• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Marriott or Interval Cancelled Our Grande Ocean Exchange

Status
Not open for further replies.

Superchief

TUG Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
2,843
Points
448
Location
Cincinnati, OH
I have read several posts regarding II cancellations due to resort hurricane issues. I would be interested to learn whether insurance claims are successful for these circumstances, even if II offers their 'restricted' replacement weeks. The insurance may consider this to be an excuse not to reimbursing your MF's for the exchanged week.

I totally agree with others that it isn't right to allow those displaced from other resorts to use the available space rather than someone with a confirmed reservation (even II). That totally contradicts the idea of 'ownership' at a resort. II exchangers are actually using an 'owned' week that has been deposited. I support owners having priority over non-owners if capacity is restricted due to damage at some units. However, Encore weeks at other resorts having priority really pisses me off.
 

tschwa2

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
16,002
Reaction score
4,676
Points
748
Location
Maryland
Resorts Owned
A few in S and VA, a single resort in NC, MD, PA, and UT, plus Jamaica and the Bahamas
I have read several posts regarding II cancellations due to resort hurricane issues. I would be interested to learn whether insurance claims are successful for these circumstances, even if II offers their 'restricted' replacement weeks. The insurance may consider this to be an excuse not to reimbursing your MF's for the exchanged week.

I totally agree with others that it isn't right to allow those displaced from other resorts to use the available space rather than someone with a confirmed reservation (even II). That totally contradicts the idea of 'ownership' at a resort. II exchangers are actually using an 'owned' week that has been deposited. I support owners having priority over non-owners if capacity is restricted due to damage at some units. However, Encore weeks at other resorts having priority really pisses me off.
My understanding with II is that if you have an event where insurance may be applicable and purchased insurance through II, you can not take advantage of any retrade (including eplus or marriott to Marriott free retrades) or accept any kind of AC or replacement week from II. Problem with that is if you go through insurance and it is determined that the insurance doesn't apply it would be too late for a retrade or to request a replacement week. It may work otherwise with insurance bought from a third party or they may also check with interval and automatically deny the insurance if any type of replacement or retrade is accepted.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,354
Reaction score
18,916
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
This is exactly what Jim was referring to. Turning to the local media won't help. This is actually portrayed as a positive, where for impacted owners, it isn't.
Agreed. It appears 'they' got to the media ... (cue dark conspiratorial music).
 

tiel

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
788
Reaction score
129
Points
253
Location
FL
I've been following this thread since the beginning, and am dumbfounded at this point. The MVC decision that effectively treated the HHI resorts as one is outrageous, and a terrible precedent. Having a hierarchical cancellation procedure within a single resort is sensible and desirable for such situations, but applying such a procedure across all the resorts on the island is totally unacceptable, and I would guess inherently uneven and unfair, at a minimum. And to give precedence to Encore reservations over exchangers or any other group is...well, I just don't know what to say.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,354
Reaction score
18,916
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
A couple in the GO pool right now that lost their week at GO last week due to hurricane (they stayed in hotel off island for the evacuation time) and this week they were supposed to be at Monarch on a 4 night Encore package, and were accommodated here at GO for the 4 nights of the Encore. If I'm JIMinNC, that really pisses me off.
It seems that MVC is prioritizing inventory that they own/control above II exchangers. Encore packages come from inventory that Marriott controls or owns. I can see their thinking on this, they don't want to piss off someone that is potentially going to spend tens of thousands of dollars, but what about the owners that already own that already spent the tens of thousands of dollars. There is also an owner behind most exchanges, on either side, so again someone that potentially spent tens of thousands of dollars. I doubt they are looking at how much someone is spending, but it seems that their owned inventory is more important that what we own or have usage rights to. Rather disappointing.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,580
Points
648
I've been following this thread since the beginning, and am dumbfounded at this point. The MVC decision that effectively treated the HHI resorts as one is outrageous, and a terrible precedent. Having a hierarchical cancellation procedure within a single resort is sensible and desirable for such situations, but applying such a procedure across all the resorts on the island is totally unacceptable, and I would guess inherently uneven and unfair, at a minimum. And to give precedence to Encore reservations over exchangers or any other group is...well, I just don't know what to say.
I think they made that decision long ago. Two precedents come to mind. One is allowing one to stay in a resort until the room is ready no matter the same or a neighboring resort. The other, and I believe it started with the HHI resorts as a sales tactic, the 13 month reservation window for multiple resorts. For a few years there were those that tried to argue that it was only for weeks owned at a given resort. Personally I think by resort would have been best but I can see how they could treat them more as a package. As for prioritizing over exchangers, they do that routinely and daily for villa assignments. Granted all of those issues are on a smaller scale but it does give a glimpse as to how they could approach it this way. I personally think doing so favoring owners over exchangers is very reasonable.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,354
Reaction score
18,916
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
I personally think doing so favoring owners over exchangers is very reasonable.
I would agree, if it is all within the same resort, not across resorts. One they move an owner from one resort to another, that person is no longer an owner at the resort they moved them to.It also seems though that they are prioritizing Encore package stays over II exchanges. I don't think that is reasonable at all.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,580
Points
648
I would agree, if it is all within the same resort, not across resorts. One they move an owner from one resort to another, that person is no longer an owner at the resort they moved them to.It also seems though that they are prioritizing Encore package stays over II exchanges. I don't think that is reasonable at all.
I'm not sure it's obviously right one way and obviously wrong the other. In a sense it's micromanaging vs micromanaging. This was a difficult and special situation and it required difficult choices. I don't think it reasonable to vilify Marriott with the choices they made even if we might have made different choices. There is also other info we don't have they they did such as the number of each category within each resort. That info potentially allows you to maximize the results with the least aggravation. But to favor owners in general over exchangers even across resorts is reasonable, esp when you consider that the DC basically does this anyway.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,354
Reaction score
18,916
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
But to favor owners in general over exchangers even across resorts is reasonable,
Guess we will have to agree to disagree..
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,612
Reaction score
5,778
Points
1,249
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
I think they made that decision long ago. Two precedents come to mind. One is allowing one to stay in a resort until the room is ready no matter the same or a neighboring resort. The other, and I believe it started with the HHI resorts as a sales tactic, the 13 month reservation window for multiple resorts. For a few years there were those that tried to argue that it was only for weeks owned at a given resort. Personally I think by resort would have been best but I can see how they could treat them more as a package. As for prioritizing over exchangers, they do that routinely and daily for villa assignments. Granted all of those issues are on a smaller scale but it does give a glimpse as to how they could approach it this way. I personally think doing so favoring owners over exchangers is very reasonable.

I don't see any comparison between the (IMO needlessly controversial) way they've partially reopened resorts and either of the two "precedents" you've mentioned.

The first, allowing guests with consecutive stays at nearby resorts to remain in the first unit until the second is ready, doesn't inconvenience existing or incoming guests in any way and it doesn't place the moving guests any higher or lower than they'd be in the hierarchy for placement in the next unit. All it does is give those guests a little bit more convenience on moving day. We've done this umpteen times over the years on HHI - during none of those stays were we still in a unit as outgoing guests past 1pm at the latest, which left plenty of time for housecleaning to be done before the 4pm check-in time for the incoming guests.

The second, allowing the 13-mos Reservation Window to be used for consecutive stays at different resorts, came about because of a change in the governing docs of newer resorts in which the language expressly allowed it for different resorts. Following that MVC chose to exercise their right to uniformly manage all resorts by allowing it for all multi-Weeks Owners. In that situation I think that was the correct choice, effectively giving something more than what's in the governing docs to some Owners instead of taking away from others what is expressly in theirs. It may well be that the same-resort/different-resorts change was conceived as a way to drive sales, I guess, but once it was integrated into the governing docs it became something much more than just a sales tactic. I have no idea which was the first new resort to come online without the same-report restriction, if it was a HHI resort or not, but I know Barony Beach docs specify same-resort and SurfWatch's don't.

One final point, the only group of MVC resorts legally-designated as a "cluster" with reciprocal reservation rights is the Florida Club. Although the eight HHI resorts are within close proximity, they're not in any way legally-designated collectively as a single group. The guests displaced at Monarch or wherever had as much legal right to a unit confirmed to someone else at Newport Coast Villas or Maui Ocean Club or any other MVC unit as they did to one in Grande Ocean. (Which should be terrifying to all of us, because MVW has now shown us that apparently they have a right to move/cancel confirmed guests willy-nilly when it suits their purpose.)

We're, too, going to have to agree to disagree about MVW's reopening practices following Hurricane Irma, especially with the new report that Encore guests were prioritized higher than II exchangers. In all the Priority Placement variations that we've seen quoted on TUG over the years, none have ever stated that! I still think that the only fair way to have done it, if reopening at less than capacity was unavoidable, was to cancel guests at only the affected resorts prioritizing them according to the dates that actual guests' names were added to confirmed reservations. What we're hearing is nowhere near fair or smart, IMO.

GRRRR.
 
Last edited:

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,580
Points
648
Guess we will have to agree to disagree..
That's fine, I understand both sides but frankly, not the inability for others to see both sides. To be honest, the up in arms concerns me more about the membership than the decision does about Marriott's management, I guess it's a sign of the times. I think we can assume this was handled at the top with input from several top level people and a consensus decision. Regardless there is no slippery slope here. It's also very likely that a legal representative was involved as well as II to some degree before a final decision were made. I suspect they have a disaster plan in place that at least gives some predefined guidance. I find myself wondering about the wording & specifics of the Marriott-II contract and how it would apply here.
 

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,354
Reaction score
18,916
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
That's fine, I understand both sides but frankly, not the inability for others to see both sides.
I never said I didn't see both sides, I just don't agree with it. That is all...

Even if there is a legal person or persons behind the scenes assisting, it doesn't necessarily make their decisions correct or even legal. Sometimes it comes down to risk vs reward. Not a legal right to do something or not. Companies lose lawsuits all the time where their legal team made the initial decision that was found to not be legal.
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,580
Points
648
I never said I didn't see both sides, I just don't agree with it. That is all...

Even if there is a legal person or persons behind the scenes assisting, it doesn't necessarily make their decisions correct or even legal. Sometimes it comes down to risk vs reward. Not a legal right to do something or not. Companies lose lawsuits all the time where their legal team made the initial decision that was found to not be legal.
I haven't seen any post suggesting they didn't have the legal right under the POS for the resorts involved though I haven't reviewed my POS from MGO or Surfwatch in this regard. Maybe I should have said that I don't see the reasonableness of the "How Dare They" opinion.
 

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
I want to give MVW the benefit of the doubt but the absolute best I can come up with is that following on the heels of closures due to Hurricane Matthew last year, they didn't want to assume the risk of losing any more of their revenue from Irma's effects than the bare minimum. So instead of keeping the impacted resorts closed for another week to get all units up and running, someone came up with the stupid idea of shuffling arbitrarily-chosen VIP's all over the island but gave no thought to the public relations nightmare that would cause. Then on top of that, they added insult to injury by doing the same thing they did following Matthew which was to tell displaced/cancelled guests that all normal cancelation policies would apply so no credits or refunds unless they'd ponied up for travel insurance. (I didn't disagree as strongly following Matthew but MVW didn't bungle those re-openings, and, MVW's competitors are currently relaxing cancellation/refund rules for Irma-impacted guests.)

What a freakin mess. JIMinNC, I think MVW should be reimbursing the cost of your cash stay at their competitor. Not because they're legally obligated, which of course they're not, but because they owe it to you to make up for the way they've totally mishandled this event. Don't give up, don't give in. Go straight to the top and let him know that you are as important as any other guest/owner, certainly as important as any guest who may have been given your accommodations. GRRRR.

I get the idea of trying to minimize the displacement of owners as much as possible (without getting further into the merits of shuffling owners among MVCI properties like they were Marriott Hotels guests). I am bothered by the reference in red above. I understand and accept the risk (unless I buy insurance) that a storm could shut down a resort I have an upcoming reservation at. My reservation is for 'x' resort. 'x' resort is closed due to damage. I'm out my reservation unless I bought insurance. If this was an II exchange, I could try for some type of replacement reservation/week. If this was an ownership (weeks or points) reservation, maybe MVCI can offer me an alternate internal exchange/reservation or I can at least get my points back.

Without insurance, if II gives me a replacement week of any kind because I cannot occupy my reserved resort due to it being closed - that's great on II's part. Similarly, without insurance, if MVCI can provide me an alternate internal exchange of my week using unassigned inventory (either to HHI for the same dates using this discussion as the example, or elsewhere at another time) or I get my DC points back (albeit in a holding account), great.

Here's my rub.

I'm not the owner being accommodated, I'm the II exchanger or the week/points owner that is being bumped from a resort that is open with a reserved unit that is ready for me to occupy. Having my reservation cancelled to give it to someone else whose resort is closed was not an act of nature, it was an act of corporate.

If MVCI wants to accommodate displaced owners from other MVCI resorts using any unassigned inventory, so be it. Their efforts to salvage vacations for their owners and exchangers is praiseworthy.

What is not praiseworthy is taking assigned inventory away from others at other resorts and then trying to put the responsibility for those owners/exchangers losing their vacations on them. "Well, I guess you should have bought insurance." Really? Is there coverage for a corporate hatchet job?

The folks who should have bought insurance are those with the reservations at the resorts that are closed due to damage. To take away my valid/available reservation and give it to them instead, is transferring their assumption of risk to me. That is not right. I assumed my own risk when I chose whether to buy insurance for my own reservation (as did they). To make me liable for their risk as well as my own is wrong.

MVCI is now saying there are 2 travel risks to buy insurance for (because if the storm doesn't take out your reservation, corporate still may and give it away).

If MVCI's own actions are the reason I cannot occupy a reserved unit (and not Hurricane whomever), then a points reservations should be restored without the holding account restriction, the opportunity to still use my week should be made available to me (even if that means opening up unassigned inventory in a season or possibly at a resort I don't own - they moved owners among properties on HHI, so it must be a viable option), and MVCI should provide an unrestricted replacement week with Marriott preference through II for exchanges made by owners.

Every coin has 2 sides and while MVCI may be trying hard on its face to help some owners there are others who are getting the tail end. My suggestions immediately above would make it less one-sided, and perhaps cause MVCI to think a little longer before doing this again (if it meant they would be offering up my suggestions as compensation to those they were taking reservations from).
 
Last edited:

Superchief

TUG Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
2,843
Points
448
Location
Cincinnati, OH
I think this illustrates where corporate priorities have evolved. The Bill Marriott family recognized that treating customers and employees right would result in long term profits and customer loyalty. This is the primary reason I became a long-term loyal Marriott customer and multiple week timeshare owner. I trusted the company to keep their word and keep my ownership interest as a priority.

MVC, Marriott, and most large corporations today are driven by Wall Street and short term profits. I'm sure they used 'opportunity for future sale' as a key criteria in prioritizing an Encore customer at another resort over an II exchanger (including MVC owners exchanging into home resort). As a result, the value of an II exchange option has been greatly diminished since MVC can arbitrarily prioritize guests at other resorts over a confirmed exchange. This will likely hurt II in the long term because many (including myself) will stop using II for exchanges. I have also lost my trust that MVC will make future decisions with my interests in mind. :mad:
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,612
Reaction score
5,778
Points
1,249
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
I haven't seen any post suggesting they didn't have the legal right under the POS for the resorts involved though I haven't reviewed my POS from MGO or Surfwatch in this regard. Maybe I should have said that I don't see the reasonableness of the "How Dare They" opinion.

I guess that'd be me but my reaction isn't so much, "how dare they!" as "couldn't they have found a better way?"

They dare because they can, apparently. But even if what they did would survive a legal challenge (which I tend to think like you do that it would, especially in the cases similar to Jim's where the resort was closed on the actual check-in day) it's IMO simply not a good look for them, not at all. At the very least they should have been consistently on message about what they were doing, but they also could have given replacement Weeks with actual value to those affected. They do that routinely for new owners of external resales out of the goodness of their hearts, don't they? In Jim's case specifically, he'd been in touch with them so they already knew he'd be arriving a day late anyway, which lined up with the resort opening, so why couldn't they have allowed him his stay?

Honestly, I understand the need for them to not set a precedent whereby they'd be giving away the store in direct conflict to stated rules and procedures. But this is the second year in a row that these resorts have been impacted by storms that the region hasn't seen for decades. Some of the people affected by MVW's merry-go-round of guest moves and cancellations are going to have to pony up again for a Special Assessment to cover the catastrophic insurance deductible for damages that resulted in these units being closed.

All over the news coverage we're being bombarded with exhortations to reach deep into ourselves for empathy and our pocketbooks for hard cash in order to help those affected, which is entirely correct. As a hospitality company of a sort it should have come naturally for Marriott Vacations Worldwide to limit disruptions to owners/guests, and where it was unavoidable to compensate them in some fashion. They didn't do that, and all I'm saying is that this is one of the rare times when MVW has disappointed me.

I'll take back every bad word I've thought and said about them IF we learn that they sheltered displaced local residents in the units that they indiscriminately took from owners/guests. THAT would be understandable.
 
Last edited:

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,612
Reaction score
5,778
Points
1,249
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
Agreed. It appears 'they' got to the media ... (cue dark conspiratorial music).

I don't know it for certain but have no doubt that MVW contacted a trusted local writer and asked for the space and the specifically-slanted story. So somewhere in all the confusion and their being so busy that they couldn't take the time to fully explain their machinations to affected owners/guests, they prioritized their need to publicly get ahead of what they knew would be perceived as a bad response to a worse situation. <sigh>
 

Dean

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
3,580
Points
648
I guess that'd be me but my reaction isn't so much, "how dare they!" as "couldn't they have found a better way?"

They dare because they can, apparently. But even if what they did would survive a legal challenge (which I tend to think like you do that it would, especially in the cases similar to Jim's where the resort was closed on the actual check-in day) it's IMO simply not a good look for them, not at all. At the very least they should have been consistently on message about what they were doing, but they also could have given replacement Weeks with actual value to those affected. They do that routinely for new owners of external resales out of the goodness of their hearts, don't they? In Jim's case specifically, he'd been in touch with them so they already knew he'd be arriving a day late anyway, which lined up with the resort opening, so why couldn't they have allowed him his stay?

Honestly, I understand the need for them to not set a precedent whereby they'd be giving away the store in direct conflict to stated rules and procedures. But this is the second year in a row that these resorts have been impacted by storms that the region hasn't seen for decades. Some of the people affected by MVW's merry-go-round of guest moves and cancellations are going to have to pony up again for a Special Assessment to cover the catastrophic insurance deductible for damages that resulted in these units being closed.

All over the news coverage we're being bombarded with exhortations to reach deep into ourselves for empathy and our pocketbooks for hard cash in order to help those affected, which is entirely correct. As a hospitality company of a sort it should have come naturally for Marriott Vacations Worldwide to limit disruptions to owners/guests, and where it was unavoidable to compensate them in some fashion. They didn't do that, and all I'm saying is that this is one of the rare times when MVW has disappointed me.

I'll take back every bad word I've thought and said about them IF we learn that they sheltered displaced local residents in the units that they indiscriminately took from owners/guests. THAT would be understandable.
That's the question, WHAT is the better way. I'd say doing it resort by resort is best all else equal but second choice, looking at the resorts as a group and owners first at maybe 60/40. And we really don't know the rest of the information they have including the mix of owners, exchangers, cash, etc compared to the resorts in question. Apparently they felt this was the better way. They had tough choices to make and I'm a concerned at the lack of realization of that issue even if we disagree with their end choice. IMO, the only way to hold they they truly SHOULD not have done it this way would be to hold the opinion that they did not have the legal right to do so based on the POS and timeshare laws applicable. Otherwise it's just make a choice and go forward. They could have simply closed the resorts longer rather than fighting to keep some of them open and accommodate as many as possible. Then everyone would have been out of luck. While I don't get trip insurance as a rule, this is the reason it's available. It's a chance we all take.
 

dewdrops

newbie
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
65
Reaction score
12
Points
168
Location
bay area, california
Was GO checking other squatting guests/owners from other HHI resorts and ENCORE guests in on the FRIDAY they told the OP that the resort was closed?

Just trying to clarify what the facts are.

If II rules say cancel when first day of checkin not available (and not call every exchanger to see if acceptable), then that means the week was freed up, NO?

Did GO also cancel the DC checkin's on that Friday? Because the points allow day by day so that seems they could have called the guest.

Did GO cancel owners using their own week that had a checkin on that Friday?

And II/Marriott also canceled the checkin's on the Thursday before too.
 
Last edited:

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,428
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
I'm sure they used 'opportunity for future sale' as a key criteria in prioritizing an Encore customer at another resort over an II exchanger (including MVC owners exchanging into home resort).

Except that they missed the boat because this bumped II exchanger was also an "opportunity for a future sale". When we received the standard call from Sales a few days prior to our scheduled Grande Ocean check-in, we had booked an "owner update" for last Tuesday to discuss our options for adding to our ownership. Then, two days after we scheduled the presentation, our exchange was cancelled. Sales apparently didn't even know that we were cancelled because, on Monday, we received a call from Sales reconfirming our presentation, thinking we were at Grande Ocean as planned. They seemed surprised we had been cancelled and tried to get us to come to the presentation anyway since we were on the island. We obviously told them we were in no frame of mind right now to talk about spending more money with MVC. The "Sales Concierge" took my phone number and said a manager would be in touch, but no call ever came.
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,612
Reaction score
5,778
Points
1,249
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
That's the question, WHAT is the better way. I'd say doing it resort by resort is best all else equal but second choice, looking at the resorts as a group and owners first at maybe 60/40. And we really don't know the rest of the information they have including the mix of owners, exchangers, cash, etc compared to the resorts in question. Apparently they felt this was the better way. They had tough choices to make and I'm a concerned at the lack of realization of that issue even if we disagree with their end choice. IMO, the only way to hold they they truly SHOULD not have done it this way would be to hold the opinion that they did not have the legal right to do so based on the POS and timeshare laws applicable. Otherwise it's just make a choice and go forward. They could have simply closed the resorts longer rather than fighting to keep some of them open and accommodate as many as possible. Then everyone would have been out of luck. While I don't get trip insurance as a rule, this is the reason it's available. It's a chance we all take.

I'm not comfortable with simply accepting the choice they made. I want them to explain their actions and the justification for them, if for no other reason than they'll consider next time the reaction they're getting now.

Please don't assume that those of us who disagree with MVW's actions here don't realize or understand the difficult position that MVW faced as a result of this storm. I get it. I just don't get their machinations. The eight HHI resorts do not legally constitute a single cluster with reciprocal reservation rights, so the fact that MVW apparently thinks they do needs explaining.

Consider that the Encore guests placed into the unit that conceivably could have been the one for which Jim had a confirmed reservation, would have gotten a telephone call explaining the situation and asking if they'd accept a placement in GO because Monarch was unavailable. If MVW could make those phone calls, why couldn't they have made similar ones first to the guests like Jim who were holding rightful confirmed reservations for those units?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top