So many resorts, so many members now...

[McCrae]

When my DH and I purchased back in 2002, we were paying for a Disney trip with the 3 kids yearly. My youngest was going to be 3 in 2003, hence he would become a 5th guest. Going forward, we were looking at having to rent 2 rooms every time we went to WDW, because the rooms only slept 4. (this was pre-family suites). When we sat down with the salesperson, he of course told us we were the family DVC was built for.We went yearly or even sometimes twice a year. We buy in at today's cost and we get years of vacations while the regular resort room prices go up and up. He was correct. My husband did the math and flipped it every way he could to see if there would be a way for us to enjoy WDW as frequently as we were going, and buying DVC was in fact money saver.

Little did we know waaaay back then, that Disney would just keep building DVC resorts. The amount of members we are competing with for rooms is ridiculous. You can no longer decide on a spur of the moment trip and find any rooms outside of SSR. It is so frustrating that if you want to stay at a resort beside your home, you have to walk a reservation at 7 months. This never happened before. I'm annoyed right now, because I want to stay somewhere other than OKW in June. My use year is June, so I am going to be limited with how early I can "walk" (only 3 days, since I want to arrive Jun 4th).

Any other early owners frustrated with how hard it is to get reservations these days?

When you bought DVC you had a very limited choice of resorts to stay at and no promise of further developments. You were happy to sign up for that. Having the opportunity to stay at other newer resorts is an unexpected bonus. For you DVC had been a huge success, you have saved a lot of money and could sell your membership for a good profit. Your DVC membership compares very well to any other time share. I don’t see a lot for you to complain about.

 

[crisi]

When you bought DVC you had a very limited choice of resorts to stay at and no promise of further developments. You were happy to sign up for that. Having the opportunity to stay at other newer resorts is an unexpected bonus. For you DVC had been a huge success, you have saved a lot of money and could sell your membership for a good profit. Your DVC membership compares very well to any other time share. I don’t see a lot for you to complain about.

I don't agree. When they bought in 2002, they probably bought BCV, because that is what was selling. They thought that they'd be able to trade around into BWV, VWL and OKW - the other resorts. SSR was the next resort that opened, and that was when sleeping around went from "only difficult some of the time" to "yeah, this whole sleeping around thing is getting more difficult." If you bought thinking your trading options would be the original 4 onsite resorts - or resorts with similar attributes at similar prices, the changes have been disappointing. As I said before, OKW didn't have the Deluxe hotel attachment, but it does have bargain points per night that increases its attractiveness. Then the Deluxe attached resorts post SSR have had point per night inflation - so that if you bought for a two bedroom at BCV for a week, a week at the VGF is out of reach without shortening trips here and there. AND suddenly BCV and BWV and VWL are even more attractive - near park resorts with only a slight premium over OKW (and almost none at all for BWV standard view) - meaning the competition is even more fierce for those resorts than they would be had point requirements for Deluxe attached resorts remained stable.

People have every right to be disappointed when the system changes to their disadvantage. And every right to complain about it. For VWL and BCV original owners in particular, the system changed fairly drastically within a few years of their purchase and became not the same product - for the original OKW owners, there was only OKW and any additional resorts have been gravy - and that is true to some extent with BWV original owners. Disney has every right to make the changes that they did as well, but I don't think its unreasonable to be disappointed in the changes Disney has made to the program since 2002. In the fifteen plus years that have passed since that point in time, we've come to be able to warn people "buy where you want to stay" "don't buy for perks which may change" "don't assume availability patterns will remain the same." But back then, a lot of people around here had far more trust in Disney to look out for us.

We are BWV resale buyers from 2002 - and I'm happy to stay at BWV's so I'm not disappointed. But had I bought that BWV resale at the time with the intention of staying at different resorts of the same nature as what I bought for the same price in points, I'd be complaining as well.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

When you bought DVC you had a very limited choice of resorts to stay at and no promise of further developments. You were happy to sign up for that. Having the opportunity to stay at other newer resorts is an unexpected bonus. For you DVC had been a huge success, you have saved a lot of money and could sell your membership for a good profit. Your DVC membership compares very well to any other time share. I don’t see a lot for you to complain about.

Thank you. I don't have a lot to complain about. I love my DVC membership, and I am very glad we purchased when we did. It has allowed us to continue to go to Disney over the years without financially strapping us. For the most part, I said I was happy with staying at OKW, but ONCE, just ONCE I would like to stay elsewhere. It was not a problem years ago, and now there is a strain on the system. I just wanted to know if other members noticed it too.

I don't agree. When they bought in 2002, they probably bought BCV, because that is what was selling. They thought that they'd be able to trade around into BWV, VWL and OKW - the other resorts. SSR was the next resort that opened, and that was when sleeping around went from "only difficult some of the time" to "yeah, this whole sleeping around thing is getting more difficult." If you bought thinking your trading options would be the original 4 onsite resorts - or resorts with similar attributes at similar prices, the changes have been disappointing. As I said before, OKW didn't have the Deluxe hotel attachment, but it does have bargain points per night that increases its attractiveness. Then the Deluxe attached resorts post SSR have had point per night inflation - so that if you bought for a two bedroom at BCV for a week, a week at the VGF is out of reach without shortening trips here and there. AND suddenly BCV and BWV and VWL are even more attractive - near park resorts with only a slight premium over OKW (and almost none at all for BWV standard view) - meaning the competition is even more fierce for those resorts than they would be had point requirements for Deluxe attached resorts remained stable.

People have every right to be disappointed when the system changes to their disadvantage. And every right to complain about it. For VWL and BCV original owners in particular, the system changed fairly drastically within a few years of their purchase and became not the same product - for the original OKW owners, there was only OKW and any additional resorts have been gravy - and that is true to some extent with BWV original owners. Disney has every right to make the changes that they did as well, but I don't think its unreasonable to be disappointed in the changes Disney has made to the program since 2002. In the fifteen plus years that have passed since that point in time, we've come to be able to warn people "buy where you want to stay" "don't buy for perks which may change" "don't assume availability patterns will remain the same." But back then, a lot of people around here had far more trust in Disney to look out for us.

We are BWV resale buyers from 2002 - and I'm happy to stay at BWV's so I'm not disappointed. But had I bought that BWV resale at the time with the intention of staying at different resorts of the same nature as what I bought for the same price in points, I'd be complaining as well.

THIS ^^^

Even if they were building SSR when we purchased, there was no way to see how much they would expand DVC, and I can guarantee you if they sat us down and told us they would be opening a new resort almost every year for the next 15 years, we would have thought long and hard about how that would impact our ownership. We thought we were buying into a small population of frequent Disney vacationers. Not only do all of these DVC resorts impact the reservation system, it fills up the park. There is no longer a non-busy time a WDW. People complain about crowds even in September.

For all the people who say "buy where you want to stay" How would you feel if Disney took away our ability to switch out to other resorts. What if we were only allowed to stay at where we own? It wouldn't work. So Disney designed the system FOR people to stay at other non-home resorts.

 

[McCrae]

I don't agree. When they bought in 2002, they probably bought BCV, because that is what was selling. They thought that they'd be able to trade around into BWV, VWL and OKW - the other resorts. SSR was the next resort that opened, and that was when sleeping around went from "only difficult some of the time" to "yeah, this whole sleeping around thing is getting more difficult." If you bought thinking your trading options would be the original 4 onsite resorts - or resorts with similar attributes at similar prices, the changes have been disappointing. As I said before, OKW didn't have the Deluxe hotel attachment, but it does have bargain points per night that increases its attractiveness. Then the Deluxe attached resorts post SSR have had point per night inflation - so that if you bought for a two bedroom at BCV for a week, a week at the VGF is out of reach without shortening trips here and there. AND suddenly BCV and BWV and VWL are even more attractive - near park resorts with only a slight premium over OKW (and almost none at all for BWV standard view) - meaning the competition is even more fierce for those resorts than they would be had point requirements for Deluxe attached resorts remained stable.

People have every right to be disappointed when the system changes to their disadvantage. And every right to complain about it. For VWL and BCV original owners in particular, the system changed fairly drastically within a few years of their purchase and became not the same product - for the original OKW owners, there was only OKW and any additional resorts have been gravy - and that is true to some extent with BWV original owners. Disney has every right to make the changes that they did as well, but I don't think its unreasonable to be disappointed in the changes Disney has made to the program since 2002. In the fifteen plus years that have passed since that point in time, we've come to be able to warn people "buy where you want to stay" "don't buy for perks which may change" "don't assume availability patterns will remain the same." But back then, a lot of people around here had far more trust in Disney to look out for us.

We are BWV resale buyers from 2002 - and I'm happy to stay at BWV's so I'm not disappointed. But had I bought that BWV resale at the time with the intention of staying at different resorts of the same nature as what I bought for the same price in points, I'd be complaining as well.

Disney have honoured the terms of the contract signed. It’s been a fantastic deal for anyone who bought DVC back in 2002 and if people don’t like how things have changed they can sell their membership at a very good profit. No other time share has been so successful for members.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Not even sure if they can, but what if they put in a cancellation fee? For example, everyone gets one free modification per trip (so that you can book home resort at 11 months and trade at 7 months without penalty). After that, any modifications would be charged a $20 fee. Not exactly sure what the mechanics would have to be for those who book multiple stays in a year.

A fee to go in their pocket. Sounds awesome.

Regarding the whole fee for a guarantee to get into your resort? That's never been the system and quite frankly if one books at 11 months they can do that now without a fee. The griping is almost always about not getting the cheap room or Concierge. It's not about not getting a room at their home resort at 11 months. And the POS covers rooms and what you get with the point system - it's a first come first served system. If they charged a fee for a guaranteed room outside of the POS that provide for guaranteed week then that would be a substantial alteration to the POS and product sold. We already are getting too sketchy and have too much of that going on.

At 7 months? That's a trade. Are trades in any system every guaranteed? I wouldn't think so. But people complain because owners weren't as saavy for many years as they are slowly getting to be which is tightening up availability.

 

[Greysword]

As a data point, we haven't stayed at the VGC for three years now due to availability tightening. Previously, our thing was to book a 2BR at VGC for the Memorial Day weekend (Thur-Mon), and usually had no problem getting a reservation even three months out. However, that's disappeared.

California has the distinction of limited supply (one resort), but they make up for it with being able to book a regular hotel room for a reasonable amount of points (relative to us, that is). So, we've stayed at some of the other hotels to try them out.

That said, here it is just inside the 7 month booking window, and the 2BR and smaller are all wait-listed, already. <sigh> I'm confident it's likely a product of the increased number of available points for DVC in general.

As for SSR, that resort is something like 15 years old! The impacts of it have not only been already felt but mitigated in many ways. The extra tight reservations now are due to the proliferation of following resorts (especially Aulani) and the higher point requirements of the new resorts (more points purchased = more points to spend at other resorts).

Personally, I've always enjoyed staying at SSR and OKW, which are generally our go-to resorts in Florida, but it's even rough getting a room at SSR these days inside of the 7 month window.

Thanks for listening!

 

[Dean Marino]

Deleted.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

Best advice is OLD advice - "BUY where you want to STAY". Get that 11 month booking window.

Please tell me what would happen to availability if every DVC owner took this advice and did not stay anywhere but their home resort?

 

[bwvBound]

Please tell me what would happen to availability if every DVC owner took this advice and did not stay anywhere but their home resort?

For one, you’d hear a whole lot of griping at properties that lack an appropriate distribution across unit types. ’Appropriate’ is a difficult word to define. The inventory mix should be optimized to best meet the owner’s actual usage needs for studios, 1BRs, 2BRs, 3BRs, and specialty units.

This would make for some interesting conversations at Poly and, perhaps, CCV.

 

[AvidDisReader]

Answer to Disney1fan2002--(totally tongue in cheek)--you would be Forced to stay where bought.

 

[Sandisw]

Please tell me what would happen to availability if every DVC owner took this advice and did not stay anywhere but their home resort?

Trading out would be difficult. But, that is part of a points based system. You get to stay lots of places, with only one drawback. And that is there has to be rooms available to trade into. The more points and DVC members there are, the harder that becomes. Especially if people decide it is not worth the hassle anymore to change at 7 months.

I own own 500 SSR points as part of my 800 total. And the purpose was to use them elsewhere. However, if I can’t get what I want, I’ll use them at SSR..I figured the savings made it worth the gamble. But I am now at a point that I can be very flexible with my dates...retired..which adds to my ability to do this and was a motivating factor when we decided to buy there.

But I own BWV for Food and Wine and when I book there at 11 months, it doesn’t ever change. I hope to soon own RIV and when I have those, they will be used to stay there most of the time.

So, the more owners book their points at home resorts and don’t change, the less change others have.

 

[Dean Marino]

Deleted.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

Answer to Disney1fan2002--(totally tongue in cheek)--you would be Forced to stay where bought.

Aaahh, but would I really be able to? If everyone that bought OKW only stayed at OKW, I believe it would be very difficult to get a room, even at the 11 month window. Busy times? Forget it. Oh, I'm sure I could get a room, but would I be able to get one on the dates that I want to travel?

Once DVC began expanding, the system was designed around the assumption that owners would be trading out. If everyone only stayed where they bought, if you think walking is bad now....HA HA HA HA HA

 

[Brian Noble]

The more points and DVC members there are, the harder that becomes.

This doesn't *have* to be true--because more members and more points also means more rooms declared in inventory. If demand were perfectly captured by the point charts across the entire system, it wouldn't matter how many owners/points/rooms there were. There would be a room for every owner's desired stay.

Aaahh, but would I really be able to? If everyone that bought OKW only stayed at OKW, I believe it would be very difficult to get a room, even at the 11 month window.

Again, you could if demand were perfectly captured by the point chart.

And, that doesn't seem to be true at almost any resort, at least because studios are more popular and are booked faster than everything else. The point charts don't accurately capture the demand of studios vs. larger units, and studios are "under-pointed" (they cost too little relative to demand) while larger units cost too much. Likewise for Fall Frenzy; those seasons cost too little and the others too much.

I don't think perfect allocation is ever possible. But, there seem to be some fairly clear issues. They are presumably also clear to DVCMC, and they must not be "serious enough" because they have yet to do anything about these---and they have tweaked weekend vs. weekday ratios in the past, so we know there is a point at which they might.

 

[Sandisw]

This doesn't *have* to be true--because more members and more points also means more rooms declared in inventory. If demand were perfectly captured by the point charts across the entire system, it wouldn't matter how many owners/points/rooms there were. There would be a room for every owner's desired stay.


Again, you could if demand were perfectly captured by the point chart.

And, that doesn't seem to be true at almost any resort, at least because studios are more popular and are booked faster than everything else. The point charts don't accurately capture the demand of studios vs. larger units, and studios are "under-pointed" (they cost too little relative to demand) while larger units cost too much. Likewise for Fall Frenzy; those seasons cost too little and the others too much.

I don't think perfect allocation is ever possible. But, there seem to be some fairly clear issues. They are presumably also clear to DVCMC, and they must not be "serious enough" because they have yet to do anything about these---and they have tweaked weekend vs. weekday ratios in the past, so we know there is a point at which they might.

Yes, more owners mean more rooms but unless the resorts all have the same appeal and an equal number of owners wanting out that want in, it will be tougher and tougher to book at 7 months,

But, I do agree the charts could be adjusted by season and studio.1 bedrooms to make things better, But no matter what they do, IMO, certain resorts and/or room types will be tough. I own BWV for F & W and studios. Even if they changed that timeframe to Magic Season, I’d still book there. And I am sure there are others who would do the same, leaving it just as difficult to trade in at 7 months.

 

[CarolMN]

...............(snip)…….........I don't think perfect allocation is ever possible. But, there seem to be some fairly clear issues. They are presumably also clear to DVCMC, and they must not be "serious enough" because they have yet to do anything about these---and they have tweaked weekend vs. weekday ratios in the past, so we know there is a point at which they might.

Agree that they MIGHT and could, but IMO, it's not very likely. They were ending up with a lot of unbooked weekend nights and that was the real impetus for that change. There doesn't seem to be a pattern for unbooked nights at this time, although anecdotally, 1 bedrooms fill later than studios & 2 bedrooms.

Really don't think DVCMC cares about WHO gets a particular villa or if booking doesn't seem "fair" to those who are disappointed. IOW, if demand exceeds supply, some will always end up disappointed, but as long as system as a whole doesn't end up with a discernable pattern of unbooked nights, they don't care or have to do anything. JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Brian Noble]

Really don't think DVCMC cares about WHO gets a particular villa or if booking doesn't seem "fair" to those who are disappointed. IOW, if demand exceeds supply, some will always end up disappointed, but as long as system as a whole doesn't end up with a discernable pattern of unbooked nights, they don't care or have to do anything. JMHO. YMMV.

I think this is exactly right. The goal is to have as many room-nights as possible "booked" by Members, either by using points directly or by exchanging them out to RCI, Disney collection, DCL, etc. As long as that is happening, the system is in some sense "balanced".

 

[crisi]

Really don't think DVCMC cares about WHO gets a particular villa or if booking doesn't seem "fair" to those who are disappointed. IOW, if demand exceeds supply, some will always end up disappointed, but as long as system as a whole doesn't end up with a discernable pattern of unbooked nights, they don't care or have to do anything. JMHO. YMMV.

I think that is true, and I also think that is disappointing. More of an effort could have been made fifteen years ago to try and keep a balanced system, but Disney didn't choose to do so. For those of us that are happy to plan a year in advance and book at home - or want things that are less usual (I'm not using my BWV points at home right now - we are using them at HHI in February - its EASY to get HHI in February.) it hasn't impacted us, but I do wish they'd made different choices.

 

[Jenniebee]

Really don't think DVCMC cares about WHO gets a particular villa or if booking doesn't seem "fair" to those who are disappointed. IOW, if demand exceeds supply, some will always end up disappointed, but as long as system as a whole doesn't end up with a discernable pattern of unbooked nights, they don't care or have to do anything. JMHO. YMMV.

Right, becuase it sounds like what the "problem" is, is someone wanting to book a standard facing studio at X resort for X week and not bring able to. So what that person ends up doing is either booking something else, or buying more points so they can get what they want. Either way, the bottom line of DVC is not being affected. It sounds like to me from the DVC/DVD point of view, rooms are booking, people are buying and business is good. The only areas that seem to be going empty based on just what I am reading here are the bungalows and cabins, and blocks of SSR rooms, that eventually do fill up to those who book late. So in their eyes, there is no problem. It's a first come first serve system.

 

[bakerworld]

To my way of thinking, as long as the economy is good and people have paying jobs than they're going on vacation so every place is being impacted - not just WDW. When jobs take a hit and people need to watch their funds then they'll be plenty of places to stay and ride lines will shorten. Can't say I can find my first cheap seat but I can find a seat, it's just costing me more than anticipated.