Reservation Walking Banned by Disney

[piccolopat]

Do people walking or modifying a reservation do so before new reservations can be made each day?

 

[tx911]

Do people walking or modifying a reservation do so before new reservations can be made each day?

They can't move forward to new dates until the 8am EST. The reason it works is because their previously booked dates will already have overlapped the dates you want by the time your window opens, since you can book a week of days at a time.

 

[tx911]

I hear this argument a lot: Everyone is allowed to do it, so it's ok.

Can we agree that walking only works because most people don't do it? Whether that's by choice or because they are unaware of it or because they own too few point to make it practicable. If everyone did it, it would be worthless.

Walking exploits the majority who don't do it, by putting them at a competitive disadvantage at 11 months.

I'll say again, if the only way the booking system at 11 months can be fair is if everyone walks, it's a broken system.

 

[walt34]

I'll say again, if the only way the booking system at 11 months can be fair is if everyone walks, it's a broken system.

Please define what 'fair' means to you. I'd assume only some kind of lottery system will meet your definition. But would this be 'fair' to people who have a higher need for a specific date? Maybe they have less flexibility in travel dates than others?

You could see it like this: walking allows to put in extra effort to gain a small advantage. I will probably never do it because I'm quite flexibel in my travel dates and not that interested in the high demand times at WDW. So I'll book, sometimes waitlist my dates or choose a different date. But I'm somewhat ok with there being a way to put in extra effort to secure a specific date. Even if, at this time, I don't benefit from this. I would certainly not want any additional restriction that would limit my ability to change reservations just to get rid of walking. But this is just me.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

GWs block other bookings too.

And even when we talk about a 10 room set, if 8 are walked, it doesn't mean 2 are available any given day for booking because a multi-day booking (standard) will then block out a new booking because the unit is full. And those 8 walkers had to start a walk sometimes, and there probably wasn't a magical low demand date for those 10 units.

The people most likely blocked out by walkers want limited, high demand units and would likely have limited success in even a walk-free world.

 

[pmcpmc]

What dos everyone think about Disney instituting a ban on reservation walking? How could they implement that without affecting legitimate cancellations for inability to attend? Could there be a system or set of rules where only so many cancel and adds within a specific date window like 1 week aren't allowed? For example only allow this once per calendar year. What's everyone thoughts on this and how it would open up availability to people wanting to book a contiguous set of vacation days. I assume Disney has the ability to implement some rule like or similar to this for DVC members.

Currently, member services will walk it for you.

 

[davidhr]

I always find these posts so interesting (and entertaining, I must admit).

You can say there are some morality issues with walking. That’s ok. But tomorrow you can log into the system and you’ll have the same chance to start a walk that everybody has. That’s the definition of fair. If you’re choosing not to do it, that’s fine. But it’s your decision. There’s nothing stopping you but your own moral compass. You might be right. You might be not. But it’s your decision.

Now let’s say that we put in place some kind of system to limit modifications and stop walking. Now you have a restriction for modifications that is not up to the owner to choose if they want to use it or not. Let’s say that a very small percentage of owners are affected by these restrictions and they need to modify for valid reasons. But they can’t, because now it’s not up to them to choose. That’s the definition of unfair.

The way I see this is a group that think they’re being affected by walkers because they don’t want to do it, asking for restrictions that will limit modifications for others. But that’s ok because then it’s going to be their (the ones that need to modify) problem.

There’s a funny meme from Shrek that can be used here

 

[tx911]

This whole discussion is kind of moot, because nothing is going to change. It's a lot like political discussions. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

It's a take care of yourself mindset vs. take care of others.

I'll just say this to those who see no issue with walking. I'm glad we never have to go into battle together. I don't think you'd have my back when the sh!t hits the fan

 

[BeachClub2014]

The reservation walking debate is always a fun one to debate and read. There will never be an agreement or a consensus whenever any topic touches on whether something is fair or unfair. Logically, it's hard to argue against walking, given that everyone can "walk" a reservation. Having said that, it also sucks to feel as if you "have" to do so to even have a shot at the room you want during the time you want it. I doubt many DVC'ers signed up for that hassle. I don't have as much heartburn over "walkers" who do it for their own use. My bigger gripe is with the commercial renters who walk premium rooms/times for spec reservations.

Overall, walking sucks, but it's our current reality.

 

[DaveNan]

Any rule explicitly limiting the number of changes also puts "low point owners" at a disadvantage. If a member only has enough points to hold a 2-3 night reservation, they will need to walk (modify their reservation) every day or two. So to walk 2 weeks would require 10+ modifications. But a member with enough points to hold a 7 day reservation will only need to make 2 modifications. Many would all start complaining about how the rules benefit the "rich", and arguably they would be accurate.

Should we allow a member to have a >7 day reservation at a limited quantity category? It is not "fair" that one person is staying in one of the AKV value rooms for 14 days in a row. They shouldn't hog those rooms and lock out other members. Maybe we only allow 2-3 night stays in these coveted rooms during high demand seasons. I jest, but this argument is adjacent. During high demand times there are not enough, high demand, limited quantity rooms, to meet the demand and some members will be disappointed.

 

[DaveNan]

Currently, member services will walk it for you.

Before online modifications were available, using MS was the only way to walk, and it was still done. Adding online modifications made it easier and removed any stigma or hesitation in talking to MS. Walking increased after online modifications were added, but I am glad to have the ability to modify online!!!

 

[Sandisw]

I hear this argument a lot: Everyone is allowed to do it, so it's ok.

Can we agree that walking only works because most people don't do it? Whether that's by choice or because they are unaware of it or because they own too few point to make it practicable. If everyone did it, it would be worthless.

Walking exploits the majority who don't do it, by putting them at a competitive disadvantage at 11 months.

I'll say again, if the only way the booking system at 11 months can be fair is if everyone walks, it's a broken system.

I can’t agree to that. Walking works because the system was built to allow people to make and modify any reservstion without penalty, until 31 days out.

Many rooms can be gotten right at 11 months without walking 100% of the time.

95% of the rooms can be gotten most of the year without walking.

Getting some of the most popular rooms for November and December can require walking because there are simply many more people who want them.

No matter what change is made, a lot more people will get shut out of those rooms than get them.

It’s only going to make some people feel like it’s better…but it’s not going to change the number of people who end up with and without the rooms.

 

[Chuck S]

"Fair" is in the eyes of the beholder.

For instance, I always used FP+ and pre-booked up to 3 attractions per day of my visit, (at Epcot I usually only used 1 or 2) as an onsite guest. Remember, onsite guests pay a premium to DIsney's bottom line, whether they be DVC or cash rooms. One "reason" I heard for discontinuing the pre-booking of rides was to make it "fair" to day guests. You know, the people that stay off site and only go to Disney for a day or two out of their entire vacation.

Is it fair that onsite guests have access to the virtual queue system before off offsite guests do in the mornings?

Another example, before the HA rooms were a seperate booking category, people who needed them, and could not stay in a non-HA room, were competing with fully able bodied guests, who didn't know they were being booked into an HA room, and they who could stay in any room. Which system would be considered fair?

Is it fair that onsite guests can utilize dining booking that allows thwm to book all of their dining reservations on the first day the window opens, rather than day by day like other guests?

Was it "fair" that onsite guests could book their "park reservation" days without competing with day guests?

Is it fair that Annual Passholders still have to use the Park Reservation system when staying onsite, and people with day based ticket media don't?

"Fair" is a circular argument depending upon your individual needs and circumstances, isn't it?

 

[BeachClub2014]

"Fair" is in the eyes of the beholder.

For instance, I always used FP+ and pre-booked up to 3 attractions per day of my visit, (at Epcot I usually only used 1 or 2) as an onsite guest. Remember, onsite guests pay a premium to DIsney's bottom line, whether they be DVC or cash rooms. One "reason" I heard for discontinuing the pre-booking of rides was to make it "fair" to day guests. You know, the people that stay off site and only go to Disney for a day or two out of their entire vacation.

Is it fair that onsite guests have access to the virtual queue system before off offsite guests do in the mornings?

Another example, before the HA rooms were a seperate booking category, people who needed them, and could not stay in a non-HA room, were competing with fully able bodied guests, who didn't know they were being booked into an HA room, and they who could stay in any room. Which system would be considered fair?

Is it fair that onsite guests can utilize dining booking that allows thwm to book all of their gining reservations on the first day the window opens, rather than day by day like other guests?

Was it "fair" that onsite guests could book their "park reservation" days without competing with day guests?

"Fair" is a circular arguement depending upon your indiviual needs and circumstances, isn't it?

I agree that fair is in the eye of the beholder, as is true with many aspects of DVC and Disney.

I think it would be fair for DVC to start charging a change fee to modify your reservation. You feel the need to "walk" a reservation? Fine. You can walk it as long and far as you want, but every change costs $$. You don't want to walk a reservation? Fine. Take your chances at 11 months.

This would be consistent with the evolution of FP to Genie+

 

[Chuck S]

I agree that fair is in the eye of the beholder, as is true with many aspects of DVC and Disney.

I think it would be fair for DVC to start charging a change fee to modify your reservation. You feel the need to "walk" a reservation? Fine. You can walk it as long and far as you want, but every change costs $$. You don't want to walk a reservation? Fine. Take your chances at 11 months.

This would be consistent with the evolution of FP to Genie+

It wouldn't make it more "fair" though for the people that don't have enough points to do that, or who only have enough points to walk one day at a time, would it? And it seems that "fair" is the criteria being used for the base of this discussion thread.

No flexible booking system will ever be really "fair" to everyone no matter what policies are put into place, will it?

One could even say that "fixed week" contracts are totally unfair to the point based members.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree that fair is in the eye of the beholder, as is true with many aspects of DVC and Disney.

I think it would be fair for DVC to start charging a change fee to modify your reservation. You feel the need to "walk" a reservation? Fine. You can walk it as long and far as you want, but every change costs $$. You don't want to walk a reservation? Fine. Take your chances at 11 months.

This would be consistent with the evolution of FP to Genie+

So, those that need to modify and change reservations for reasons other than walking should be forced to pay a fee because a handful of rooms during a few months of the year are being walked?

How would that even make things better for the membership as a whole? Or change the nature of “fair”? Now, those who can afford to pay the fee will still walk, those with lare point contracts will have fewer fees, and those who can’t afford it are shut out.

I’d say that is the opposite of fair, not to mention that the fee would not go back to owners, but rather pay DVC more money.

 

[tx911]

Walking is a classic example of a moral gray zone. It's not overtly wrong, but it's not exactly squeaky clean either.

Some are fine dabbling in gray areas if it's to their own benefit. And that's never going to change.

 

[BeachClub2014]

It wouldn't make it more "fair" though for the people that don't have enough points to do that, or who only have enough points to walk one day at a time, would it? And it seems that "fair" is the criteria being used for the base of this discussion thread.

No flexible booking system will ever be really "fair" to everyone no matter what policies are put into place, will it?

I'm agreeing with you in the sense that "fair" is a ubiquitous concept and is generally only applied in support of one's position. The arguments, pros, and cons on the "walking" issue directly parallel all of the old debates about FP, right? Some people found loopholes to exploit the system to their advantage, all within the rules, yet enough people complained for us to get FP+.....and on and on.

 

[tx911]

So, those that need to modify and change reservations for reasons other than walking should be forced to pay a fee because a handful of rooms during a few months of the year are being walked?

How would that even make things better for the membership as a whole?

I don't know if charging is the answer, but I would definitely be willing to make things a little more difficult on myself, if it meant that the whole system was on a more even playing field in terms of competing for rooms.

 

[BeachClub2014]

So, those that need to modify and change reservations for reasons other than walking should be forced to pay a fee because a handful of rooms during a few months of the year are being walked?

How would that even make things better for the membership as a whole? Or change the nature of “fair”? Now, those who can afford to pay the fee will still walk, those with lare point contracts will have fewer fees, and those who can’t afford it are shut out.

I’d say that is the opposite of fair.

I'm fine with that if your argument must be that extreme. I've made a crap-ton of reservations over the last 20 years and can think of only twice that I HAD to modify one. I'm willing to bet that absent walking, most people never HAVE to change a reservation. They may CHOOSE to do so.....

Plus, I'm not arguing fair. I think it's a silly argument to try and make. I do think you are underestimating the impact of walking, which is fine. I just don't agree that a loophole in the rules should be routinely exploited to the disadvantage of others.