I have colleagues that trade into SSR 1bds...........A question for who trades into DVC using RCI: which are the most common rooms to get?
I have colleagues that trade into SSR 1bds...........A question for who trades into DVC using RCI: which are the most common rooms to get?
/ said:Hilton agreed to drop a clause in its timeshare contracts that denied responsibility for representations in sales pitches about reservations, hotel use rights, rentals, resales, and buybacks of timeshare interests.
I did some poking around and found a class action from a timeshare group that ultimately settled with the company. The facts aren't the same as our situation, but what I did find interesting was that their causes of action would be likely similar to ours.
@drusba - this statement kind of caused a revelation with me. While I realize it is somewhat sarcastic, it may well be wrong for us to assume that Disney is looking at this with MORE sophisticated tools than what we (the members) have at our disposal. My assumption has always been that they look at each resort and respond in kind.
In a thread heavy with posts I want to note:
THIS MAKES A CASE THAT DISNEY IS BEING ABOVE BOARD IN WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
So one of the things I've noticed - and mentioned here - is while working on the availability tools is that while the 2-bedrooms appear to be generally more available than 1-bedrooms at most resort, at SSR I am seeing the 2-bedrooms as being more available, albeit in this case the difference is very small. (Say 1-beds are still well available 2 months in advance while 2-beds are available at 1-month or less.)
But @drusba's comment made me realize something - what if Disney's data analysis is LESS sophisticated than what we as the more observant members of the DVC community are using. What if instead of analyzing every resort - they are only looking at the whole thing - and specifically what's left at the end. They could in fact care less that say at WLV the studios are gone at 9 months advance, 2-beds are gone at 7 months advance, and 1-beds are gone at 4-months advance. All they look at is that the studios, 1-beds, and 2-beds are all occupied at that resort - and therefore are equally "in demand".
So if we piled ALL the data together across the 10 WDW resorts, what we might just see is this - the most unoccupied rooms that are left across an entire year in the entire WDW system are 2-bedrooms. Yes, all of these rooms are at SSR (and maybe occasionally at OKW or AKV) but WHERE they are doesn't matter. So, even though 1-beds as a generally rule book later - to Disney's way of thinking they ARE more occupied, and they are equaling "occupancy" with "demand".
Also, because so many two bedrooms become split into studios and 1-bedrooms by the drive for people to get studios, the total number of studios and 1-bedrooms - again across ALL resorts - may be VERY high. So if they are seeing this - combined with my underlined point above - there is a clear path to the internal logic that "Across all of the resorts - we need to find a way to drive more people to occupy two bedrooms." The logic becomes if we can increase occupancy of 2-bedrooms everywhere, it will drive occupancy of 2-bedrooms at SSR, which benefits the entire system, and in fact increases overall occupancy which reduces breakage.
This also would be what is being used to drive the shift of points to make magic season 1-beds and 2-beds cheaper. Perhaps more of both are sitting unoccupied at that time of year than any other.
Though I think there are some flaws in the logic - I can see where this data would be enough to prove that the moves they made are in "the best interest of the members as a whole". And with that - I think any hope for an actionable case against Disney would fall apart.
Then I’d argue that they are incompetent. Incompetent or underhanded. Neither is acceptable.
Isn’t the point reallocation language supposed to limit point reallocation only within a specific resort?
If this is the DVCMC train of thought, it’s even more likely in violation of the POS. That’s not how reallocation is supposed to be used. When buying into any property, one is taking a real estate interest in that specific property.
Issues that arise out of the exchange, regardless of its impact on other resorts, should be addressed as an exchange issue separately.
I don't own DVC. It was on my wishlist - finances aren't such that I could make that happen yet, but I'd hoped to.
However, after the shenanigans that are going on right now, I've completely changed my mind. The belief that Disney was different than other timeshare companies has evaporated completely. It was quite an eye-opener that the laws in this area do very little to protect the consumer, and that the POS, the rules that govern how things are run, can be changed by (just) one party, apparently at-will. I'd be crazy to enter in a long-term expensive contract under conditions like that.
And that all Disney has to do to avoid breaking the law is say, "We aren't going to actually show you any proof, but trust us, it's in your best interest."
They're going to have CRO type data plus internal demand data. The idea they don't have the data is not logical even if one doesn't agree with the change.For CRO? Absolutely. For DVC other than to apparently reserve AKV value & concierge before the 11 month window when they seemingly have insider knowledge that something big is coming down (ie SWGE)? I don’t believe they could be bothered unless it’s to benefit them in some way.
Perhaps you’re correct and we should be challenging them on having member representation on the board level.
They're not. What will have to happen is either to get a lawyer to take it up hoping for a class action or to get an individual or small group to move forward that might evolve into a true class action suit.I see a lot of back and forth in these 48 pages which is a good thing. However, I don't see a lot of support for the initial premise except for a few people. Not sure how a dozen members intend to organize and finance a legal action if it does have merit.
It's by resort but they will use the data across all resorts.Isn’t the point reallocation language supposed to limit point reallocation only within a specific resort?
It depends on when you look, the last few years SSR 1 BR for the most part. I don't think any of us have to be convinced that 1 BR are overall the lowest demand along with certain high cost villas. This has long since become a circular argument.A question for who trades into DVC using RCI: which are the most common rooms to get?
Nor did I imply that it was. I said it was "unacceptable." I believe, however, that incompetence does not fulfill the requirements of their fiduciary responsabilty to act on behalf of the members.Incompetence is not against the law.
It depends on when you look, the last few years SSR 1 BR for the most part. I don't think any of us have to be convinced that 1 BR are overall the lowest demand along with certain high cost villas. This has long since become a circular argument.
I'm actually a logical person, believe it or not. All passion aside, I do not believe that Disney nor DVC has shown any interest lately in tracking the DVC data for MEMBER benefit. So, for myself, I believe that data they had to the contrary would be ignored or manipulated in such a way to be interepreted in the most advantageous/revenue generating fashion for DVD. I would love to be proven wrong, but they'll just pat us on the head and tell us to trust them. I'm wondering how many on this thread would be so trusting of a government entity touting the same line...They're going to have CRO type data plus internal demand data. The idea they don't have the data is not logical even if one doesn't agree with the change.
I don't think any of us can completely answer the questions related to the 1 BR and I've offered some thoughts on what MIGHT be the thought process. I'm certainly not willing to crucify them on one second hand report of a phone discussion that has not yet been completed. The number of exchanges is minimal in the total numbers so it doesn't have much meaning IMO. I think you're assuming the reason they deposit them is availability but that's not the only possible explanation. Another is that it eats points and fulfills part of the RCI expectations. Thus this change might result in more 1 BR being deposited to RCI but it's still a very small # comparatively speaking.This is related to @skier_pete 's theory. If they deposit mostly SSR 1BR and then reallocate because they finish before 2BR, then it's comical, they would be fixing a (not really) "problem" they created themselves.
As I said before, if I believed that I would proceed along the ladder resulting in legal action or vote with my feet. I would not waste hours of my time trying to do this by phone, it can't possibly lead anywhere unless one is willing to move up the ladder. Regardless of what one thinks of the change, to believe they don't have and didn't look at the data is simply illogical.I'm actually a logical person, believe it or not. All passion aside, I do not believe that Disney nor DVC has shown any interest lately in tracking the DVC data for MEMBER benefit. So, for myself, I believe that data they had to the contrary would be ignored or manipulated in such a way to be interepreted in the most advantageous/revenue generating fashion for DVD. I would love to be proven wrong, but they'll just pat us on the head and tell us to trust them. I'm wondering how many on this thread would be so trusting of a government entity touting the same line...
I have colleagues that trade into SSR 1bds...........
Nope. I'll just work the system and benefit without my conscience twisting me in knots the way it would normally should I profit at another's expense (even if it is perfectly legal). The "if you don't like it then leave" line is over-used in today's society. I never implied they didn't look at the data (providing such detailed data on DVC exists), just manipulated its interpretation to their benefit and the members' detriment.As I said before, if I believed that I would proceed along the ladder resulting in legal action or vote with my feet. I would not waste hours of my time trying to do this by phone, it can't possibly lead anywhere unless one is willing to move up the ladder. Regardless of what one thinks of the change, to believe they don't have and didn't look at the data is simply illogical.
I'm sure it has, but at my little school in small town Ontario Canada my classroom is right smack beside someone who last year traded into a 1bd SSR through RCI.I've heard ancedotally that it used to be possible to trade into a lot of the resorts - but that it has gotten harder in the last 5-10 years and most availability is SSR.
This is related to @skier_pete 's theory. If they deposit mostly SSR 1BR and then reallocate because they finish before 2BR, then it's comical, they would be fixing a (not really) "problem" they created themselves.
I'm sure it has, but at my little school in small town Ontario Canada my classroom is right smack beside someone who last year traded into a 1bd SSR through RCI.
Absolutely, but I've seen a couple of times the impression on here that trades via RCI are unicorn status now, even at SSR. Also, for me, it is important that the one person I know that trades via RCI in real life has gotten SSR 1bds in the last several years during March/summer, given that it's a home resort, and all that has happened with the SSR chart for 2020.My comment was not intended to contradict you - more to agree with you. I've heard of people trading into SSR but not the room category.
I would actually expect relatively few people on this board to have done an RCI -> DVC trade. Probably better off checking on the TUG BBS - though I just did a search with no luck.
Now just cause I think owners are being taken with this latest point allocation, that doesn't mean I'm going to sell all my contracts and never go there again. The fact is that there is still some value to owning, especially at the price I bought at and the fact that my points are all grand fathered in. The point reallocation is reducing the value. Are more changes coming that will reduce that value, who knows? With each change I will re-evaluate the value and make the decision at the point to stay or go.
Lots. I've had AKV, BCV, BWV, SSR, OKW and BLT. We had 10 units at one time between BCV & BWV about half & half 1 vs 2 BR.I've heard ancedotally that it used to be possible to trade into a lot of the resorts - but that it has gotten harder in the last 5-10 years and most availability is SSR.
My point was life's too short, not if you don't like it leave. Why would anyone want to participate if they felt the way some do here, there's not enough benefit or savings for that aggravation IMO.Nope. I'll just work the system and benefit without my conscience twisting me in knots the way it would normally should I profit at another's expense (even if it is perfectly legal). The "if you don't like it then leave" line is over-used in today's society. I never implied they didn't look at the data (providing such detailed data on DVC exists), just manipulated its interpretation to their benefit and the members' detriment.
So help me understand. I bought poly. I, like many others, bought for studios because well thats pretty much all there is outside of bungalows which who really can afford? So do they raise points based on dvc as a whole (all resorts) or just particular resorts? If the thought was to get more people from studio to 1 or 2 bed at the poly there is no 1 bed and there is still no way to stay in the bungalow. Just having a hard time seeing how at this particular resort it helps those who have bought in. We thankfully bought a little more than we needed. I would have hoped they would have added views and raised points that way. I would not mind knowing I would be getting a garden or pool view and spending a few extra points for it.
As far as lawsuit I have read a lot about the lockoff premium which Poly does not have. Would there be a point for poly owners to even attempt to fight it?