. They would be a sort of average of all of the point costs we have now.

Simple example: Let's say DVC had only two seasons, each with an equal number of days in the year assigned to those seasons.  Let's say there is only one room  type and it costs 10 pts/night to stay in Season 1 and 30 pts/night in Season 2.  You normally stay in Season 1 and I normally stay in Season 2 so you are accustomed to paying only 10 points per night while I pay 30 points per night.

If DVC decided to have only one season for Jan 1 - Dec 31, then based on the reallocation rules the cost per night would have to be 20 points. You would have to pay an extra 10 points per night while I would save 10 points per night. So you would see a loss in value while I would see an increase in value.


----------



## doconeill

Let's simplify it.

There are only two weeks, and one unit.

One is "value" season, and costs 4 points a night (no weekday, weekend stuff). That's a total of 28 points.

One is "premium" season, and costs twice as much, 8 points a night. That's 56 total points.

The sum total of points is 84. This number CANNOT CHANGE no matter what DVC does.

If they reallocate both weeks into a single season, there is still 84 points to distribute, but over 14 days. That means each day will cost 6 points.

So, it went up 2pts/night for one week, but went DOWN 2pts/night for the other week. It averages out because it has to be a zero net change.

DVC cannot simply take away that value week and make it a premium week where everything costs 8pts/night.

Edit: I see Lisa and I had the same idea...except someone interrupted me with work! How dare they!


----------



## Mick West

DaveH said:


> Mick because some dates will go down, therefore folks who use those dates get more dates.



Thanks! I get it! You have a way, in few words, of communicating effectively. And I'm beginning to understand this change is negative for some (me!), positive for some - and not much of a change for others! Thanks again.


----------



## The Prophet

tjkraz said:


> Not at all.  That's exactly what all of us who are impacted will be doing.  It's just the method of coping which will change from one member to the next.




One thing I'm thinking about doing is canceling my Sunday night stay a day or two before I arrive -- which might give me a better chance of my room being ready Monday morning.
I don't care if the points go into holding, because I have a Feb use year and 11 months to use the points.

Legal ...Yes
Ethical....Probably not


----------



## tjkraz

The Prophet said:


> One thing I'm thinking about doing is canceling my Sunday night stay a day or two before I arrive -- which might give me a better chance of my room being ready Monday morning.
> I don't care if the points go into holding, because I have a Feb use year and 11 months to use the points.
> 
> Legal ...Yes
> Ethical....Probably not



If your goal is to make DVC suffer, I don't really see that happening.  The ones most likely to lose are any DVC members on the waitlist for the night you will ultimately cancel.  

Just be aware that under the Holding rules you can only book 60 days from arrival.  You may have 11 months to use the points but that may be impractical depending upon how flexible your dates are.


----------



## palhockeymomof2

The Prophet said:


> One thing I'm thinking about doing is canceling my Sunday night stay a day or two before I arrive -- which might give me a better chance of my room being ready Monday morning.
> I don't care if the points go into holding, because I have a Feb use year and 11 months to use the points.
> 
> Legal ...Yes
> Ethical....Probably not



Not sure if that would work  since I would not count on the room you canceled staying vacant...if someone is looking for that night.   I've called daily when the waitlist ended at 7 days and have even had luck getting a room by checking the resort I wanted on arrival day...


----------



## Dean

The Prophet said:


> One thing I'm thinking about doing is canceling my Sunday night stay a day or two before I arrive -- which might give me a better chance of my room being ready Monday morning.
> I don't care if the points go into holding, because I have a Feb use year and 11 months to use the points.
> 
> Legal ...Yes
> Ethical....Probably not


It's not unethical but likely won't help you either as it's very unlikely to get you in the room any earlier and it could easily cause you to be later.


----------



## OneMoreTry

Pete W. said:


> No, it is definitely 10cc.  They also did the song "I'm not in Love."  Funny juxtaposition -- these were their 2 big hits.



Earlier today I was playing it in my mind, and got SO DISILLUSIONED when I realized you were right.

Thanks for straightening me out.


----------



## OneMoreTry

The Prophet said:


> DVC fails to take into account that some members such as myself will change their vacation plans to continue to maximize their point value.
> 
> This year a 2 bedroom at Saratoga Springs was 175 points during President's week.
> Next year, the same accommodations increase to 192 points.
> 
> Since we don't do much on Sunday (aside from swimming and shopping) we will probably stay off-site and check in around 7:00 AM Monday morning.
> 
> This way a 17 point deficit becomes a 19 point surplus
> 
> 
> The Prophet



I disagree.  Not only did they take into account members changing vacation plans accordingly, that was the whole reason for the point change to begin with.

They want to make less popular nights more popular and vice versa.  The points you save can be accumulated and used for a weekend night when it is convenient for your plans.

The poeple who benefit the most from this change are those who are restricted to using weekend nights because of work or school schedules.  

disney does not lose or benefit from the change.  The MS people may benefit as the change will result in more nights being open when people want them due to reallocation to distribute according to demand.  
There fore less wait lists .


----------



## Dean

The Prophet said:


> One thing I'm thinking about doing is canceling my Sunday night stay a day or two before I arrive -- which might give me a better chance of my room being ready Monday morning.
> I don't care if the points go into holding, because I have a Feb use year and 11 months to use the points.
> 
> Legal ...Yes
> Ethical....Probably not


I wanted to revisit this issue as it is a pet peeve of mine.  Using any version of the word ethics with timeshare usage is simply not applicable.  It's either within the rules or not.  Even unintended consequences of rules are not unethical when used to your advantage.  Things like booking the highest demand option for rental, booking using home resort points then canceling at 7 months and trying to rereserve with non home resort points, booking multiple units or weeks until you know what you need or walking reservations are OK if allowed under the rules and those 4 are.  One can come up with many other examples of similar issues.  The only issue is whether it's allowed or not.


----------



## The Prophet

Dean said:


> I wanted to revisit this issue as it is a pet peeve of mine.  Using any version of the word ethics with timeshare usage is simply not applicable.  It's either within the rules or not.  Even unintended consequences of rules are not unethical when used to your advantage.  Things like booking the highest demand option for rental, booking using home resort points then canceling at 7 months and trying to rereserve with non home resort points, booking multiple units or weeks until you know what you need or walking reservations are OK if allowed under the rules and those 4 are.  One can come up with many other examples of similar issues.  The only issue is whether it's allowed or not.




It is within the rules to cancel up to 24 hours before I arrive.
If I cancel my first night at the latest possible time, there is some chance, not sure what it may be, that the room will remain vacant that night.

Would this work to my advantage?
I may have to try it and find out.


----------



## Dean

The Prophet said:


> It is within the rules to cancel up to 24 hours before I arrive.
> If I cancel my first night at the latest possible time, there is some chance, not sure what it may be, that the room will remain vacant that night.
> 
> Would this work to my advantage?
> I may have to try it and find out.


It's possible but with the way DVC blocks rooms, I doubt it and as I said, it may work against you simply because they may have blocked your room but remove your block when you make the changes.  With a system like Bluegreen where they actually match a specific unit to your reservation, you'd have a larger change of success.  Actually I know some that did this type of thing with BG.  Until fairly recently BG allowed reserving 7 days or more for 11 months out but only 5 months for less than 7 days.  Further there are two options that some members can take advantage of.  These are free room extensions on short notice and cheap rentals of $49 to $69 per night (studio to 2 BR).  For many there are free cancelations and changes up to 10 days out.  Things some did in this area included booking a 7 day reservation at 11 months out then calling back at or after 5 months out, canceling and rebooking for the shorter time since they knew the room would be available.  Another was canceling at exactly 10 days then trying to get the room, or part of the time,  back as a freebie or cheap rental.  BG has since changed the rules so you can book any length available starting at 11 months so it has decreased much of this.  They have also made it so that more people have a fee to cancel.


----------



## DaveH

The Prophet said:


> It is within the rules to cancel up to 24 hours before I arrive.
> If I cancel my first night at the latest possible time, there is some chance, not sure what it may be, that the room will remain vacant that night.
> 
> Would this work to my advantage?
> I may have to try it and find out.



With the way DVC assigns rooms now, your room may open up after the cancel on Monday and someone who arrives on Sun may get your original room. The only one you may hurt is a fellow DVC member trying to get a room for that night and can't because you are trying to get a room early. Allowed so ok, but selfish.


----------



## The Prophet

DaveH said:


> With the way DVC assigns rooms now, your room may open up after the cancel on Monday and someone who arrives on Sun may get your original room. The only one you may hurt is a fellow DVC member trying to get a room for that night and can't because you are trying to get a room early. Allowed so ok, but selfish.



How is it unfair?
I thought rooms were assigned first come....first serve
If I arrive at the hotel at 7:00 AM on my check-in day, I should get my room before someone who arrives at 1:00 PM


----------



## Chuck S

The Prophet said:


> I thought rooms were assigned first come....first serve
> If I arrive at the hotel at 7:00 AM on my check-in day, I should get my room before someone who arrives at 1:00 PM


Except, that if no room is cleaned and ready at 7am, they assign you a room, and they have no way of knowing when that particular room will be finished by housekeeping.  So it is possible someone who checks n later will get a room earlier because the housekeepers may have finished that assigned room before they finish your, especially if a guest checks out earlier than another.


----------



## tjkraz

The Prophet said:


> I thought rooms were assigned first come....first serve



Not necessarily.  I'm about 50/50 in getting a first available vs. being automatically assigned to a room.  Sometimes they already have a room picked-out for each guest and you don't gain access until that unit is ready.

And we don't know how the new on-line check-in will play into the mix either.


----------



## DaveH

The Prophet said:


> How is it unfair?
> I thought rooms were assigned first come....first serve
> If I arrive at the hotel at 7:00 AM on my check-in day, I should get my room before someone who arrives at 1:00 PM



I am thinking of someone else trying to get a room for that date a couple of days after you did and can not get it. They have to change their vacation because you reserved the room you have no intention of using. That is selfish to me. It is allowed. When folks walk a ressie and cancel a few days later, at least that room is available to someone in a timely manner.


----------



## Dean

DaveH said:


> I am thinking of someone else trying to get a room for that date a couple of days after you did and can not get it. They have to change their vacation because you reserved the room you have no intention of using. That is selfish to me. It is allowed. When folks walk a ressie and cancel a few days later, at least that room is available to someone in a timely manner.


Actually I think walking is worse because it only frees up a day her and there and the people involved likely didn't get to make their reservation at all and had to try to call back the next day.  In this case the member is putting their points on the line and committing them to be holding account points which they can only use short notice and are in much more risky situation related to losing points.  The reality is that every single reservation each of us makes potentially affects someone else but certainly some usages are more out there than others.


----------



## DVCGeek

What about the opposite approach- you book (and NOT cancel) an extra night to try and make sure you have a room ready "early" for you?  For example, me book 5 nights, Sun. through Thursday, but plan to arrive Monday morning.  Would checking in "late" like that be a problem [like the whole ressie get canceled as a no show or something!], other than the cost of the extra points to the member?


----------



## BWV Dreamin

DVCGeek said:


> What about the opposite approach- you book (and NOT cancel) an extra night to try and make sure you have a room ready "early" for you? For example, me book 5 nights, Sun. through Thursday, but plan to arrive Monday morning. Would checking in "late" like that be a problem [like the whole ressie get canceled as a no show or something!], other than the cost of the extra points to the member?


 I think this will be a problem. I would check with MS on the repercussions on checking in a day later. I think they will cancel the whole ressie.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

DVCGeek said:


> What about the opposite approach- you book (and NOT cancel) an extra night to try and make sure you have a room ready "early" for you?  For example, me book 5 nights, Sun. through Thursday, but plan to arrive Monday morning.  Would checking in "late" like that be a problem [like the whole ressie get canceled as a no show or something!], other than the cost of the extra points to the member?



That would not be a problem in any way. I'd just call and let them know you will be a late arrival and they will hold your check-in until you arrive. You would definitely have a room available at arrival - even if that was at 5:00am or later the following morning. If the resort was fully booked, you still might not get any requests made, but you would DEFINTELY have a room available when you arrive past 4:00pm on your check-in date and would have preference over someone whose reservation was the day after yours even if they "arrive" earlier than you. If your reservation was for 3/28/09 and you didn't arrive until 10:00am on 3/29/09, you would still have a villa before the person who arrives at the same time with a check-in of 3/29/09.


----------



## Dean

BWV Dreamin said:


> I think this will be a problem. I would check with MS on the repercussions on checking in a day later. I think they will cancel the whole ressie.


You just have to let them know.  We've done this on exchanges and will for 3 exchanges this year.


----------



## disneynutz

The Prophet said:


> How is it unfair?
> I thought rooms were assigned first come....first serve
> If I arrive at the hotel at 7:00 AM on my check-in day, I should get my room before someone who arrives at 1:00 PM



I can't figure out what the pattern is. We always check in around 7:00 AM.

In December at BWV it seemed that the Mousekeepers worked down the hall in order. We were the last room at the end of the hall and we were the last room cleaned by the Mousekeepers before they went home at 4:00 PM.

Last week at SSR, the Mousekeepers attacked a building in mass with several support vehicles parked all over the place. The next building where we were moving to had no vehicles and only one Mousekeeper that I could see. She was arranging a linen cart. Room was ready at 3:30 PM.


----------



## dianeschlicht

disneynutz said:


> I can't figure out what the pattern is. We always check in around 7:00 AM.
> 
> In December at BWV it seemed that the Mousekeepers worked down the hall in order. We were the last room at the end of the hall and we were the last room cleaned by the Mousekeepers before they went home at 4:00 PM.
> 
> Last week at SSR, the Mousekeepers attacked a building in mass with several support vehicles parked all over the place. The next building where we were moving to had no vehicles and only one Mousekeeper that I could see. She was arranging a linen cart. Room was ready at 3:30 PM.



I think it varies by resort.  At OKW, a mousekeeper has responsibility for a specific building first before she moves on to help others.  There is also a support system of people who do nothing but deliver baskets of clean linens to the rooms  that need servicing.  Generally,l the mousekeeper assigned to the building (sometimes it's a two building group) will be responsible not only for the cleaning, but also for getting the toiletries together (those don't come in the baskets).  Given that information, I understand why it can take a long time for some rooms to get done.  If one housekeeper is doing one whole building at OKW, she would really be swamped if all the rooms needed servicing on the same day!


----------



## greenefamily

Personally, I am not happy with the change in points.  We have been DVC members since 2007 and we purchased enough points for us to stay 5 nights at Disney World in a one bedroom (Sunday-Thursday nights), and 5 nights at Hilton Head in a one bedroom (Sunday-Thursday nights).  We will no longer be able to do this!


----------



## The Prophet

greenefamily said:


> Personally, I am not happy with the change in points.  We have been DVC members since 2007 and we purchased enough points for us to stay 5 nights at Disney World in a one bedroom (Sunday-Thursday nights), and 5 nights at Hilton Head in a one bedroom (Sunday-Thursday nights).  We will no longer be able to do this!



Join the club.  I am also trying to figure out other options which include:

1. Purchasing more points -- Not a good one for me right now
2. Stay off-site on Sunday and arrive on Monday -- Looks promising
3. Drop down one level of accommodations -- Somewhere between #1 and #2


----------



## Deb & Bill

The Prophet said:


> Join the club.  I am also trying to figure out other options which include:
> 
> 1. Purchasing more points -- Not a good one for me right now
> 2. Stay off-site on Sunday and arrive on Monday -- Looks promising
> 3. Drop down one level of accommodations -- Somewhere between #1 and #2



You forgot borrowing.  You probably would be able to do that for a long time until you didn't have enough points for a stay.


----------



## The Prophet

Deb & Bill said:


> You forgot borrowing.  You probably would be able to do that for a long time until you didn't have enough points for a stay.



Good Point....But I'm not sure if my family would be too pleased if we have to sacrifice one years worth of points to keep taking 2 vacations per year.

Even though it would be a few years....unless you're the US Government, sooner or later it needs to be paid back


----------



## granmanh603

Sorry to change subject alittle.  But have the new planners with the new point charts been mailed yet?  I was away at Disney(3 WEEKS) and thought they would be here when I got home....NOT.   Sorry but I can't find search key   Thanks..


----------



## SuzanneSLO

The Prophet said:


> Good Point....But I'm not sure if my family would be too pleased if we have to sacrifice one years worth of points to keep taking 2 vacations per year.
> 
> Even though it would be a few years....unless you're the US Government, sooner or later it needs to be paid back



Actually, you really never need to pay borrowed points back.  Yes, at some time you will need to modify your vacation habits for one year or buy a room with cash or get points transferred in.  Over the next 30 years or so it is likely you will do one or all of these if there had been no change in the points chart. 

I think of using borrowed points more like using a gift card you have already purchased.  You can use that card or use cash.  If you use the card, eventually you will have to replace the value of the card but why spend the cash any earlier than you need to?

Best of luck -- Suzanne


----------



## Brian Noble

Agreed---after four-five years of doing "the same thing" every year, you might be ready for something different.


----------



## bub

granmanh603 said:


> Sorry to change subject alittle.  But have the new planners with the new point charts been mailed yet?  I was away at Disney(3 WEEKS) and thought they would be here when I got home....NOT.   Sorry but I can't find search key   Thanks..



As far as I know, they have not been mailed. My mom called Friday (March 27) about this and was told that they were being mailed in a few weeks. I find this to be really surprising, given the magnitude (for many) of this change. I know there are members (some in my own family) who never read Disney information online, who are trying to plan next year's trip. I understand why they made the change (though I don't personally like it - I know that's besides the point here) however I think they need to notify members in a timely manner. Some received emails about it, but I never did (although I used to get regular emails from DVC).


----------



## granmanh603

Thank you.  I wish they would send these out....they change the point charts and don't even have books ready like months later and people are making reservations  for 2010.  This year and last has really been a mess for them as far as I am concerned.   Not  sure if I received and email from them or not about it....I get my DVC info here if I want it to be accurate.
But thank you for answering me.


----------



## Doug7856

bub said:


> As far as I know, they have not been mailed. My mom called Friday (March 27) about this and was told that they were being mailed in a few weeks. I find this to be really surprising, given the magnitude (for many) of this change. I know there are members (some in my own family) who never read Disney information online, who are trying to plan next year's trip. I understand why they made the change (though I don't personally like it - I know that's besides the point here) however I think they need to notify members in a timely manner. Some received emails about it, but I never did (although I used to get regular emails from DVC).



The delay makes you wonder what else they have up their sleeve.


----------



## DVCGeek

granmanh603 said:


> I wish they would send these out....they change the point charts and don't even have books ready like months later and people are making reservations  for 2010.  This year and last has really been a mess for them as far as I am concerned.   Not  sure if I received and email from them or not about it....I get my DVC info here if I want it to be accurate.



I'm a new member (Oct/Nov. 2008) but have to agree with you, especially about going to the boards if I want current and accurate info.  My guide tries, but frequently I know as much or more than she does from here & DVCNews!


----------



## DVCGeek

Doug7856 said:


> The delay makes you wonder what else they have up their sleeve.



My guess is the The Disney Collection rates are still a hold up- they haven't even been released online yet (the cruise charts don't count; we can theoretically book 2011 ones already but don't have charts for them!).  Will they perhaps have a change from precedent and still allow point reservations at the Grand Cal. hotel?  I doubt it, but maybe that is part of the delay so people will buy VGC assuming that's the only way to stay @ Grand Cal. w/ points come 2010?

For that matter, we don't have ANY 2010 charts that I'm aware of for World Passport Collection, The Concierge Collection, or Adventurer Collection either...  Anyone hear any leaks as to what changes will be happening there, if any?


----------



## Chic

Like a lot of people, I'm unhappy with the new points charts for 2010.  I had a different thought and wondered if anyone here knew the answer.  I'm aware that Disney can move the daily points requirements around as long as the yearly allocation of points doesn't change.  I was looking at the points charts for the Grand Californian Villas and noticed that their points are only broken up into 4 seasons as opposed to the 5 seasons for the Orlando DVC resorts. Here is my question:  Can Disney change the Orlando DVC resorts into 4 seasons?  If so, it's scary to imagine how much the daily points requirements could escalate.  In the years to come when hotel room prices are quadruple the present rate, think about what the daily points requirements could be if Disney broke up the charts into 2 seasons. A room currently requiring 14 points on a weeknight could easily go up to 50 points.  A weekend stay could be over 100 points a night.


----------



## Caskbill

Yes they could change seasons, or eliminate seasons all together.  

However, the TOTAL amount of points for the entire resort, for the entire year, still cannot change.

Suppose today if you added up all the points at one of the DVC resorts, to book every villa for the year, and it came out to be 5 million points, then no matter what they do, either change weekday/weekends points, or change seasons points, and so on, the total still can not exceed the original 5 million points.

For Example:  They could not just make the entire year Premier season and then use the current Premier season charts across the board.  The new point requirements would have to come out to some type of average so it doesn't increase total points.


----------



## Chic

In other words, Disney can eliminate seasons means they can legally stick it to us in the years to come.  This makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## 5forDiz

As Caskbill stated  " the TOTAL amount of points for the entire resort for the entire year still cannot change ".  This is the "safeguard" so to speak, the total points cannot increase.


----------



## Chic

It sounds pretty safe saying that Disney cannot increase the yearly amount of points for the resort but by eliminating seasons, Disney has a huge amount of flexibility to make changes.  In other words, let's say DVC decides to break the year up into only 2 seasons.  We now have regular season and peak season.  Our 14 point Studio rate for a weekday could turn into 80 points.  I can now take 40 weekdays of vacation a year with a 560 point contract.  That's 8 vacations yearly with a 5 day stay.  At 80 points a weekday, Disney could reduce my vacation travel to 7 days a year.  That means only 1 week vacation a year.  Am I looking at this accurately?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

Chic said:


> It sounds pretty safe saying that Disney cannot increase the yearly amount of points for the resort but by eliminating seasons, Disney has a huge amount of flexibility to make changes.  In other words, let's say DVC decides to break the year up into only 2 seasons.  We now have regular season and peak season.  Our 14 point Studio rate for a weekday could turn into 80 points.  I can now take 40 weekdays of vacation a year with a 560 point contract.  That's 8 vacations yearly with a 5 day stay.  At 80 points a weekday, Disney could reduce my vacation travel to 7 days a year.  That means only 1 week vacation a year.  Am I looking at this accurately?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.



If DVC were to reallocate the point charts into two seasons and were to increase points needed for one season, they would also need to decrease the "other" season's point chart accordingly to keep the total points needed to stay at the resort in balance. If weekdays are increased - weekends might be decreased.

Each resort has a calculation explaining what a balanced chart would look like where every night (weekends/weekdays/seasons) of the year would be equal and where the only variation would be for different villa types.

Again, the total points at each resort cannot be changed, but they can be rearranged to balance the demand at the resort.

Since there is an entire thread to discuss this very issue, I'll merge this one into the other to keep the discussion together.


----------



## DVCGeek

WebmasterDoc said:


> Each resort has a calculation explaining what a balanced chart would look like where every night (weekends/weekdays/seasons) of the year would be equal and where the only variation would be for different villa types.



Anyone have a list of this for all the resorts?  Or at least directions on where to find it in your paperwork?

I looked at some of my docs for BLT a while back and think I might have found at least some of this...  However, the way it was worded I wasn't sure if that gave a flat rate should a :balanced chart" happen or a contractual amount that at some point during the year you could get a room of that type for that number of points, but not necessarily what the entire year might be at.  Also, I didn't notice it listing out the different views; is there a list that includes those, or could/would they also be dissolved?


----------



## Chuck S

DVCGeek said:


> Anyone have a list of this for all the resorts?  Or at least directions on where to find it in your paperwork?
> 
> I looked at some of my docs for BLT a while back and think I might have found at least some of this...  However, the way it was worded I wasn't sure if that gave a flat rate should a :balanced chart" happen or a contractual amount that at some point during the year you could get a room of that type for that number of points, but not necessarily what the entire year might be at.  Also, I didn't notice it listing out the different views; is there a list that includes those, or could/would they also be dissolved?




I don't know where specificially it is in the BLT paperwork, but to address part of your question, a full reallocation could do away with views & seasons and simply have a set amount of points for each unit size each day of the year.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

DVCGeek said:


> Anyone have a list of this for all the resorts?  Or at least directions on where to find it in your paperwork?
> 
> I looked at some of my docs for BLT a while back and think I might have found at least some of this...  However, the way it was worded I wasn't sure if that gave a flat rate should a :balanced chart" happen or a contractual amount that at some point during the year you could get a room of that type for that number of points, but not necessarily what the entire year might be at.  Also, I didn't notice it listing out the different views; is there a list that includes those, or could/would they also be dissolved?



Here is the info for the maximum reallocation.

http://dvcnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=96


----------



## Dean

Chic said:


> In other words, Disney can eliminate seasons means they can legally stick it to us in the years to come.  This makes me uncomfortable.


Depends on your definition of "stick it to us".  From this and other similar thread's it's obvious that some people's definition would be any change that negatively affects them, my definition would be different.  If you are looking at the cheapest times, esp for weekdays mostly, such a change could be fairly large for you.  Take SSR which now ranges from 12-19 points weekday and 18-33 points weekend.  If they only had 2 seasons  you might be looking at something like 14/23 for the lower and 16/28 for the high (as an example).  That raises a 5 weekday stay by 10 points and a full week by maybe 20 total for a studio and would likely reduce the number of days you could stay by maybe 10% per year.  IF they coupled that with an evening out of points from weekday to weekend, the affects on some could be an increase of as much as 25% in some cases.  Others would see a corresponding decrease but given the days/seasons involved, non one would see this type of decrease unless they were mostly looking at weekends and the points were changed to the same every day.


----------



## DVCGeek

White_Sox_Fan said:


> Here is the info for the maximum reallocation.
> 
> http://dvcnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=96




Thanks!  That seems to match the BLT info. I read before and I may even have looked at that exact chart.  It jogged my memory and I did some digging- I was discussing things some in another thread after seeing this post:

http://disboards.com/showpost.php?p=30171934&postcount=658

So as I was saying there, BLT values seem low- by my math & the 2010 point charts the average for a BLT SV studio rounds to 18 points / night, 20 for a LV, and 24 for MK view.  At 10% / 70% / 20% especially, how does that ever give you 16?  It seems like it should be 21 (20.6).  

On the other hand, SSR matches perfectly to my math for all room types...  For VGC my math leads to rounded values of 23 for a studio, 47 for a 1-bed, 64 for a 2-bed, and 134 for a Grand Villa...

Lots of people have posted different things from time to time, and my guide didn't seem to know what I was talking about one of the times I specifically asked about a "maximum reallocation" in regard to VGC, but that was in early Feb.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

DVCGeek said:


> Anyone have a list of this for all the resorts?




Here is the balanced Point Chart for each WDW DVC resort where all nights of the year would be the same - no seasons - no weekday/weekend variation:

  ..................OKW..  BWV(St)  BWV(Pref)  VWL  BCV  SSR . AKV . BLT 
Studio .......... 15  ......15 .........  18 ...... 18 .. 18 .. 16 .  15 .. 16  
One Bedroom   30  ......30 .......... 36 ....... 36 .. 36 .. 32 .. 36 .. 39  
Two Bedroom.  40  ......40 .......... 46 ...... 46 .. 46 .. 41 .. 45 .. 54  
Grand Villa ..... 65   .....--  ..........100 ...... --- . ---.. 90 .. 99 .. 96


----------



## ron7654

Our typical DVC stay is Sunday-Thursday, leaving the Friday and Saturday to Disney to book out at high rates.  My guess is that oppupancy on the weekends is down and very competative, so the burden has been shifted to weekday DCVers in the form of higher points per stay, and enabling Disney to rent weekend rooms at a lower rate.  I can't see many DVCers benefiting from this move, don't know many that just book weekends.


----------



## Chuck S

ron7654 said:


> Our typical DVC stay is Sunday-Thursday, leaving the Friday and Saturday to Disney to book out at high rates.  My guess is that oppupancy on the weekends is down and very competative, so the burden has been shifted to weekday DCVers in the form of higher points per stay, and enabling Disney to rent weekend rooms at a lower rate.  I can't see many DVCers benefiting from this move, don't know many that just book weekends.



I really don't think there is a correlation between points per night required and Disney's cash rental price.  Remember that CRO used the one bedroom units at two DVC resorts as overflow from value resorts during free dining a couple of years ago.  So they can pretty much rent them for as much or as little as they want.


----------



## donmil723

WebmasterDoc said:


> Here is the balanced Point Chart for each WDW DVC resort where all nights of the year would be the same - no seasons - no weekday/weekend variation:
> 
> ..................OKW..  BWV(St)  BWV(Pref)  VWL  BCV  SSR  AKV  BLT
> Studio .......... 15  ......15 .........  18 ........ 18 ... 18 .. 16 .  15 .. 16
> One Bedroom   30  ......30 .......... 36 ........ 36 ... 36 .. 32 .. 36 .. 39
> Two Bedroom.  40  ......40 .......... 46 ........ 46 ... 46 .. 41 .. 45 .. 54
> Grand Villa ..... 65   .....--  ..........100 ....... --- .. ---.. 90 .. 99 .. 96



It seems weird that a studio at BWV (Pref), VWL, and BCV would be more points per night than BLT especially when BLT one and two bedrooms are higher!


----------



## DVCGeek

donmil723 said:


> It seems weird that a studio at BWV (Pref), VWL, and BCV would be more points per night than BLT especially when BLT one and two bedrooms are higher!



I agree, but I think that just means that at BLT there will be some type of studio (presumably Standard View) available at some point in the year at that rate or less; for BLT I don't think any of the #s are actually an average, so overall BLT should still be higher...  I read these to mean that BLT & VGC will ALWAYS end up having at least two seasons, but theoretically the other resorts could go to just one (the nightly average of all points in that room class for the year).


----------



## dmoore22

I can see this benefiting those that bring a large group or have a family reunion requiring a Grand Villa. But for my wife and I that are almost empty nestors (I'm retired) the new chart is costing me more points. Normally we stay just shy of 2 weeks. Now we will lose a whole. One less day at WDW. One less day that we will be spending  money onsite. The original chart was more equitable.


----------



## drusba

WebmasterDoc said:


> Here is the balanced Point Chart for each WDW DVC resort where all nights of the year would be the same - no seasons - no weekday/weekend variation:
> 
> ..................OKW..  BWV(St)  BWV(Pref)  VWL  BCV  SSR . AKV . BLT
> Studio .......... 15  ......15 .........  18 ...... 18 .. 18 .. 16 .  15 .. 16
> One Bedroom   30  ......30 .......... 36 ....... 36 .. 36 .. 32 .. 36 .. 39
> Two Bedroom.  40  ......40 .......... 46 ...... 46 .. 46 .. 41 .. 45 .. 54
> Grand Villa ..... 65   .....--  ..........100 ...... --- . ---.. 90 .. 99 .. 96



Yep, the chart needs some explanation because there are other puzzling points, not just the studios. For example, it shows BWV grand villas evening out to 100 points per night and BLT at 96, but the BLT Lake View GVs on the regular point chart for 2010 are higher than BWV GVs for every night of the year and BLT MK view GV's are enormously higher.


----------



## MELSMICE

drusba said:


> Yep, the chart needs some explanation because there are other puzzling points, not just the studios. For example, it shows BWV grand villas evening out to 100 points per night and BLT at 96, but the BLT Lake View GVs on the regular point chart for 2010 are higher than BWV GVs for every night of the year and BLT MK view GV's are enormously higher.


How I wish they would have the system like that where every night is the same amount of points.  I, personally, think it would even be better if each season had a point value assigned per night.  

Example - Value season 15 pts. per night for 1BR 
              Dream season 18 pts. per night for 1BR

etc, but you get the idea.


----------



## Dean

MELSMICE said:


> How I wish they would have the system like that where every night is the same amount of points.  I, personally, think it would even be better if each season had a point value assigned per night.
> 
> Example - Value season 15 pts. per night for 1BR
> Dream season 18 pts. per night for 1BR
> 
> etc, but you get the idea.


It would only work if the demand for each day of the week were about the same.  My guess is those that want it are looking at long weekends.  I would be better served as well but I don't think it'd be in the best interest of the membership overall.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

drusba said:


> Yep, the chart needs some explanation because there are other puzzling points, not just the studios. For example, it shows BWV grand villas evening out to 100 points per night and BLT at 96, but the BLT Lake View GVs on the regular point chart for 2010 are higher than BWV GVs for every night of the year and BLT MK view GV's are enormously higher.



I suspect there is an error in the chart where either BWV should not have any variation based on view or AKV and BLT should have variation based on view. That might explain some differences, but still might not account for all variation.

Ny understanding is that the chart has been compiled from the POS. If anyone can take a look at their BWV, AKV and BLT Offering Statement, the information is listed there for your resort.


----------



## dmoore22

As I'm reading these posts I'm hearing the same problems and challenges that I'm having with the 2010 points chart. We have been going to WDW twice a year, once in late spring/early summer and during the weeks of Xmas and New Years. We stay 12 nights most of the time which obviously includes at least 1 weekend. We stay in a studio since only two of our six kids are still at home. No matter how I manipulate the charts I lose a minimum of 14 points per vacation.  That translates into fewer days onsite, in the parks, in the state and less money being spent by my family  and me in those venues. Perhaps I should be happy because it means I'll save money. But, alas, I'm not. In reviewing the charts, and the point percentage change, its obvious that they have created, using a form of taxation, a recessive scale. It benefits larger groups with a large contract using the larger accomodations with the burden shifting to those with fewer points who are trying to get more bang for each point they have. The old chart wasn't perfect but it has served my family and me  well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."


----------



## tjkraz

dmoore22 said:


> As I'm reading these posts I'm hearing the same problems and challenges that I'm having with the 2010 points chart. We have been going to WDW twice a year, once in late spring/early summer and during the weeks of Xmas and New Years. We stay 12 nights most of the time which obviously includes at least 1 weekend. We stay in a studio since only two of our six kids are still at home. No matter how I manipulate the charts I lose a minimum of 14 points per vacation.  That translates into fewer days onsite, in the parks, in the state and less money being spent by my family  and me in those venues.



True you may spend less but as long as there are 365 (or 366) days in the year, Disney is still making similar dollars by filling a room each night.  In fact, they probably stand to gain from the reallocation because, by all appearances, weekend occupancy is quite under 100% and one of the goals here is to fix that problem.  



> In reviewing the charts, and the point percentage change, its obvious that they have created, using a form of taxation, a recessive scale. It benefits larger groups with a large contract using the larger accomodations with the burden shifting to those with fewer points who are trying to get more bang for each point they have.



I would argue that the opposite has happened.  High weekends have ALWAYS been used to subsidize low weekdays.  The weekend points are much higher in 2009 and they remain higher in 2010.  The primary change is that you aren't getting as big of a break in 2010 as you have in the past.  



> The old chart wasn't perfect but it has served my family and me  well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."



You're only assuming it wasn't "broke."  The current charts (thru 2009) have approximately 45% of all points spread over the two weekend nights.  If members aren't using 45% of their points for weekends, the system is absolutely broke.  

If Disney sells 10 million points and weekdays represent 5.5 million (55%), you can't have members collectively economizing and use 8 million of their points for weekday stays.  

Weekends are higher than weekends due to demand.  
Easter week is higher than mid-September due to demand.  

DVC has a responsibility to create a system in which demand is in line with cost.  Members should have to pay more for weeks and days of the week with higher demand.  And when demand is low, the points are discounted (weekdays, Adventure + Choice season.)  But we are the ones who determine that demand and I suspect it will remain fluid through the lifetime of the program.  These reallocations really should occur every few years.


----------



## dmoore22

There is one other issue that is fueling changes at DVC.

"Loss of credit line pinches Disney time-shares' profits"Jason Garcia | Sentinel Staff Writer 
February 12, 2009

The lending turmoil racking the nation's time-share industry is squeezing even the Walt Disney Co.

The company recently disclosed that its Celebration-based time-share arm, Disney Vacation Club, lost access to a long-standing line of credit it had been tapping to raise cash by selling bundles of the time-share mortgages it issues to individual buyers.

Although Disney said time-share sales rose during its fiscal first quarter, which ended Dec. 27, the subsequent sales of "mortgage receivables" plummeted: According to a recent regulatory filing, the company sold $17 million in receivables during the quarter, down from $41 million a year ago.

Packaging time-share mortgages together and selling them off to investors -- "securitizing" them -- has been a valuable profit center for Disney Vacation Club in recent years. Disney Co. Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs said during a December conference with analysts that the practice generated about $40 million in operating profit last year for Vacation Club.



That's about 2 percent of the $1.9 billion in operating profit rung up by Disney's worldwide parks-and-resorts division in fiscal 2008.

Staggs warned at the time that the nation's frozen credit markets would likely make lending terms so unfavorable that Disney would do "less or no" securitization in 2009. He also acknowledged that being forced to carry the time-share mortgages, rather than cash them out immediately, could slow Disney Vacation Club's earnings growth.

"There is profit that we don't make," Staggs said. "We'll make it over time, as opposed to realizing it in the current year when we do the securitization."

Disney has historically helped about 75 percent of its time-share buyers finance their purchases, according to research by Morgan Stanley. Sales prices typically range between $20,000 and $30,000 for the equivalent of a one-week share in a two-bedroom unit.

Disney's credit facility, which it initially secured in December 1999, expired Dec. 4, according to company filings.

Similar problems are buffeting the rest of the time-share industry, as the market for all manner of mortgage-backed securities has fizzled. Some developers -- dependent on the capital raised from reselling time-share notes to continue growing -- have been forced to lay off hundreds of employees and slow or halt construction.

Analysts say there is little chance that Disney could be forced to take similar steps. The sprawling media-and-entertainment conglomerate is large enough that it can likely self-finance mortgages and hold the notes as long as needed without jeopardizing its construction plans.

"It probably makes the time-share division less profitable than it would have otherwise been," said Robert LaFleur, a lodging analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group. "But from a practical matter about Disney's ability to build and sell time shares, it shouldn't have an effect."


More time-shares to open

Disney plans to open three new time-share properties in Orlando this year and one in Anaheim, Calif. It is also pressing ahead with plans for 830-room resort in Hawaii, in which 480 units are to be Vacation Club villas. Construction on that resort, which is to open in 2011, began in January.

Any slip at Disney Vacation Club could have broader implications for Disney's parks-and-resorts division, where the time-share unit has become an important growth engine. The theme-park division accounts for more than a quarter of Disney Co.'s total revenue.


Club key part of profit

Morgan Stanley estimates that Vacation Club accounted for as much as 20 percent of the profit growth for Disney Parks and Resorts in fiscal 2008. Disney itself credited higher time-share sales with helping offset declines elsewhere in its parks unit during the first quarter of fiscal 2009; total revenue for Parks and Resorts fell about 4 percent during the quarter from a year earlier, less than many analysts had expected.

Vacation Club contributes about 10 percent of the parks-and-resorts unit's total profit, Staggs said during the December analyst conference.

Disney's time-share unit is a "swing factor" for the parks division overall in 2009, Morgan Stanley analyst Benjamin Swinburne wrote in a research note last month. He has forecast a "small increase" for Vacation Club in 2009, compared with an estimated 18 percent growth rate last year."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-diztimeshare1209feb12,0,4931450.story


----------



## DisFlan

tjkraz said:


> You're only assuming it wasn't "broke."  The current charts (thru 2009) have approximately 45% of all points spread over the two weekend nights.  If members aren't using 45% of their points for weekends, the system is absolutely broke.



And it'll stay "broke" as long as there's a difference between weekdays and weekends. This problem is inherent in the way the system was designed.  Many members will still work around using the more expensive weekend nights.  

I'm not saying re-allocations aren't needed at times (nor do I see a big positive from them), but they aren't going to "fix" a system that started with some built-in potential problems.  At some point, a real fix will take more than reshuffling a few points.  We'll likely be stuck with a "broke" system for quite a while.


DisFlan


----------



## tjkraz

dmoore22 said:


> There is one other issue that is fueling changes at DVC.



If you're implying that there was a profit-based motivation to the reallocation, then I disagree.  

The reallocation didn't create any "new" points.  It didn't give DVC anything additional to sell.  There are still the same number of points at OKW, BCV, BWV, etc. in 2010 as there are in 2009.  

Some (like you and me) will find that their points don't go as far and you could use that to argue that DVC reallocated in order to sell add-on contracts.  But consider that while some are "losers" due to the reallocation, others are "winners."  People who have used their points for stays based around weekends will find that their points now go *further *than they have in the past.  This group of owners is now LESS likely to buy more points and may even consider selling part of their current holdings.  

It's a two-way street.  DVC could gain some small amount of sales from one group but they are losing another.

Also I would propose that the reallocation can only hurt long-term sales to new members.  By raising the weekday points, DVC is no longer the great value it used to be for Sunday - Thursday stays.  In the past those using points for weekdays used to talk about breakeven periods in the neighborhood of 6-8 years.  Now that weekdays cost more, it's probably more in the 7-10 year range.  That will only lose business for DVC.  

For those reasons I find it extremely hard to believe DVC felt it would profit from a reallocation.  LOWERING the points on weekdays would have been more conducive to selling points.  Who wouldn't buy if you could get a BCV Studio for 5 points per night or AKV Savanna view for 6 points per night?


----------



## tjkraz

DisFlan said:


> And it'll stay "broke" as long as there's a difference between weekdays and weekends. This problem is inherent in the way the system was designed.  Many members will still work around using the more expensive weekend nights.



Not everyone will embrace weekends after the changes but more will than in the past.  The resorts aren't at 0% occupancy on weekends now.  SOME volume of members is already using their points for weekends.  And that number will rise come 2010.  

Not charging a premium for weekends would have the opposite effect.  Right now so many people are used to visiting on weekdays to save points that it's become second nature.  But you better believe folks would jump at the opportunity to do a long weekend without having to pay that premium.  

Instead of pulling kids out of school or scheduling around busy holidays, parents could plan a Thursday to Monday stay (5 days.)  If one or two of those days were already school holidays, the kids wouldn't miss more than a day or two.  Parents would save vacation time as well.  

Weekends would become very popular and weekday occupancy would suffer noticeably.  

Just due to the nature of the 5-day work and school week, some disparity is necessary.  We'll have to see how these changes are embraced.  I wouldn't be shocked if weekday prices came down a bit in a few years.  It won't be to the 2009 level, but there could be reductions if booking patterns dictate.


----------



## dmoore22

tjkraz said:


> If you're implying that there was a profit-based motivation to the reallocation, then I disagree.



I'm not suggesting profit but generating income to maintain the high level of services and entertainment we take for granted.

Disney has not been immune to the current recession/depression. They have attempted to keep park attendance up through incentives such as "Buy 4 days, get three extra for free." Unfortunately it has become a loss leader that leads to more losses. People are coming in through the turnstiles but they are not spending as much money as in the past. The Disney Corporation has been consolidating positions and letting folks go, with a severance package, to cut costs and add efficiency.

Disney now cannot sell the loans for DVC membership which has accounted for almost 10% of the Disney Parks profits. With that source of income gone the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Division is struggling to come up with creative ways to generate demand for its products and services to make up for that loss. DVC is a ready-made source of demand in that members are not going to let their points go unused. The need is to get them into the parks and to spend $$$. The current points chart (at least for our home resort) appears to be geared toward that DVC member that is more likely to have the extra cash and resources to fly in from great distances and bring the extended family for a long  weekend and also spend $$$ in the parks. This is obviously a short-term fix to generate the necessary funds to maintain park and resort operations.

With the tight credit markets, and households being cautious in their spending, the ability of Disney to sell DVC points is currently an unknown. Today's unemployment numbers and record mass layoffs continue to plague the economy. Florida is one of 5 states that has the highest foreclosure rate in the nation. Disney cannot rely on Florida resident traffic to fill the rooms and parks on the weekends. Time will tell.

Perhaps it would be best for the DVC members to contact member services directly or through the "Contact Member Services" link at dvcmember.com to express their feelings one way or another. I did and received a very nice response that included the following statement:

"Section 3(2)(a) also provides a guideline by which DVCMC will adhere 
when making Points Chart changes, which is the reallocation will not 
exceed 20%  without the express approval of at least 60% of the existing
owners.

The feedback we receive from our Members is important to us, and your 
comments will be shared with our leadership team.  

Thank you again for sharing your concern. 

Sincerely,

Disney Vacation Club Member Services"


----------



## Dean

DisFlan said:


> And it'll stay "broke" as long as there's a difference between weekdays and weekends. This problem is inherent in the way the system was designed.  Many members will still work around using the more expensive weekend nights.
> 
> I'm not saying re-allocations aren't needed at times (nor do I see a big positive from them), but they aren't going to "fix" a system that started with some built-in potential problems.  At some point, a real fix will take more than reshuffling a few points.  We'll likely be stuck with a "broke" system for quite a while.
> 
> 
> DisFlan


There is no perfect system, the best they can hope for is to average the issues for most people.  The ONLY way to even out the weekends and weekdays is to create a minimum stay in some way or the other than strongly encourages a full week at a time then it doesn't matter.  That certainly changes the system from what it is to a different type of timeshare concept but is not without it's merits for some.  There really is not way to truly fix the issues generated by a points system that is not based in the weeks concept.  It has it's pluses but inherent issues as well.


----------



## DaveH

Please, please, please make the points level. We will do nothing but long weekends. Please push for this. We are empty nesters that still work. Long weekends all the time would be GREAT!!!!!


----------



## Dean

DaveH said:


> Please, please, please make the points level. We will do nothing but long weekends. Please push for this. We are empty nesters that still work. Long weekends all the time would be GREAT!!!!!


It's not feasible with out a min stay of at least 5=7 days for the very reason you want it.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Dean said:


> It's not feasible with out a min stay of at least 5=7 days for the very reason you want it.


 I bet most stay at least 5 days anyway. This big reallocation did nothing to affect the S-TH ressie stays. Just go ahead and make them the same points for every day of the week. I mean the reason they did this to start with was weekends were under utilized. So THEY  say.......


----------



## DaveH

Dean said:


> It's not feasible with out a min stay of at least 5=7 days for the very reason you want it.



I agree with you. I would rather have the points system uneven so we have the flexibility we now have. I did this to make a point. It seems some folks are having trouble understanding the changes are needed. Our vacations habits have changed a couple of ways over the last 8 years we have been DVC members. Our current habits the change has made some vacations more and others cheaper. The way we were going when first bought a change of a couple of points then. I honestly believe if we went to a flat rate minimum 5 to 7 days or flat 7 day stays we would sell. I know you and a couple of others have tried to explain this is hopefully good for the DVC system.


----------



## tjkraz

dmoore22 said:


> Disney now cannot sell the loans for DVC membership which has accounted for almost 10% of the Disney Parks profits.



The Sentinel article that you previously quoted stated that the loan securitization generated 2% of the Parks' profit in '08, not 10%.  And while Disney has recently found it difficult to flip those mortgages for a quick buck, if forced to hold them until maturity they stand to add much more to the bottom line.  It will just be a gradual addition rather than a quick cash infusions.  



> With the tight credit markets, and households being cautious in their spending, the ability of Disney to sell DVC points is currently an unknown. Today's unemployment numbers and record mass layoffs continue to plague the economy. Florida is one of 5 states that has the highest foreclosure rate in the nation. Disney cannot rely on Florida resident traffic to fill the rooms and parks on the weekends. Time will tell.



Sales figures aren't a total unknown.

http://dvcnews.com/content/view/826/233/

Sales for the last 6 months are higher than the same period over '07-'08, and those numbers do not even include the Grand Californian which began selling in January.  

It's also worth noting that until the current batch of incentives was unveiled on April 1st, DVC prices had gone up about 8-10% over the previous year.  And people are still buying.

I do agree with part of your argument--I think that DVC has made a conscious effort to raise the overall cost of the program.  Prices are higher and it costs more points per night to book a room at the newer resorts.  But I disagree on the motivation.  

Whether DVC hands us piles of statistics or not, the under-utilization of units on weekends is quite easy to see.  Cash discounts are readily available on the weekends--not so on weekdays.  The mass arrivals on Sunday and departures on Friday are pretty easy to see when staying.  

Consider this--over the past 7 years I've heard people countless times talk about how they bought points specifically for Sunday - Thursday stays.  Has anyone EVER said that they bought DVC exclusively for Friday and Saturday stays?  If the system was in balance, shouldn't there be just as many people using points *exclusively *for weekends as there are using points *exclusively *for weekdays?  

If the system weren't so far out of balance I'd be more open to considering other theories.  But without any semblance of a weekday/weekend balance, it's not even worth considering other motivation.  

Brace yourself for early-December being moved out of Adventure season next!


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> I bet most stay at least 5 days anyway.



I'm not so sure about that.  I'm pretty stingy with my points but I can think of at least 4 trips (out of maybe 10) that have been 3 days or less.  We've done a couple 3-night getaways, a short stay when I was in town for a conference and another the night before our DCL cruise.  

We also did a split stay with just one night at the first resort.  That wouldn't be allowed with a 5-day minimum.  

Minimums have the potential to leave a lot of unused nights at the resorts due to the varying arrival and departure dates.  Let's say we have a room that's booked from the 1st to the 5th, and then the next guest is scheduled for the 8th to the 15th.  The room would sit empty for the 6th and 7th because nobody could book the minimum 5-night stay.  

Overall I think minimums would have a very damaging impact on members' abilities to use their points.  Resorts are sold to near 100% and it would be virtually impossible for occupancy to ever reach that level.


----------



## DaveH

My guess is if DVC changes system to minimum stay of longer than 1 day(now) it would be to 7 days. With start on Saturdays. Just a guess. I would probably sell then.

Our first stay home was a 1 night at OKW and then 5 nights at VWL and 1 night at OKW. Only rooms available to us. That was in 2001.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

tjkraz said:


> I'm not so sure about that. I'm pretty stingy with my points but I can think of at least 4 trips (out of maybe 10) that have been 3 days or less. We've done a couple 3-night getaways, a short stay when I was in town for a conference and another the night before our DCL cruise.
> 
> We also did a split stay with just one night at the first resort. That wouldn't be allowed with a 5-day minimum.
> 
> Minimums have the potential to leave a lot of unused nights at the resorts due to the varying arrival and departure dates. Let's say we have a room that's booked from the 1st to the 5th, and then the next guest is scheduled for the 8th to the 15th. The room would sit empty for the 6th and 7th because nobody could book the minimum 5-night stay.
> Overall I think minimums would have a very damaging impact on members' abilities to use their points. Resorts are sold to near 100% and it would be virtually impossible for occupancy to ever reach that level.


 The discussion is not how members prefer to use their points...the subject is WHY the reallocation took place in the first place. And from Disney's perspective, not members, it was because of underulization of weekends...again, SUPPOSIDLY. Sooo....in that regard it would make sense to go to at least a 5 day booking minimum to help offset the vacant rooms on the weekends. Disney does not care how you use your points, whether you bought 50 or 500. They want the rooms filled.


----------



## tjkraz

BWV Dreamin said:


> The discussion is not how members prefer to use their points...



Sorry, I thought you were going down that road with your "I bet most stay at least 5 days anyway" comment.    My bad.  



> ...the subject is WHY the reallocation took place in the first place. And from Disney's perspective, not members, it was because of underulization of weekends...again, SUPPOSIDLY. Sooo....in that regard it would make sense to go to at least a 5 day booking minimum to help offset the vacant rooms on the weekends. Disney does not care how you use your points, whether you bought 50 or 500. They want the rooms filled.



I understand that.  And the point of my response was to try and illustrate that a 5-day minimum wouldn't accomplish that goal.  

When you look at something like a cruise ship, every guest arrives and departs at the same time.  There are no gaps.  The same would be true if DVC went to a 7-day minimum as DaveH suggested with every guest having the same arrival and departure dates.  400 rooms at a resort means 400 guests serviced in the week.  

But if you go to a 5-day minimum with no standard arrival, you create gaps that nobody can ever utilize.  Periods where 1-4 days exist between the departure of one guest and arrival of the next would result in the room sitting empty.  Gone would be the ability to get last-minute bookings by piecing together small split stays.  

I don't see how minimum stays could encourage a high occupancy.  I see the opposite occurring.


----------



## bobbiwoz

Most of my stays have not been 5 days, even if the trip is more than that.  I have been enjoying split stays and more often or not, I have a weekend night or two in there.  I am happy that there has been this small step toward helping me stretch my points.  When the extended family comes, then we do not move, and even with them in a 2 bedroom over weekend nights, I've used the points.

Bobbi


----------



## donmil723

I don't mind that they have raised the Sun-Thu nights by one or two points and lowered the weekend nights the same.  I've only checked the BCV charts.  When we first bought we usually went Sun-Thur. Lately we have been going for a full week but we like to arrive/leave on a Tues or Wed so we can get the cheaper airline flights.  We did spend 3 nights at AKV after our 7-day DCL cruise in March and we plan to stay 4 nights in December after our 3 night cruise.  I like that flexibility and that was one of the major reasons we bought DVC.  I would not like them to go to a booking system where you would have to book a full week starting on Saturday.


----------



## SoCalKDG

They might lose some DCL customers going to a 7 day.  Doing a 4 day cruise in Feb. then a couple nights (Thursday Friday) at a DVC.   I'd have skipped the cruise completely if this option wasn't available.


----------



## DVCGeek

DaveH said:


> My guess is if DVC changes system to minimum stay of longer than 1 day(now) it would be to 7 days.



My BLT & VGC contracts say that a minimum stay could at most be 5 days long if they ever created one.  I used that and the "max. reallocation" figures to determine how many points to buy in our VGC add on.  5 * max reallocation (for a studio in our case - 18 as I recall) = 90 points for a stay; / 3 for banking and borrowing; round up and that gave 30 as the minimum # of points we needed to be safe and sure it would be possible to use our points at some time during the year every 3rd year.  We don't plan to go to CA more often than that but wanted more flexability on WHEN we went so we were going to buy 40 points.  Then we upped the contract to 50 points instead for the incentives, and that means we might even be able to swing a 1 bedroom sometimes depending on what the point charts look like when we want to go...


----------



## DisFlan

tjkraz said:


> Not everyone will embrace weekends after the changes but more will than in the past.  The resorts aren't at 0% occupancy on weekends now.  SOME volume of members is already using their points for weekends.  And that number will rise come 2010.
> 
> Not charging a premium for weekends would have the opposite effect.  Right now so many people are used to visiting on weekdays to save points that it's become second nature.  But you better believe folks would jump at the opportunity to do a long weekend without having to pay that premium.
> 
> Instead of pulling kids out of school or scheduling around busy holidays, parents could plan a Thursday to Monday stay (5 days.)  If one or two of those days were already school holidays, the kids wouldn't miss more than a day or two.  Parents would save vacation time as well.
> 
> Weekends would become very popular and weekday occupancy would suffer noticeably.
> 
> Just due to the nature of the 5-day work and school week, some disparity is necessary.  We'll have to see how these changes are embraced.  I wouldn't be shocked if weekday prices came down a bit in a few years.  It won't be to the 2009 level, but there could be reductions if booking patterns dictate.



Let me say that DVC's flexibility is what drew us in.  We didn't really want to purchase a week somewhere.  And I agree that making weekends too "cheap" has its problems.  But what is the optimum differential?  We know that weekend nights that cost 2x points didn't work well.  Too many members avoided them.  What works?  1.5x?  1.25x?  IMO, the current changes aren't enough to make a huge difference.  Weekends are still high enough to encourage avoidance.   

My other thought is about the fine line between what's best for DVC versus what keeps members happy.  Yes, we'll get over most of the inevitable changes (more point - and season - changes) and move on - but there's a collective "phase change" point where too many members may say, "This isn't what I bought.  And I don't like it."

DisFlan


----------



## Dean

BWV Dreamin said:


> I bet most stay at least 5 days anyway. This big reallocation did nothing to affect the S-TH ressie stays. Just go ahead and make them the same points for every day of the week. I mean the reason they did this to start with was weekends were under utilized. So THEY  say.......


The question is what is the balance.  No doubt weekends would be MUCH higher in demand if there were no points differential.  There is a lot of research in this area through ARDA and every system I know of that allows less than 7 days has a differential though they all vary somewhat.  The reallocation will adjust weekends to weekdays, the question is whether it will be enough, if not, there will be another reallocation down the road in a few years, possibly sooner.  The average stay doesn't really have much affect overall unless it's almost exactly 7 days.  Even then it has to balance weekends to weekdays.  As I've said before, if I was that distrustful of the system, I'd do something about it.  I'd sell or get more involved to find out why.  This info though not internet knowledge, is available to members in person, at least the DVC portion, not necessarily the DVD items such as some contracts.


----------



## snyderla

I liked it the way it was.  We usually arrive on a Thursday or Friday and spend the first few nights, until Sunday, in a resort on cash.  This way we try different resorts.  I only have 4 more to try.  

The points change is not a huge amount, but can quickly add up to a night at OKW.


----------



## dmoore22

tjkraz said:


> The Sentinel article that you previously quoted stated that the loan securitization generated 2% of the Parks' profit in '08, not 10%.



True, that was stated in the article. However, it also goes on to say, 

_"Morgan Stanley estimates that Vacation Club accounted for as much as 20 percent of the profit growth for Disney Parks and Resorts in fiscal 2008. Disney itself credited higher time-share sales with helping offset declines elsewhere in its parks unit during the first quarter of fiscal 2009; total revenue for Parks and Resorts fell about 4 percent during the quarter from a year earlier, less than many analysts had expected.

Vacation Club contributes about 10 percent of the parks-and-resorts unit's total profit, Staggs said during the December analyst conference."_


----------



## Inkmahm

tjkraz said:


> True you may spend less but as long as there are 365 (or 366) days in the year, Disney is still making similar dollars by filling a room each night.  In fact, they probably stand to gain from the reallocation because, by all appearances, weekend occupancy is quite under 100% and one of the goals here is to fix that problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that the opposite has happened.  High weekends have ALWAYS been used to subsidize low weekdays.  The weekend points are much higher in 2009 and they remain higher in 2010.  The primary change is that you aren't getting as big of a break in 2010 as you have in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> You're only assuming it wasn't "broke."  The current charts (thru 2009) have approximately 45% of all points spread over the two weekend nights.  If members aren't using 45% of their points for weekends, the system is absolutely broke.
> 
> If Disney sells 10 million points and weekdays represent 5.5 million (55%), you can't have members collectively economizing and use 8 million of their points for weekday stays.
> 
> Weekends are higher than weekends due to demand.
> Easter week is higher than mid-September due to demand.
> 
> DVC has a responsibility to create a system in which demand is in line with cost.  Members should have to pay more for weeks and days of the week with higher demand.  And when demand is low, the points are discounted (weekdays, Adventure + Choice season.)  But we are the ones who determine that demand and I suspect it will remain fluid through the lifetime of the program.  These reallocations really should occur every few years.


 I agree with you 100%.


----------



## klburns

Wow, this is super frustrating! One of the things that sold us on DVC was the assurance that points for the DVC resorts would not change. Hubby and I have flexible jobs, so we often do the Sun-Thurs plan. Not as economic anymore!


----------



## Deb & Bill

klburns said:


> Wow, this is super frustrating! One of the things that sold us on DVC was the assurance that points for the DVC resorts would not change. Hubby and I have flexible jobs, so we often do the Sun-Thurs plan. Not as economic anymore!



I guess you should have read the literature on DVC.  It states that points can be reallocated at any time.  If a guide tells you something, ask to see it in writing in the DVC literature.  Just like the five in a one bedroom.  Our guide made sure that we knew that one bedrooms were limited to four persons 1997.


----------



## pbharris4

Maybe I have been under a rock, but I am starting to plan for summer 2010 and noticed that the points have gone up! When did that happen? I thought they were never supposed to do this?


----------



## Disnead

pbharris4 said:


> Maybe I have been under a rock, but I am starting to plan for summer 2010 and noticed that the points have gone up! When did that happen? I thought they were never supposed to do this?



I dont think they raised the points, they just shuffled them around a little. If they raise a point in one category, they have to lower it in a different category.

I think I read that in 2010 you will find that the price of a Fri-Sat stay has decreased slightly, and the price of a weekday stay may increase slightly.


----------



## erionm

It was announced near the end of January just before the 11 month window opened for reservations that could include the night of 1/1/2010.


----------



## JMLBrats

Is the 2010 points chart listed some where?  Thanks!  I'm too lazy to try to figure it out right now....


----------



## Pirate Jack

JMLBrats said:


> Is the 2010 points chart listed some where?  Thanks!  I'm too lazy to try to figure it out right now....



In the top right hand corner of this page directly under The Timeshare Store ad!


----------



## photobob

pbharris4 said:


> Maybe I have been under a rock, but I am starting to plan for summer 2010 and noticed that the points have gone up! When did that happen? I thought they were never supposed to do this?



Man that was some big rock!


----------



## DisneyWalker44

photobob said:


> Man that was some big rock!


 I suspect the majority of DVC members don't participate in on-line message boards and have no clue about the change. While it's been in the official Disney announcement, it's been buried.

While I think the reallocation is a good (and overdue) thing, Disney really dropped the ball on the communication. This is a big deal for many people. Disney needed to get members' attention and make sure they are aware of the change


----------



## Laurabearz

erionm said:


> It was announced near the end of January just before the 11 month window opened for reservations that could include the night of 1/1/2010.


I would not say it was Announced... more like released quietly with barely a mention on the website.



Deb & Bill said:


> I guess you should have read the literature on DVC.  It states that points can be reallocated at any time.  If a guide tells you something, ask to see it in writing in the DVC literature.  Just like the five in a one bedroom.  Our guide made sure that we knew that one bedrooms were limited to four persons 1997.


Yes yes shame on everyone who is upset they changed the points. They should have known... yeah yeah Thanks for the reminder 


pbharris4 said:


> Maybe I have been under a rock, but I am starting to plan for summer 2010 and noticed that the points have gone up! When did that happen? I thought they were never supposed to do this?



See the above post by Deb and or Bill... Shame on you for not knowing they were going to do it.



DisneyWalker44 said:


> I suspect the majority of DVC members don't participate in on-line message boards and have no clue about the change. While it's been in the official Disney announcement, it's been buried.



I totally agree with this. I think there will be thousands of members who dont find out until they call to book their reservation.


----------



## Anal Annie

DisneyWalker44 said:


> I suspect the majority of DVC members don't participate in on-line message boards and have no clue about the change. While it's been in the official Disney announcement, it's been buried.
> 
> While I think the reallocation is a good (and overdue) thing,* Disney really dropped the ball on the communication. *This is a big deal for many people. Disney needed to get members' attention and make sure they are aware of the change



Must be why they still haven't published the new planners yet.  They're afraid of the mass backlash they'll get once EVERYONE knows about it.


----------



## tjkraz

Anal Annie said:


> Must be why they still haven't published the new planners yet.  They're afraid of the mass backlash they'll get once EVERYONE knows about it.



I dunno.  I don't really envision people anxiously opening their planners and sitting down to do any sort of comparison to prior years. 

It's been 3 1/2 months since the announcement.  Members with registered email addresses received the website link (granted it wasn't very prominent in the email.)  Others have certainly found the new charts and/or announcement on their own.  Still others read the website discussion.  And another large group has already booked 2010 trips over the last 15 weeks.  

There will be some ebb and flow to the discussion, but we're probably past the point of any huge outcry.


----------



## Muushka

Disnead said:


> I dont think they raised the points, they just shuffled them around a little. If they raise a point in one category, they have to lower it in a different category.
> 
> *I think I read that in 2010 you will find that the price of a Fri-Sat stay has decreased slightly, and the price of a weekday stay may increase slightly.*



Unless they wanted to really put the screws to certain resorts at peak time periods.  Like VWL, first 2 weeks of December.

If they had increased the points evenly, it would not have been as frustrating.  
But they increased the Sun thru Thursday points very unfairly.

Studio went up 1 point (that is fine)
2 BR went up 4 points (not that bad)
1 BR went up *4 points* 

4 people can fit in a studio.  4 people can fit in a 1 BR.  8 people can fit in a 2 BR.

Can anyone explain that logic?  Go ahead, tell me that it is all for the good of DVC and I should have expected it.


----------



## hitthebids

I was under the impression that DVC can reallocate the points anyway they want through out a year BUT they can not add or subtract the gross total points for a use year. In other words if a 1 bedroom villa booked 365 days took in 10,000 points when you signed up, then DVC can adjust the daily points any way they want but can never get more then 10000 points. It doesn't look like they are adhering to that with this new point distrubition.


----------



## CarolMN

Muushka said:


> Unless they wanted to really put the screws to certain resorts at peak time periods.  Like VWL, first 2 weeks of December.
> 
> If they had increased the points evenly, it would not have been as frustrating.
> But they increased the Sun thru Thursday points very unfairly.
> 
> Studio went up 1 point (that is fine)
> 2 BR went up 4 points (not that bad)
> 1 BR went up *4 points*
> 
> 4 people can fit in a studio.  4 people can fit in a 1 BR.  8 people can fit in a 2 BR.
> 
> Can anyone explain that logic?  Go ahead, tell me that it is all for the good of DVC and I should have expected it.


It's not about sleeping capacity.  It's about balancing the demand.  Apparently, there was more demand for the one bedrooms than studios during the time you cited for your example, even though the sleeping capacity is the same.    

The goal is to allocate the points such that each night / villa has the same demand.  Not an easy task, I'm sure.  

FWIW, I'm not crazy about the reallocation, either.  But I am more than willing to accept that it was necessary.


----------



## CarolMN

hitthebids said:


> I was under the impression that DVC can reallocate the points anyway they want through out a year BUT they can not add or subtract the gross total points for a use year. In other words if a 1 bedroom villa booked 365 days took in 10,000 points when you signed up, then DVC can adjust the daily points any way they want but can never get more then 10000 points. It doesn't look like they are adhering to that with this new point distrubition.


The technical reallocation language in the Position Offering Statement is that the total number of points required to reserve a *unit* for the entire year cannot change.  (I paraphrased).

Generally, a unit for this purpose is defined as a specific group of villas and in some cases, a particular building.   Not all units are the same, even within the same resort.

So you can't say that the total to reserve a 1 bedroom villa can't change.  It can.  Unless you know the specific makeup of all the units for a particular resort, you can't rightly say that Disney has done the reallocation incorrectly.   

IMHO, the closest you can come to checking up on DVC's work is to add up all the points needed to reserve every villa in the resort .  That's a total that cannot change.  And to do that correctly, you'd have to know how they treated the lock off units  - do they count as studios and 1 bedrooms? or as a 2 bedroom.   

Some members here have attempted to do that and concluded that everything matches up very closely  - if you go back and read all the earlier posts in this thread, you should come across that discussion.


----------



## photobob

DisneyWalker44 said:


> I suspect the majority of DVC members don't participate in on-line message boards and have no clue about the change. While it's been in the official Disney announcement, it's been buried.
> 
> While I think the reallocation is a good (and overdue) thing, Disney really dropped the ball on the communication. This is a big deal for many people. Disney needed to get members' attention and make sure they are aware of the change



Sorry my normal sarcasm doesn't work as well in print as it does in person.
I agree there is probably a large faction that aren't aware and there is definitely been poor communication from DVC, obviously they knew there would be a huge uproar. 
I'm one of those who did know reallocations could take place, I just never dreamed that would be so drastically changed. My previous stays will be about 25-30 points more. I was told that slight adjustments could be made. i don't consider that slight.


----------



## ramkam

The idea that it is all about "demand" does not make much sense in this situation.  The major change was to decrease the number of points for a Friday/Saturday night stay and increase points for a weeknight stay. However, Friday/Saturday is still substantially higher. As a result there is still a disincentive to stay those nights. It does not seem like the change would result in less demand for weeknights and more demand for Friday/Saturday. In my case five weeknights at VWL now costs more points and the weekend nights are still too expensive.  No effect on demand at all. The only change is that I must now spend more points for the five weekday nights. 

It is more likely this change was intended to match Disney's marketing strategy in selling points for the new resorts.  Disney wants those five week nights to cost more points without moving you to a weekend. This way they can market a higher initial point buy in to new members.

Demand should be irrelevant anyway. The demand is what it is for any given night. People still do not get the nights they want because the rooms are all booked. The points should be the same for all nights and you either get the reservation or you don't. It is likely the reason there are different point totals for different seasons is merely so Disney can sell more points for a given property than they could if the points were level throughout the year.

If you are a member you just have to live with the fact that Disney has a conflict of interest in this case and they will always set the point charts at levels that help the company make money.


----------



## Dean

hitthebids said:


> I was under the impression that DVC can reallocate the points anyway they want through out a year BUT they can not add or subtract the gross total points for a use year. In other words if a 1 bedroom villa booked 365 days took in 10,000 points when you signed up, then DVC can adjust the daily points any way they want but can never get more then 10000 points. It doesn't look like they are adhering to that with this new point distrubition.


Adding to the above explanation, it's based on the "Base Year" which likely is 1992 and similar years and there is no requirement to be the same in any given year one happens to pick.



Muushka said:


> Unless they wanted to really put the screws to certain resorts at peak time periods.  Like VWL, first 2 weeks of December.
> 
> If they had increased the points evenly, it would not have been as frustrating.
> But they increased the Sun thru Thursday points very unfairly.
> 
> Studio went up 1 point (that is fine)
> 2 BR went up 4 points (not that bad)
> 1 BR went up *4 points*
> 
> 4 people can fit in a studio.  4 people can fit in a 1 BR.  8 people can fit in a 2 BR.
> 
> Can anyone explain that logic?  Go ahead, tell me that it is all for the good of DVC and I should have expected it.


You should at least have known it could happen and IMO, it is for the good of the system and members as a whole.  One thing to note is that the rules apply to the entire unit which as noted, can be a collection of rooms and except for 3 BR, I am not aware of any exceptions.  When a lockoff is involved, the rules really only apply to the entire villa as I read them and not the lockoff portions.  As I read the rules, they could raise all of the costs on the lockoff if they wanted with no balancing requirements.  As noted, the number of people that will fit into a unit has no bearing on the situation.



> The idea that it is all about "demand" does not make much sense in this situation. The major change was to decrease the number of points for a Friday/Saturday night stay and increase points for a weeknight stay. However, Friday/Saturday is still substantially higher. As a result there is still a disincentive to stay those nights. It does not seem like the change would result in less demand for weeknights and more demand for Friday/Saturday. In my case five weeknights at VWL now costs more points and the weekend nights are still too expensive. No effect on demand at all. The only change is that I must now spend more points for the five weekday nights.


I think it's unrealistic to suggest that the change will not shift demand somewhat from weekdays to weekends, the question is HOW MUCH.  Unfortunately we don't have numbers from before and won't from after to evaluate both the decision and the results.  IF the affect is not large enough, expect another similar change in a few years.


----------



## tjkraz

ramkam said:


> The idea that it is all about "demand" does not make much sense in this situation.  The major change was to decrease the number of points for a Friday/Saturday night stay and increase points for a weeknight stay. However, Friday/Saturday is still substantially higher. As a result there is still a disincentive to stay those nights. It does not seem like the change would result in less demand for weeknights and more demand for Friday/Saturday. In my case five weeknights at VWL now costs more points and the weekend nights are still too expensive.  No effect on demand at all. The only change is that I must now spend more points for the five weekday nights.



By all accounts, SOME people were already using points for weekends...just not enough to fill the resorts.  If the resorts were at, say, 50% occupancy under the old/current system, the idea of the reallocation is to move them closer to 100%.  I don't see how lower costs would not accomplish that goal.



> Demand should be irrelevant anyway. The demand is what it is for any given night. People still do not get the nights they want because the rooms are all booked. The points should be the same for all nights and you either get the reservation or you don't. It is likely the reason there are different point totals for different seasons is merely so Disney can sell more points for a given property than they could if the points were level throughout the year.



Certain nights cost more points than others for the same reason that Disney charges more to cash customers for New Year's eve than they do for a Wednesday in September.  It's all supply and demand.  

Disney would have never entered the timeshare market in the first place if they were obligated to charge weekday Adventure season points for every night of the year.


----------



## Chuck S

ramkam said:


> It is more likely this change was intended to match Disney's marketing strategy in selling points for the new resorts.  Disney wants those five week nights to cost more points without moving you to a weekend. This way they can market a higher initial point buy in to new members.




They don't need a re-allocation to do this.  They can raise the initial buy-in requirement for new members anytime they wish.  In fact, the original buy in for OKW, when studios in the lower season were 69 points for a full week, was 230 points, and the resort sold very well.


----------



## Muushka

Dean said:


> snip....
> You should at least have known it could happen and IMO, it is for the good of the system and members as a whole.  One thing to note is that the rules apply to the entire unit which as noted, can be a collection of rooms and except for 3 BR, I am not aware of any exceptions.  When a lockoff is involved, the rules really only apply to the entire villa as I read them and not the lockoff portions.  As I read the rules, they could raise all of the costs on the lockoff if they wanted with no balancing requirements.  As noted, the number of people that will fit into a unit has no bearing on the situation.
> 
> I think it's unrealistic to suggest that the change will not shift demand somewhat from weekdays to weekends, the question is HOW MUCH.  Unfortunately we don't have numbers from before and won't from after to evaluate both the decision and the results.  IF the affect is not large enough, expect another similar change in a few years.



Yes, I knew that the points could be reallocated at any point. I just didn't realize that they would do it in such a lousy way.  We bought at VWL for just that time period, like a lot of people.  It just seems lame that they decide to change the point system the way they did.

I know that we might get hit with a hurricane this year.  Does that mean I should not be upset if or when it happens? 

Disney has a way of shooting itself in the foot with me.  We don't have enough points to continue with our current plans.  Looks like selling a contract is more favorable to giving the mouse another dime. 

I stayed away from this thread for a long time, I need to continue doing that.


----------



## Dean

Muushka said:


> Yes, I knew that the points could be reallocated at any point. I just didn't realize that they would do it in such a lousy way.  We bought at VWL for just that time period, like a lot of people.  It just seems lame that they decide to change the point system the way they did.
> 
> I know that we might get hit with a hurricane this year.  Does that mean I should not be upset if or when it happens?
> 
> Disney has a way of shooting itself in the foot with me.  We don't have enough points to continue with our current plans.  Looks like selling a contract is more favorable to giving the mouse another dime.
> 
> I stayed away from this thread for a long time, I need to continue doing that.


You can certainly get upset about your bad luck if you want, it's just you have no appropriate reason to get upset with DVC for making the change.  This is normal timeshare management, not a hurricane.  A better comparison would be if you were upset at having to paint your house every few years or replace your roof at 18-20 yrs.  Buying just enough points for 5 nights avoiding weekends was always a high risk venture, a calculated gamble made by many I know.  I am curious. If you knew they could reallocate and knew the weekend to weekday differential, it seems you should have known the possibility they could shift the differential.  We've certainly discussed that exact possibility a number of times over the years that you've been a member here.


----------



## Chuck S

Muushka said:


> Yes, I knew that the points could be reallocated at any point. I just didn't realize that they would do it in such a lousy way.




This made me chuckle.

Is there really a _good_ way to do a full re-allocation?  I mean, honestly, any re-allocation of any kind will have a negative impact on some members.  There's no way to have a "no impact" re-allocation, unless they simply don't ever adjust the point charts, and I think we all know that is being unrealistic.


----------



## LVSWL

Like the previous poster, I have also stayed away from this thread for a long time. After reading the last several posts, I am reminded of the reasons why. It is one thing to discuss the reasons for the reallocation, to even try to give insight to those who may not be as knowledgeable about this subject. But many of the responses from several of the posters are condescending to the point of ridicule. This reallocation will change how our family will travel, not drastically, but we will rethink our HHI trips. But we have plenty of points, and so it will be ok. I do feel for those who bought in and until now have had plenty of points to do their usual trips when they wanted, and now that option is gone. Not sure what you "experts" situation is, but not everyone can just go out and add on to make up the difference. Each of us loves WDW just as much as the other, and the thought that we might not be able to continue to go to our Happy Place like before is crushing. Many people come here for support, not criticism, and riticule. Just My 2


----------



## gkrykewy

ramkam said:


> The idea that it is all about "demand" does not make much sense in this situation.  The major change was to decrease the number of points for a Friday/Saturday night stay and increase points for a weeknight stay. However, Friday/Saturday is still substantially higher. As a result there is still a disincentive to stay those nights. It does not seem like the change would result in less demand for weeknights and more demand for Friday/Saturday. In my case five weeknights at VWL now costs more points and the weekend nights are still too expensive.  No effect on demand at all. *The only change is that I must now spend more points for the five weekday nights*.



In contrast, I have used points for weekend nights for pretty much every trip since we've been members, because I don't find 5-night vacations to be very compelling. The only change is that now I'll feel like less of a chump paying for weekend nights, and so consequently I'm more likely to do so, on average.

The change makes perfect sense. They are obligated to try to increase weekend occupancy.


----------



## Muushka

Oops, didn't want to hit and run.

Chuck, I am glad I made you chuckle!  I guess if we had booked a studio every time, that would have been an adjustment that would not have been so lousy, just a 1 point increase is not enough to get upset about.

Dean, we didn't buy just enough points to book the way we planned.  We did have about a 30 point leeway, which we thought was enough.  We didn't have tons of money to spend on DVC.  And we thought we were wise in what we had planned.  And  we knew the possibility they could shift the differential at any time.  But again, we were surprised at the way the 1 BR in the first 2 weeks of Dec were so adversly affected.

We have enough points to do our time in Dec in a 1 BR.  We do not have enough points to visit another week in a 1 BR.  We won't buy any more points to make up the difference, we simply won't visit as often.  We find that cruising is something we are beginning to really enjoy (not DCL...too expensive!!!)

Look, I realize that there are people on these boards that will defend Disney no matter what they do.  
I am not one of them.  Have fun.  I really am bowing out.  Play nice....


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

ramkam said:


> The idea that it is all about "demand" does not make much sense in this situation.  The major change was to decrease the number of points for a Friday/Saturday night stay and increase points for a weeknight stay. However, Friday/Saturday is still substantially higher. As a result there is still a disincentive to stay those nights. It does not seem like the change would result in less demand for weeknights and more demand for Friday/Saturday. In my case five weeknights at VWL now costs more points and the weekend nights are still too expensive.  No effect on demand at all. The only change is that I must now spend more points for the five weekday nights.


The reallocation does not necessarily have to change the demand because the reallocation has shifted the supply.  By lowering the weekend nights and raising the weekdays they have shifted some of the supply from weekends to weekdays.


----------



## DVCGeek

White_Sox_Fan said:


> The reallocation does not necessarily have to change the demand because the reallocation has shifted the supply.  By lowering the weekend nights and raising the weekdays they have shifted some of the supply from weekends to weekdays.



That's an interesting way to put it; just about everything else I've heard has always just focused on demand...


----------



## Mississippian

ramkam said:


> The idea that it is all about "demand" does not make much sense in this situation.  The major change was to decrease the number of points for a Friday/Saturday night stay and increase points for a weeknight stay. However, Friday/Saturday is still substantially higher. As a result there is still a disincentive to stay those nights. It does not seem like the change would result in less demand for weeknights and more demand for Friday/Saturday. In my case five weeknights at VWL now costs more points and the weekend nights are still too expensive.  No effect on demand at all. The only change is that I must now spend more points for the five weekday nights.


Ramkam, the problem is that DVC was "selling" the weeknight rooms too easily because they were too cheap and was not able to sell the weekend rooms because they were too expensive.

DVC still wants to maintain a disincentive to stay on weekends, because they are more popular times.  They just want to have LESS of a disincentive.  Any time you lower the price of something, you will sell more of it.  Any time you raise the price of something you will sell (edited to say LESS) of it.  That's what DVC wants to accomplish here, and I think they will do so.

On a personal level, prior to this change there was just absolutely no way on earth that I ever would have stayed on a weekend night under any circumstance whatsoever.  I still plan to avoid weekends, but if my trip plans call for one weekend night I'll probably just bite the bullet and stay rather than check out and stay in a hotel.  Thats the type of consumer change DVC was trying to promote.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

Because I'm a geek I did one of those spreadsheets to determine the total difference reallocation made. I went back to it and was able to look a up the supply shift for SSR.  These numbers are approximations (since we don't really know how the lock-offs are handled) but should be pretty close.  

Percentage of points available to book.

Year Su-Th   F-Sa
2009     56.6%   43.4%
2010     62.3%   37.7%

As you can see this reallocation has provided approximately 10% more supply for the weekdays.

Edit:  for some reason it won't format properly, but you get the idea.


----------



## LisaS

White_Sox_Fan said:


> Edit:  for some reason it won't format properly, but you get the idea.


You can use vBulletin's "code" tag to preserve your formatting. It preserves whitespace and uses a monospace font. Lay it out first using notepad to get the text spaced out correctly and then add any bold or underline tags. Copy and paste your text into the edit window for your post between  code and /code tags (with the tags enclosed in square brackets).



		Code:
	

Percentage of points available to book.

[u]Year[/u]    [u]Su-Th[/u]    [u]F-Sa[/u]
2009    56.6%    43.4%
2010    62.3%    37.7%


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

LisaS said:


> You can use vBulletin's "code" tag to preserve your formatting. It preserves whitespace and uses a monospace font. Lay it out first using notepad to get the text spaced out correctly and then add any bold or underline tags. Copy and paste your text into the edit window for your post between  code and /code tags (with the tags enclosed in square brackets).
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Percentage of points available to book.
> 
> [u]Year[/u]    [u]Su-Th[/u]    [u]F-Sa[/u]
> 2009    56.6%    43.4%
> 2010    62.3%    37.7%



Thanks.


----------



## Dean

Muushka said:


> Oops, didn't want to hit and run.
> 
> Chuck, I am glad I made you chuckle!  I guess if we had booked a studio every time, that would have been an adjustment that would not have been so lousy, just a 1 point increase is not enough to get upset about.
> 
> Dean, we didn't buy just enough points to book the way we planned.  We did have about a 30 point leeway, which we thought was enough.  We didn't have tons of money to spend on DVC.  And we thought we were wise in what we had planned.  And  we knew the possibility they could shift the differential at any time.  But again, we were surprised at the way the 1 BR in the first 2 weeks of Dec were so adversly affected.
> 
> We have enough points to do our time in Dec in a 1 BR.  We do not have enough points to visit another week in a 1 BR.  We won't buy any more points to make up the difference, we simply won't visit as often.  We find that cruising is something we are beginning to really enjoy (not DCL...too expensive!!!)
> 
> Look, I realize that there are people on these boards that will defend Disney no matter what they do.
> I am not one of them.  Have fun.  I really am bowing out.  Play nice....


It's not a question of defending DVC but simply discussing what's appropriate and what's allowed under the legal paperwork.  DVC did nothing wrong or underhanded in this change.  It is true they didn't time it well for a limited number of owners, mostly those at BLT but that's about the only thing I think anyone has a legitimate gripe about.  As has been said many times here and elsewhere, there will be winners and losers in any change.  That's a fact of life.  It's unfortunate for you that you get caught, maybe you missed along the way that I am similarly affected staying almost exclusively on weekdays when I stay on points.  

LVSWL, you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to the opinion that there is a significant amount of inappropriate and ill informed whining about this and similar subjects (the reservation change last year comes to mind).


----------



## Muushka

Where is that beating a dead horse thingy??

Have fun 'discussing'.  I will now bow out.


----------



## jakenjess

We were at WDW a couple of weeks ago staying at SSR, so we met with a guide (not ours, he was on vacation) and looked at the models.  We were interested in a possible add-on at BLT, so we sat with the guide and he went over the incentives, etc., and gave us the 2009 point charts only.  I was busy looking at the numbers and it didn't occur to me until later that they hadn't given us 2010 point charts.

The next day we were leaving so we stopped in at the preview center and asked for the 2010 charts.  At first they said they didn't have any printed up, but I told them I knew there were changes and since we were going to look over the numbers on the plane ride home we were really like to have them.  Then lo and behold one of the CMs magically pulled them out of a drawer.  

I just think they need to be more up front about this.


----------



## DVCGeek

jakenjess said:


> I just think they need to be more up front about this.



That's one thing I think EVERYONE will agree on!    Sorry to hear they were making it hard for you to get a chart while you were there.  You;'d think someone could print one off the internet if nothing else, geez!!!


----------



## jakenjess

They actually said to me, "You can get them online."  Okay, but I'm going to be on an airplane in a few hours and don't exactly have access to print them out right now!  I just thought it was strange that I had to push a bit to get them!


----------



## MiaSRN62

LVSWL said:


> Like the previous poster, I have also stayed away from this thread for a long time. After reading the last several posts, I am reminded of the reasons why. It is one thing to discuss the reasons for the reallocation, to even try to give insight to those who may not be as knowledgeable about this subject. But many of the responses from several of the posters are condescending to the point of ridicule. This reallocation will change how our family will travel, not drastically, but we will rethink our HHI trips. But we have plenty of points, and so it will be ok. I do feel for those who bought in and until now have had plenty of points to do their usual trips when they wanted, and now that option is gone. Not sure what you "experts" situation is, but not everyone can just go out and add on to make up the difference. Each of us loves WDW just as much as the other, and the thought that we might not be able to continue to go to our Happy Place like before is crushing. *Many people come here for support, not criticism, and riticule.* Just My 2



Just back from WDW and see this thread sort of came "back to life" while I was gone.  
I just wanted to say that *I like your above post LSVWL * it's so true and it's why I have agreed to keep my thoughts and feelings about the reallocation off this thread.  I think I started posting back around pages 50-55.....won't dare go there again.....I learned.  We were affected drastically (OKW 2 bedrooms went up 6 points/night) and I feel some who weren't affected to the degree we were just can't understand why or how we could feel the way we do.  It has caused us to sell our OKW contract.  Still have AKV.  

Some of the replies/comments I got in response were just a bit too snarky for me.  Was made to feel I didn't have a "right" or "reason" to say what I was saying about the DVC allocation and felt I had to be "put in my place" or corrected constantly every time I posted for how I felt/thought about it (despite that some here would not admit to this but from my perspective and I'm sure many others who are shy about posting to this thread----it's def a feeling you get).  So a big  to your above comment as I fully agree with it  


Maria


----------



## DaveH

The one thing I totally disagree with is that Disney did this change to sell points. I can understand the very strong emotions on this change. The one point I keep going back to is that we were told that if you look at the points in a matter of 7 night trips was the most logical way. I have not studied all the differences. It most of the changes on 7 nights are not drastic. The Sun through Thursday night trips have. Just by the very strong reaction from those who do only those and number seems to show the need for this change and maybe a couple of more in future years. The one thing we all seem to agree on is how DVC let us know about the change. This gives the appearance of something wrong in what they did. It seems Disney in general for the last 5 years or more is very arrogant in how they look at their customers. We were on the May 2 Western cruise and they way they handle the change about Cozumel showed this also.


----------



## LVSWL

Dean, thank you for recognizing that I am entitled to my opinion. What strikes me as interesting is the next sentence in your response to me. Evidently you feel that there is a "significant amount of inappropriate and ill informed whining about this and similar subjects". Wow! That is certainly what made me use the words condescending, ridicule and criticism in my post. It is hard to feel welcome on a thread where there might be information you need, or questions answered, when this is the opinion on one of the primary posters who answers most of the questions. 

Hi Maria! I remember those posts! Thanks


----------



## Bob Price

MiaSRN62 said:


> We were affected drastically (OKW 2 bedrooms went up 6 points/night) and I feel some who weren't affected to the degree we were just can't understand why or how we could feel the way we do.  It has caused us to sell our OKW contract.  Still have AKV.
> 
> Maria



6 points!!!  A NIGHT  You'd need a 30 point add on just for a Sunday thru Thursday stay.


----------



## yitbos96bb

LVSWL said:


> Like the previous poster, I have also stayed away from this thread for a long time. After reading the last several posts, I am reminded of the reasons why. It is one thing to discuss the reasons for the reallocation, to even try to give insight to those who may not be as knowledgeable about this subject. But many of the responses from several of the posters are condescending to the point of ridicule. This reallocation will change how our family will travel, not drastically, but we will rethink our HHI trips. But we have plenty of points, and so it will be ok. I do feel for those who bought in and until now have had plenty of points to do their usual trips when they wanted, and now that option is gone. Not sure what you "experts" situation is, but not everyone can just go out and add on to make up the difference. Each of us loves WDW just as much as the other, and the thought that we might not be able to continue to go to our Happy Place like before is crushing. Many people come here for support, not criticism, and riticule. Just My 2



I'm sure for some of the people its disappointing.  It doesn't affect me as much, since I live in Chicago and when we go we are usually there for 7 days or more... so the 7 day trips won't change much for us.   

Even if this wasn't the case, the really wouldn't bother me... I went in knowing it was a real possibility this could happen, as it is in the paperwork and was explained by our guide.  it doesn't sound like it happens much, so that is one bit of good news.   

As for some peoples answers... yes they could be nicer... but then again, reading essentially the same thread written by different people can be enough to make people snap... and some posters on both sides can be very whiny about stuff, something I am sure you will concede.


----------



## yitbos96bb

jakenjess said:


> We were at WDW a couple of weeks ago staying at SSR, so we met with a guide (not ours, he was on vacation) and looked at the models.  We were interested in a possible add-on at BLT, so we sat with the guide and he went over the incentives, etc., and gave us the 2009 point charts only.  I was busy looking at the numbers and it didn't occur to me until later that they hadn't given us 2010 point charts.
> 
> The next day we were leaving so we stopped in at the preview center and asked for the 2010 charts.  At first they said they didn't have any printed up, but I told them I knew there were changes and since we were going to look over the numbers on the plane ride home we were really like to have them.  Then lo and behold one of the CMs magically pulled them out of a drawer.
> 
> I just think they need to be more up front about this.




Not defending the actions, but I can understand why... they are Commissioned Sales people...  I have to think looking at those two charts will deter some people, especially given BLTs high cost.  Much easier to go on resale, but something else for more points, and roll the dice on availability at 7 months.  Heck, I thought of doing this with the HHV or VBV, just to have the extra points at a cheap price.    Very rarely have I called at 7 months and not gotten at least 1 of my top 2 resorts.   Heck I called 5.5 months out and was still able to get Boardwalk during F and W and BLT bay view for a few days.


----------



## Dean

LVSWL said:


> Dean, thank you for recognizing that I am entitled to my opinion. What strikes me as interesting is the next sentence in your response to me. Evidently you feel that there is a "significant amount of inappropriate and ill informed whining about this and similar subjects". Wow! That is certainly what made me use the words condescending, ridicule and criticism in my post. It is hard to feel welcome on a thread where there might be information you need, or questions answered, when this is the opinion on one of the primary posters who answers most of the questions.
> 
> Hi Maria! I remember those posts! Thanks


Got to call it the way I see it.  I think if you read my posts they speak either to the actions or to generalizations and not as a direct attack to any one person.  I said what I meant and meant what I said because it's true.  What do you disagree with that I've posted, my positions are very simple and include.  


It was a known risk
Banking on S-F and cutting it close was a large risk
it was clearly spelled out in the legalities that this change could happen
People shouldn't buy something they don't truly understand
anyone either knew or should have known it could happen
it's been discussed here over the years
DVC has the right to do make the change and in many case, the legal obligation to do so.
It's reasonable to be upset at your bad luck but there's no reason to be upset with DVC for making the change.
The guide said, finances or I assumed have no real basis in the discussion of the appropriateness of change.
As I've noted, this affects me as much or more from a numbers standpoint than any of those who are whining.  To me it's really very simple.  Do they have the right to make the change, if so, is there a need.  It truly is that simple.  NONE of the other stuff including personal situations really matters as to this decision.  IMO, and as I've noted previously, they would have been better off giving some basic numbers as support but I'm convinced that everyone would have argued with their numbers as much of more than they have anyway.  Also, I've reminded everyone at least twice that you have a right to go look at the books in this regard including a possible study on this subject, no one has indicated any interest that I recall.


----------



## LVSWL

Dean,
You ask me what I disagree with that you have posted. 
You even provided me with a list of some of your positions.
Each of those is a valid point, if in a general discussion about
reallocation. But to me it is much more personal when another
person's post is quoted and some of the points are made line by
line. I guess when you couple that with the the "tone" in the word
whining it makes me uncomfortable. I know that I certainly would
not feel like I could ask a question or have an opinion that is not
favorable about this subject. I just think that it is unfortunate.
Anyway, enjoy..off to watch the hockey game. That's much more fun.

 I guess what I'm saying is..they are my points and I'll whine if I want to


----------



## MiaSRN62

Bob Price said:


> 6 points!!!  A NIGHT  You'd need a 30 point add on just for a Sunday thru Thursday stay.




Yup Bob ..... it would have just been nice to vent a little, but some people come at you and say things like "it's your fault for not reading more" or "you should have expected it" or "it's your choice to vacation in the summer and pay more points" etc etc.   I think I heard it all....just no room for showing disappointment or any type of emotions on this thread without getting a slap on the hand   ....and only a few posts of understanding/support overall.     I'm quite certain there is a very large percentage who are afraid to post on this thread.   I've gotten PM's about it.  I've moved on.....

Maria


----------



## toocherie

MiaSRN62 said:


> Yup Bob ..... it would have just been nice to vent a little, but some people come at you and say things like "it's your fault for not reading more" or "you should have expected it" or "it's your choice to vacation in the summer and pay more points" etc etc.   I think I heard it all....just no room for showing disappointment or any type of emotions on this thread without getting a slap on the hand   ....and only a few posts of understanding/support overall.     I'm quite certain there is a very large percentage who are afraid to post on this thread.   I've gotten PM's about it.  I've moved on.....
> 
> Maria



Maria:  I haven't posted on this thread for quite a while but saw it come up.  My only suggestion if someone doesn't want an opinion on whether they have a right to be upset or not is to start a separate thread and entitle it "VENT" at the beginning so it is clear that you just need an outlet to talk about what is upsetting you.  When you post on what is supposed to be a "factual" thread--like this one, I think someone who is showing more emotion than normal opens themselves up for someone to come in and logically show they are wrong--and then I think the person who just wanted an outlet for their anger just gets even more so.


----------



## bobbiwoz

toocherie said:


> Maria:  I haven't posted on this thread for quite a while but saw it come up.  My only suggestion if someone doesn't want an opinion on whether they have a right to be upset or not is to start a separate thread and entitle it "VENT" at the beginning so it is clear that you just need an outlet to talk about what is upsetting you.  When you post on what is supposed to be a "factual" thread--like this one, I think someone who is showing more emotion than normal opens themselves up for someone to come in and logically show they are wrong--and then I think the person who just wanted an outlet for their anger just gets even more so.



A Mars vs. Venus sort of thing!


----------



## Dean

LVSWL said:


> Dean,
> You ask me what I disagree with that you have posted.
> You even provided me with a list of some of your positions.
> Each of those is a valid point, if in a general discussion about
> reallocation. But to me it is much more personal when another
> person's post is quoted and some of the points are made line by
> line. I guess when you couple that with the the "tone" in the word
> whining it makes me uncomfortable. I know that I certainly would
> not feel like I could ask a question or have an opinion that is not
> favorable about this subject. I just think that it is unfortunate.
> Anyway, enjoy..off to watch the hockey game. That's much more fun.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is..they are my points and I'll whine if I want to


Such is life.  It's not necessary to agree to discuss the issues else this and similar places would be very boring.  You can certainly whine more if you like. 



MiaSRN62 said:


> Yup Bob ..... it would have just been nice to vent a little, but some people come at you and say things like "it's your fault for not reading more" or "you should have expected it" or "it's your choice to vacation in the summer and pay more points" etc etc.   I think I heard it all....just no room for showing disappointment or any type of emotions on this thread without getting a slap on the hand   ....and only a few posts of understanding/support overall.     I'm quite certain there is a very large percentage who are afraid to post on this thread.   I've gotten PM's about it.  I've moved on.....
> 
> Maria


Maria, no one is stopping you from posting but it is unrealistic to expect to post without others having an opinion about what you post.  A healthy give and take would have been welcomed.  The problem is that for many it wasn't truly venting but attacking DVC for being inappropriate, much different and factually WRONG in this instance, IMO.  If you review you'll see at least a couple of instances where I state that I understand why people might be upset at their bad luck and that is OK but many took it too far and accused DVC of all manner of bad things that were simply not accurate.



toocherie said:


> Maria:  I haven't posted on this thread for quite a while but saw it come up.  My only suggestion if someone doesn't want an opinion on whether they have a right to be upset or not is to start a separate thread and entitle it "VENT" at the beginning so it is clear that you just need an outlet to talk about what is upsetting you.  When you post on what is supposed to be a "factual" thread--like this one, I think someone who is showing more emotion than normal opens themselves up for someone to come in and logically show they are wrong--and then I think the person who just wanted an outlet for their anger just gets even more so.


Exactly.  It seems some feel attacked simply because many didn't agree with them.


----------



## MiaSRN62

> Toocherie : I think someone who is showing more emotion than normal opens themselves up for someone to come in and logically show they are wrong--and then I think the person who just wanted an outlet for their anger just gets even more so.



Toocherie....I definitely had fact mixed in with emotion.  So sorry you didn't see that.  Go back and read my posts (if you feel like it) all the way back on page 50-55 I think is when I started.  Emotions came up more when I felt I was getting snarky comments.  I was def speaking facts though.......I don't feel I showed "more emotion than normal" in my beginning posts.  I will admit, getting hit with snarky after patronizing posts for days, the emotions do surface and it's why I left the discussion.  There are several people who PM'd me and saw it as well.  So if you didn't, then that is your perspective.  




> Dean : Maria, no one is stopping you from posting but it is unrealistic to expect to post without others having an opinion about what you post. A healthy give and take would have been welcomed. The problem is that for many it wasn't truly venting but attacking DVC for being inappropriate, much different and factually WRONG in this instance, IMO. If you review you'll see at least a couple of instances where I state that I understand why people might be upset at their bad luck and that is OK but many took it too far and accused DVC of all manner of bad things that were simply not accurate.



I absolutely realize noone is stopping me from posting Dean. I certainly don't feel I'm being unrealistic either.  I had to get away from this thread for my own emotional well-being pretty much.    I recognized the snide comments I was getting and how it was, in turn, affecting my posts and how I felt every time I went to read a new update.  Most certainly didn't perceive *some* of the responses as "healthy give and take".  I can take constructive criticism, but not in the manner that *some* of it was dished out.  
I never minded the calm/non condescending/non criticizing responses I received---even if they differed from mine.  And for the record Dean....I never felt you were one of the posters that was snarky or patronizing to me personally.  So I hope you're not thinking that.  I agree with the healthy give and take----but that wasn't what I experienced a good amount of the time.  I'm not a robot.  If someone replies to me with a snide remark, yes....some emotion is going to come out.  But my beginning posts when I first entered this thread were just commentary from me and factual from MY personal experiences with DVC/guides etc.  


Maria


----------



## MiaSRN62

> It seems some feel attacked simply because many didn't agree with them.



Oh no, sorry Dean....couldn't be further from the truth with me.  If that is your perspective and Toocherie...so be it.  But it is not how I feel and you may never understand that.  There were other things that got me upset.  I can take criticism and disagreement.  I've been on the DIS for many years.  It's the snide and condensending comments from a few that get me.  There is a right and a wrong way to disagree with someone.............but I guess some don't see that.   I see it's time to leave again.....things will never change......


Maria


----------



## LVSWL

yitbos96bb said:


> I'm sure for some of the people its disappointing.  It doesn't affect me as much, since I live in Chicago and when we go we are usually there for 7 days or more... so the 7 day trips won't change much for us.
> 
> Even if this wasn't the case, the really wouldn't bother me... I went in knowing it was a real possibility this could happen, as it is in the paperwork and was explained by our guide.  it doesn't sound like it happens much, so that is one bit of good news.
> 
> As for some peoples answers... yes they could be nicer... but then again, reading essentially the same thread written by different people can be enough to make people snap... and some posters on both sides can be very whiny about stuff, something I am sure you will concede.


I don't get the last part of this I guess. In an ongoing thread of this size, I don't think that you can expect the average poster to come in and read through every post on every page to see if their particular question/situation has been addressed so that the "regulars" on the thread will not perceive them as "whiners" when they post a question/concern/complaint about the subject.


----------



## LVSWL

toocherie said:


> Maria:  I haven't posted on this thread for quite a while but saw it come up.  My only suggestion if someone doesn't want an opinion on whether they have a right to be upset or not is to start a separate thread and entitle it "VENT" at the beginning so it is clear that you just need an outlet to talk about what is upsetting you.  When you post on what is supposed to be a "factual" thread--like this one, I think someone who is showing more emotion than normal opens themselves up for someone to come in and logically show they are wrong--and then I think the person who just wanted an outlet for their anger just gets even more so.



I am unclear about when this thread became a "factual thread". It began as a post by a member letting us know what they found on the internet, and posters immediately began to post how they felt about the changes and how those changes might impact them personally. I don't think this is like posting on the Grand Floridian FAQ and getting upset about why you can't get a good rate for a suite anymore put x # of people in a room.


----------



## Dean

MiaSRN62 said:


> I absolutely realize noone is stopping me from posting Dean. I certainly don't feel I'm being unrealistic either.  I had to get away from this thread for my own emotional well-being pretty much.    I recognized the snide comments I was getting and how it was, in turn, affecting my posts and how I felt every time I went to read a new update.  Most certainly didn't perceive *some* of the responses as "healthy give and take".  I can take constructive criticism, but not in the manner that *some* of it was dished out.
> I never minded the calm/non condescending/non criticizing responses I received---even if they differed from mine.  And for the record Dean....I never felt you were one of the posters that was snarky or patronizing to me personally.  So I hope you're not thinking that.  I agree with the healthy give and take----but that wasn't what I experienced a good amount of the time.  I'm not a robot.  If someone replies to me with a snide remark, yes....some emotion is going to come out.  But my beginning posts when I first entered this thread were just commentary from me and factual from MY personal experiences with DVC/guides etc.
> 
> 
> Maria


Thank you, it is always my goal to deal with the issue and not the person.  Sometimes it still comes across more negative than I'd like when that person is directly involved in the issue in question.  



MiaSRN62 said:


> Oh no, sorry Dean....couldn't be further from the truth with me.  If that is your perspective and Toocherie...so be it.  But it is not how I feel and you may never understand that.  There were other things that got me upset.  I can take criticism and disagreement.  I've been on the DIS for many years.  It's the snide and condensending comments from a few that get me.  There is a right and a wrong way to disagree with someone.............but I guess some don't see that.   I see it's time to leave again.....things will never change......
> 
> 
> Maria


See another case of a general comment that may come across in a way not intended.  



LVSWL said:


> I don't get the last part of this I guess. In an ongoing thread of this size, I don't think that you can expect the average poster to come in and read through every post on every page to see if their particular question/situation has been addressed so that the "regulars" on the thread will not perceive them as "whiners" when they post a question/concern/complaint about the subject.


I certainly understand not reading such a long thread when you come in late.  However, I think if you post in such a thread the poster takes a certain amount of responsibility for the info they missed.  They also lose perspective for the entire package and any disclaimers or items they may see as positives that a given poster may have provided.  It truly is a proceed at your own risk situation IMO.



LVSWL said:


> I am unclear about when this thread became a "factual thread". It began as a post by a member letting us know what they found on the internet, and posters immediately began to post how they felt about the changes and how those changes might impact them personally. I don't think this is like posting on the Grand Floridian FAQ and getting upset about why you can't get a good rate for a suite anymore put x # of people in a room.


Likely part of the disconnect.  For many of us this is simply a factual discussion, one that emotion has no real bearing on.  For others, emotion is the substance of their judgement in this area, along with assumptions not based in facts.


----------



## LVSWL

Dean said:


> I certainly understand not reading such a long thread when you come in late.  However, I think if you post in such a thread the poster takes a certain amount of responsibility for the info they missed.  They also lose perspective for the entire package and any disclaimers or items they may see as positives that a given poster may have provided.  It truly is a proceed at your own risk situation IMO.



GEEZ! Maybe that last sentence should be in the title of the thread.
Then posters will know what they are getting themselves into


----------



## paige2755

Our family just became DVC members in 2007.  We only bought in at 160 pts.  The2009 points schedule would allow us to basically have a five night (sun-thurs) stay during the non peak times in a two bedroom.  We no longer be able to enjoy a five night vacation with the new changes.  This is very disappointing as this is pretty much the only vacation we take each year.


----------



## CarolMN

paige2755 said:


> Our family just became DVC members in 2007.  We only bought in at 160 pts.  The2009 points schedule would allow us to basically have a five night (sun-thurs) stay during the non peak times in a two bedroom.  We no longer be able to enjoy a five night vacation with the new changes.  This is very disappointing as this is pretty much the only vacation we take each year.



Yes, it is disappointing, but it probably isn't as bad as you might think.

What is your home resort?  It must be VWL or BCV.

For 160 points:

1.  You can still get a 2 bedroom for 5 nights during either Adventure or Choice season at SSR.

2.  You can get a 2 bedroom at OKW for 5 nights during Adventure, Choice or Dream season.

3.  If you are willing to take a value 2 bedroom, you can stay 5 nights in a 2 bedroom at AKV during all seasons except Premier (which is only the weeks surrounding Christmas and Easter).  You can stay 5 nights in a standard view 2 bedroom at AKV for Adventure, Choice or Dream season.

4.  If you own at BWV and are willing to stay in a standard view 2 bedroom, you can get 5 nights in either Adventure or Choice season.  (It's hard to book SV for BWV during Adventure & Choice if you don't own there)


If you own at BCV or VWL, it is absolutely true that you can't get 5 nights for 160 points in Choice season anymore.  HOWEVER, you could still go every year during CHOICE season for 5 nights in a 2 bedroom if you borrowed 15 points each year.  It would be at least 10 years before you would have to skip a trip. It would be longer if you travel during Adventure season.  Who knows what might happen in the next 10 years?  Maybe you won't want to take the trip every year or maybe you will even get tired of Disney!  

I know it is disappointing when a change doesn't work out in your favor.  Just wanted to point out that this change may not be so awful after all.  It certainly isn't going to require you to take a shorter vacation than your current pattern (for at least the next 10 years, anyway) unless you refuse to stay anywhere but your home resort *and* refuse to borrow.

HTH.


----------



## yitbos96bb

CarolMN said:


> Yes, it is disappointing, but it probably isn't as bad as you might think.
> 
> What is your home resort?  It must be VWL or BCV.
> 
> For 160 points:
> 
> 1.  You can still get a 2 bedroom for 5 nights during either Adventure or Choice season at SSR.
> 
> 2.  You can get a 2 bedroom at OKW for 5 nights during Adventure, Choice or Dream season.
> 
> 3.  If you are willing to take a value 2 bedroom, you can stay 5 nights in a 2 bedroom at AKV during all seasons except Premier (which is only the weeks surrounding Christmas and Easter).  You can stay 5 nights in a standard view 2 bedroom at AKV for Adventure, Choice or Dream season.
> 
> 4.  If you own at BWV and are willing to stay in a standard view 2 bedroom, you can get 5 nights in either Adventure or Choice season.  (It's hard to book SV for BWV during Adventure & Choice if you don't own there)
> 
> 
> If you own at BCV or VWL, it is absolutely true that you can't get 5 nights for 160 points in Choice season anymore.  HOWEVER, you could still go every year during CHOICE season for 5 nights in a 2 bedroom if you borrowed 15 points each year.  It would be at least 10 years before you would have to skip a trip. It would be longer if you travel during Adventure season.  Who knows what might happen in the next 10 years?  Maybe you won't want to take the trip every year or maybe you will even get tired of Disney!
> 
> I know it is disappointing when a change doesn't work out in your favor.  Just wanted to point out that this change may not be so awful after all.  It certainly isn't going to require you to take a shorter vacation than your current pattern (for at least the next 10 years, anyway) unless you refuse to stay anywhere but your home resort *and* refuse to borrow.
> 
> HTH.



Good call with the borrowing 15 points a year!

The other thing is when or if you ever have the money, you could add on 25 points to cover.  Yeah, I know it sucks to have to do that, but it could be an option down the road.  

Just be careful... adding on is like a drug... you have to get your fix.   I REALLY want to add on some now... buy a 75 BLT contract or the like.  Enough to guarentee BLT 1 BR every 3 years in the times I like to go.


----------



## tjkraz

yitbos96bb said:


> Good call with the borrowing 15 points a year!



Yeah, that's the way to go for most people.  

If you fall 15 points short and own at least 150, it will take 10 years before borrowing really catches up with you.  Example:

Year One:  Use all current plus borrow 15
Year Two:  Use remaining current plus borrow 30
Year Three:  Use remaining current plus borrow 45
...and so on.

It won't be until after Year Ten that all of the follow year's points are borrowed, forcing a year to be skipped.  

Another alternative would be to shorten annual trips by a day every 2-3 years to catch-up.  

This won't work for everyone...particularly those who bought small contracts with the intention of banking AND borrowing to use 3 years' worth of points for a single trip.  But Carol's approach is a valid coping mechanism for the vast majority of members.


----------



## photobob

paige2755 said:


> Our family just became DVC members in 2007.  We only bought in at 160 pts.  The2009 points schedule would allow us to basically have a five night (sun-thurs) stay during the non peak times in a two bedroom.  We no longer be able to enjoy a five night vacation with the new changes.  This is very disappointing as this is pretty much the only vacation we take each year.



This will probably be the last year we stay in a 2 bedroom. You have a few options; borrowing like some others have suggested, go less days, stay at a resort where points cost are less, use smaller accommodations or add-on. We will probably use a combination of all of these with the exception of add-on for the foreseeable future!


----------



## Pa@okw95

Like I said in another post, I had not been on this site since October, and I never received notice from DVC about this change in the point chart. At any rate for me this is a big change because I am basically a snow bird that comes down in January and stays in a one bedroom at OKW for 80 points, Sun-Thur, then I go off site, and back on again Sunday for another 80 points, so on and so forth. This is now going to cost me 95 each Sun-Thur, so I will now have to think of away to do this. Normally I spend 240 points to do this 3 times, it will not cost me 285 and since I only have 270 point contract, this is a problem for me now. Well we all have different stories, mine is just one. Needless to say I don't like the change.


----------



## tjkraz

Pa@okw95 said:


> Normally I spend 240 points to do this 3 times, it will not cost me 285 and since I only have 270 point contract, this is a problem for me now.



If you are only coming up 15 points short per year, taking advantage of the borrowing privileges you could go 18 years without having to alter your normal routine.  For example:

2010:  Use 270 current year points and borrow 15 from '11
2011:  Use remaining 255 current points and borrow 30 from '12
2012:  Use remaining 240 points and borrow 45 from '13
...and so on.

It will take 18 years until you are fully borrowed a year in advance.

Or since you are using your points for 3 trips per year, you could skip one trip every 6 years.  

Or with weekends now being cheaper, you could investigate taking 2 longer trips per year instead of 3 shorter ones.  Since weekends are still more expensive, there's no question you would have fewer total vacation days.  But you could reduce your transportation and other costs by 1/3.  

I was always a Sun - Thurs guy myself but this change has undeniably prompted me to look into different ways of using our points.  It appears too many of us were sticking to the Sun - Thurs block and DVC had to do something to expand the capacity of that timeframe.


----------



## bobbiwoz

As I mentioned before, I do OK with the change because we often have booked weekends.  However, we were just on the 3 night DCL cruise and I find it underhanded at least that DVC only hands out charts for '08 and '09 where applicable (older resorts), and only '09 for BLT.

People will be in for a shock, and I think that's just wrong.  

Bobbi


----------



## Tara

photobob said:


> This will probably be the last year we stay in a 2 bedroom. You have a few options; borrowing like some others have suggested, go less days, stay at a resort where points cost are less, use smaller accommodations or add-on. We will probably use a combination of all of these with the exception of add-on for the foreseeable future!



Another option is to spend a little bit on a transfer. For example, if you are 10 points short, you could try to arrange a transfer of 100 points from another member. Use those points in your next vacation and bank your own points into the next year. As long as you pay attention to how your trips are booked and always use your banked points first, you should be able to cover 10 years of the points difference. Definitely a lot cheaper than adding on!


----------



## Mike

Tara said:


> Another option is to spend a little bit on a transfer. For example, if you are 10 points short, you could try to arrange a transfer of 100 points from another member. Use those points in your next vacation and bank your own points into the next year. As long as you pay attention to how your trips are booked and always use your banked points first, you should be able to cover 10 years of the points difference. Definitely a lot cheaper than adding on!



Yes but this is still an added expense of $1000 - $1100 just to keep doing what you would normally do.  It is chaeper than adding on and is a good strategy, but it is still hard to justify.  Not much value in paying $1000 for the status quo.


----------



## JaysAGator

Have read through a good portion of this thread and its easy to see that this is a very hotly contested issue.  I am currently waiting for Disney to make a decision on ROFR on the resale we are trying to secure at BWV, so while I am not currently a member I hope to be soon, and I consider myself VERY well informed with all the due diligence I have done prior to making our current offer.

With my wife and I living in South Florida, we will literally take EVERY Disney trip on long weekends (typically Thursday night through checkout on Sunday, with some Fri-Sun trips thrown in as well).  Obviously, the new point changes really work out in our favor, and will provide us with 1-2 extra nights per year depending on the season we travel (we will use the studios almost exclusively, as it is just her and I).  While I can understand some DVC members being upset that they can no longer get quite such a large benefit from travelling on weekdays, the reality of the situation is that it still requires MUCH more points to stay on weekends (as it should).  The gap is just not QUITE as large as it used to be.  IMO Disney is just trying to correct what had been an unnecessarily large favortism shown to weekday DVC guests.  And I for one am very glad that they are doing so.


----------



## Mississippian

JaysAGator said:


> Have read through a good portion of this thread and its easy to see that this is a very hotly contested issue.  I am currently waiting for Disney to make a decision on ROFR on the resale we are trying to secure at BWV, so while I am not currently a member I hope to be soon, and I consider myself VERY well informed with all the due diligence I have done prior to making our current offer.
> 
> With my wife and I living in South Florida, we will literally take EVERY Disney trip on long weekends (typically Thursday night through checkout on Sunday, with some Fri-Sun trips thrown in as well).  Obviously, the new point changes really work out in our favor, and will provide us with 1-2 extra nights per year depending on the season we travel (we will use the studios almost exclusively, as it is just her and I).  While I can understand some DVC members being upset that they can no longer get quite such a large benefit from travelling on weekdays, the reality of the situation is that it still requires MUCH more points to stay on weekends (as it should).  The gap is just not QUITE as large as it used to be.  IMO Disney is just trying to correct what had been an unnecessarily large favortism shown to weekday DVC guests.  And I for one am very glad that they are doing so.


As someone who has never stayed on a weekend night, I agree changes were in order.  I still think weekends may be too expensive.

The key is that weekdays and weekends ought to book up at roughly the same speed.  If the weekends are consistantly remaining unbooked, then the weekends are too expensive, even at these new levels.  The points should be repeatedly adjusted, if needed, until an equilibrium is reached.

Who knows, perhaps they have it right this time.


----------



## DVCGeek

Mississippian said:


> The points should be repeatedly adjusted, if needed, until an equilibrium is reached.
> 
> Who knows, perhaps they have it right this time.



Wouldn't that be nice!!!  I just just hope that if/when they make changes in the future there is much better communication and in a very timely manner.  This would be TERRIBLE for people who don't get DVC info. online!  But, that's been said over and over already.

Anybody else feel like this thread is just going in circles at this point?


----------



## Mississippian

DVCGeek said:


> Anybody else feel like this thread is just going in circles at this point?


"Mommy, Mommy, I'm tired of walking in circles!"

"Shut up or I'll nail your other foot to the floor!"


----------



## DVCGeek




----------



## Dean

DVCGeek said:


> Wouldn't that be nice!!!  I just just hope that if/when they make changes in the future there is much better communication and in a very timely manner.  This would be TERRIBLE for people who don't get DVC info. online!  But, that's been said over and over already.
> 
> Anybody else feel like this thread is just going in circles at this point?


There's no way for them to win in this situation.  The more notice and fanfare, the more time for and numbers of complaints about it from those who don't like it.  Our HMO membership on average is almost certainly at an education and technology level that's below the average for DVC members and 97% of our membership has access to the internet in one form or another, per their own description.  So I don't think lack of access to the info is truly an issue large enough to be a driving force in any decisions.  Actually I'd suspect they'll stop doing the planners fairly soon  (2-4 yrs) other than something for new members and those that specifically ask for them.


----------



## Tara

Mike said:


> Yes but this is still an added expense of $1000 - $1100 just to keep doing what you would normally do.  It is chaeper than adding on and is a good strategy, but it is still hard to justify.  Not much value in paying $1000 for the status quo.



Or you can alter your travel patterns to travel at different times of the year, use smaller accommodations  or stay for fewer nights - your call. I would say there is a value in paying the smallest amount possible to maintain the status quo *if* the status quo is important to you. The 100 points was a bookmark - you could certainly transfer in smaller amounts to cover fewer years and see if your travel patterns change naturally over time in a way that eliminates the need for more points.


----------



## Dean

Mike said:


> Yes but this is still an added expense of $1000 - $1100 just to keep doing what you would normally do.  It is chaeper than adding on and is a good strategy, but it is still hard to justify.  Not much value in paying $1000 for the status quo.


But that cost would be spread out over multiple years for most situations.  In some cases it is an increase in costs but so would be an increase in dues, special assessment or initiation of any number of fees  including cancelation, multiple reservations, banking, borrowing, etc.  All of which would likely be as or more expensive to most members over time.  Certainly this change alters the playing field for many of us and there will be those where DVC will no longer make sense for them.  Such is the case with any change of substance and as it should be, IMO.  The truth is that DVC was too cheap for a 5 day stay avoiding weekends and still may be so to a degree, it was good while it lasted.


----------



## yitbos96bb

Anyone else shocked this is at 176 pages!


----------



## Dean

yitbos96bb said:


> Anyone else shocked this is at 176 pages!


Yes and no.  But hey, it's been one of the better and more interesting threads in the last year.  Last years was the one on the full week reservation change and it was pretty long as well.


----------



## Caskbill

yitbos96bb said:


> Anyone else shocked this is at 176 pages!



This could be the very first DVC thread to reach the 250 page limit when it would have to be closed, and a new continuation thread developed.


----------



## DVCGeek

Caskbill said:


> This could be the very first DVC thread to reach the 250 page limit when it would have to be closed, and a new continuation thread developed.



That would be something!  How many out there think it really will get that big???  My guess is it won't, but I haven't been on this board that long...


----------



## Dean

DVCGeek said:


> That would be something!  How many out there think it really will get that big???  My guess is it won't, but I haven't been on this board that long...


Not unless there are new developments like a new reallocation for 2011 or 2012.  Well maybe it will get there after all as I give it about a 20% change for some change in the allocation over the next 2-4 years.


----------



## DVCGeek

Dean said:


> Not unless there are new developments like a new reallocation for 2011 or 2012.  Well maybe it will get there after all as I give it about a 20% change for some change in the allocation over the next 2-4 years.



But wouldn't that likely be cause to spawn a separate "201x Point Charts" thread?


----------



## yitbos96bb

DVCGeek said:


> But wouldn't that likely be cause to spawn a separate "201x Point Charts" thread?



Not if we are dedicated to pushing it to the limits.

We need to start making controversial comments to get people into an ire and make the thread bigger ;-)


----------



## DVCGeek

yitbos96bb said:


> Not if we are dedicated to pushing it to the limits.
> 
> We need to start making controversial comments to get people into an ire and make the thread bigger ;-)



Oh boy!  Well, I'll keep replying every so often within reason.  The big question- will the mods let us ramble the thread to the max. length if we've run out of things to say????????????


----------



## Dean

DVCGeek said:


> But wouldn't that likely be cause to spawn a separate "201x Point Charts" thread?


Maybe, maybe not.  Possibly we could change the name now and start discussing the next reallocation.  Likely more of the same with about a 10% (roughly) change from weekdays to weekends this time.


----------



## CarolMN

Caskbill said:


> This could be the very first DVC thread to reach the 250 page limit when it would have to be closed, and a new continuation thread developed.





DVCGeek said:


> That would be something!  How many out there think it really will get that big???  My guess is it won't, but I haven't been on this board that long...





Dean said:


> Not unless there are new developments like a new reallocation for 2011 or 2012.  Well maybe it will get there after all as I give it about a 20% change for some change in the allocation over the next 2-4 years.





DVCGeek said:


> But wouldn't that likely be cause to spawn a separate "201x Point Charts" thread?





yitbos96bb said:


> Not if we are dedicated to pushing it to the limits.
> 
> We need to start making controversial comments to get people into an ire and make the thread bigger ;-)





DVCGeek said:


> Oh boy!  Well, I'll keep replying every so often within reason.  The big question- will the mods let us ramble the thread to the max. length if we've run out of things to say????????????





Dean said:


> Maybe, maybe not.  Possibly we could change the name now and start discussing the next reallocation.  Likely more of the same with about a 10% (roughly) change from weekdays to weekends this time.



*I vote for just changing the name of this thread and then everyone can just reread what they've already posted.  *


----------



## dianeschlicht

Caskbill said:


> This could be the very first DVC thread to reach the 250 page limit when it would have to be closed, and a new continuation thread developed.



NO, NO!!! Say it isn't so, Bill!  I lost interest in this dead horse several months ago!  Nothing new has been said since then!


----------



## ParrotBill

I enjoy receiving a mailing once a month that is trying to get me to buy more points or recruit another member... yet they can't send a letter about a change that drastically affects how you use your membership.

This really stinks for those of us that need to fly to and from small air markets. The cost to fly is considerably higher on weekends, so we've learned to fly midweek.  A typical stay for us is 7 to 10 days over a weekend.  I estimate that the points change devalued our membership 25% in this way.

So now I can go back to weekend to weekend, and pay $600 per trip more in air?

*grumble*


----------



## tjkraz

ParrotBill said:


> This really stinks for those of us that need to fly to and from small air markets. The cost to fly is considerably higher on weekends, so we've learned to fly midweek.  A typical stay for us is 7 to 10 days over a weekend.  I estimate that the points change devalued our membership 25% in this way.



I'd be curious to hear more about how you reached that conclusion.

The increases are capped at 20% per night.  Regardless of the trip duration, you shouldn't find any single night that is greater than 20% over the 2009 values.

Additionally, in most cases the changes for a weeklong stay are negligible.  In most instances the weekly prices vary by just a couple of points between 2009 and 2010.  It doesn't matter whether you arrive on a Saturday, Sunday or Wednesday.  Weekdays were raised and weekends lowered, but the total for most weeks remained almost unchanged.

For your 8-10 night stays you may end up paying a few more points per night for those additional 1-3 nights, but the overall impact shouldn't come anywhere near 25%.


----------



## Dean

tjkraz said:


> I'd be curious to hear more about how you reached that conclusion.
> 
> The increases are capped at 20% per night.  Regardless of the trip duration, you shouldn't find any single night that is greater than 20% over the 2009 values.
> 
> Additionally, in most cases the changes for a weeklong stay are negligible.  In most instances the weekly prices vary by just a couple of points between 2009 and 2010.  It doesn't matter whether you arrive on a Saturday, Sunday or Wednesday.  Weekdays were raised and weekends lowered, but the total for most weeks remained almost unchanged.
> 
> For your 8-10 night stays you may end up paying a few more points per night for those additional 1-3 nights, but the overall impact shouldn't come anywhere near 25%.


Tim, I wonder if he's saying he can't stay as long on the same points and that air will likely be higher and thus adding in the higher cost of the air on top of the minor increase in this situation.  I agree that the increased cost is unlikely to be nearly as much as stated by ParrotBill.  In some situations one could see both a shortening of usual stays AND an increase in air comparatively.  But it doesn't have to be so because there are many ways to get back to where you started, even for the S-F stays which went up as much as 20%.  Adding on, renting or getting transferred points periodically or paying cash for a night here and there can all negate the effects of this change but for some, at a higher cost.


----------



## Mike

yitbos96bb said:


> Anyone else shocked this is at 176 pages!



Not one bit .... but I am floored that we hit 177 pages


----------



## DVCGeek

Mike said:


> Not one bit .... but I am floored that we hit 177 pages



Wow!  177 *IS* truly amazing.


----------



## Muushka

bobbiwoz said:


> As I mentioned before, I do OK with the change because we often have booked weekends.  However, we were just on the 3 night DCL cruise and I find it underhanded at least that DVC only hands out charts for '08 and '09 where applicable (older resorts), and only '09 for BLT.
> 
> People will be in for a shock, and I think that's just wrong.
> 
> Bobbi



This thread is like a fight in a long line for Soarin!  I can't help but peak!

Bobbi points out something interesting.  If it was such a wonderful thing that DVD did, why are they not advertising it?  
I agree, them not showing the new point structure is just wrong.  
But I am certain many will figure out how to say it was the right thing to do....


----------



## yitbos96bb

Muushka said:


> This thread is like a fight in a long line for Soarin!  I can't help but peak!
> 
> Bobbi points out something interesting.  If it was such a wonderful thing that DVD did, why are they not advertising it?
> I agree, them not showing the new point structure is just wrong.
> But I am certain many will figure out how to say it was the right thing to do....



I don't understand what the two of you mean... The charts are on the website.   They have been for a while.


----------



## tjkraz

Muushka said:


> Bobbi points out something interesting.  If it was such a wonderful thing that DVD did, why are they not advertising it?



Perhaps it's because DVC doesn't consider it a "wonderful thing."  Personally I see it as more of a necessary evil than a positive change worth gloating about.  I've said repeatedly that I believe the change will have a negative impact on sales in the long term.  



> I agree, them not showing the new point structure is just wrong.
> But I am certain many will figure out how to say it was the right thing to do....



There's a difference between seeing the logic in DVC's actions and judging them to be "right."  I think Dean has done a good job of illustrating some of the reasons that it's to Disney's advantage to downplay negative changes.  But that doesn't mean any of us are blindly praising every move that DVC makes.


----------



## doconeill

yitbos96bb said:


> I don't understand what the two of you mean... The charts are on the website.   They have been for a while.



I believe they are referring to "incidents" where prospective buyers wanted to see the 2010 charts, which were already out, but the guides/CMs tried to dance around it, claiming they didn't have them.


----------



## DVCGeek

doconeill said:


> I believe they are referring to "incidents" where prospective buyers wanted to see the 2010 charts, which were already out, but the guides/CMs tried to dance around it, claiming they didn't have them.



Any cases where that happened were shady and un-Disneylike in my opinion.  Formal copies and books not printed yet?  OK, open the .PDF and print them a "sample" black & white copy!!!  Hopefully the song and dance didn't happen to very many people or at least few were 'harmed' by buying X points based on 2009 charts after the 2010 ones were already out but not disclosed to a new purchaser...


----------



## Dean

DVCGeek said:


> Any cases where that happened were shady and un-Disneylike in my opinion.  Formal copies and books not printed yet?  OK, open the .PDF and print them a "sample" black & white copy!!!  Hopefully the song and dance didn't happen to very many people or at least few were 'harmed' by buying X points based on 2009 charts after the 2010 ones were already out but not disclosed to a new purchaser...


There are other possibilities besides that they were trying to hide them which I think is the least likely, IMO.  I suspect it was more laziness than anything else.  Still not appropriate but I don't think it's reasonable to say they were trying to hide them thinking someone might not buy if they saw the new points lists.


----------



## hakepb

CarolMN said:


> *I vote for just changing the name of this thread and then everyone can just reread what they've already posted.  *



That would put some in an absolute panic!  (seeing this "newly announced" 201x points change instantly 177+ pages long on the first day of the change)


----------



## CarolMN

hakepb said:


> That would put some in an absolute panic!  (seeing this "newly announced" 201x points change instantly 177+ pages long on the first day of the change)


Well, maybe, but it would be a lot less work for the mods!


----------



## TSMIII

Dean said:


> Not unless there are new developments like a new reallocation for 2011 or 2012.  Well maybe it will get there after all as I give it about a 20% change for some change in the allocation over the next 2-4 years.



Well Dean, you and many others (including myself earlier in this mammoth thread) have speculated that they may not yet be done with reallocation.

Gleaned from another board, this was posted yesterday by someone with a source inside DVC.  I've excerpted it and removed some of the unimportant commentary:

"Deep Croaker says expect 2012 or maybe 2011 if the 2010 reallocation dos not increase weekend stays significantly.

The original changes had to be scrapped as they *EXCEEDED* the 20% maximum under our POS. ...

... I also have to believe this will have a significant effect on the Sun-Fri renters ... who were so 'value' conscious.

Also, everyone blithly assuming the 7 month window is fixed in stone. DVC can and has changed just about everything. If Home Resort Owner's still complain about availabiltiy, the 7 month window, *COULD* shrink...."

So more changes may yet be coming - depending on how much confidence you place in this source.

Question for you Dean - we know of the POS language mentioning a minimum stay of no more than 5 days, however, to the best of your knowledge, is there anything preventing DVC from REQUIRING that the minimum stay INCLUDE at least one WEEKEND night? Or even both weekend nights? 

I'm thinking if reallocation failed, and an imposed minimum stay failed, whether they could turn to some other means such as this to balance demand?


----------



## bobbiwoz

yitbos96bb said:


> I don't understand what the two of you mean... The charts are on the website.   They have been for a while.



When we were on the DCL cruise 2 weeks ago, the port was closed for a few hours, and we were terribly delayed getting on the ship.  The "DVC Member" meeting was before we boarded, so DH went to the meeting for new DVC potential buyers.  He is the one who brought me back the literature, and so, for people who aren't in DVC, who have no idea that the points will be changing in 2010 for sure, they are only being given old charts, charts that have until December 2009 only.  They are given charts that show that there was no difference between 2008 and 2009 for the older resorts, except for the time periods for the seasons.  That is what I am objecting to but it doesn't concern me directly.  I know about the new charts.

 We were on the DCL cruise that began May 21st.  I think this was very poor on DVC's part.  I hope they are giving out new charts now.  I was not at the meeting and if I were, I would have discussed the matter with the presenter after the meeting.  I didn't look at what DH brought back until we booked a new cruise for 2010.  Then I went to what DH brought and tried to find how much it would cost us for the WDW portion of the trip.  That was Saturday, and we left the ship on Sunday.

Bobbi


----------



## BWV Dreamin

We went to that DVC member meeting on our Wonder cruise...they only gave out cruise point charts and the latest RCI resorts. No DVC resort point charts were given out at all.





bobbiwoz said:


> When we were on the DCL cruise 2 weeks ago, the port was closed for a few hours, and we were terribly delayed getting on the ship.  The "DVC Member" meeting was before we boarded, so DH went to the meeting for new DVC potential buyers.  He is the one who brought me back the literature, and so, for people who aren't in DVC, who have no idea that the points will be changing in 2010 for sure, they are only being given old charts, charts that have until December 2009 only.  They are given charts that show that there was no difference between 2008 and 2009 for the older resorts, except for the time periods for the seasons.  That is what I am objecting to but it doesn't concern me directly.  I know about the new charts.
> 
> We were on the DCL cruise that began May 21st.  I think this was very poor on DVC's part.  I hope they are giving out new charts now.  I was not at the meeting and if I were, I would have discussed the matter with the presenter after the meeting.  I didn't look at what DH brought back until we booked a new cruise for 2010.  Then I went to what DH brought and tried to find how much it would cost us for the WDW portion of the trip.  That was Saturday, and we left the ship on Sunday.
> 
> Bobbi


----------



## Dean

TSMIII said:


> Question for you Dean - we know of the POS language mentioning a minimum stay of no more than 5 days, however, to the best of your knowledge, is there anything preventing DVC from REQUIRING that the minimum stay INCLUDE at least one WEEKEND night? Or even both weekend nights?


The question is does the POS give them the authority to do this.  IMO, it does and I have posted such many times.  Not only could DVC institute a stay up to 5 days, they could require which days are included.  They could require that every stay include a weekend day or they could require certain grouping of days.  Or they could give priority to those reserving say a full week at a time or starting on a weekday.  I don't know if they will or not but there are many years to go and IMO, we have only seen  minor changes so far.


----------



## ilovepooh

All I can say is that I no longer rave about what a great deal DVC is to people who ask. I think the reallocation just stinks regardless of the fact that they have a right to do it. They better make it right or they will lose money! I won't recommend anyone buying DVC right now!


DVC brags about how flexible their timeshare is compared with others, but they are making vacationing more and more difficult/complicated with changing charts and possibly requiring minimum/max. length of stay, and particular days of stay! That is not flexible for me at all! The point system is worthless if they institute those changes! it would be easier to buy a different timeshare and pick weeks if that were the case.


----------



## Dean

ilovepooh said:


> All I can say is that I no longer rave about what a great deal DVC is to people who ask. I think the reallocation just stinks regardless of the fact that they have a right to do it. They better make it right or they will lose money! I won't recommend anyone buying DVC right now!
> 
> 
> DVC brags about how flexible their timeshare is compared with others, but they are making vacationing more and more difficult/complicated with changing charts and possibly requiring minimum/max. length of stay, and particular days of stay! That is not flexible for me at all! The point system is worthless if they institute those changes! it would be easier to buy a different timeshare and pick weeks if that were the case.


That might be true for you but not from an overall standpoint.  They didn't change the rules, only shift the specifics somewhat.  I don't think DVC ever intended for that flexibility to truly be just S-F stays regardless even though it is possible (still is) though the costs have shifted.


----------



## icydog

For us it works out. We never, ever, stayed on weekends. Since OKW is our Resort of choice (most times) and since weekend stays were more than double weeknight stays, we never planned a vacation that included a weekend. NOW, if we want to check in on a Thursday-- and stay till Tuesday-- it will not be costing us our lungs. I think the change is VERY good and well thought out.


----------



## icydog

One more thought, I don't believe in their infinite wisdom, that the original DVC designers thought that the program should be a five weeknight plan. I think they never figured in the ramifications of making weekend nights so expensive.. I think it was the same people who made the one bedrooms have the only bathroom accessible only through the bedroom, or who designed a three story resort without elevators. I think it was those people who had no idea how a timeshare should work who planned the original point chart. And that chart stayed in effect for 18 years. I always thought it was skewed and I didn't like that I could never stay for a weekend. Now it is much better and the point adjustment allows members to slip away for a weekend at WDW and not worry about losing half their points by doing so. This is a readjustment..NOT a loss.. and should be viewed as such. 

Change is good!! For the most part, in life, this adage proves true.


----------



## Muushka

I am glad that you do consider what changes have occurred are not a loss.

The changes that have taken place ARE a loss to myself and many others. 

Unsubscribing once again.


----------



## Dean

Muushka said:


> I am glad that you do consider what changes have occurred are not a loss.
> 
> The changes that have taken place ARE a loss to myself and many others.
> 
> Unsubscribing once again.


The impact on an individual or a group of individuals is not relevant to the system.  The questions that have to be asked are first, can it be done and then should it be done for the good of the system and the members as a whole.  IMO, the answers to all of these questions is yes and that is from one who has always stayed S-F on points.


----------



## Muushka

icydog said:


> One more thought, I don't believe in their infinite wisdom, that the original DVC designers thought that the program should be a five weeknight plan. I think they never figured in the ramifications of making weekend nights so expensive.. I think it was the same people who made the one bedrooms have the only bathroom accessible only through the bedroom, or who designed a three story resort without elevators. I think it was those people who had no idea how a timeshare should work who planned the original point chart. And that chart stayed in effect for 18 years. I always thought it was skewed and I didn't like that I could never stay for a weekend. Now it is much better and the point adjustment allows members to slip away for a weekend at WDW and not worry about losing half their points by doing so. *This is a readjustment..NOT a loss.. and should be viewed as such.
> *
> Change is good!! For the most part, in life, this adage proves true.



I should have quoted this rather than just put my thoughts down.

For the record, I can view anything they way I choose.  It IS a loss.

Forgot to unsubscribe, will do that right now.


----------



## Nanajo1

I haven't seen anything new on this thread for a long time. 
I feel for those who did as advised and bought the number of points they needed for their expected trips.  I can see how recent members might feel blindsided. But DVC will do what it considers best for DVC. Has anyone affected by the change contacted DVC to air their concerns? Any response? I would be interested in a thread about DVC response. 
Good luck to all that are having a problem with the changes.


----------



## BWV Dreamin

Ok, last comment for me...anyway you want to paint this picture, when the points you bought no longer afford the stay you had with those points, there is a loss. Plain and simple. Not enough points is not enough points, doesn't matter when you go.


----------



## DVC Mike

BWV Dreamin said:


> Ok, last comment for me...anyway you want to paint this picture, when the points you bought no longer afford the stay you had with those points, there is a loss. Plain and simple. Not enough points is not enough points, doesn't matter when you go.


 
And when the change nets you a few more points, there is a gain. The change resulted in gains for some and losses for others.


----------



## disneynutz

BWV Dreamin said:


> Ok, last comment for me...anyway you want to paint this picture, when the points you bought no longer afford the stay you had with those points, there is a loss. Plain and simple. Not enough points is not enough points, doesn't matter when you go.



As I have said before, when Disney makes a change it's 99% of the time designed to benefit Disney, not their Guests or DVC Members, no matter how they spin it. Disney knows exactly how the change affected Members and they know how the change will affect future bookings.

For our family if we continue the same vacation schedule, we are short 33 points per year.


----------



## AKV707

DVC Mike said:


> And when the change nets you a few more points, there is a gain. The change resulted in gains for some and losses for others.



Very true. For us we are gaining on some future trips and gaining on others.  I completely understand some people's frustration and disappointment.  But reallocation is within our agreement with DVC and i new that when I bought in.

Should they, perhaps consider allowing current members to add on less than 25 points when a reallocation occurs?


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

disneynutz said:


> As I have said before, when Disney makes a change it's 99% of the time designed to benefit Disney, not their Guests or DVC Members, no matter how they spin it. Disney knows exactly how the change affected Members and they know how the change will affect future bookings.
> 
> For our family if we continue the same vacation schedule, we are short 33 points per year.


Even though I am a natural cynic, I don't believe that this is designed to benefit Disney.  There has been plenty of credible information displayed in this thread to backup the reasons given for the changes.  This change was made to benefit the whole of the system.  Whenever changes like this are made to benefit the whole it usually negatively impacts more people than it benefits.


----------



## jakenjess

I don't know, it seems to me if this change is really more of a member benefit, the guides would be handing out the 2010 charts and pointing out how much better it will be, not just handing out 2009 charts and acting like the 2010 ones don't exist.


----------



## DVCGeek

AKV707 said:


> Should they, perhaps consider allowing current members to add on less than 25 points when a reallocation occurs?



There is an interesting idea...  I wonder what would happen if they tried it.  I don't recall seeing any rules in my paperwork about how future sales might be conducted!


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

jakenjess said:


> I don't know, it seems to me if this change is really more of a member benefit, the guides would be handing out the 2010 charts and pointing out how much better it will be, not just handing out 2009 charts and acting like the 2010 ones don't exist.



I do agree that in the interest of full disclosure the 2010 point chart should be given to potential buyers, however, it is hard to sell as a benefit to potential owners who have no experience with the system.  Those existing members who wanted to stay weekends but found them to be too high priced or those who have been unable to get their desired weekday reservation will benefit.

Regarding allowing purchases less than 25 points, I still think if you are short a reasonable small amount of points short you are better off just borrowing.


----------



## granmanh603

jakenjess said:


> I don't know, it seems to me if this change is really more of a member benefit, the guides would be handing out the 2010 charts and pointing out how much better it will be, not just handing out 2009 charts and acting like the 2010 ones don't exist.



I agree with you entirely ....I FINALLY received this years 2009(isn't this June09 already????) planner and I had a hard time figuring out where the 2010 chart was  hidden in the back behind the point sheet tracker!  I kept saying to my husband I know they changed the points but I can't find the charts, isn't this June2009 half the year is over and most people have already made their reservations for 2009...then I discovered it. they are even hiding them from us.


----------



## Dean

BWV Dreamin said:


> Ok, last comment for me...anyway you want to paint this picture, when the points you bought no longer afford the stay you had with those points, there is a loss. Plain and simple. Not enough points is not enough points, doesn't matter when you go.


No doubt but IMO that has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the decision.  This is not about benefiting Disney but about running a timeshare and managing demand in a points based system where single day or short stay reservations are not otherwise discouraged.



jakenjess said:


> I don't know, it seems to me if this change is really more of a member benefit, the guides would be handing out the 2010 charts and pointing out how much better it will be, not just handing out 2009 charts and acting like the 2010 ones don't exist.


Not necessarily.  I think it's more of a "what's best for you but you don't know it" type of deals.



AKV707 said:


> Should they, perhaps consider allowing current members to add on less than 25 points when a reallocation occurs?


Probably not, I see no reason for them to do so.  If it's not worth adding 25 points it's likely not much of an issue.  More likely is they'll eventually do away with the 25 pt min and change it to 50 min, 100 if you finance.


----------



## DVCGeek

Dean said:


> More likely is they'll eventually do away with the 25 pt min and change it to 50 min, 100 if you finance.



I don't like that at first glance, BUT it might not adversely affect me- next add-on I make I hope could be for two or so contracts totaling 111 points (not happening anytime soon unless I win the lotto or inherit a big chunk of cash...) so I go from 210 to 321!    [Silly I know, but the descending numbers amuse me...]


----------



## DaveH

If the need to do this change is because a very large number of reservations were for S-F and not weekends, the change will have a negative impact on that larger group. The system does need to have a more even usage to work for everyone. I know the main reason for Friday and Saturday nights need to be higher other wise the weekend usage would be much higher. The trick is what is the right amount difference needed. I suspect what has been said earlier that there will be some more adjustments in the future. When they will do that is what we don't know.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

Dean said:


> ...More likely is they'll eventually do away with the 25 pt min and change it to 50 min, 100 if you finance.



The original add-on limit was 25 points at your home resort and 50 to add on at a different DVC resort. I don't recall when they changed it to allow 25 point additions at any resort - but it was over 10 years ago.


----------



## icydog

DaveH said:


> If the need to do this change is because a very large number of reservations were for S-F and not weekends, the change will have a negative impact on that larger group. The system does need to have a more even usage to work for everyone. I know the main reason for Friday and Saturday nights need to be higher other wise the weekend usage would be much higher. The trick is what is the right amount difference needed. I suspect what has been said earlier that there will be some more adjustments in the future. When they will do that is what we don't know.



When DVC first opened it was supposed to be a point based system-- with enough flexibility to let you stay a day at a time-- but not a day at a time over weekends. With the advent of so many other timeshares into the Orlando market, it made/makes sense that the villas remain full at all times---- not just on low point weekdays. 

We never booked a weekend stay,  not because we don't like to travel on Friday or Saturday but, because those points were so extravagantly high, we just traveled on Sunday through Friday-- to save points. It became a habit. 

But now, with the new point structure I don't have to be so measly about going on weekends. Sometimes a quick long weekend would do the trick but we could never do it before. NOw we can. 

We always stayed off site on the weekends or used our FL residence rate (we own a winter home there) to book another Disney hotel for cash. But we NEVER stayed at a DVC resort over the weekend. 

Now I am going to reserve week long vacations or long weekends. I think it will be a major boost to owners at OKW. Weekends there were often *more* than double a weeknight stay. It was tough to justify. The new plan just makes sense to me. I have always griped about those weekend points maybe I finally (telepathically) got my wish and was heard. .


----------



## famsen

What a minute.
I specifically asked the guide on my visit to Doorway to Dreams just about three months ago if they point charts will ever go up. She told me "no".
I had a friend with me who was thinking of buying in and this was one of her deal-breaking concerns. She is my witness.
So I get the new chart today and for AKV during the beginning of Dec 2009 for a week stay in a 1 bedroom savannah is 205 points. 
I see the 2010 point chart that the same room during the same time is 206 points. I read the 2010 point chart and all the weekly points went up by at least one or two points. Maybe I am a total idiot but what is the point of buying into DVC and the 'benefit" of buying in at a price that will pay for itself eventually if they can increase the points. Theoretically, they can increase the points to a level where a 160 point buy-in won't even get you a week anywhere. The whole selling point as communicated to me by my guide was; with DVC you can be paying 2008 prices for a vacation 25 years from now.
If someone can explain this, maybe I am missing something.


----------



## doconeill

famsen said:


> What a minute.
> I specifically asked the guide on my visit to Doorway to Dreams just about three months ago if they point charts will ever go up. She told me "no".
> I had a friend with me who was thinking of buying in and this was one of her deal-breaking concerns. She is my witness.
> So I get the new chart today and for AKV during the beginning of Dec 2009 for a week stay in a 1 bedroom savannah is 205 points.
> I see the 2010 point chart that the same room during the same time is 206 points. I read the 2010 point chart and all the weekly points went up by at least one or two points. Maybe I am a total idiot but what is the point of buying into DVC and the 'benefit" of buying in at a price that will pay for itself eventually if they can increase the points. Theoretically, they can increase the points to a level where a 160 point buy-in won't even get you a week anywhere. The whole selling point as communicated to me by my guide was; with DVC you can be paying 2008 prices for a vacation 25 years from now.
> If someone can explain this, maybe I am missing something.



It could be argued that they were not lying. The number of points at a resort CANNOT go up, unless more units are added, and then they can only go up proportionally. However, the points charts can be "rebalanced". If a particular night goes up a certain number of points, then it needs to go down somewhere else. In essense, the net changes to the chart must be zero. But a particular day or week can change.


----------



## Sandisw

famsen said:


> What a minute.
> I specifically asked the guide on my visit to Doorway to Dreams just about three months ago if they point charts will ever go up. She told me "no".
> I had a friend with me who was thinking of buying in and this was one of her deal-breaking concerns. She is my witness.
> So I get the new chart today and for AKV during the beginning of Dec 2009 for a week stay in a 1 bedroom savannah is 205 points.
> I see the 2010 point chart that the same room during the same time is 206 points. I read the 2010 point chart and all the weekly points went up by at least one or two points. Maybe I am a total idiot but what is the point of buying into DVC and the 'benefit" of buying in at a price that will pay for itself eventually if they can increase the points. Theoretically, they can increase the points to a level where a 160 point buy-in won't even get you a week anywhere. The whole selling point as communicated to me by my guide was; with DVC you can be paying 2008 prices for a vacation 25 years from now.
> If someone can explain this, maybe I am missing something.



The total points for the resort for the year can not change.  If you look through the points charts, the 1 bedroom SV you refer to did go up from 205 to 206.  But, the same 1 bedroom at the Concierge level, went from 241 a week to 240.  

So, as something goes up, others go down.  Many weeknights went up and weekends went down (that same room had Fri/Sat rates go from 45 to 38 per night).

I think the purpose was to try to even out the demand for weekdays and spread it out to the weekends.


----------



## famsen

doconeill said:


> It could be argued that they were not lying. The number of points at a resort CANNOT go up, unless more units are added, and then they can only go up proportionally. However, the points charts can be "rebalanced". If a particular night goes up a certain number of points, then it needs to go down somewhere else. In essense, the net changes to the chart must be zero. But a particular day or week can change.



Wow. Just, wow.

I have 210 points and with the increase in the weekly rate at the time of year we go, I am just 5 points away from not being able to get a one week stay at AKV in the room type we rent at the time of year we want to go. Just a couple more years of "tweaking" the charts, and we will have to end up downgrading to a room we don't really want or not go once a year.

Thanks for that info.


----------



## Dean

famsen said:


> What a minute.
> I specifically asked the guide on my visit to Doorway to Dreams just about three months ago if they point charts will ever go up. She told me "no".
> I had a friend with me who was thinking of buying in and this was one of her deal-breaking concerns. She is my witness.
> So I get the new chart today and for AKV during the beginning of Dec 2009 for a week stay in a 1 bedroom savannah is 205 points.
> I see the 2010 point chart that the same room during the same time is 206 points. I read the 2010 point chart and all the weekly points went up by at least one or two points. Maybe I am a total idiot but what is the point of buying into DVC and the 'benefit" of buying in at a price that will pay for itself eventually if they can increase the points. Theoretically, they can increase the points to a level where a 160 point buy-in won't even get you a week anywhere. The whole selling point as communicated to me by my guide was; with DVC you can be paying 2008 prices for a vacation 25 years from now.
> If someone can explain this, maybe I am missing something.


They didn't really go up but were merely shifted around.  They should have explained about reallocation when you asked that question.  The only things that truly went up were stays less than a week that did not include both weekend days, other things went down.


----------



## Dean

famsen said:


> Wow. Just, wow.
> 
> I have 210 points and with the increase in the weekly rate at the time of year we go, I am just 5 points away from not being able to get a one week stay at AKV in the room type we rent at the time of year we want to go. Just a couple more years of "tweaking" the charts, and we will have to end up downgrading to a room we don't really want or not go once a year.
> 
> Thanks for that info.


I don't think it's that bad.  Even if they were to change it 20% in the worst way possible for you, about the worst case you'd be looking at would be missing one trip every 6-7 years or downgrading or shortening a couple of times over the same period.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

famsen said:


> What a minute.
> I specifically asked the guide on my visit to Doorway to Dreams just about three months ago if they point charts will ever go up. She told me "no".



Here is what is wrong with this.  That is an ambiguous question followed by a somewhat conditional answer.  Can the point chart go up?  Define what you mean by point chart.  Do you mean an individual amount for a day for a given room type in a given season or do you mean the point chart as a whole.  The answer to the first is yes, the second no.


----------



## disneynutz

White_Sox_Fan said:


> Even though I am a natural cynic, I don't believe that this is designed to benefit Disney.



Then why are they selling so many 25 point add ons and why did so many new owners modify their contracts to increase their number of points purchased?

It will also reduce the number of bookings during the week and increase the number of bookings on Friday & Saturday. 

The overall effect will be increased occupancy, and a increased number of Guests in the parks, stores, and restaurants. It also creates a more balanced work schedule for the Cast Members.


----------



## Chuck S

disneynutz said:


> It will also reduce the number of bookings during the week and increase the number of bookings on Friday & Saturday.
> 
> The overall effect will be increased occupancy, and a increased number of Guests in the parks, stores, and restaurants. It also creates a more balanced work schedule for the Cast Members.




These two items benefit not only Disney, but also the DVC Membership as a whole.  The resorts will operate more efficiently by not having as many check-in Sunday, check-out Friday guests, then having to try to fill so many rooms with cash guests on Friday to Sunday.

Better, more balanced, scheduling of resort staff, including housekeepers, is also more cost efficient, helping to keep our costs in check.  

Just because something benefits Disney doesn't mean it won't also benefit the overall DVC membership base, too.  It may have a negative impact on members that bought primarily for weekday stays, but if it lowers peak demand check-in/out days they could see benefits...perhaps not having to wait until after 4pm to get into the room, or through lower operating costs.


----------



## tjkraz

disneynutz said:


> Then why are they selling so many 25 point add ons and why did so many new owners modify their contracts to increase their number of points purchased?



I assume that's a rhetorical question since we really can't quantify either of the "so many" owners in either category.  

The flip side is that DVC risks losing sales for years to come because Sunday to Thursday night stays are no longer as good of a value as they once were.  In the long run I believe DVC stands to lose far more than it will gain from the reallocation.  

Regardless of all the suspected ulterior motives and conspiracy theories, I cannot help but think that the reallocation is designed improve the health of the program.  

The fact that DVC has weekday/weekend point differentials and 5 different seasons demonstrates the desire to balance demand over the calendar year.  And if demand no longer corresponds to those weighted values, the only logical move is to rebalance the system.  The _wrong _move is for DVC to bury its proverbial head in the sand and pretend that the status quo is acceptable.


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

disneynutz said:


> Then why are they selling so many 25 point add ons and why did so many new owners modify their contracts to increase their number of points purchased?
> 
> It will also reduce the number of bookings during the week and increase the number of bookings on Friday & Saturday.
> 
> The overall effect will be increased occupancy, and a increased number of Guests in the parks, stores, and restaurants. It also creates a more balanced work schedule for the Cast Members.



As was stated before, we don't know how many 25 point add-ons there were.  Additionally do you think that Disney really makes much profit on a 25 point add-on?  After the cost of the product, commission, fees and the cost in labor to handle the paperwork I imagine it's not a huge profit center.  I'm sure that is one of the primary reasons they won't well less than 25 points.

The occupancy point may be a benefit to Disney but is also a benefit to the membership as a whole.  If the resorts are not near 100% occupancy for every day of the year then there are members out there who are not using their points for whatever reason and those members have lost their benefit of membership.

I think everyone needs to step back from their personal effect of this and look at the big picture of the system of the whole.  What would you do if you ran the system and you had the following problems?

Sun - Thursday book up faster than weekends, weekend occupancy is less than weekday occupancy by X%.  There are a certain number of members or points not being used and those members are losing their points or banking them.  If too many points are banked are there will there be too much demand for the supply in the coming year? 

How do you solve this problem?


----------



## Dean

White_Sox_Fan said:


> How do you solve this problem?


The options are limited.  You either adjust points to even out demand, a moving target to a minimal degree, or you institute requirements or options that encourage booking a full week or similar.  things like a priority for booking a full week, lower points or simply force linking certain days together.  Of these, adjusting the points fits best with what people think DVC is all about.  I figure we'll see some type of minimum stay or priority for booking at some point but we shall see.


----------



## yitbos96bb

Woo Hoo...   180!


----------



## icydog

yitbos96bb said:


> Woo Hoo...   180!



HUH!! 180 what, points?.. Whatdaya mean?


----------



## White_Sox_Fan

180 pages.


----------



## ValpoCory

8 days at BCV during the Adventure Season went up from 116 to 118 points.  So it got 2 points more expensive for me.  

Something tells me that although some vacations went up and some went down, on the whole, the more popular visits went up, earning money for Disney.


----------



## tjkraz

ValpoCory said:


> Something tells me that although some vacations went up and some went down, on the whole, the more popular visits went up, earning money for Disney.



How does that earn money for Disney?


----------



## ValpoCory

tjkraz said:


> How does that earn money for Disney?



Understand now.  Thanks.


----------



## tjkraz

ValpoCory said:


> I'll have to buy more points.



But someone else's vacation went down by 2 points and now they have too many.  The reallocation didn't change the number of points in existence.  If there were 10 million points at OKW in 2009, there will still be 10 million OKW points in 2010.  This didn't create anything new for Disney to sell.


----------



## ValpoCory

tjkraz said:


> But someone else's vacation went down by 2 points and now they have too many.  The reallocation didn't change the number of points in existence.  If there were 10 million points at OKW in 2009, there will still be 10 million OKW points in 2010.  This didn't create anything new for Disney to sell.



Ok got it.  My mistake.   Thanks.

Why do you think they did it?


----------



## CMOORE185

ValpoCory said:


> Something tells me that although some vacations went up and some went down, on the whole, the more popular visits went up



I noticed this too. It seems from first glance that the popular times(magic and premier seasons) and popular accommodations 1bd and 2bd went up, while less attractive times and accommodations went down. I had to say something to become part of this historic 181 page thread.


----------



## Mississippian

CMOORE185 said:


> I noticed this too. It seems from first glance that the popular times(magic and premier seasons) and popular accommodations 1bd and 2bd went up, while less attractive times and accommodations went down. I had to say something to become part of this historic 181 page thread.


Of COURSE the more popular times becaue more expensive!  That's the whole reason for adjusting the point chart -- the make the more popular times more expensive and the less popular times less expensive, in an effort to even out demand.  Actually demand supposedly remains exactly the same but the change moves it either leftward or rightward on the demand curve, but you get my drift.


----------



## bobbiwoz

My latest experience with the new points is bittersweet...I was looking to book a last minute weekend trip for July HOWEVER I could "afford" going in 2010, but not this year with the points I have available.  Weekend points are significantly less for what I would have wanted.

Bobbi


----------



## disisit

I also bought my points based on a sun through thurs stay. It does say in the contract that the points can be adjusted but I did not think it would actually happen as most of us did not. What dvc should do to make up for this is allow us to buy extra points in 1 point increments  instead of having to add on in 25 point increments. That would be fair and allow them to make a ton of extra money and sell out their non sold out resorts. Of course this would not help people in the sold out resorts unless dvc breaks up their resale contracts into individual points. Think about it DVC, maybe you can finally sell out ssr akl and blt. 
Another suggestion to DVC- how about adding another pool at SSR since it is impossible to find a lounge chair at the main pool unless you get there early every morning. For a resort that big we really need another pool with a slide or maybe a waterfall. I don't like coming back from the parks midday 
and not being able to find a chair by the pool ever.


----------



## Chuck S

disisit said:


> I also bought my points based on a sun through thurs stay. It does say in the contract that the points can be adjusted but I did not think it would actually happen as most of us did not. What dvc should do to make up for this is allow us to buy extra points in 1 point increments  instead of having to add on in 25 point increments. That would be fair and allow them to make a ton of extra money and sell out their non sold out resorts. Of course this would not help people in the sold out resorts unless dvc breaks up their resale contracts into individual points. Think about it DVC, maybe you can finally sell out ssr akl and blt.
> Another suggestion to DVC- how about adding another pool at SSR since it is impossible to find a lounge chair at the main pool unless you get there early every morning. For a resort that big we really need another pool with a slide or maybe a waterfall. I don't like coming back from the parks midday
> and not being able to find a chair by the pool ever.



It is extremely doubtful that DVC would allow single pont contracts, due simply to the costs involved...they'd be losing $$.  You have guide time. closing/filing fees and Member Administration time.  Plus all contracts, by law, have to be able to be used for a stay in the maximum re-allocation charts.  There are no "one point" rooms.

As far as building an additional pool at SSR, if enough members complain that they want onee, I'm sure DVC would be happy to add one at Member Expense.  Disney only adds additional amenities at their expense if it is something _they_ want to add, the OKW pool slide demonstrates this.  They first proposed it to members to pay for the pool slide, those members participatig in the pool said "No." So Disney _built_ it at their expense, but upkeep and lifeguard are added to OKW budget.


----------



## Deb & Bill

disisit said:


> ...Another suggestion to DVC- how about adding another pool at SSR since it is impossible to find a lounge chair at the main pool unless you get there early every morning. For a resort that big we really need another pool with a slide or maybe a waterfall. I don't like coming back from the parks midday
> and not being able to find a chair by the pool ever.



I guess you've never stayed at YC/BC/BCV.  It's impossible most of the day to find a chair by the pool.  

Maybe SSR owners will approve the purchase of additional chairs for the pool if that is all that is needed rather than an entirely new pool.  There are multiple pools at SSR that have chairs as well.


----------



## Dean

disisit said:


> I also bought my points based on a sun through thurs stay. It does say in the contract that the points can be adjusted but I did not think it would actually happen as most of us did not. What dvc should do to make up for this is allow us to buy extra points in 1 point increments  instead of having to add on in 25 point increments. That would be fair and allow them to make a ton of extra money and sell out their non sold out resorts. Of course this would not help people in the sold out resorts unless dvc breaks up their resale contracts into individual points. Think about it DVC, maybe you can finally sell out ssr akl and blt.
> Another suggestion to DVC- how about adding another pool at SSR since it is impossible to find a lounge chair at the main pool unless you get there early every morning. For a resort that big we really need another pool with a slide or maybe a waterfall. I don't like coming back from the parks midday
> and not being able to find a chair by the pool ever.


If you're only talking a few points, you don't really need to buy more anyway.  It is very easy to generate extra points by adjusting a single trip or by paying cash for a single trip or part of a trip.  Even at 25 points DVC is almost certainly losing money or breaking even at best given the costs involved as you'd need an additional deed, recording and so much more.  Plus having those contracts out there of say 10 points or less would simply be a disaster.  If you can't make good use of 25 points you likely don't need to buy any points at all.  They're better off keeping any extra points and renting out the rooms than selling them off a handful at the time.  DVC did what they should do, adjust the points to more closely match demand, they shouldn't allow unsound business practices for something that you knew could happen and I expected to happen years ago.


----------



## disisit

you're right,the costs involved with selling such small contracts would make that impossible. What if dvc rented points for members only who are short points when planning their vacations?
That could help solve the dilemma.


----------



## chalee94

disisit said:


> you're right,the costs involved with selling such small contracts would make that impossible. What if dvc rented points for members only who are short points when planning their vacations?
> That could help solve the dilemma.



disney is not responsible and won't get involved, but if you go to the rent/trade board, you will find other DVC owners who are willing to make a one time transfer of pts.

This will solve the dilemma (but given that only one transfer per year is allowed, it can be difficult to find someone willing to use that up for a smaller number of pts.)

(also, you could look for a slightly larger point transfer and make it last for 10-20 years, if you wanted by banking your extra pts over time...)


----------



## Chuck S

disisit said:


> you're right,the costs involved with selling such small contracts would make that impossible. What if dvc rented points for members only who are short points when planning their vacations?
> That could help solve the dilemma.



In a way, they do.  We have the ability to pay cash for a night.  But we can't rent individual points through Disney, I think that would also be somewhat costly to the company.


----------



## dianeschlicht

I just talked to Member Satisfaction yesterday.  Eveidently they are getting lots of complaints about the point changes, and she was surprised that I had NO concerns there.  I told her I totally understood why those changes are necessary as the travel habits change of the members, and as the membership increases.  She said lots of people don't feel as I do though.  

Folks we have to remember that these changes are made to benefit the whole.  If left unchanged, we would all be complaining in a very short time about not being able to get what we want.  This will balance things out.  It's basically a "checks and balances" movement.


----------



## Dean

disisit said:


> you're right,the costs involved with selling such small contracts would make that impossible. What if dvc rented points for members only who are short points when planning their vacations?
> That could help solve the dilemma.


Many systems do this. That way you can finish out your reservation if you don't have enough points for a given trip without all the round about involved with DVC.  Many systems will also rent out your weeks and/or points for you as well though usually not at a good rate of return.


----------



## NJDVCmember

We just returned from a weeks trip to Saratoga Springs Resort.

Before we went we received out points package and I noticed an increase of points for a week stay at Hilton Head for a two bedroom during the high season starting in 2010.  

So off to the DVC site to discuss this point increase.  

Did anyone else buy points under the reasoning that your week points will never change but points within the block may be adjusted?  That is how we were sold the DVC membership back in 1999.  Our week total for a 2 bedroom during high time would never change.

Obviously we were lied to as it is the whole calendar year points that will not change but can be adjusted up to 20%.

Yes shame on us for not reading everything and trusting and believing in our Disney Rep.

But the answers we received from our new guide...were not to what we believed to be a Disney standard.  It was like "oh well sell if you aren't happy" We felt that us "old" timers were no longer wanted...get in the young families with young kids to spend more money at the parks and resorts!

He even mentioned that the Disney legal team informed all the sales reps to be very careful how they now word things.

Just wanted to see if any others had this same experience and also to warn those that haven't signed the contract yet...READ EVERYTHING don't trust what you were told.......

PS  I also found the point chart from 1999 with our rep drawings and underlines to prove his point to us...but nothing written....

DISNEY YOU DISAPPOINTED US FOR THE FIRST TIME!


----------



## yitbos96bb

Of course it COULD NEVER EVER have been the possibility you misunderstood or don't fully remember the 10 year old conversation.  That was NEVER an option... it HAS to have been Disney lying... Remembering 10 year old conservations is ALWAYS easy.  

I give you credit though... at least you admit you should have read the contract better.  Just don't ASSUME it was a lie.  It could have been a misunderstanding, it could have been that the guide was wrong... yes, it could have been a lie.    Our guide was very straight forward it could change.  He did say it was rare (and it does seem to be.)

Now that being said, your new guides response is unexcusable.  I would report him immediately as he has no business working for Disney.



NJDVCmember said:


> We just returned from a weeks trip to Saratoga Springs Resort.
> 
> Before we went we received out points package and I noticed an increase of points for a week stay at Hilton Head for a two bedroom during the high season starting in 2010.
> 
> So off to the DVC site to discuss this point increase.
> 
> Did anyone else buy points under the reasoning that your week points will never change but points within the block may be adjusted?  That is how we were sold the DVC membership back in 1999.  Our week total for a 2 bedroom during high time would never change.
> 
> Obviously we were lied to as it is the whole calendar year points that will not change but can be adjusted up to 20%.
> 
> Yes shame on us for not reading everything and trusting and believing in our Disney Rep.
> 
> But the answers we received from our new guide...were not to what we believed to be a Disney standard.  It was like "oh well sell if you aren't happy" We felt that us "old" timers were no longer wanted...get in the young families with young kids to spend more money at the parks and resorts!
> 
> He even mentioned that the Disney legal team informed all the sales reps to be very careful how they now word things.
> 
> Just wanted to see if any others had this same experience and also to warn those that haven't signed the contract yet...READ EVERYTHING don't trust what you were told.......
> 
> PS  I also found the point chart from 1999 with our rep drawings and underlines to prove his point to us...but nothing written....
> 
> DISNEY YOU DISAPPOINTED US FOR THE FIRST TIME!


----------



## yitbos96bb

Chuck S said:


> In a way, they do.  We have the ability to pay cash for a night.  But we can't rent individual points through Disney, I think that would also be somewhat costly to the company.



I don't know... if they enforce a minimum point rental and make it so you can't do it until maybe 4 or 5 months out, I think it would be fine.


----------



## yitbos96bb

dianeschlicht said:


> I just talked to Member Satisfaction yesterday.  Eveidently they are getting lots of complaints about the point changes, and she was surprised that I had NO concerns there.  I told her I totally understood why those changes are necessary as the travel habits change of the members, and as the membership increases.  She said lots of people don't feel as I do though.
> 
> Folks we have to remember that these changes are made to benefit the whole.  If left unchanged, we would all be complaining in a very short time about not being able to get what we want.  This will balance things out.  It's basically a "checks and balances" movement.



I agree with you.  This doesn't bother me in the least.    

However, we are obviously a minority.  My bet is that given the uproar we may see this changed again... not back to normal but a midway point.   Given I like to arrive on weekends and stay to the ned of the opposite weekend, this didn't hurt me at all.


----------



## NJDVCmember

Were you there?? I don't remember you sitting there with us. Unless of course you were the guide that lied...

Come on.....is it really that hard to believe that a sales rep would say anything in order to get our $$$$.  Esp since we came right out  and told him we were looking at Marriott also...And we were buying a weeks stay! Get your head out of the sand thinking everything Disney is up and up.  Disney is made of people whom are trying to make a living.  I just wish I was smarter back then and taken in my the Disney "Magic"


----------



## DVCGeek

NJDVCmember said:


> Did anyone else buy points under the reasoning that your week points will never change but points within the block may be adjusted?  That is how we were sold the DVC membership back in 1999.  Our week total for a 2 bedroom during high time would never change.



Still trying to understand this from the other thread; what did the guide say that "points within the block may be adjusted" meant?  I'm not trying to fight, just confused as to how your week wouldn't change but a "block" can???  I never heard of DVC having "blocks" as I recall...

To compare to my experience, mine said basically that a vertical column's total wouldn't change (ie the total for a given unit type for the whole year) but the breakdown within that column could (Magic go up, Dream go down...) and that it was possible for everything to go down to average of Dream season in the incredibly unlikely event that seasons were completely eliminated.


----------



## NJDVCmember

For example

What we were told....if the sat night went down say 5 points then the sun - thur would have to go up 1 pt each night.  the bottome line of 330 points would have to stay the same.  

And what you were told was not correct either. It is the WHOLE page not blocks or vertical columns.


----------



## SuzanneSLO

NJDVCmember said:


> . . .But the answers we received from our new guide...were not to what we believed to be a Disney standard.  It was like "oh well sell if you aren't happy" We felt that us "old" timers were no longer wanted...get in the young families with young kids to spend more money at the parks and resorts!



I am sorry you misunderstood the rules that governed your ownership, but I am not sure what answer you were looking for from one of the current guides, who are (as you acknowledged in another post) salespeople?  There have been a number of suggestions in this thread about how to manage your points differently to deal with the change and other than selling you more DVC points, which was probably the last thing you were looking for, I am not sure what the guide could have done to resolve your concerns.  -- Suzanne


----------



## yitbos96bb

NJDVCmember said:


> Were you there?? I don't remember you sitting there with us. Unless of course you were the guide that lied...
> 
> Come on.....is it really that hard to believe that a sales rep would say anything in order to get our $$$$.  Esp since we came right out  and told him we were looking at Marriott also...And we were buying a weeks stay! Get your head out of the sand thinking everything Disney is up and up.  Disney is made of people whom are trying to make a living.  I just wish I was smarter back then and taken in my the Disney "Magic"



And you are telling me that ALL DISERS who sit and complain and moan have 100% perfect audio memories and can remember from 10 years ago EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THE CONVERSATION.  Let's compare to see the simplest explanation in all this... You remember everything 100% perfectly because you are some level of genius and the guide lied, and that's ALL the needed proof OR in the 10 years sense, you don't totally remember what the guide said, you understood what he said one way, but know in your heart that you may have MISUNDERSTOOD, but because there is a change you don't want to admit the possibility that you made a mistake in the interpretation.  Occam's Razor says that I'm right.

Furthermore, HAD you actually understood the possibility that it might adjust, you are saying you wouldn't have bought it?    I call Bull Pucky on that.    THAT is something that bugs you in hindsight, not at the purchase time.     

You protest to much... I was giving you the benefit of the doubt... but now.... it sounds like of all the people in the room, the GUIDE wasn't the necessarily untruthful one 10 years later.


----------



## yitbos96bb

SuzanneSLO said:


> I am sorry you misunderstood the rules that governed your ownership, but I am not sure what answer you were looking for from one of the current guides, who are (as you acknowledged in another post) salespeople?  There have been a number of suggestions in this thread about how to manage your points differently to deal with the change and other than selling you more DVC points, which was probably the last thing you were looking for, I am not sure what the guide could have done to resolve your concerns.  -- Suzanne



To be fair, the GUIDE was fairly rude.  While I can see us telling those who do nothing but complain and moan based on their rainman like memory of 10 year old conversations to sell if they don't like it... the Sales guide should NOT have said that.  It's very unprofessional.


----------



## Chuck S

Again, there were previous re-allocations, in 1996.  OKW had a full reallocation, in fact studios in Adventure Season from 69 points per week to 80, and in 2010 they will be 77 per week.  BWV had a very early re-allocation to create the preferred/Boardwalk view category.  So there was a history there.

Your guide may have been unaware of the previous re-allocations, or it is also possible that what you understood to be a "block" was different from what s/he was considering a block, or your guide could have simply been mistaken, or you could have had a "one week" mindset from your preview at a Marriott (though most newer Marriotts are point based), or the guide could have lied.  As none of us were there, it is your word against theirs, and after 10 years, I'm not sure either's recollection of the discussion would be 100% accurate.


----------



## Dean

yitbos96bb said:


> I agree with you.  This doesn't bother me in the least.
> 
> However, we are obviously a minority.  My bet is that given the uproar we may see this changed again... not back to normal but a midway point.   Given I like to arrive on weekends and stay to the ned of the opposite weekend, this didn't hurt me at all.


I'm not sure that those that think this is bad is a majority, we actually don't know one way or another though it seems to me to be a vocal minority.  I'm inclined to think that MOST members at least knew it could happen and that MOST members are not negatively affected but most are neutral or nearly so.



NJDVCmember said:


> Were you there?? I don't remember you sitting there with us. Unless of course you were the guide that lied...
> 
> Come on.....is it really that hard to believe that a sales rep would say anything in order to get our $$$$.  Esp since we came right out  and told him we were looking at Marriott also...And we were buying a weeks stay! Get your head out of the sand thinking everything Disney is up and up.  Disney is made of people whom are trying to make a living.  I just wish I was smarter back then and taken in my the Disney "Magic"


None of us were there but I think many of us know enough about the rules and have at least indirect info on thousands of DVC tours enough to think it's very unlikely you were purposefully misled.  Even if you were, you should have read the paperwork.  DVC did absolutely nothing wrong in this change which is clearly allowed and is actually required if the demand is too far out of balance.  



NJDVCmember said:


> For example
> 
> What we were told....if the sat night went down say 5 points then the sun - thur would have to go up 1 pt each night.  the bottome line of 330 points would have to stay the same.
> 
> And what you were told was not correct either. It is the WHOLE page not blocks or vertical columns.


Actually neither is technically correct.  What is required is that each UNIT (normally a collection of rooms) must remain the same.  The end result is the entire resort but it is made up of many pieces.



Chuck S said:


> Again, there were previous re-allocations, in 1996.  OKW had a full reallocation, in fact studios in Adventure Season from 69 points per week to 80, and in 2010 they will be 77 per week.  BWV had a very early re-allocation to create the preferred/Boardwalk view category.  So there was a history there.
> 
> Your guide may have been unaware of the previous re-allocations, or it is also possible that what you understood to be a "block" was different from what s/he was considering a block, or your guide could have simply been mistaken, or you could have had a "one week" mindset from your preview at a Marriott (though most newer Marriotts are point based), or the guide could have lied.  As none of us were there, it is your word against theirs, and after 10 years, I'm not sure either's recollection of the discussion would be 100% accurate.


BWV wasn't really a reallocation but a frank change in a segment which they could do with legal wrangling because it was to the members best interest plus they had unsold segments they could adjust to compensate.  The other change, if you want to call it that, is when BWV came onboard.  They essentially adjusted both the weekend/weekday ratio somewhat and really jacked up the GV points compared to a 2 BR plus a studio.


----------



## disneynutz

Lets make this real simple. 

Disney will do what ever they want to make more money. That's their business. Their prior business model focused more on quality and the Guest experience. Now they have learned that if they offer discounts, deals, call something free, people will come and spend money. Maybe not as much as they used to, but that can be made up by reducing the number of employees, increasing the price and increasing the number of Guests served.

DVD moves the points around not to increase the Member experience as they may tell you, but to balance the attendance load.


----------



## tjkraz

disneynutz said:


> DVD moves the points around not to increase the Member experience as they may tell you, but to balance the attendance load.



Given the fact that DVD sells enough points for the resorts to be booked solid year-round (less maintenance), please explain to me why proper load balancing is NOT in members' best interest?


----------



## mdinme

Does this alter totals for booked vacations?


----------



## disneynutz

tjkraz said:


> Given the fact that DVD sells enough points for the resorts to be booked solid year-round (less maintenance), please explain to me why proper load balancing is NOT in members' best interest?



90% of my DVC vacations scheduled in 2010 will require additional points, that's not in my best interest.

Lowering the number of points required for Friday and Saturday stays will only increase the weekend park attendance which is already the busiest days, that's not in my best interest.

If Disney experiences reduced park attendance during the week, they will cut back on the park hours, reduce the number of special events, and cut back on the number of Cast Members scheduled during those times, that's not in my best interest.

I Don't see any of DVC's changes made during the last year or so benefiting the Members. RCI, $95 dollar transaction fee, 7 day booking restriction, two active wait lists, and developer points.

Don't get me wrong, DVC is a good deal if you are looking for discounted accommodations. I don't like the fact that members seem to take a back seat to sales and that there isn't any accountability for MS and the association management.


----------



## Chuck S

mdinme said:


> Does this alter totals for booked vacations?



There is no way it could change the points required for a booked vacation, Member Services was using the 2010 charts for all vacations booked in 2010, the charts were released prior to January 26, 2009, and no one could book a vacation with a date that included January 1, 2010 until then, even using the check-in plus 7 day rule.


----------



## Chuck S

disneynutz said:


> 90% of my DVC vacations scheduled in 2010 will require additional points, that's not in my best interest.
> 
> Lowering the number of points required for Friday and Saturday stays will only increase the weekend park attendance which is already the busiest days, that's not in my best interest.
> 
> If Disney experiences reduced park attendance during the week, they will cut back on the park hours, reduce the number of special events, and cut back on the number of Cast Members scheduled during those times, that's not in my best interest.
> 
> I Don't see any of DVC's changes made during the last year or so benefiting the Members. RCI, $95 dollar transaction fee, 7 day booking restriction, two active wait lists, and developer points.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, DVC is a good deal if you are looking for discounted accommodations. I don't like the fact that members seem to take a back seat to sales and that there isn't any accountability for MS and the association management.



It may not be to your advantage individually, while being as an advantage to the membership as a whole.  For instance, raising taxes to improve highways is a disadvantage to the individual financially, but an advantage to the community as a whole.

Balancing room occupany is also in the best interest of the membership as a whole, it can reduce housekeeping costs resort personnel...we all pay for that.

I can certainly see where the 2 waitlist rule and $95 booking fee are advantageous to the entire membership.  The waitlist restriction mean, overall, that a higher number of members are likely to get a waitlist filled, rathe than the fee that have 15 differnt waitlists running.  And the $95 fee shifts the cost of providing the RCI trades to those that actually use the trades.  There is no "7 day booking restriction"  in fact, calling 11/7 from your check-in day is an advantage over waiting until your check-out day to try to book, or calling day by day.  Who do you think were paying the fees for those day by day toll free calls?  And the developers points really should not have had a impact, they were DVDs to use as they wish, whether as part of a sales promo, or for cash reservations...either way, those rooms would not have be available to other point reservations.


----------



## honeymo78

Although we have only been DVC members for a year, we purposely purchased a number of points that was slightly more than enough for our preferred trips.  When we did our first add on at BLT last year, we chose 300 points.  I week in a MK view is 287 this year and 288 next year.  Knowing about the possibility that the allocation of points in the chart can change, we selected an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure we will always get a week's stay during October.

I know many members liked to avoid weekend stays like the plague, I'm sure there are plenty more who also book full week vacations, who aren't really affected at all, at least by the 2010 numbers.


----------



## Dean

mdinme said:


> Does this alter totals for booked vacations?


Not in general but it could for an individual and most certainly will for one who minimizes weekends.



disneynutz said:


> 90% of my DVC vacations scheduled in 2010 will require additional points, that's not in my best interest.
> 
> Lowering the number of points required for Friday and Saturday stays will only increase the weekend park attendance which is already the busiest days, that's not in my best interest.
> 
> If Disney experiences reduced park attendance during the week, they will cut back on the park hours, reduce the number of special events, and cut back on the number of Cast Members scheduled during those times, that's not in my best interest.
> 
> I Don't see any of DVC's changes made during the last year or so benefiting the Members. RCI, $95 dollar transaction fee, 7 day booking restriction, two active wait lists, and developer points.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, DVC is a good deal if you are looking for discounted accommodations. I don't like the fact that members seem to take a back seat to sales and that there isn't any accountability for MS and the association management.


I'll limit my remarks to the guaranteed and contractual components, namely a DVC stay.  Whether it hurts or helps you is irrelevant as Chuck points out.  The question is the overall affect and balance.  Some will be hurt, some will be helped and most will be neutral or nearly so.  DVC is not for everyone and it may not be for you with the changes you mention.

I had a coworker ask me yesterday whether I'd buy again now knowing what I know.  She said "answer quick, don't think about it".  I had to say no  but then explain that it's because I had so many other options including trading in and that I'd still likely own at least a small contract for the perks.


----------



## yitbos96bb

disneynutz said:


> Lets make this real simple.
> 
> Disney will do what ever they want to make more money. That's their business. Their prior business model focused more on quality and the Guest experience. Now they have learned that if they offer discounts, deals, call something free, people will come and spend money. Maybe not as much as they used to, but that can be made up by reducing the number of employees, increasing the price and increasing the number of Guests served.
> 
> DVD moves the points around not to increase the Member experience as they may tell you, but to balance the attendance load.



Maybe... but if people tend to use a lot of weekend days, the move IS more beneficial for them.  Either way I think Dean is right... It's a wash for most people... people like you, who spend more time during weekdays were negatively effected and so you complain.  But it does seem like you are happy with your membership.  Why don't you sell?  Or just rent out your points if so miserable.  I may be misunderstanding your posts, but you seem unhappy.


----------



## disneynutz

yitbos96bb said:


> Maybe... but if people tend to use a lot of weekend days, the move IS more beneficial for them.  Either way I think Dean is right... It's a wash for most people... people like you, who spend more time during weekdays were negatively effected and so you complain.  But it does seem like you are happy with your membership.  Why don't you sell?  Or just rent out your points if so miserable.  I may be misunderstanding your posts, but you seem unhappy.



I'm unhappy because I know how Disney and the DVC used to be and I still hope that maybe things will improve.

The changes to the 2010 point chart was just one of many recent changes. If we continue to accept changes to our membership that benefit Disney and not the members, Disney will make even more changes. They would be fools not to.

Seems like a lot of folks today just accept what's given to them. I'm not that kind of person.


----------



## Chuck S

disneynutz said:


> I'm unhappy because I know how Disney and the DVC used to be and I still hope that maybe things will improve.
> 
> The changes to the 2010 point chart was just one of many recent changes. If we continue to accept changes to our membership that benefit Disney and not the members, Disney will make even more changes. They would be fools not to.
> 
> Seems like a lot of folks today just accept what's given to them. I'm not that kind of person.


But again, many of the changes can benefit the Membership as a whole, while having a negative impact on individuals.  Disney doesn't always make decisions based on what benefits the company, for instance, how in the world does changing the waitlist rule benefit Disney, it was all basically handled by computers? What it does is give _more_ DVC Members a chance for their waitlist to come through without losing a day in the middle because someone waitlisted "day by day."  And some changes benefit _both_ the Membership at large and Disney.  Some changes benefit the members, and not Disney, or have zero impact on Disney.  The 2010 point chart, for instance....overall selling a few moe 25 pont contracts isn't a big "win" for Disney. they likely make little profit o those, given the operatig costs involved to sell them.  Whether th DVC resorts operate at full capacity or not really isn't a big concern for Disney, either, as the upkeep expenses are already paid.  So I really don't see how the point reallocation is very much in Disney's favor...but if it helps balance occupancy, the operational costs and availability can benefi DVC Memebers as a whole.

The DVC Program benefits, which benefits all members in a much broader way.

It has nothing to do with "accepting" what is being given to us, rather it is seeing the bigger picture.


----------



## DebbieB

disneynutz said:


> I'm unhappy because I know how Disney and the DVC used to be and I still hope that maybe things will improve.
> 
> The changes to the 2010 point chart was just one of many recent changes. If we continue to accept changes to our membership that benefit Disney and not the members, Disney will make even more changes. They would be fools not to.
> 
> Seems like a lot of folks today just accept what's given to them. I'm not that kind of person.



I don't know that this change specifically benefits Disney.   The problem is weekdays are full at the hotels and they have empty rooms on weekends.  They are trying to even that out more.


----------



## nickspace

This is an amazing thread. 

Like in everything it is good to have a buffer; a few extra dollars in the bank and a few extra points in the account. Granted there are specific nuances that need to be considered with this point system but only buying exactly what you need can be a mistake. Knowing upfront that the points can be adjusted within the total allocation necessitates slush points. If the system slides back and forth every year you need to plan for that adjustment.


----------



## Dean

disneynutz said:


> I'm unhappy because I know how Disney and the DVC used to be and I still hope that maybe things will improve.
> 
> The changes to the 2010 point chart was just one of many recent changes. If we continue to accept changes to our membership that benefit Disney and not the members, Disney will make even more changes. They would be fools not to.
> 
> Seems like a lot of folks today just accept what's given to them. I'm not that kind of person.


DVC has changed, it had to.  When I first joined there were designer shower curtains, cloth napkins, etc and there was a separate express check in desk at OKW and you entered on the right and there were free tickets for the parks.  I went in knowing what was guaranteed and having an expectation there based on the legal paperwork.  Then I knew the fluff that was present.  I counted on the guarantees and hoped for more.  I bought resale, likely the first one to do so not from a family member, but I had done the tour and been given a specific and incorrect piece of information on that tour which I had counted on to make my purchase decision.  I was unhappy at first about it and DVC did offer to buy it back and make me whole due to this issue.  We decided to give it a try and make the most of it and I'm glad we did even though we get far less benefit now than we did previously but that's more because our situation (other timeshare options) has changed than anything else.

I can't think of a true negative substantial change that has affected the entire membership or even a majority, involved a guaranteed component and wasn't a slam dunk on DVC's part to do so.  I  would agree that some of the handling of members moves (AKV savannah and concierge, BWV redo) have been far less than stellar but even then most that have posted they were unhappy have gone far overboard and expected too much of the system.  But those are one time items that they seem to have done better with later ones than earlier ones and to have learned some from previous mistakes.  

I can really only think of limited actual changes.


Change in reservations allowing a full week.
Two formal reallocations in 17 years.
Return to one transfer per year.
Establishment of a definition of "commercial renter" and enforcing same.
Move to more strict occupancy limits.  Most people don't realize when they went to the semi formal allowance of 5 in a 1 BR and 9 in a 2 BR, they had previously been allowing more and 5 in a studio.
There may be others you would want to list.  All are appropriate in my book and none are arguable as to the right or choices IMO even though I personally would have preferred a different decision on some of them.

Can you even think of one example of a system change that affected the majority of the members and wasn't clearly allowed from a legal standpoint.  Can you think of even one item where DVC hasn't fulfilled it's required functions?



DebbieB said:


> I don't know that this change specifically benefits Disney.   The problem is weekdays are full at the hotels and they have empty rooms on weekends.  They are trying to even that out more.


I'm not sure that this is true Debbie, nor that it is relevant.  DVC rooms were likely less full on weekends but regular rooms the reverse as well as the parks more full on weekends.  If it is required to balance DVC occupancy, none of the rest of the information matters anyway as DVC has the legal obligation to make these changes if needed to balance occupancy.  I think the most valid complaint is why did they wait so long.  The answer is likely because things had gotten so far off they had to.  Had DVC made some type of change every 3-5 years starting with the mid 90's issue, as they likely should have, we would not be having such a discussion.  Sure, we'd have had small similar thread's each time but nothing like this.  IMO, the complaints in the mid 90's got us to here but these complaints are going to assure that DVC makes a change of some type periodically just to make sure the members know they can.


----------



## Dean

nickspace said:


> This is an amazing thread.
> 
> Like in everything it is good to have a buffer; a few extra dollars in the bank and a few extra points in the account. Granted there are specific nuances that need to be considered with this point system but only buying exactly what you need can be a mistake. Knowing upfront that the points can be adjusted within the total allocation necessitates slush points. If the system slides back and forth every year you need to plan for that adjustment.


When people post a thread for "how many points to buy", I have often suggested buying a cushion if buying looking at a lower season, smaller unit and/or mostly weekdays.  I've often used 10% as a suggestion which would not have been enough to totally insulate one against this change but it sure would have helped over just having enough.  

The truth is that in the worst case scenario, the cost for one totally avoiding weekends (which has been me for points reservations), has gone up a max of 20%.  If this is enough of a change alone to make DVC not worth owning, it was likely never a good choice for them.


----------



## disneynutz

Chuck S said:


> Disney doesn't always make decisions based on what benefits the company, for instance, how in the world does changing the waitlist rule benefit Disney, it was all basically handled by computers?



That's what we are told but how are wait lists really handled? 

Wait lists are a pain for MS. They create extra work and prior to the new rule they really created extra work. Why were we not always contacted by phone or email when our wait list were filled? Because it created extra work. Why aren't we contacted now? Because it creates extra work.

Here is an example of a wait list for a member if they requested any studio at AKV.

Value Studio Jambo
Standard Studio Jambo
Savanna Studio Jambo
Concierge Studio Jambo
Standard Studio Kidani
Savanna Studio Kidani

Coincidence that the new "two only" rule went into effect prior to Kidani being available?

I have been told by MS that wait lists are matched at night so call back every day at the end of business and you might get what you want without a wait list.

Conversely, I have also been told by MS that wait lists are matched all day long so calling every day won't help.

Which is it? seems like MS doesn't really know.

How many members have reported that they just happened to get their match when they called in. Coincidence?

I have also been told by MS that the wait list software has problems and that the more requests a member had, the more problems it made for the software. Instead of fixing the software, they reduced the number of allowable wait lists.


----------



## CarolMN

disneynutz said:


> That's what we are told but how are wait lists really handled?
> 
> Wait lists are a pain for MS. They create extra work and prior to the new rule they really created extra work. Why were we not always contacted by phone or email when our wait list were filled? Because it created extra work. Why aren't we contacted now? Because it creates extra work.
> 
> Here is an example of a wait list for a member if they requested any studio at AKV.
> 
> Value Studio Jambo
> Standard Studio Jambo
> Savanna Studio Jambo
> Concierge Studio Jambo
> Standard Studio Kidani
> Savanna Studio Kidani
> 
> Coincidence that the new "two only" rule went into effect prior to Kidani being available?
> 
> I have been told by MS that wait lists are matched at night so call back every day at the end of business and you might get what you want without a wait list.
> 
> Conversely, I have also been told by MS that wait lists are matched all day long so calling every day won't help.
> 
> Which is it? seems like MS doesn't really know.
> 
> How many members have reported that they just happened to get their match when they called in. Coincidence?
> 
> I have also been told by MS that the wait list software has problems and that the more requests a member had, the more problems it made for the software. Instead of fixing the software, they reduced the number of allowable wait lists.



Members pay for MS through their dues.  If a change results in less work for them, members benefit.

You may have a point about changes benefiting Disney (I personally don't agree), but this example does not support your opinion.


----------



## Chuck S

disneynutz said:


> That's what we are told but how are wait lists really handled?
> 
> Wait lists are a pain for MS. They create extra work and prior to the new rule they really created extra work. Why were we not always contacted by phone or email when our wait list were filled? Because it created extra work. Why aren't we contacted now? Because it creates extra work.
> 
> Here is an example of a wait list for a member if they requested any studio at AKV.
> 
> Value Studio Jambo
> Standard Studio Jambo
> Savanna Studio Jambo
> Concierge Studio Jambo
> Standard Studio Kidani
> Savanna Studio Kidani
> 
> Coincidence that the new "two only" rule went into effect prior to Kidani being available?
> 
> I have been told by MS that wait lists are matched at night so call back every day at the end of business and you might get what you want without a wait list.
> 
> Conversely, I have also been told by MS that wait lists are matched all day long so calling every day won't help.
> 
> Which is it? seems like MS doesn't really know.
> 
> How many members have reported that they just happened to get their match when they called in. Coincidence?
> 
> I have also been told by MS that the wait list software has problems and that the more requests a member had, the more problems it made for the software. Instead of fixing the software, they reduced the number of allowable wait lists.




But, why would _Disney_ care?  Isn't Member Services part of our budget...so more efficient (less CM time required) equates to holding the line on our dues?  Another case of benefitting the membership as a whole?


----------



## Dean

disneynutz said:


> That's what we are told but how are wait lists really handled?
> 
> Wait lists are a pain for MS. They create extra work and prior to the new rule they really created extra work. Why were we not always contacted by phone or email when our wait list were filled? Because it created extra work. Why aren't we contacted now? Because it creates extra work.
> 
> Here is an example of a wait list for a member if they requested any studio at AKV.
> 
> Value Studio Jambo
> Standard Studio Jambo
> Savanna Studio Jambo
> Concierge Studio Jambo
> Standard Studio Kidani
> Savanna Studio Kidani
> 
> Coincidence that the new "two only" rule went into effect prior to Kidani being available?
> 
> I have been told by MS that wait lists are matched at night so call back every day at the end of business and you might get what you want without a wait list.
> 
> Conversely, I have also been told by MS that wait lists are matched all day long so calling every day won't help.
> 
> Which is it? seems like MS doesn't really know.
> 
> How many members have reported that they just happened to get their match when they called in. Coincidence?
> 
> I have also been told by MS that the wait list software has problems and that the more requests a member had, the more problems it made for the software. Instead of fixing the software, they reduced the number of allowable wait lists.


Most systems don't do wait list or if they do, only for reservations prior to when they are available to other members such as prior to the 11 month window.  To DVC, each of those items you list is a different option, even if they are essentially the same to you.  The easiest thing for them to do would be to do away with WL altogether, just like they essentially did away with any meaningful request effort because people were too difficult to deal with.  Rather than tell you that they simply would not accept requests that were inappropriate and too specific such as for specific units or similar, they simply gave up.  I would totally agree if they're going to do it, they should do it appropriately and not half way but sometimes there are realities.  That doesn't translate to any type of reasonable conspiracy though.

Here's an example.  I had a WL in with II for an extra unit for Marriott's Grande Ocean.  I was trying to trade up big time using a studio from a weaker resort to a 2 BR at one of the toughest places and weeks to get so I wasn't surprised it hadn't come through.  However, once we got insider the short notice exchange window (60 days), I was hopeful that something would come available short notice.  We were there anyway for those dates at that resort so I told them they could match even the day the week started and it would be fine.  I then got up early every morning and searched the computer several times during about a 1.5 hour period.  About 8 days out the exact thing I'd been looking for showed up but had not matched my ongoing search even though I could pull it up online using the same exact deposit I was searching for.  I don't know why and I doubt II does either but I was sure happy to get the week and have extra room for our group to spread out to 3 units rather than the 2 we own.


----------



## Dean

Chuck S said:


> But, why would _Disney_ care?  Isn't Member Services part of our budget...so more efficient (less CM time required) equates to holding the line on our dues?  Another case of benefitting the membership as a whole?


The counter point is that MS costs are fixed at 12% and thus any savings is in their pocket, or conversely, any extra costs are out of their pocket.  Most management systems expect to make about 35% to take home, I wonder what Disney projects to take from the DVCMC contract?

As I noted at least twice in this thread, any member can go and look at the books.  You make an appt and head to Celebration and meet with the people there.  To my knowledge, only one person has every done so.  Anyone who is up in arms and plans to continue as a member might want to consider this.  Possibly as a group to minimize the disruption of the system.


----------



## disneynutz

Maybe my problem is that I talk to too many Disney employees who hint at their inner workings. Too much knowledge can sometimes be a bad thing.

One reason Disney tries to keep the dues low is to attract more buyers. I specifically asked why BLT dues are being subsidized by Disney. I know that it's a small amount but why go through all of the hassle. There must be a reason? No one at Disney will tell me why. 

Disney intentionally marketed BLT as the "cheapest dues of all of their resorts". That kinda takes the bite out of the fact that the point cost is higher and the required points for a stay are higher. Disney's current incentive price for BLT is low because of the economy and marketing time lines and projections that haven't been met. I have also been told that we can expect a dues "adjustment" after BLT sells out.


----------



## Dean

disneynutz said:


> Maybe my problem is that I talk to too many Disney employees who hint at their inner workings. Too much knowledge can sometimes be a bad thing.
> 
> One reason Disney tries to keep the dues low is to attract more buyers. I specifically asked why BLT dues are being subsidized by Disney. I know that it's a small amount but why go through all of the hassle. There must be a reason? No one at Disney will tell me why.
> 
> Disney intentionally marketed BLT as the "cheapest dues of all of their resorts". That kinda takes the bite out of the fact that the point cost is higher and the required points for a stay are higher. Disney's current incentive price for BLT is low because of the economy and marketing time lines and projections that haven't been met. I have also been told that we can expect a dues "adjustment" after BLT sells out.


More likely you put too much stock in what they tell you.  Then they go to the water fountain and talk about the members who's chain they pulled.  I would put to you that there are many on this BBS who are going to know more about the reasons for many things than would your average CM at MS.  It's like looking around the internet researching a given item.  You see a lot of misinformation often by well intentioned people.  Disney has supplemented many new resorts as do many timeshares including Marriott.  BLT points are cheaper dues in part because it's spread over more points.  Each resort pays their own way so if one resort is more efficient for some reason or has less expenses, that savings will be passed on.  HH, OKW and SSR have been those resorts in the past, going forward, SSR is likely to be the cheapest due to the building and resort setup.  The ONLY reason for subsidizing the fees is to make the sale look more attractive, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Chuck S

disneynutz said:


> Maybe my problem is that I talk to too many Disney employees who hint at their inner workings. Too much knowledge can sometimes be a bad thing.
> 
> One reason Disney tries to keep the dues low is to attract more buyers. I specifically asked why BLT dues are being subsidized by Disney. I know that it's a small amount but why go through all of the hassle. There must be a reason? No one at Disney will tell me why.
> 
> Disney intentionally marketed BLT as the "cheapest dues of all of their resorts". That kinda takes the bite out of the fact that the point cost is higher and the required points for a stay are higher. Disney's current incentive price for BLT is low because of the economy and marketing time lines and projections that haven't been met. I have also been told that we can expect a dues "adjustment" after BLT sells out.



Dues, I would think, would naturally be cheaper in a high rise type building, less "common area" and less landscaping area for maintenance.  Property taxes on the other hand...


----------



## WebmasterDoc

disneynutz said:


> Maybe my problem is that I talk to too many Disney employees who hint at their inner workings. Too much knowledge can sometimes be a bad thing.
> 
> One reason Disney tries to keep the dues low is to attract more buyers. *I specifically asked why BLT dues are being subsidized by Disney. I know that it's a small amount but why go through all of the hassle. There must be a reason? No one at Disney will tell me why.*
> 
> Disney intentionally marketed BLT as the "cheapest dues of all of their resorts". That kinda takes the bite out of the fact that the point cost is higher and the required points for a stay are higher. Disney's current incentive price for BLT is low because of the economy and marketing time lines and projections that haven't been met. I have also been told that we can expect a dues "adjustment" after BLT sells out.



DVC has subsidized every resort while it was being sold. Early buyers at VB are _still_ being subsidized ($0.44 per point) for resort amenities that were promised but never added. Those who purchased later do not get that subsidy and are paying the full amount. Even OKW had a $0.06 per point subsidy for 2008.

The developer subsidy at BLT for 2009 is *$0.05 per point*. While that subsidy may disappear when the resort is completely sold out, the small amount of the subsidy shouldn't present much of a hardship for those owners. Otherwise the annual fees do reflect the actual operating costs at each resort.

As already noted the dues at BLT are also based on the higher point requirements for stays at the resort. That, coupled with the footprint and design of the resort, should continue to allow for a lower annual fee (on a per point basis) due to more efficient maintenance expenses.


----------



## DVCGeek

Dean said:


> I had done the tour and been given a specific and incorrect piece of information on that tour which I had counted on to make my purchase decision.  I was unhappy at first about it and DVC did offer to buy it back and make me whole due to this issue.



What was the incorrect information?


----------



## Dean

DVCGeek said:


> What was the incorrect information?


That the free tickets then available were good for the entire LOS rather than for just the number of nights, basically a difference of one day's tickets for each trip for each person.  I had names, specifics and documentation.  I was ready to let them have it and walk away but my wife wanted to give it a try so we did and we're glad we did.  They were very nice and understanding about it and very appropriate IMO.  I'm convinced the guide in question was honestly mistaken and would guess he was the guide for others here at some point.


----------



## WebmasterDoc

We had a somewhat similar experience back in 1996.

We had already purchased at OKW in 1993 and were vacationing at HH in March, 1995. We were already aware of the addition of HH as the 3rd DVC resort and we visited the sales office located near the location of the present resort. We decided to add on at that time and the purchase price then was $61.50 per point. We toured the construction - everything was a hard-hat area and we could not actually go onto the site. They were pouring concrete for the Beach House and were able to view the construction on Longview Island (the small island the resort sits on) from the west side of the inlet near what is now the Ocean Grille. In the sales brochure was a section about a private island to be DVC owned for the use of HH resort guests for shelling, nature walks, picnics and other recreational activities. While it did not really play a role in our decision to puchase, it was a nice feature and certainly added value to the resort. 

We never received any further communication about the resort until shortly before our closing was to take place in the spring of 1996 (a year after signing all documents and paying the deposit). We had a June Use Year and even though the resort opened in March, 1996 we would get no points until June, 1996. Just before our closing date we received new documents to sign and found that our purchase price had been reduced to $57.50 per point since "some of the offered features" would not be available. The only "feature" we could find missing was the private island. 

Unlike Dean's experience, in this situation, DVC was proactive about modifying the sales for those who purchased pre-construction and were promised something in writing that would later not come to fruition. We gladly accepted the changes, signed the new documents and added on more points.


----------



## LenaN4fun

I also noticed the conversion in points from 2009 to 2010. I remember when I purchased into DVC, my sales rep stating the points were locked in at each resort, that the only thing that changes is how much you pay per point. Such as I would pay more per point today then I did back in 2002. I am very confused on how the points can be manipulated at all? Can someone tell me, did I misunderstand or is DVC pulling the ole switcheroo later in the game?


----------



## yitbos96bb

LenaN4fun said:


> I also noticed the conversion in points from 2009 to 2010. I remember when I purchased into DVC, my sales rep stating the points were locked in at each resort, that the only thing that changes is how much you pay per point. Such as I would pay more per point today then I did back in 2002. I am very confused on how the points can be manipulated at all? Can someone tell me, did I misunderstand or is DVC pulling the ole switcheroo later in the game?



Without a tape recording or time machine who knows if the guide was less than truthful or you misunderstood.   It is in the contracts though that Disney can do this and legally that is all that matters


----------



## Chuck S

LenaN4fun said:


> I also noticed the conversion in points from 2009 to 2010. I remember when I purchased into DVC, my sales rep stating the points were locked in at each resort, that the only thing that changes is how much you pay per point. Such as I would pay more per point today then I did back in 2002. I am very confused on how the points can be manipulated at all? Can someone tell me, did I misunderstand or is DVC pulling the ole switcheroo later in the game?



The points are locked in at each resort, the TOTAL number of points to reserve every room at the resort for the entire year can not change.  But they can be re-arranged within the chart, as we've seen in 2010.  There should be a maximum possible re-allocation listed for your resort in your paper work.  This maximum re-allocation gives you the number of points (or in the case of the original paperwork for OKW the maximum number of consecutive nights you can reserve with a specific number of points for each room type) if DVC eliminates all booking seasons and makes weekends equal in points to weekdays.  

As the previous poster said, we have no idea if your guide misled you, or if you misunderstood the message s/he was trying to convey.  It can be a daunting task to try to understand all the implications and subtleties of ownership during a 2 or 3 hour tour.


----------



## chalee94

LenaN4fun said:


> my sales rep stating the points were locked in at each resort



they are locked in at each resort. the total pts for each resort for each year is constant when you consider each room for 365 days.
but that doesn't mean that a studio will always be 12 pts for a given weeknight in december...


----------



## famsen

So if the total numbers of points are locked in for each resort, does that mean for example; if points go up for a Saturday night stay in December, then the points would have to go down by the same number for some other room type for day of the week or time of year, correct?

Let me just state that I was one of those members that specifically asked a guide at DWTD in Chicago if point charts can go up. I had my friend with me who was interested in buying and this was one of her very important sticking points for the deal. We were both told absolutely that the points can never go up. I understand now the I may not have asked the question in a way to get a thorough answer but the answer we received also wasn't explained to the fullest extent by the guide. My understanding now if that the total points for the resort can't go up but if we like to stay during certain times of the year, we could either pay more or less at that time but maybe be paying more or less if we were to stay at a different time of year. I hope I have this correct now.


----------



## Dean

famsen said:


> So if the total numbers of points are locked in for each resort, does that mean for example; if points go up for a Saturday night stay in December, then the points would have to go down by the same number for some other room type for day of the week or time of year, correct?
> 
> Let me just state that I was one of those members that specifically asked a guide at DWTD in Chicago if point charts can go up. I had my friend with me who was interested in buying and this was one of her very important sticking points for the deal. We were both told absolutely that the points can never go up. I understand now the I may not have asked the question in a way to get a thorough answer but the answer we received also wasn't explained to the fullest extent by the guide. My understanding now if that the total points for the resort can't go up but if we like to stay during certain times of the year, we could either pay more or less at that time but maybe be paying more or less if we were to stay at a different time of year. I hope I have this correct now.


Not necessarily.  They could go up for weekends and down for weekdays the same time of year or unit size or they could go up for one time of year and down for another.  While it's worded somewhat differently, the main requirement is that the totals have to end up the same for the year.  Realize the the entire unit for lockoff's are what are controlled, not the underlying smaller components, and that a given change can't be more than 20%.  Also, the points are based on a fixed year (base year), not any given year, I suspect they are all based on 1992.  Some would say if it's off by 1 point, this is not the same. I would personally disagree with that line of thinking in this setting.  Realistically if you go for an entire week it's unlikely you'll see much change overall.


----------



## Chuck S

famsen said:


> So if the total numbers of points are locked in for each resort, does that mean for example; if points go up for a Saturday night stay in December, then the points would have to go down by the same number for some other room type for day of the week or time of year, correct?
> 
> Let me just state that I was one of those members that specifically asked a guide at DWTD in Chicago if point charts can go up. I had my friend with me who was interested in buying and this was one of her very important sticking points for the deal. We were both told absolutely that the points can never go up. I understand now the I may not have asked the question in a way to get a thorough answer but the answer we received also wasn't explained to the fullest extent by the guide. My understanding now if that the total points for the resort can't go up but if we like to stay during certain times of the year, we could either pay more or less at that time but maybe be paying more or less if we were to stay at a different time of year. I hope I have this correct now.



Also take into account it is the total number of points, and there are 5 weekday, and 2 weekend nights, so basically, weekend nights could go down by 5 points each, for a total of 10, and weekday nights could go up 2 points each, for a total of 10.  Then consider that there are a different number of nights in each "season" so if there is one season 5 weeks long, and another season one week long, weekdays in the long season could drop 2 points each for a total of 50 points, and the short season could go up 25 points for each weekend night for a total of 50 points.  But, there is a bit of a limit...no one night may change by more than 20% from the previous year.  It is also dependent upon the total number of rooms in each size at the resort.  For instance, if there are 3x as many 2 bedroom units as there are GVs at a given resort, then 2 bedroom units could drop 2 points a night, and GVs could increase 6 points per night.

So there is any number of ways the points can be re-allocated without the actual resort total changing.


----------



## DisneyDancin7

i'm a non-DVC member...I can't seem to find this information/link on the DVC website...is it only viewable to members? because i would like to know how many points each room "costs"


----------



## vandy

DisneyDancin7 said:


> i'm a non-DVC member...I can't seem to find this information/link on the DVC website...is it only viewable to members? because i would like to know how many points each room "costs"



You can view the point charts on this boards site, DisBoards under the resorts link at the top of this page, or this link:

http://www.wdwinfo.com/disney-vacation-club/DVCpoints.shtml 

You can also view them at this board's sponsor, The Timeshare Store.  Click on their banner at the top of this page, then find the tab that says DVC Point Charts.


----------



## caewe

I can only speak for our family.Disney`s main intention always is to keep you on site longer and spend more all around dollars.For us,we use our points much more in exchanges,we travel more to other parts of the country,PAY MUCH LESS IN POINTS and to be honest,so far have stayed in much nicer and bigger places than at WDW.So we aren`t spending our money on site as the wish.


----------



## Dean

caewe said:


> I can only speak for our family.Disney`s main intention always is to keep you on site longer and spend more all around dollars.For us,we use our points much more in exchanges,we travel more to other parts of the country,PAY MUCH LESS IN POINTS and to be honest,so far have stayed in much nicer and bigger places than at WDW.So we aren`t spending our money on site as the wish.


Still, someone will likely be in that unit and spend money, likely more money than you or I would for that time.  Thus  you're not hurting them when  you don't go, if anything, you're adding to Disney's profit.


----------

