Booted from AKL Club Level for 50th Celebration Week…*update page 15*

[Sandisw]

I haven’t been following DVC for 30 years, but I’ve been around for a few of these unexpected oops that villa you booked 10 months ago is suddenly not available incidents & what strikes me as different this time is the take it or leave it we are moving you to here or you can cancel that folks are getting. If they’re unable to offer a same sized villa elsewhere, at a minimum they should offer to extend the points impacted if the owner opts to cancel, after all they are extending that courtesy to folks who own DVC in travel banned countries.
Good thing our MFs went up 8% this year so we can afford to pay the hotel folks for all of those rooms they’re moving people to & how convenient to schedule the maintenance right when they’re finally re-opening the resort which has been shuttered due to lower demand for months. Hotel side gets to up it’s occupancy % and bottom line to keep the bean counters happy w/ good news for earnings calls & DVC burns through some of that point glut - win/win…not.

As I said, it would have been nice for options beside AKL hotel rooms. We don’t know why they didn’t.

However, these things happen and the remedies are covered per our contract…which one is move to hotels.

In terms of extension of points, that was not required and to have done it was generous during closure as well as now for international owners.

It’s why this situation, as frustrating as it is, is not different than any other time rooms had to be removed because of maintenance and an owner or their guests had to be relocated.

 

[New Mouse]

As I said, it would have been nice for options beside AKL hotel rooms. We don’t know why they didn’t.

However, these things happen and the remedies are covered per our contract…which one is move to hotels.

In terms of extension of points, that was not required and to have done it was generous during closure as well as now for international owners.

It’s why this situation, as frustrating as it is, is not different than any other time rooms had to be removed because of maintenance and an owner or their guests had to be relocated.

I disagree with your overall premise here...either we are bound by the contract or we arent, which is it?

We should not be at the whim of Disneys feelings for the day. I shouldnt have to guess if Disney is going to follow the letter of the law or not.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

Yes, I know the title is very clickbaity, and I apologize! I’m just a little upset at the moment.

Just me and the kidlet are booked for a 50th Celebration trip (for October 1st) and are booked at the DVC side of AKL CL for a week. We just got a call from Member Services saying that due to “maintenance issues” they are moving everyone on that floor (the same floor as the lounge) to the hotel side. Our options are to accept or cancel. I pushed back a little, politely, asking why the maintenance just happened to be every club level room on the same floor as the lounge exactly during the 50th celebration, and why we were being downgraded to a room far from the lounge and without the kitchenette, which I really like to have as a minimum when staying there. She said that other owners had shared the same concerns (duh) and that if I wasn’t cancelling, then my MDE should show the update at some point. I have some difficulty believing that they are moving all of the rooms during that time.

My question is- do you think we have the option to refuse to move? My sense is no, but this is a big downgrade for us as far as I can tell and we are not thrilled with losing the benefits of the kitchenette and the proximity to the lounge. The timing is really suspect to me on this one, with our reservation spanning the 50th and all of the rooms apparently being moved out (or so we were told- this might not be the case). It’s disappointing, to say the least, but if this is in fact a fair trade, I’d love to hear it .

Why not accept the change and then, while you are there, going to those club level rooms and seeing if they are occupied (i.e. guest coming in/out of them)? If they aren't occupied, then you were told the truth and it is what it is. If they are occupied, then you know you were absolutely lied to and you can go from there. I don't think refusing to change will get you anywhere...they will probably just cancel your reservation at that point.

 

[crisi]

I haven’t been following DVC for 30 years, but I’ve been around for a few of these unexpected oops that villa you booked 10 months ago is suddenly not available incidents & what strikes me as different this time is the take it or leave it we are moving you to here or you can cancel that folks are getting. If they’re unable to offer a same sized villa elsewhere, at a minimum they should offer to extend the points impacted if the owner opts to cancel, after all they are extending that courtesy to folks who own DVC in travel banned countries.
Good thing our MFs went up 8% this year so we can afford to pay the hotel folks for all of those rooms they’re moving people to & how convenient to schedule the maintenance right when they’re finally re-opening the resort which has been shuttered due to lower demand for months. Hotel side gets to up it’s occupancy % and bottom line to keep the bean counters happy w/ good news for earnings calls & DVC burns through some of that point glut - win/win…not.

But this is what they have done every time in the past. I have never heard of them extending points for maintenance, nor offering "choices." Its take it or leave it. Every single time.

 

[crisi]

I disagree with your overall premise here...either we are bound by the contract or we arent, which is it?

We should not be at the whim of Disneys feelings for the day. I shouldnt have to guess if Disney is going to follow the letter of the law or not.

They can always give us more than they are contracted to give us. We can give them more than we contracted. Neither party is ENTITLED to more than they are contracted to get. And neither party is REQUIRED to give more than they are contracted to give.

 

[robinb]

Good thing our MFs went up 8% this year so we can afford to pay the hotel folks for all of those rooms they’re moving people to & how convenient to schedule the maintenance right when they’re finally re-opening the resort which has been shuttered due to lower demand for months. Hotel side gets to up it’s occupancy % and bottom line to keep the bean counters happy w/ good news for earnings calls & DVC burns through some of that point glut - win/win…not.

Exactly.

 

[New Mouse]

They can always give us more than they are contracted to give us. We can give them more than we contracted. Neither party is ENTITLED to more than they are contracted to get. And neither party is REQUIRED to give more than they are contracted to give.

In a normal enviornment yes, but not in this one.

By extending others points against the limits of the contract, they have affected my product to benefit someone else. In this case a small group of the membership is still being catered to at the expense of others.

 

[Sandisw]

I disagree with your overall premise here...either we are bound by the contract or we arent, which is it?

We should not be at the whim of Disneys feelings for the day. I shouldnt have to guess if Disney is going to follow the letter of the law or not.

We are bound by them and based on the POS and the property management agreements with have with Disney, not one thing that has happened In this instance is in contrast to either of those.

Disney controls the management and running of the resorts for us. DVCMC hired them to do that. Ask for a copy of that if you don’t have it as it explains their responsibilities and control in detail.

So again, nothing suggests what has been done is outside those lines of any of our contracts. There is no guessing involved.

When things need to be done at the resorts and the rooms are impacted, you are moved to another room. Sometimes there have been choices given.

Again, help me understand specifically from what part of our contracts or the management contracts you believe is at question.

 

[Sandisw]

In a normal enviornment yes, but not in this one.

By extending others points against the limits of the contract, they have affected my product to benefit someone else. In this case a small group of the membership is still being catered to at the expense of others.

So it sounds like you were against the move to help owners during the pandemic?

That Is fair as I felt they kept the return of borrowed points for too long but others did not.

But, they decided to give their own points so I can’t fault them for that since that took less rooms from the system for the rest of us

 

[New Mouse]

So it sounds like you were against the move to help owners during the pandemic?

That Is fair as I felt they kept the return of borrowed points for too long but others did not.

But, they decided to give their own points so I can’t fault them for that since that took less rooms from the system for the rest of us

It was a rock and a hard place as in the case of grand cal they were intentionally closed when it didnt need to be, so I dont think DVC had a leg to stand on there.

My issue with the point extensions (still happening) is that they were sp inconsistent in allowing or denying them that it truly was unfair.

The extensions also hurt the membership as a whole. Those points all should have been forced into exchanges to get them eaten up quicker.

 

[crisi]

It was a rock and a hard place as in the case of grand cal they were intentionally closed when it didnt need to be, so I dont think DVC had a leg to stand on there.

My issue with the point extensions (still happening) is that they were sp inconsistent in allowing or denying them that it truly was unfair.

The extensions also hurt the membership as a whole. Those points all should have been forced into exchanges to get them eaten up quicker.

I would have been fine with saying "its your risk" and not doing a darn thing to help members out who lost points in Covid. I think part of the expectation in this case is that they went so far out of their way with Covid in terms of giving us more than we were contracted to get in the circumstances. And yes, what they did wasn't fair. Some people benefited more than others - and some people are paying the price in borrowing restrictions that didn't get any benefit from extensions.

 

[Sandisw]

It was a rock and a hard place as in the case of grand cal they were intentionally closed when it didnt need to be, so I dont think DVC had a leg to stand on there.

My issue with the point extensions (still happening) is that they were sp inconsistent in allowing or denying them that it truly was unfair.

The extensions also hurt the membership as a whole. Those points all should have been forced into exchanges to get them eaten up quicker.

Definitely some inconsistency happened. But I’d say it didn’t harm the system because those points did actually expire. No owner actually kept their own points.

DVCM simply allowed owners to have points they owned for instead. That is why an owner didn’t get them until their real ones were gone.

So, those points were no longer there for DVC to use because they transferred them to another owner.

 

[New Mouse]

Definitely some inconsistency happened. But I’d say it didn’t harm the system because those points did actually expire. No owner actually kept their own points.

DVCM simply allowed owners to have points they owned for instead. That is why an owner didn’t get them until their real ones were gone.

So, those points were no longer there for DVC to use because they transferred them to another owner.

Correct, which then cause the owners that got those points to bank their own points, rinse and repeat. It made the situation as a whole substantially worse and again it was done arbitrarily so some people were punished while others were rewarded.

 

[Louis morrell]

Definitely some inconsistency happened. But I’d say it didn’t harm the system because those points did actually expire. No owner actually kept their own points.

DVCM simply allowed owners to have points they owned for instead. That is why an owner didn’t get them until their real ones were gone.

So, those points were no longer there for DVC to use because they transferred them to another owner.

Off topic I know but you know this for a fact? Can you provide a link or documentation stating Disney gave away points they owned to cover expiring points during this pandemic?

 

[Sandisw]

Off topic I know but you know this for a fact? Can you provide a link or documentation stating Disney gave away points they owned to cover expiring points during this pandemic?

People had the temporary contracts added to their accounts from resorts they did not own that held the points that were given to them by Disney. People were also told by CMS that the points would be from XYZ resort (more reports were they saw RIV). Those temporary contracts were not added until after the owners points expired and they had to call to use them.

 

[Louis morrell]

People had the temporary contracts added to their accounts from resorts they did not own that held the points that were given to them by Disney. People were also told by CMS that the points would be from XYZ resort (more reports were they saw RIV). Those temporary contracts were not added until after the owners points expired and they had to call to use them.

OK, I can buy that if you are sure this is fact. Now given that the extensions were allowed using Disney's points and the owners points were allowed to expire there can not be a glut of points in the system therefore the borrowing restriction is unnecessary. Maybe I'm missing something

 

[wnielsen1]

OK, I can buy that if you are sure this is fact. Now given that the extensions were allowed using Disney's points and the owners points were allowed to expire there can not be a glut of points in the system therefore the borrowing restriction is unnecessary. Maybe I'm missing something

Perhaps the heavy use of banking in 2020? Borrowed points on canceled reservations being returned to their original UY?

 

[Sandisw]

OK, I can buy that if you are sure this is fact. Now given that the extensions were allowed using Disney's points and the owners points were allowed to expire there can not be a glut of points in the system therefore the borrowing restriction is unnecessary. Maybe I'm missing something

More people banked and DVCM allowed owners to reverse borrowing for over a year.

That is the biggest contributor to the glut of points which is why borrowing has to be restricted.

The expiration of points In the scheme of things was probably a small part. The use by DVC of own points simply translates to those points now being used by owners vs DVCM as cash rooms. And not all extensions worked for all owners. Some still could not travel during that extension as it amounted to about 6 months for most.

Since off topic we can leave it there or continue in a new thread.

 

[CarolMN]

OK, I can buy that if you are sure this is fact. Now given that the extensions were allowed using Disney's points and the owners points were allowed to expire there can not be a glut of points in the system therefore the borrowing restriction is unnecessary. Maybe I'm missing something

We have to remember that many nights totally disappeared during the closure. There is no way to get those back. FWIW, I doubt DVC/DVD had enough points to cover the entire deficit. Points will expire - they have to, before the system (points & availability) can get back in balance again.

DVCMC just decided to "spread the pain" across more of the membership than just those were planning to vacation during the closure. During and right after the closure, there were many reports from upset members who were going to lose points. Now there are many reports from members angry about the borrowing restriction. There was no simple solution then and there isn't one now. There are still many international members who are unable to travel.

I believe the borrowing restriction will be with us for at least the next 1- 2 years. Like it or not, we will need to plan accordingly.

 

[TFeldy26]

Soooo....who's going to be stalking the rooms being cancelled during their stay, to see if they really are closed for maintenance or have guests staying in them????