The Boat may have sailed, but I continue to let Member Services know....

[ziravan]

To the extent some members believe walking violates the “spirit” of the rules and refuse to engage in the practice, it gives an advantage to those willing to take full advantage of the rules, as currently enforced.

It’s not even an unfair advantage because refusing to engage in an allowed interpretation of the rules is a choice.

From a philosophical ethics point of view, it’s a practical impossibility to get widespread compliance with your view of ethics from people who don’t share your same framework and who aren’t penalized for not doing so.

The practical effect in a competition based environment is unilateral disarmament.

 

[Ben E N]

I'm not sure I understand the vilification of walking while at the same time everyone advocates having a "backup" reservation while working the waitlist. The latter ties up rooms for a lot longer than walking does. And if you're doing the same during the 0-7mo period, each time there's a change you're arguably causing many more shifts in the system than at 11 months, when it's limited by home resort and room type

The significant difference between the two is that people actually intend to use the backup room if their hopeful 7 month reservation does not come through. They are also booking it at the same time that other home resort owners want it, so the competition is equal and fair for the same room.
Walking is intentionally claiming a room that you have no intention of making use of, all so that you can jump ahead in line for a room that other people will want. This both puts you at an unlevel playing field compared to those who are ethically looking to get it, and blocks the rooms availability for those who are looking to actually make use of it during those days.

 

[kboo]

The significant difference between the two is that people actually intend to use the backup room if their hopeful 7 month reservation does not come through. They are also booking it at the same time that other home resort owners want it, so the competition is equal and fair for the same room.
Walking is intentionally claiming a room that you have no intention of making use of, all so that you can jump ahead in line for a room that other people will want. This both puts you at an unlevel playing field compared to those who are ethically looking to get it, and blocks the rooms availability for those who are looking to actually make use of it during those days.

My point is that holding a backup room while piecing together another reservation is that regardless of which room comes through, there is one room/days being held, potentially for months at a time, that the booker has no intention of using. They just don't know which room it is, yet.

Example: Holding Monday - Friday at BWV while trying to get Monday - Friday at BLT, which is fully booked. But I don't WL M-F at BLT because then I'd have to wait for all 5 nights to be open at the same time on a holiday week - highly unlikely.

BWV is my "backup," I'm holding 5 nights there. I see Monday-Tuesday come up because I am stalking or because I use a paid app to send me text alerts. So I have extra points in my UY, so I book Monday-Tuesday at BLT. Now I'm holding 7 room nights at 2 resorts.

a month passes, and someone cancels Friday at BLT. I book Friday, still holding on to BWV. I only need Wed-Thurs nights to complete my stay.

2 more weeks pass, and my waitlist for Thursday night (I waitlist Wednesday and Thursday night separately to have a better chance of getting either) comes through. Now holding 9 nights at 2 resorts.

another month passes, and I get a text alert that Wed night is now available. Even though I have Wednesday night waitlisted, it doesn't match, and I jump in and book it.

THEN I call MS, cancel BWV and link all the separate BLT reservations. How is this less "bad" than walking?

 

[Ben E N]

My point is that holding a backup room while piecing together another reservation is that regardless of which room comes through, there is one room/days being held, potentially for months at a time, that the booker has no intention of using. They just don't know which room it is, yet.

Example: Holding Monday - Friday at BWV while trying to get Monday - Friday at BLT, which is fully booked. But I don't WL M-F at BLT because then I'd have to wait for all 5 nights to be open at the same time on a holiday week - highly unlikely.

BWV is my "backup," I'm holding 5 nights there. I see Monday-Tuesday come up because I am stalking or because I use a paid app to send me text alerts. So I have extra points in my UY, so I book Monday-Tuesday at BLT. Now I'm holding 7 room nights at 2 resorts.

a month passes, and someone cancels Friday at BLT. I book Friday, still holding on to BWV. I only need Wed-Thurs nights to complete my stay.

2 more weeks pass, and my waitlist for Thursday night (I waitlist Wednesday and Thursday night separately to have a better chance of getting either) comes through. Now holding 9 nights at 2 resorts.

another month passes, and I get a text alert that Wed night is now available. Even though I have Wednesday night waitlisted, it doesn't match, and I jump in and book it.

THEN I call MS, cancel BWV and link all the separate BLT reservations. How is this less "bad" than walking?

Yes, you are holding extra rooms, but if something does not come through, you will take at least one of them. It's not 100% "fair" to everyone, but I would consider it to be ethical because you are just trying to get yourself into Disney World. The whole purpose of walking is to cheat your way ahead of someone else, while still clogging up those other days at the same time.
I'm not saying that those who walk are in the wrong to do it. If I am ever desperate for a room, I could see myself doing the same. The rules are the same for everyone, after all. It just feels a little shameful knowing that I would be doing it for the sole purpose of cutting in line of others.

 

[Dean]

Is it?
An easy fix is something that fixes the problem without creating more problems.

I think it is easily fixable. A good wait list system that holds all cancellations and making everything a cancelation and rebooking fixes the problem of walking completely and doesn't cause any problems that should be avoided anyway. So yes, I see it as easily fixable. Where problems arise is when they try to tweak it without actually fixing it by nibbling at it. They could give the option of 14 days which would not make the issue worse if each change were a cancelation and they held days for the wait list first.

I am not opposed to closed the loophole, the contrary. I am opposed to close it in any of the suggested ways so far.
Can you suggest a fix that wouldn't hurt other members?

Every change hurts someone, most help some and hurt others, that's the nature of changes. The stated change doesn't hurt anyone inappropriately, it's neutral for those putting the effort and puts everyone at the same starting point. The only way to see it as negative is just that one might not get what they want playing on equal footing and that's the point, they shouldn't.

I hope people aren’t modifying daily. Depending on how many points you have to work with, you should be able to hold a few days. Best case; they have to call every seven days.

But some are, regardless this creates extra work for MS and that translates into longer hold times for the rest and higher dues.

My thinking is that it will become far less commonplace if it ties-up hundreds of points to walk a single studio during Adventure season.



Anecdotally, a reallocation has been justified for more than a decade. Hasn't happened yet.

It took them 5 years longer than it appeared needed for the second reallocation. Then they hit fairly rapid fire over a few years. They likely should swing weekends back slightly to higher but not as much as before, raise the fall and early winter possibly doing away with adventure completely.

 

[supersnoop]

It seems to me by looking at ****** that the Club Level rooms at AKL need to be walked all year long in order for those who own there to get one. Maybe I'm wrong, but those seem extremely sought after.

There are five of those rooms. I wouldn’t call them “sought after,” but demand exceeds supply.

 

[zavandor]

I think it is easily fixable. A good wait list system that holds all cancellations and making everything a cancelation and rebooking fixes the problem of walking completely and doesn't cause any problems that should be avoided anyway.

Ok, so I should book a DVC vacation and NEVER EVER change it, otherwise I have to cancel and rebook it. If I want to remove a couple of days to go to Universal, or maybe I want to do a split stay try and book a few days in a new DVC resort I cannot. I have to cancel and my reservation would probably go to a waitlist.
Implementing this change would be highly disruptive for all DVC members.
When I bought I knew I had quite a bit of flexibility, including being able to change my reservations until 30 days with no penalty and even until the last minute with points going into holding. We're discussing if walking is "against the spirit of the rules" and to remove it you're suggesting to implement sumething that would remove one of the core features of the DVC points system.
I am strongly against this.

It's like walking is the origin of all evils, anyone who couldn't get the reservation they want is blaming it. The truth is that in a point timeshare not everyone can get exactly what they want when they want it.

 

[Dean]

Ok, so I should book a DVC vacation and NEVER EVER change it, otherwise I have to cancel and rebook it. If I want to remove a couple of days to go to Universal, or maybe I want to do a split stay try and book a few days in a new DVC resort I cannot. I have to cancel and my reservation would probably go to a waitlist.
Implementing this change would be highly disruptive for all DVC members.
When I bought I knew I had quite a bit of flexibility, including being able to change my reservations until 30 days with no penalty and even until the last minute with points going into holding. We're discussing if walking is "against the spirit of the rules" and to remove it you're suggesting to implement sumething that would remove one of the core features of the DVC points system.
I am strongly against this.

It's like walking is the origin of all evils, anyone who couldn't get the reservation they want is blaming it. The truth is that in a point timeshare not everyone can get exactly what they want when they want it.

Exactly, you should only book what you plan to use and if you have to change, you go to the bottom, as it should be. It's that way for every other reservation within DVC.

 

[zavandor]

Exactly, you should only book what you plan to use and if you have to change, you go to the bottom, as it should be. It's that way for every other reservation within DVC.

It is not "as it should be". Maybe in your opinion, but it is certainly not as it has been in the last 26+ years. Implementing this would be a huge change and I bet a change most members would be very unhappy with.

 

[n2mm]

It is not "as it should be". Maybe in your opinion, but it is certainly not as it has been in the last 26+ years. Implementing this would be a huge change and I bet a change most members would be very unhappy with.

I agree. Booking nearly a year in advance is a complete guess for us. Maybe if the member drove to WDW it might not be too bad. When a guest books on cash they can modify with no penalty, so why not dvc members on points. I must be a terrible person because I can guarantee that I’ve modified a reservation after jetblue releases their schedule. I’ve dropped days and I’ve added days. I try hard to choose wisely, but you can only do so much. I don’t walk, but I do book a reservation which I fully know may or may not have to be modified or canceled. To even suggest we ALL are punished by future modification restrictions because a handful of members walk their reservations is no solution.

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

I understand the basics of walking but have never had to do it. How many times, on average, would you say the average walker is calling in to change their dates? 1,2,10 times? I think once it starts going above the 3 or 4 times it gets disruptive to the overall booking process.

What if they allowed something like 2 changes within the 11 month to 10 month period? That way if flight schedules change or you decide to tinker with dates to meet your schedule you can still alter plans without penalty/having to cancel & replace. After two changes within that time there would be some sort of "penalty"...either a fee or subsequent changes are cancels and then a new bookings. I would have to think that if you took the last 100 members who made 3+ changes to their ressie within the 11-10 month time frame a vast majority would be walkers.

I get that altering booking rules to allow less penalty-free changes equates to a reduction in flexibility for some people. But as more people start to walk i think room inventory at the 11 month window will continue to be manipulated where people who want a reservation will be shut out by people who don't really want those dates.

We own at BLT & BWV and bought enough points to stay in the lake view/garden pool views at those resorts. Not getting the STD view isn't a huge deal for us. Whether DVC changes anything probably won't affect me either way. But if i had to choose a side I'd probably vote for changes that eliminate owners booking rooms they have no intention of staying in.

 

[Ben E N]

I like the the title of this thread starts with "the boat may already have sailed on this.." The fact is there is not much that any of us can do about walking, but it does have the potential to turn into a big problem if it is left unchecked.
It is a lot like laying towels out at the pool. If you lay your towel out and then go get a drink from the bar, that seems pretty reasonable. Step that up to leaving your towel out while you go grab lunch, and it may still seem pretty ok. This then leads into people coming to the pools at 9 am, dropping their towels off on chairs, and then not returning to the pool until 1 pm. In doing this, they are forcing other people to do the same in order to get a chair, and now we have a bunch of people who hate those who do this, but are forced into the same system. I think most people are in favor of reasonable policing, such as if a towel is left unused for 2 hours, then staff can remove it from the chair.
Walking could easily become the same sort of big headache. As people realize they cannot get into some rooms during the whole month of October, they will start booking them in September. Those who are looking to get in during September will notice they are locked out, and will start booking in August, and the problem has potential to compound from there. This issue can easily escalate once Poly sells out and people do not want to stay in the Bungalows, and once CCV sells out, and people start fighting for the 9% of points that are dedicated to studios.
There is of course downsides to any change, just as a staff member could accidentally remove the towel of someone who had just run to the bathroom, but the overall intention of making changes would be to benefit us all and make booking rooms less of a headache, not more.

 

[Wakey]

This walking is ridiculous, and benefits those with too much time on their hands. Either implement a solution like Carol suggests on page 1, or only allow, say, 2 modifications per booking, then the whole lot has to be cancelled and rebooked if more changes required.

 

[ziravan]

Exactly, you should only book what you plan to use and if you have to change, you go to the bottom, as it should be. It's that way for every other reservation within DVC.

That's not a fix for walking. Or if it is, it's the equivalent of using a nuke to fix a hangnail. That's your personal preference, and it wouldn't work for DVC. DVC members have had the flexibility of making these types of changes for decades and if DVC suddenly became this restrictive, they'd have a revolt on their hands. I think they know that. I don't see this ever happening.

Here's the thing. One of the main reasons that DVC holds its value compared to other timeshares is that it IS different from other timeshares. 1. They didn't invent, but they did pioneer a points system. When DVC first started, timeshares were sold in blocks of weeks. Today, most of the major timeshares use a points system. Why? Because DVC proved the model. 2. DVC doesn't nickel and dime you to death. Other timeshares add so many fees, they aren't really all that much cheaper a method of travel. This is why I'm opposed to using fees to address walking. Why start down that road? 3. DVC doesn't hassle you endlessly about buying more points while you're on vacation. Now, I think they miss some opportunities here. I wouldn't want them holding a parking pass hostage to my agreeing to attend a timeshare seminar, but if I were DVC, I'd certainly consider stuffing an advertisement into the check-in package inviting non-members staying on points to a free meal/seminar. 4. And yes, DVC allows many more types of modifications than most other timeshares. You think that's a negative. I think you'd find that the vast majority of DVC owners think that's a positive.

DVC could make lots of changes because that what other timeshare do. What made and makes DVC special is that they can afford not to do so. In fact, this is my chief complaint against tiering benefits. They don't have to do this to sell points successfully; they ignore more potential traffic than most timeshares ever see.

I know that you're a consistent advocate of complete cancel for any changes. It's just not realistic; it's never gonna happen. If it ever did, DVC would have a meltdown on their hands bigger than New Coke.

 

[zavandor]

I've just booked a studio at the Beach Club at 7 months for the summer, without the need to walk. BWV standard was available. As a demonstration that there is no need to walk most of the year for most of the DVC rooms. Phenomenon is marginal.
Getting rid of restaurants reservations at 180 days would make my life much easier than eliminate walkers.

But if i had to choose a side I'd probably vote for changes that eliminate owners booking rooms they have no intention of staying in.

The problem is not to vote on removing walking or not. It's the choice between leaving the system as it is or accepting a change that could disrupt us all more.
For example, would you be happy if DVC removes the possibility to modify a reservation? Or make all transactions final and you cannot cancel at all after a booking?

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

The problem is not to vote on removing walking or not. It's the choice between leaving the system as it is or accepting a change that could disrupt us all more.
For example, would you be happy if DVC removes the possibility to modify a reservation? Or make all transactions final and you cannot cancel at all after a booking?

I think your above examples are MAJOR changes. If DVC were to do anything I would say a minor tweak would help alleviate the problem. I don't think DVC should ever eliminate changes 100% or make reservations 100% final. I don't think anyone who is in favor of curbing walking would find those options as viable solutions.

As I said above, I think if DVC limited the changes to 2 or 3 within the 11 month to 10 month period that would eliminate a majority of the walking while still giving people the option and flexibility to move things around right after booking. I think people should still be able to make a few changes within that time frame. Just my last trip at 11 months I booked a week and then found out I had my nieces/nephew's fall break dates wrong. So I moved then to the correct week a few days after booking. But I have a tough time finding too many scenarios where I would have to call and change my dates 5, 6, 10 times other than because I'm walking.

I think if DVC ever does address this issue I don't think their changes will be nearly as extreme as the worst case scenarios you list.

 

[kboo]

I agree. Booking nearly a year in advance is a complete guess for us. Maybe if the member drove to WDW it might not be too bad. When a guest books on cash they can modify with no penalty, so why not dvc members on points. I must be a terrible person because I can guarantee that I’ve modified a reservation after jetblue releases their schedule. I’ve dropped days and I’ve added days. I try hard to choose wisely, but you can only do so much. I don’t walk, but I do book a reservation which I fully know may or may not have to be modified or canceled. To even suggest we ALL are punished by future modification restrictions because a handful of members walk their reservations is no solution.

Usually the best airfares are found between something like 2-5 months in advance (unless you're going at heavy times like holidays and school vacations). For our trip in Feb, it's actually saving us $ to fly down 3 days earlier and spend more time at WDW. In this case, we couldn't add more DVC days, but I could easily see a similar situation when you're already locked in at 7,8, 9, 10, 11 months at DVC and then having to wait months to book airfares. Disallowing cancellations altogether or charging a fee would ultimately reduce the value of those points, which would mess with both direct and resale markets.

 

[kboo]

I think your above examples are MAJOR changes. If DVC were to do anything I would say a minor tweak would help alleviate the problem. I don't think DVC should ever eliminate changes 100% or make reservations 100% final. I don't think anyone who is in favor of curbing walking would find those options as viable solutions.

As I said above, I think if DVC limited the changes to 2 or 3 within the 11 month to 10 month period that would eliminate a majority of the walking while still giving people the option and flexibility to move things around right after booking. I think people should still be able to make a few changes within that time frame. Just my last trip at 11 months I booked a week and then found out I had my nieces/nephew's fall break dates wrong. So I moved then to the correct week a few days after booking. But I have a tough time finding too many scenarios where I would have to call and change my dates 5, 6, 10 times other than because I'm walking.

I think if DVC ever does address this issue I don't think their changes will be nearly as extreme as the worst case scenarios you list.

I have never walked a reservation before, but I think it is totally possible to walk a reservation only by changing it 2-3x. I could be wrong.

 

[ziravan]

There are maybe 5 rooms/times that truly book out at 8 am/11 months leaving some owners without a reservation:

1. BWV standard studio during Fall Frenzy
2. VGF studio during Fall Frenzy
3. Any of the AKV Concierge rooms
4. AKV value rooms.
5. Independence Day and race weekends at more popular studios.

Maybe another dozen rooms/times/cats are close to 8am book outs.

Any change that locks down walking by not allowing moving dates forward is going to change walking to just adding a few days at the beginning of your reservation. If you have enough points for 3 extra days, then including the first real day of your trip, that’s 4 chances to secure the room at 8 am. I’d take four tries over only one shot any day.

The end result is that you might not have as many month long walkers, but that’ll be MORE than made up by intense competition of 2-5 day walkers.

I’d expect in short order that the number of rooms and types that’ll need walking will explode to dozens of rooms/times/cats.

And then it’ll just become a self-feeding new norm.

The new “buy resale and add a 25-point kicker” type of advice will be, “Book as many days early as you have the points to do.”

 

[abner1776]

I have been a DVC member since 2006 and our family has visited WDW probably 20 times during that period and never once had to waitlist, walk a reservation, call at 8 am at 11 months or do any of the other crazy stuff that has gone on...and I have always been able to book a DVC room....how you ask ??...simple...don't go to WDW during the crazy times of the year. We find WDW just as enjoyable in Feb or Sept with smaller crowds and less hassle.