Shut out in 13 month reservation window first time ever.

[MOXJO7282]

For the first time ever I've couldn't get a President week Maui unit at 13 month. Got through to someone at 900am and 1 sec and was so amazed to reach someone so quick and figured I would get what i normally get and was extremely surprised to get totally shut out.

I've never even had a hint of a problem at 13 months and have done so for over 12 years so to get nothing is very concerning. Something obviously has changed and I'll probably never know what.

I guess it's possible more owners this year are trying for winter weeks but it seems more likely if the DC points allotment may have changed and less winter week units are available for weeks owners. Is there a way to determine this? Again not that i can do anything about it but it will be good to know so i can adjust my strategy.

Now I'm calling and they can't take my call because of the volume. Now i'll have to fight at 12 months for 50% of the volume.

 

[dioxide45]

Doesn't today's holiday push the inventory release date forward to Tuesday? I don't think the online inventory release tool accounts for this, but I recall this issue happening in past years. Perhaps try again tomorrow, the rep may not have been aware of this obscure issue and just reported no availability instead of knowing what the real issue was.

Okay, I see this note. It would seem that since Owner Services is open today, that the inventroy should be available today. I would try again tomorrow just to be sure.

NOTE: If a release day falls on a weekend, or a holiday that Owner Services is closed, inventory will be released the following business day.

 

[grupp]

Another thing to consider is some with multiple weeks start their use the week before Presidents week. Those people made their reservations last week and took some of the weeks that are available.

 

[MOXJO7282]

Another thing to consider is some with multiple weeks start their use the week before Presidents week. Those people made their reservations last week and took some of the weeks that are available.

Definitely but that has always been the case so something changed that resulted in my not even getting one unit.

 

[Emi]

May I ask what you own? Is it Lahaina Tower where units are very limited?

Thanks

 

[GregT]

Joe,

I got shut out at the 13 month window when trying to book a 2BR OF in Lahaina Villas for Spring Break 2015. The inventory in the new towers may be less reliable than the inventory in the existing towers.

Good luck, and I hope you get your weeks!

Best,

Greg

 

[SueDonJ]

Remember that the one-month advantage when booking multi-Weeks lasts for the entire month so you can continue trying intermittently between now and the 12-month window opening. It's always been the case that some inventory could open up because owners who book it at the 13-month window later change their minds and cancel.

 

[MOXJO7282]

I'm referring to original tower inventory.

I had a discussion with one of the CSRs to try to figure it out and I suggested it's somehow related to the DC because I'm not sure what could've changed on the weeks side and she dismissed it as impossible but I think it is possible.

If Marriott is buying up weeks in ROFR is it possible they're putting them into the trust and changing the ratio of weeks to DC points and then lowering the allocation of what Marriott makes available for the weeks owners? I'm really ignorant about the DC program so not sure if that is possible but it does sound logical that it might play a part in having no weeks available.

 

[GregT]

I'm referring to original tower inventory.

I had a discussion with one of the CSRs to try to figure it out and I suggested it's somehow related to the DC because I'm not sure what could've changed on the weeks side and she dismissed it as impossible but I think it is possible.

If Marriott is buying up weeks in ROFR is it possible they're putting them into the trust and changing the ratio of weeks to DC points and then lowering the allocation of what Marriott makes available for the weeks owners? I'm really ignorant about the DC program so not sure if that is possible but it does sound logical that it might play a part in having no weeks available.

It is possible, but I don't think that is what is happening here. We were tracking the inventory pretty closely up until about a year ago, and most of the original properties (MOC included) didn't have more than ~25% of the floating week inventory in the Trust. And many had less than that.

Marriott is putting re-acquired (and foreclosed) weeks into the Trust but it is a trickle at this point for MOC. We don't know how they determine what to release for week owners, but our theory has always been that it's the same amount each week, versus stacking the higher demand, or relying on the underlying deeded week. But that's a theory only.

If 25% of the original tower is now being held back for Trust Point reservations, I do think thats where you are seeing decreased supply. It is surprising that you couldn't get your reservation right at 13 months.

Hopefully, it's an MLK thing and the inventory will open up tomorrow after the holiday? Please do let us know.

Best,

Greg

 

[SueDonJ]

I'm referring to original tower inventory.

I had a discussion with one of the CSRs to try to figure it out and I suggested it's somehow related to the DC because I'm not sure what could've changed on the weeks side and she dismissed it as impossible but I think it is possible.

If Marriott is buying up weeks in ROFR is it possible they're putting them into the trust and changing the ratio of weeks to DC points and then lowering the allocation of what Marriott makes available for the weeks owners? I'm really ignorant about the DC program so not sure if that is possible but it does sound logical that it might play a part in having no weeks available.

While it's definitely possible that more Weeks are making their way into the DC pool, that can't happen unless Weeks Owners relinquish their ownership back to MVW who in turn convey it to the Trust, or, owners of enrolled Weeks elect to convert them to DC Points for this year's usage. That affects the number of Weeks available, of course, but it also proportionately decreases the number of Weeks Owners eligible to book home resort usage via Weeks.

 

[Fairwinds]

I'm referring to original tower inventory.

I had a discussion with one of the CSRs to try to figure it out and I suggested it's somehow related to the DC because I'm not sure what could've changed on the weeks side and she dismissed it as impossible but I think it is possible.

If Marriott is buying up weeks in ROFR is it possible they're putting them into the trust and changing the ratio of weeks to DC points and then lowering the allocation of what Marriott makes available for the weeks owners? I'm really ignorant about the DC program so not sure if that is possible but it does sound logical that it might play a part in having no weeks available.

I think we are all ignorant of the precise implications of the D.C. Program at least to some extent but wouldn't that mean that there were fewer weeks owners calling in to reserve weeks reservations, and all would average out? I would hope that there would be some sort of equitable reservation distribution scheme that protected all owners of points and weeks. I've read threads indicating difficulty in obtaining reservations at other resorts as well but 12 of 13 is pretty good so hopefully this is just an anomaly. Good luck

 

[bastroum]

This happens all the time when trying to book in Aruba. I would continue to call every day between now and 12 months to check inventory. In Aruba the days usually show up during that time.

 

[JIMinNC]

While it's definitely possible that more Weeks are making their way into the DC pool, that can't happen unless Weeks Owners relinquish their ownership back to MVW who in turn convey it to the Trust, or, owners of enrolled Weeks elect to convert them to DC Points for this year's usage. That affects the number of Weeks available, of course, but it also proportionately decreases the number of Weeks Owners eligible to book home resort usage via Weeks.

I think we are all ignorant of the precise implications of the D.C. Program at least to some extent but wouldn't that mean that there were fewer weeks owners calling in to reserve weeks reservations, and all would average out? I would hope that there would be some sort of equitable reservation distribution scheme that protected all owners of points and weeks. I've read threads indicating difficulty in obtaining reservations at other resorts as well but 12 of 13 is pretty good so hopefully this is just an anomaly. Good luck

As Susan said, Marriott doesn't "change their allocation." The allocation changes automatically when weeks are either deeded to the Trust (acquired by Marriott) or elected for points by an owner. Because of those factors, there probably is over time, a gradually increasing number of MOC weeks either in the Trust or being elected for points. But that trend proportionately decreases the number of owners competing for reservations. As a result, the supply-demand balance should stay about the same.

I recall some threads over the past year where folks reported that the inventory didn't show up online right at 9am on release day. It then showed up a few hours or days later. I don't recall that issue affecting calling into the call center as you did, but maybe there was a glitch of some kind right at 9am. Have you looked online or tried again since the initial call?

 

[gwhamm]

I for one booked a multiple week vacation for 2018 using our weeks in KoOlina and then followed with President's week in Maui. I made this reservation for 3 consecutive weeks back on 1/5 although the 13 month release date was actually 1/2. We own in the original tower however it is only a 1 bedroom unit, so I didn't take yours Joe.

Our friends who will be meeting us in Hawaii next year use points exclusively (weeks owners but chose to use DC points) were making a reservation for Valentine's week in KoOlina and then 4 or 5 days in Maui booked their KoOlina week on the first release date of 1/10. They were told that they could not make their Maui reservation until 1/17. I'm not a DC points expert so I don't know why they were not able to book at the same time. Would it be because they were booking only a partial week? They are definitely Chairman's level or more with their ownership I would expect.

 

[davidvel]

It really is (should be) irrelevant who owns the weeks, whether it be you, me, Bill Gates, or some trust set up by Marriott. ALL weeks that exist should be available to all owners to try to reserve at 12(13) months. Every owner of any type has a legal right to fairly and equitably compete to reserve ANY week in their season at the appropriate time, regardless of who owns it.

It would only matter if one of the owners also controlled the reservation process and gave itself an unfair advantage in that process , or tried to set up some proportional system to guarantee itself a certain number of intervals, etc. This would be illegal, and many suspect it is occuring.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Our friends who will be meeting us in Hawaii next year use points exclusively (weeks owners but chose to use DC points) were making a reservation for Valentine's week in KoOlina and then 4 or 5 days in Maui booked their KoOlina week on the first release date of 1/10. They were told that they could not make their Maui reservation until 1/17. I'm not a DC points expert so I don't know why they were not able to book at the same time. Would it be because they were booking only a partial week? They are definitely Chairman's level or more with their ownership I would expect.

It's because the DC system doesn't have a "consecutive stay" booking advantage. When using DC Points each separate reservation is subject to its own distinct reservation window, regardless of whether it's consecutive to another Points stay or a Weeks stay.

 

[gblotter]

I'm referring to original tower inventory.

I had a discussion with one of the CSRs to try to figure it out and I suggested it's somehow related to the DC because I'm not sure what could've changed on the weeks side and she dismissed it as impossible but I think it is possible.

I advise you to escalate this situation to a higher level of management. It is impossible that the entire inventory of the original tower would be unavailable at the 13-month mark at 9am. Put the responsibility on MVCI to explain to you what happened to that inventory. As a multi-week owner you have rights and you are entitled to a satisfactory explanation. It is not acceptable for MVCI to simply respond that no inventory is available without further explanation. If needed, they have the ability to look at individual reservations to see how inventory is being allocated.

 

[SueDonJ]

It really is (should be) irrelevant who owns the weeks, whether it be you, me, Bill Gates, or some trust set up by Marriott. ALL weeks that exist should be available to all owners to try to reserve at 12(13) months. Every owner of any type has a legal right to fairly and equitably compete to reserve ANY week in their season at the appropriate time, regardless of who owns it.

It would only matter if one of the owners also controlled the reservation process and gave itself an unfair advantage in that process , or tried to set up some proportional system to guarantee itself a certain number of intervals, etc. This would be illegal, and many suspect it is occuring.

If I'm reading you correctly, I don't think that opening up every interval to every owner is proportional at all, and it's definitely not "legal" based on the wording in the governing docs for my owned Weeks or the DC Exchange Company. The proportional allocation of available intervals is vital to protecting the usage rights of Weeks Owners who do not elect any other usage except home resort usage! What would be "illegal" is MVW allowing DC members to gain access to any owned Weeks whose owners haven't elected other usage, and the docs give them the right to proportionally allocate that inventory across the seasonal calendars. On the flip side, it would also be "illegal" for MVW to allow access by Weeks owners who haven't elected other usage to inventory that is "legally" due to those using DC Points.

Availability has always been first-come-first-served within the parameters of the Reservation Procedures (i.e. window openings, 13/12-month eligibility, exchange capabilities, etc.) Competition among owners/members for available intervals will always exist in a floating timeshare system, especially among the highest-demand intervals. The DC hasn't changed anything in that regard other than, some Weeks Owners are electing to play in Points rather than Weeks which results in decreases of both the available Weeks and the owners vying for them.

 

[JIMinNC]

I advise you to escalate this situation to a higher level of management. It is impossible that the entire inventory of the original tower would be unavailable at the 13-month mark at 9am. Put the responsibility on MVCI to explain to you what happened to that inventory. As a multi-week owner you have rights and you are entitled to a satisfactory explanation. It is not acceptable for MVCI to simply respond that no inventory is available without further explanation. If needed, they have the ability to look at individual reservations to see how inventory is being allocated.

I believe Marriott does not make the entire inventory available at 13 months. Only a portion gets released at 13 months with the rest getting released before or at 12 months. There also has to be availability in your owned category/view. There could be availability in other categories/views.

 

[SueDonJ]

I advise you to escalate this situation to a higher level of management. It is impossible that the entire inventory of the original tower would be unavailable at the 13-month mark at 9am. Put the responsibility on MVCI to explain to you what happened to that inventory. As a multi-week owner you have rights and you are entitled to a satisfactory explanation. It is not acceptable for MVCI to simply respond that no inventory is available without further explanation. If needed, they have the ability to look at individual reservations to see how inventory is being allocated.

The "entire" inventory isn't unavailable, only the 50% proportionate amount that can be released prior to the 12-mos window. How is this any different than when Weeks were the only game in town? Prior to the DC I was sometimes not successful using the 13-month window for consecutive/concurrent Weeks reservations, despite getting in the queue at exactly 9AM. I fully expect that there will continue to be years when that happens simply because of demand factors.

What more can the telephone reps say other than, "sorry, I don't see availability," when there isn't any? Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that the 50% inventory could have been depleted by folks booking Weeks strings prior to the week that Joe wants, so it's not a given that MVW is doing something nefarious here. Are we now at the point where whenever we don't get what we want, "escalate to higher management" is the proper response? I don't get it.

That said, we have seen instances where Weeks inventory has become available in the interim between the 13- and 12-mos window openings. It's always a good idea to keep trying.

 

[MOXJO7282]

I advise you to escalate this situation to a higher level of management. It is impossible that the entire inventory of the original tower would be unavailable at the 13-month mark at 9am. Put the responsibility on MVCI to explain to you what happened to that inventory. As a multi-week owner you have rights and you are entitled to a satisfactory explanation. It is not acceptable for MVCI to simply respond that no inventory is available without further explanation. If needed, they have the ability to look at individual reservations to see how inventory is being allocated.

Trying this. I want to understand how many weeks were released today if that is possible. The first CSR suggested it was possible so I'll try to see what insight a supervisor may be able to provide.

 

[SueDonJ]

Keep in mind, Joe, that the wording isn't exactly that 50% of available units will be released at the 13-mos window for multi-consecutive/concurrent Weeks, with the remaining 50% released at the 12-mos window. The wording is that 50% must be held back to be released at the 12-mos window while the other 50% can be booked according to the 13-mos window Reservation Procedures. The distinction is important because it makes it possible that today there weren't any Weeks available to be released, if they had all been previously booked by Weeks Owners as intervals in consecutive strings that begin prior to this week.

I'm sure somebody somewhere in MVW can answer the questions of 1) how many Weeks intervals were made available to the DC system due to them being Trust conveyances, or, due to Weeks Owners electing other than home resort usage; and 2) how many of the then-remaining Weeks intervals represent the 50% that are being held back for the 12-mos window; and 3) how many of the then-remaining Weeks available to be booked prior to the 12-mos window were booked in consecutive strings prior to today's window opening; and 4, finally) how many did that leave remaining to be booked today?

Maybe it will help you to get all those numbers, but for me it wouldn't do anything to assuage the disappointment I'd feel in not getting my first choice of Weeks reservations. I know, I've been there! And since I wouldn't expect MVW to answer the question in any way that would support nefarious activity on their part, for me it'd be an exercise in both frustration and futility. Of course, YMMV.

 

[MOXJO7282]

I'm just trying to understand why something I've been able to do for many years is now not possible. I'm being very cordial because I know the CSRs can only see what they can see. The one i just spoke with suggested a supervisor can see what was released today so if that is possible If it's not possible to get then I have to adjust my strategy.

I did speak with a supervisor and they could see units released today but wouldn't tell me how many and just said I got lucky in the past if I always got the week and that nothing has changed. So it is what it is and I'll try for the 12 month window and I have to leave it at that although I still believe something in the dynamic changed that I'll need to adjust to.

 

[JIMinNC]

If I'm reading you correctly, I don't think that opening up every interval to every owner is proportional at all, and it's definitely not "legal" based on the wording in the governing docs for my owned Weeks or the DC Exchange Company. The proportional allocation of available intervals is vital to protecting the usage rights of Weeks Owners who do not elect any other usage except home resort usage! What would be "illegal" is MVW allowing DC members to gain access to any owned Weeks whose owners haven't elected other usage, and the docs give them the right to proportionally allocate that inventory across the seasonal calendars. On the flip side, it would also be "illegal" for MVW to allow access of Weeks inventory (not elected for other usage by Owners) to DC Members using DC Points.

Availability has always been first-come-first-served within the parameters of the Reservation Procedures (i.e. window openings, 13/12-month eligibility, exchange capabilities, etc.) Competition among owners/members for available intervals will always exist in a floating timeshare system, especially among the highest-demand intervals. The DC hasn't changed anything in that regard other than, some Weeks Owners are electing to play in Points rather than Weeks which results in decreases of both the available Weeks and the owners vying for them.

I agree with what you wrote, that in order to protect the usage rights in both systems, there has to be some proportional allocation of intervals to the Points and weeks systems. But as I understand David's concern that he has expressed above and in other threads, he is concerned that Marriott could play games to benefit the DC system over the weeks system. Using a simplistic example, if a given resort had 25% of it's units either owned by the Trust or available to the DC Exchange Company due to owner election for points, instead of Marriott allocating 25% of Presidents Day weeks to DC Points reservations, they could perhaps allocate 40% of that high demand week for Points reservations and then offset that by allocating another lower demand week to only 10% for Points. In that scenario, the overall supply-demand equation would remain in balance for Points vs. Weeks, but the Points owners would be advantaged in grabbing a Presidents Day week. If Marriott were playing games like this they could set up the system to reserve the Trust inventory, plus any weeks that had already been elected for points, other uses, etc., at 9:00:01 on release day. As an automated routine, that could happen in a millisecond and would certainly beat any human on a computer or telephone.

I have no reason to think that they are, in fact, playing games, but I think that is the concern that David has expressed in the past. The language in the governing docs is fairly broad, so I'm not sure whether it technically prevents this kind of situation or not. The exact wording relative to demand balancing is:

Trust Manager and Program Manager shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservation and use of the Accommodations of the Trust Plan and are authorized to reasonably demand balance, reserve, deposit, or rent the Accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Accommodations or other benefits made available to Trust Owners through the Trust Plan or an Exchange Program.

 

[SueDonJ]

I agree with what you wrote, that in order to protect the usage rights in both systems, there has to be some proportional allocation of intervals to the Points and weeks systems. But as I understand David's concern that he has expressed above and in other threads, he is concerned that Marriott could play games to benefit the DC system over the weeks system. Using a simplistic example, if a given resort had 25% of it's units either owned by the Trust or available to the DC Exchange Company due to owner election for points, instead of Marriott allocating 25% of Presidents Day weeks to DC Points reservations, they could perhaps allocate 40% of that high demand week for Points reservations and then offset that by allocating another lower demand week to only 10% for Points. In that scenario, the overall supply-demand equation would remain in balance for Points vs. Weeks, but the Points owners would be advantaged in grabbing a Presidents Day week. If Marriott were playing games like this they could set up the system to reserve the Trust inventory, plus any weeks that had already been elected for points, other uses, etc., at 9:00:01 on release day. As an automated routine, that could happen in a millisecond and would certainly beat any human on a computer or telephone.

I have no reason to think that they are, in fact, playing games, but I think that is the concern that David has expressed in the past. The language in the governing docs is fairly broad, so I'm not sure whether it technically prevents this kind of situation or not. The exact wording relative to demand balancing is:

I agree with you and with David's position that MVW shouldn't be giving the DC a disproportionate number of Weeks intervals, regardless of whether they're high-demand or not. I may have read his post differently than you did, though, because my objection was to his first paragraph which I took as meaning that all Weeks intervals should be available to all Weeks Owners/DC Members (assuming first-come-first-served?) completely disregarding proportionality. So while I agree that they can't act as in your example, i.e. allocating 40/10 high-demand to the DC and 10/40 to Weeks, neither can they act in ways that don't properly allocate intervals according to whether Owners are electing Home Resort usage or something else. (And I agree with you that we're not seeing a reason, specifically in this thread, to believe that they're doing anything other than what they're supposed to be doing as far as proper allocation.)

Another factor to consider is that the Reservation Windows in the Weeks and DC systems do not open on the same day for the same intervals. Generally, the DC windows open days after the Weeks windows. If intervals are not allocated proportionately according to Trust Conveyances and the usage options elected by Weeks Owners, the resulting availability metric would be much more tilted - "illegally" - in favor of Weeks Owners than DC Members.