# Where do all the unused weeks go?



## sage (Jul 28, 2007)

Just went to a presentation for club La Bourse. 
They were bragging about the thousands of timeshare weeks they had access to.

*We just sat there wondering if these were dumped developer weeks or  if they were prime weeks that were being sold off for profit.*

Either way it seems unfair that this company can acquire huge amounts of weeks at the same price that II can give them to us for a getaway.
We pay the high prices to buy a timeshare yet they are renting weeks to others that flatly refuse to invest in a timeshare because o the cost.

Can anyone enlighten me on why this happens?


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2007)

I understand that II has followed RCI into the bigtime rental to the public market.  Sounds like they may also need a class action of their own.

The question you ask is the exact reason why these rental policies are such a threat to the ownership/exchange model of timesharing.  Exchange company rentals from exchange deposits to the general public is a dagger pointed right at the heart of timesharing.


----------



## Kola (Jul 28, 2007)

sage said:


> Just went to a presentation for club La Bourse.
> They were bragging about the thousands of timeshare weeks they had access to.
> 
> *We just sat there wondering if these were dumped developer weeks or  if they were prime weeks that were being sold off for profit.*
> ...




Could you enlighten us briefly how does Club La Bourse operate ?
Did they show any evidence that they actually have "thousands of timeshare weeks" ? 

Kola


----------



## sage (Jul 28, 2007)

Apparently the club is a wholesale travel company that allows the public to become members for a fee. $99 yearly fee on top of the original purchase price.
You pay a fee to join (between 5k & 15K). This entitles you to access to 4-6 weeks of t/s accommodation at reduced rates - similar in price to II getaways. You have unlimited weekend or short getaways and can let up to 5 friends use your membership (only using your allocated weeks).
They also have access to cruises, airline tickets, bed & breakfasts, hotels, car rentals, etc.
Personally, I think you could find similar deals on lastminute.com; octopustravel and vacationstogo.com and similar sites.
They had a brochure with a list of t/s resorts from various areas - quite substantial - some II properties but a lot that I think belong to RCI. No Marriotts, HGVC or Disney but saw a couple of Sheratons.
It was just a bit disturbing knowing that these are timeshare weeks that they have access to. They were toutling the fact that you could go anywhere, any time. As someone who owns t/s I know that would not be possible due to high seasonal demands.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2007)

I seem to recall quite a few negative posts on Club La Bourse on the Crimeshare site.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 28, 2007)

Timeshare rentals are the best way to ensure that Timesharing continues to grow.  It helps to get people familiar with timeshare accommodations and how much better they are than mere hotels for family vacations.

If there is a short term phenomenon of cheap rentals, that will self correct itself as a larger and larger market of potential renters looks for the deals, snaps them up and creates an ever increasing demand for such accommodations.  That will serve to strengthen the rental market.  If after that time a timeshare still rents for below the maintenance fee of that resort, it's time to vote in a new board of the HOA.  They are destroying the value of the resort.

I think it is foolish to launch a class action lawsuit on a company without any evidence of wrong doing.  I use II all time.  It's a great exchange company.  If anything, it is too good and needs to made significant adjustments to make it more sound in terms of fair exchange.  It is so easy to trade up in II, only a point system of some type would fix it long term.


----------



## JLB (Jul 28, 2007)

A comment I probably should not post, but one from an unimpeachable source, one I have grown to value for the candor:

_The problem with RCI or with Interval are the business model is really in decline because of the growth of the fairfields, the bluegreens, starwoods marriotts etc...

II has an even bigger problem than rci because they are stuck with the 
request first model which does not work. at least rci points has forced the 
inventory into the system so they are getting better and better 
inventory.... Interval is also not making much if any money on the 
marriott's the starwoods, disneys etc..._


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 28, 2007)

JLB said:


> A comment I probably should not post, but one from an unimpeachable source, one I have grown to value for the candor:
> 
> _The problem with RCI or with Interval are the business model is really in decline because of the growth of the fairfields, the bluegreens, starwoods marriotts etc...
> 
> _



I agree with this assertion.  These resort groups control inventory.  They can rent off excess weeks in bonus time, direct which weeks get deposited into an exchange company, and aggregate inventory power to leverage against an exchange company to get great trading power for its customers and lower prices as well.

Small resorts should affiliate into resort groups and create their own trade group against the large exchange companies.  This is a role that RW could play in the industry if they are smart about it.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 28, 2007)

JLB said:


> II has an even bigger problem than rci because they are stuck with the
> request first model which does not work. at least rci points has forced the
> inventory into the system so they are getting better and better
> inventory.... Interval is also not making much if any money on the
> marriott's the starwoods, disneys etc...[/I]



I don't agree with this assertion.  If you have a request first model, you know what inventory to find.  If you know what to find, you can go look for it and acquire it for a customer in a trade with a strategic partner.  That's the role of the so-called "market maker" in timeshare exchange.  It is a key missing element in the RW exchange company experience as an example, but does exist in DAE.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2007)

I have no problem with timeshare rentals that do not involve a conflict of interest with the exchange program.  What is a problem is rentals by exchange companies to the general public from exchange deposits, especially when they are at rock bottom prices which undercut both the resale and rental markets for individual timeshare owners.

On the Outer Banks, we have a local storefront timeshare rental and resale agency that has been around almost as long as there has been timeshare on the OBX.  Inventory is put up by individual owners and occaisionally an HOA or two.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this model, and it has the very positive impact that you describe.

Some exchange companies allow members to put up weeks specifically for a rental pool which can be rented by anyone.  Again, this is not exchange deposits, and there is nothing wrong with this. Sometimes HOA's put up HOA owned weeks this way.

Some exchange companies rent last minute inventory to their members.  These are not rentals to the general public, so there is no problem with this.

In short, there are a lot of positive types of rentals in the timeshare world.  






BocaBum99 said:


> Timeshare rentals are the best way to ensure that Timesharing continues to grow.  It helps to get people familiar with timeshare accommodations and how much better they are than mere hotels for family vacations.
> 
> If there is a short term phenomenon of cheap rentals, that will self correct itself as a larger and larger market of potential renters looks for the deals, snaps them up and creates an ever increasing demand for such accommodations.  That will serve to strengthen the rental market.  If after that time a timeshare still rents for below the maintenance fee of that resort, it's time to vote in a new board of the HOA.  They are destroying the value of the resort.
> 
> I think it is foolish to launch a class action lawsuit on a company without any evidence of wrong doing.  I use II all time.  It's a great exchange company.  If anything, it is too good and needs to made significant adjustments to make it more sound in terms of fair exchange.  It is so easy to trade up in II, only a point system of some type would fix it long term.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> I agree with this assertion.  These resort groups control inventory.  They can rent off excess weeks in bonus time, direct which weeks get deposited into an exchange company, and aggregate inventory power to leverage against an exchange company to get great trading power for its customers and lower prices as well.
> 
> Small resorts should affiliate into resort groups and create their own trade group against the large exchange companies.  This is a role that RW could play in the industry if they are smart about it.



Mini-systems are a small fraction of the timeshare world.  If they want to be the tail that wags the dog, the exchange companies should tell them to take a hike.   None of the resorts of any of them have ever been on any request I have put in to RCI or DAE.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 28, 2007)

*Low rents can be due to low value time*



BocaBum99 said:


> If there is a short term phenomenon of cheap rentals, that will self correct itself as a larger and larger market of potential renters looks for the deals, snaps them up and creates an ever increasing demand for such accommodations.  That will serve to strengthen the rental market.  If after that time a timeshare still rents for below the maintenance fee of that resort, it's time to vote in a new board of the HOA.  They are destroying the value of the resort.



Not necessarily.  When you are dealing with a resort in a seasonal area that also has the same annual fees for the best and worst weeks it is easy to have weeks where the rental value is way below the annual fee. of course that also means the rental value of those best weeks is far above the annual fee - thats why those owners want the system left alone as the few benefit in disproportion to the majority of owners. What needs to be changed in those cases are the way the fees are distributed over the owner base with the better weeks paying the lions share.  There are reasons why it isn't done and those can be hard to overcome but thats what actually needs to happen to make the low value weeks attractive to anyone. 



BocaBum99 said:


> I think it is foolish to launch a class action lawsuit on a company without any evidence of wrong doing.  I use II all time.  It's a great exchange company.  If anything, it is too good and needs to made significant adjustments to make it more sound in terms of fair exchange.  It is so easy to trade up in II, only a point system of some type would fix it long term.



Of course it is. Besides the cost there is the time it takes to wind through the system. That usually means by the close of the case the problem has corrected itself in some way and the only winners are the lawyers who pocket the fees.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 28, 2007)

*The mini's rule. Really.*



JLB said:


> A comment I probably should not post, but one from an unimpeachable source, one I have grown to value for the candor:
> 
> _The problem with RCI or with Interval are the business model is really in decline because of the growth of the fairfields, the bluegreens, starwoods marriotts etc...
> 
> ...



I wonder if that source cold be "Bootleg"?    Whoever it is they have their finger on the true pulse of timeshare exchanges today.  The multi-resort systems virtually own the market for most locations while the older, smaller resorts tend to have owners that use rather than trade. That doesn't leave much for those not in those multi-resort groups and even that inventory is being fractured over a dozen small exchange services.  

As for II they are doomed. They chose to cozy up to the big names for the prestige but the deals they made have made the individual member a non-factor. Yet that is where the annual fees and higher trade fees come in from.  They are stuck with no steady source of inventory as has been created by RCI Points - flawed as that system may be - and most of the multi-resort systems already have points based trades that can raid the small amount of decent inventory II does manage to get.  While there is much talk of the RCI Points system "raiding" RCI Weeks I've found very little of that to be happening.  On the other hand II is being ravaged by the multi-resort systems and the priority they are given. Most are points based.

It gets pooh poohed but it was the rise of the multi-resort behemoths that caused RCI to move to points and is the major factor in the near disappearance of some of the most desired inventory around the US. Not as true for International destinations but those aren't the primary goal of most US timeshare exchange requests anyway.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 28, 2007)

_Where have all the prime weeks gone?
Long time seeing..
Where have all the prime weeks gone?
Long time ago.
Where have all the prine weeks gone?
Gone to spacebanks every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the banked weeks gone?
Long time seeing.
Where have all the banked weeks gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the banked weeks gone?
Gone to rentals every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
_


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2007)

Unfortunately Bootleg has been gone from TUG, TS4MS, and TimeshareTalk for many months.  I suspect that with the class action pending, RCI was becoming more observant of its employees to avoid unauthorized participation on web bbs's.  He has also vanished from email contact.

The loss of Bootleg has left a much larger information gap than the apparent departure of Madge, but it is very unlikely that he is Jim's source for that quote.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 28, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Mini-systems are a small fraction of the timeshare world.  If they want to be the tail that wags the dog, the exchange companies should tell them to take a hike.   None of the resorts of any of them have ever been on any request I have put in to RCI or DAE.



For the most highly demanded areas in North America that I can think of where there are active timeshare projects, virtually all of the inventory being created is being added by minis.

While minis may be a smaller portion of the total inventory, I suspect that they are the bulk of the total new inventory being added, the inventory they provide is in the highest demand, and their size gives them clout with the exchange companies that individual resorts can't manage.

II and RCI aren't going to tell them to take a hike. More likely, II and RCI will compete for their business.  To meet corporate goals, II and RCI both need a steady stream of new business.  And the only way to get that added business is from developers.


----------



## wbtimesharer (Jul 28, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> I understand that II has followed RCI into the bigtime rental to the public market.  Sounds like they may also need a class action of their own.
> 
> The question you ask is the exact reason why these rental policies are such a threat to the ownership/exchange model of timesharing.  Exchange company rentals from exchange deposits to the general public is a dagger pointed right at the heart of timesharing.



What I find even more irritating is the same exchange companies prohibit its members from renting exchanges even the last minute weeks.

That is just not right.

Bill


----------



## PerryM (Jul 28, 2007)

*Flying saucers, bigfoot, and RCI*

I always think of flying saucers when illegal and unethical charges are brought against RCI – you know those fuzzy, out of focus, pictures of a flying saucer.  Funny how everyone has a camera on their cell phone which is in virtually everyone’s pocket 24/7.  I would like to get a 1 megapixel .jpg photo of a flying saucer for my office wall.

RCI seems to have the same problem – no hard evidence just blurry reports from  bigfoot reporting a sighting of illegal activities.  No computer screen shots, no Xeroxed copies of memos – just out of focus sightings of something RCI might be doing by a mysterious Tug member who has run away with bigfoot.

I wonder if the class action lawsuits have the same problem – just can’t get anything in focus – except all those billable hours piling up – now those are always in focus.

As to LaBourse what’s with the icons at the bottom of the page?  Are they plugging Arda?  Is Care the food relief folks?  And the Resale broker Alliance -  they don’t mention Club LaBourse as a member – what’s with this?

I’d like some links that make some sense.

Anyway, how about my flying saucer photo – anyone got a clear one?  Come to think of it Bigfoot’s photo is always blurry too and now that I think of it RCI’s picture of stealing Weeks for the Points owners has been evading me for years too.

Hold on…you don’t think that they have something in common do you?  Oh – that’s crazy.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 28, 2007)

*Class action - waste of time and money*



PerryM said:


> Anyway, how about my flying saucer photo – anyone got a clear one?  Come to think of it Bigfoot’s photo is always blurry too and now that I think of it RCI’s picture of stealing Weeks for the Points owners has been evading me for years too.
> 
> Hold on…you don’t think that they have something in common do you?  Oh – that’s crazy.



The belief that any lawsuit is going to magically bring back the old days at RCI or II is ridiculous.  At the most they will extract some promises of reform, get a few vouchers and little or nothing will change despite the high cost to all parties involved. At worst the thing will drag out for years, its already well on its way, and absolutely nothing will be proved or changed but the costs will still be there for all parties. The second is the most probable outcome but neither is good for timesharing or the members. 

In the meantime it is a distraction for RCI, the members and certainly for the posters on these boards. Rather than being proactive to do what is possible to change things or protect themselves in this sea of change some are sitting back to await the "miracle redemption" that these silly lawsuits are believed to bring. When it all collapses in failure they will be left with no plan and no improvements.  The so-called "insiders" seem to be silent when the input is needed most.  It is far more likely they were disgruntled employees with little or no real knowledge of the system they got on line to malign.  They may be kindred spirits with the person accusing resale buyers of "fleecing" the sellers. Once you have a thought process you believe in it can be hard to see the flaws in the logic. 

The best thing owners can do is study the new world order in timeshare, take action to get your ownership/plans in line with the real world and ignore the pipe dreams of a return to the so-called nirvana of the 1980's.  Deal with the cards you are dealt and protect yourself is the best path right now as it usually is in any endeavor you participate in.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2007)

Something over a year ago, there was an article in a resort trade journal that was cited in The TimeshareBeat that said that a solid majority of timeshare units now in the pipeline were from independent developers.

Demand is primarily driven by location, and the minis too often play second fiddle there, so it is not the most highly demanded.



T_R_Oglodyte said:


> For the most highly demanded areas in North America that I can think of where there are active timeshare projects, virtually all of the inventory being created is being added by minis.
> 
> While minis may be a smaller portion of the total inventory, I suspect that they are the bulk of the total new inventory being added, the inventory they provide is in the highest demand, and their size gives them clout with the exchange companies that individual resorts can't manage.
> 
> II and RCI aren't going to tell them to take a hike. More likely, II and RCI will compete for their business.  To meet corporate goals, II and RCI both need a steady stream of new business.  And the only way to get that added business is from developers.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2007)

Lawsuits don't result in mere ''promises'' of reform.  They result in injunctions that are enforcible by the contempt powers of the court, that is if they are successful.




timeos2 said:


> The belief that any lawsuit is going to magically bring back the old days at RCI or II is ridiculous.  At the most they will extract some promises of reform, get a few vouchers and little or nothing will change despite the high cost to all parties involved. At worst the thing will drag out for years, its already well on its way, and absolutely nothing will be proved or changed but the costs will still be there for all parties. The second is the most probable outcome but neither is good for timesharing or the members.
> 
> In the meantime it is a distraction for RCI, the members and certainly for the posters on these boards. Rather than being proactive to do what is possible to change things or protect themselves in this sea of change some are sitting back to await the "miracle redemption" that these silly lawsuits are believed to bring. When it all collapses in failure they will be left with no plan and no improvements.  The so-called "insiders" seem to be silent when the input is needed most.  It is far more likely they were disgruntled employees with little or no real knowledge of the system they got on line to malign.  They may be kindred spirits with the person accusing resale buyers of "fleecing" the sellers. Once you have a thought process you believe in it can be hard to see the flaws in the logic.
> 
> The best thing owners can do is study the new world order in timeshare, take action to get your ownership/plans in line with the real world and ignore the pipe dreams of a return to the so-called nirvana of the 1980's.  Deal with the cards you are dealt and protect yourself is the best path right now as it usually is in any endeavor you participate in.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2007)

Perry, for someone who contends he doesn't like RCI, you sure seem to jump to their defense all the time.

If you want to see RCI computer screen shots, there may still be some up over at TimeshareTalk.

Discovery in a lawsuit is a long and slow process, and in this one it is being compartmentalized by the judge.  The first part being conducted is limited to the class certification issue.




PerryM said:


> I always think of flying saucers when illegal and unethical charges are brought against RCI – you know those fuzzy, out of focus, pictures of a flying saucer.  Funny how everyone has a camera on their cell phone which is in virtually everyone’s pocket 24/7.  I would like to get a 1 megapixel .jpg photo of a flying saucer for my office wall.
> 
> RCI seems to have the same problem – no hard evidence just blurry reports from  bigfoot reporting a sighting of illegal activities.  No computer screen shots, no Xeroxed copies of memos – just out of focus sightings of something RCI might be doing by a mysterious Tug member who has run away with bigfoot.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 28, 2007)

brennumtimesharer said:


> What I find even more irritating is the same exchange companies prohibit its members from renting exchanges even the last minute weeks.
> 
> That is just not right.
> 
> Bill



Yeah, it's called hypocrasy


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 29, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Mini-systems are a small fraction of the timeshare world.  If they want to be the tail that wags the dog, the exchange companies should tell them to take a hike.   None of the resorts of any of them have ever been on any request I have put in to RCI or DAE.



I agree that mini's are but a fraction of the new inventory being introduced into timesharing.  But, they represent a large and growing share of the power in the industry.  The exchange companies have and will do anything to accommodate their needs to keep their deposits flowing.

In order for a small resort to level the playing field against the minis, they need to fight fire with fire.  They need to affiliate into resort groups and create their own mini of sorts.  They simply cannot rely on RCI or II to meet their needs without severe conflict.

Successfully independent exchange companies are close to playing this role since they tend to align with specific resorts to get "free" deposits to balance their exchange gap from bonus weeks, last minute rentals and expired weeks.  So, it isn't a stretch to think they should just be owned by a resort group.  Once a resort group owns an exchange facility and a great reservation system, they can better compete with the mini's long term.

The standalone resort and standalone resort buyer should beware.  Think Grocerie store chain.  The big chains put a lot of mom and pop grocery stores out of business.  It will happen in timesharing as well like it has for Groceries and Hardware as well.


----------



## JLB (Jul 29, 2007)

Based on your second sentence, which is accurate, it could not be Bootleg.  Bootleg was only able to see stuff, and then he had to make his guesses as to what he saw.  The only difference between him and us is that he could see stuff.  After that he and we are pretty equal, just guessing.

We have had this tit-for-tat for a long time and I realize that Bootleg is a cult-hero on TUG, but RCI did like like his presence on the Internet not so much from a Whistleblowing standpoint or that it violated his employment agreement, but that it misled RCI users by providing inaccurate information.

Some here made him a Whistleblower, grasping for any information from the Great Beyond, even if it was not accurate.

Probably the best example was his _advice_ concerning trading restrictions like the 1-in-3-or-4 rule, where he said that if you were not caught upfront, you would not be caught.  He could see what he could see as a Guide, the things used at the time of making an exchange to control that rule.  Since he could not see the rest of the things in place, he advised poorly.

_"Bootleg is wrong with the ¼ year rule it is not supported technologically. It is supported via various warning signals and prompts for the counselors to look for a violation and then for the resort to catch.

Unfortunately most resorts don’t update their reservations until weeks prior to check-in which can cause them to notice violations at the last minute."_

_Bootleg is fine but, he is like the boy who knows too much and does not know what to do with it.... He explains why trading power changes based on a few things that he can see.  I have been with the company 14 years and the things that tuggers bring up is beyond what he can see...._

_"> If there is a specific question I can attempt to answer off line 
>but, > > >not in > > > > the public forum that is madges job and believe me bootleg is not as > > > > knowledgeable as he sounds."_



timeos2 said:


> I wonder if that source cold be "Bootleg"?    Whoever it is they have their finger on the true pulse of timeshare exchanges today.


----------



## JLB (Jul 29, 2007)

Sure, but where have all the young girls gone?  



T_R_Oglodyte said:


> _Where have all the prime weeks gone?
> Long time seeing..
> Where have all the prime weeks gone?
> Long time ago.
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 29, 2007)

*Elvis is the CEO of RCI - I have the proof...*



Carolinian said:


> Perry, for someone who contends he doesn't like RCI, you sure seem to jump to their defense all the time.
> 
> If you want to see RCI computer screen shots, there may still be some up over at TimeshareTalk.
> 
> Discovery in a lawsuit is a long and slow process, and in this one it is being compartmentalized by the judge.  The first part being conducted is limited to the class certification issue.




I think you will find me defending ANY person or company being pursued by a lynch mob and being burned alive at the stake - it's a character flaw of mine that I just can't get rid of.

As for screen shots - my son is a master with Photoshop - he could easily put together a screen that shows Elvis is running RCI and many would believe it.  I'm talking about someone giving a sworn deposition with the screen shot as supporting evidence and a long prison sentence awaiting them for any Photoshop work.  We all know this is just baseless accusations that are designed to whip up folks that really believe Elvis is behind all of this and many other sinister activities that plague mankind.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 29, 2007)

Actually, it is highly unlikely that someone using photoshop would know all of the correct info to doctor up a screenshot, and Bootleg confirmed that the screenshots DID contain all of the right information.  And, hey, you were the one that raised the challenge about screen shots in the first place!

Actually, it seems more a protection mob for RCI here, a smallish group of points advocates who seem to defend anything RCI, but quite vocal.

From later posts, I guess you have now come off of claiming all red weeks are given the same value and supply/demand don't matter to the exchange companies.  But are you still contending that state governments tell gas stations what price to charge for gasolene?



PerryM said:


> I think you will find me defending ANY person or company being pursued by a lynch mob and being burned alive at the stake - it's a character flaw of mine that I just can't get rid of.
> 
> As for screen shots - my son is a master with Photoshop - he could easily put together a screen that shows Elvis is running RCI and many would believe it.  I'm talking about someone giving a sworn deposition with the screen shot as supporting evidence and a long prison sentence awaiting them for any Photoshop work.  We all know this is just baseless accusations that are designed to whip up folks that really believe Elvis is behind all of this and many other sinister activities that plague mankind.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 29, 2007)

Jim, The difference is that your source is much higher up in the RCI hierarchy and therefore more defensive of his company.  He is based in Cancun, is he not?  Of course someone like that is not going to like an employee revealing info the company would not like revealed and would thus try to dampen his credibility for obvious reasons.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Bootleg and anon from TimeshareTalk were quite different in their perspectives.  Anon did seem to have a bone to pick with his employer, while Bootleg did not.  Both did put their customers over their company.  Bootleg would defend RCI when it was appropriate but would spill the beans on them when they needed to be spilled.

Your Cancun friend has a cleaver way to manipulate opinion in favor of his company, as long as he can keep you posting his info but I have never seen him give you a tidbit that is pro-customer but embarassing or worse for the company.  That speaks volumes about his perspecitves.  He is a pure company man like Madge was a pure company woman.


----------



## sfwilshire (Jul 29, 2007)

JLB said:


> Sure, but where have all the young girls gone?



We're gotten old along side you old guys.  


:hysterical: 


Sheila


----------



## PerryM (Jul 29, 2007)

*Ooh la la*



Carolinian said:


> Actually, it is highly unlikely that someone using photoshop would know all of the correct info to doctor up a screenshot, and Bootleg confirmed that the screenshots DID contain all of the right information.  And, hey, you were the one that raised the challenge about screen shots in the first place!
> 
> Actually, it seems more a protection mob for RCI here, a smallish group of points advocates who seem to defend anything RCI, but quite vocal.
> 
> From later posts, I guess you have now come off of claiming all red weeks are given the same value and supply/demand don't matter to the exchange companies.  But are you still contending that state governments tell gas stations what price to charge for gasolene?



Just like the poor kids on the Duke Lacrosse team were persecuted by our legal/court system so are innocent companies persecuted by lawyers all the time but magically money makes things much better.

If someone on this chat room makes a foolish decision because RCI has been blamed for hideous actions, I would feel that I did not do my part as a fellow timeshare owner to point out that this is just bottom fishing by the legal industry and that they will pay for the outcome of this insanity.

So I'm doing my little part to simply ask for proof that can stand up in court and if it does not exist to give the benefit of the doubt to RCI.  I personally think its irresponsible to make these charges against RCI without proof but we Americans are so affluent that the tabloids at the supermarket are the main stream press now - and many of us believe that bilge.

However, this is not France; you are innocent here until proven guilty in a court.  And even then I'd guess at least 10% of those convicted are innocent - just a guess, could be 25%.  Accuracy is not critical in our court system it seems.

I'd recommend to TUG that all these RCI rumors be placed in my Flying Saucer Forum.  Well, on second thought that would be in insult to us Saucer buffs.


----------



## JLB (Jul 29, 2007)

Very old and repetitious, no more convincing now than the other hundred or so times.   

I don't have a dog in this fight or any reason to defend anyone.  It just irks me that so-called experts mislead people by arfing and barfing bad information on the Internet.

Like I posted yesterday, I believe, the more you try to explain something on the Internet, the more those who wish to use you for their personal punching bag, to further their personal agenda, make it worse for you.

Adios!   



Carolinian said:


> Jim, The difference is that your source is much higher up in the RCI hierarchy and therefore more defensive of his company.  He is based in Cancun, is he not?  Of course someone like that is not going to like an employee revealing info the company would not like revealed and would thus try to dampen his credibility for obvious reasons.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
> 
> Bootleg and anon from TimeshareTalk were quite different in their perspectives.  Anon did seem to have a bone to pick with his employer, while Bootleg did not.  Both did put their customers over their company.  Bootleg would defend RCI when it was appropriate but would spill the beans on them when they needed to be spilled.
> 
> Your Cancun friend has a cleaver way to manipulate opinion in favor of his company, as long as he can keep you posting his info but I have never seen him give you a tidbit that is pro-customer but embarassing or worse for the company.  That speaks volumes about his perspecitves.  He is a pure company man like Madge was a pure company woman.


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 29, 2007)

The Duke Lacrosse "kids" were certainly victims of an overzealous prosectutor and it cost him his job.

But let's not forget that throwing a party is legal, hiring hookers to attend is not quite "goody two shoes" behavior.


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 29, 2007)

PS. My theory is that RCI and II hide them behind a big pile of donut holes...


----------



## PerryM (Jul 29, 2007)

*Look; up in the skiy....*



johnmfaeth said:


> The Duke Lacrosse "kids" were certainly victims of an overzealous prosectutor and it cost him his job.
> 
> But let's not forget that throwing a party is legal, hiring hookers to attend is not quite "goody two shoes" behavior.



See how easy it is to force the burden of proof on a totally innocent party (that's a pun).

Making charges of illegal/imoral/indecent conduct and then not allowing the other party to respond is exactly why this bilge should be purged from this forum and moved into my Flying Saucer Forum.  Again, I'd have to see if it met my high standards of evidence first.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 29, 2007)

In the US Court system you are innocent until proven guilty.  On the internet, you are guilty until proven innocent.  It's a true wild west democracy in this new wild west called the internet.  Everyone's voice is pretty much equal until you build a reputation at which time others will come to your defense even if you are guilty.


----------



## icydog (Jul 29, 2007)

*Who called this meeting?*

 This was one of the more interesting threads I've read since joining Tug. Obviously the level of intellect here is extremely high but what exactly are you trying to say? I do think RCI is an evil entity that takes away timeshares weeks from widows and children and sells them for a dime on a dollar to the big bad wolf. Okay, you don't believe that, but do you believe they have sold their souls when they partnered with Wnydham and Cendant? As far as II, I like them. I don't love them, but they suit my purposes well. I own minis and they help me trade sucessfully within RCI and II. I love that they have that pull power. But give me a solid trader in II and I am a happy camper. 
Errr, what exactly was the point of this thread anyway......?


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 29, 2007)

From your post and Perry's one would think RCI has been indicted for a criminal offense, as you keep citing criminal standards - ''guilty until proven innocent'', ''proof beyond a reasonable doubt'', etc.

In fact, RCI is a defendant in a *civil* class action lawsuit under consumer protection laws.  Civil standards are different.  The burden of proof in a civil court, for example is ''the greater weight of the evidence'' not ''proof beyond a reasonable doubt''.

And you keep asking where is the evidence.  That is largely ferreted out in discovery, and I doubt you will see either side wanting to share that with the peanut gallery until trial.




BocaBum99 said:


> In the US Court system you are innocent until proven guilty.  On the internet, you are guilty until proven innocent.  It's a true wild west democracy in this new wild west called the internet.  Everyone's voice is pretty much equal until you build a reputation at which time others will come to your defense even if you are guilty.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 29, 2007)

*What lurks in the heart of RCI??????*



icydog said:


> This was one of the more interesting threads I've read since joining Tug. Obviously the level of intellect here is extremely high but what exactly are you trying to say? I do think RCI is an evil entity that takes away timeshares weeks from widows and children and sells them for a dime on a dollar to the big bad wolf. Okay, you don't believe that, but do you believe they have sold their souls when they partnered with Wnydham and Cendant? As far as II, I like them. I don't love them, but they suit my purposes well. I own minis and they help me trade sucessfully within RCI and II. I love that they have that pull power. But give me a solid trader in II and I am a happy camper.
> Errr, what exactly was the point of this thread anyway......?




Here's my position with RCI:

•	RCI is a monopoly in the timeshare exchange world – twice a big as ALL the other exchange companies combined.

•	Participation in RCI is TOTALLY voluntary – you are not forced to be a member and exchange.

•	Talk to your developer or HOA and get into II and add some competition.  

•	The timeshare developers associated with RCI have made demands that RCI obediently follows, like the 1 in 4 rule (some resorts can only be exchanged into once in 4 years) 

•	RCI has amply demonstrated that there is NO expectation of a level playing field – they hand out upgrades like a drug dealer hands out free samples.  The reverse should then be expected – downgrade exchanges to an equal number of members.

•	RCI introduced RCI Points, a separate entity, that may or may not be exchanging inventory between the two companies – perfectly legal unless you read the tea leaves otherwise.

•	RCI integrated their travel company, a separate entity of Cendant or whoever, and allows RCI Points folks the ability to not buy a timeshare reservation but airline tickets.  The consequences are that RCI buys those tickets from the airlines with US dollars and NOT RCI Points.

•	RCI Points must now rent out timeshare reservations to pay for the airline tickets.

That’s it – that’s what this is all about.


So is RCI evil?  Should they be sued by lawyers.  I guess the lawyers see deep pockets and that is the only criteria to filing a class action lawsuit.  

My position is that I believe that RCI is just stupid and has made a big mistake.  Many here, including myself, profit from stupid companies and as such I want RCI left alone and hope more Forrest Gumps apply for top management positions at RCI.

But just like folks see flying saucers all the time there are folks who see evil behind every company and thus we must distrust them and punish them.  Of course, we all know who is going to pay all the legal bills here – you and I of course.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 29, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> From your post and Perry's one would think RCI has been indicted for a criminal offense, as you keep citing criminal standards - ''guilty until proven innocent'', ''proof beyond a reasonable doubt'', etc.
> 
> In fact, RCI is a defendant in a*civil* class action lawsuit under consumer protection laws.  Civil standards are different.  The burden of proof in a civil court, for example is ''the greater weight of the evidence'' not ''proof beyond a reasonable doubt''.
> 
> And you keep asking where is the evidence.  That is largely ferreted out in discovery, and I doubt you will see either side wanting to share that with the peanut gallery until trial.



Not sure why you added all the other stuff.  I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong about this.  But, I posted that in our judicial system you are guilty until proven innnocent.  That is true whether or not it is a civil or criminal trial.  The standard may be different for proving guilt, but you are still innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 29, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Not sure why you added all the other stuff.  I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong about this.  But, I posted that in our judicial system you are guilty until proven innnocent.  That is true whether or not it is a civil or criminal trial.  The standard may be different for proving guilt, but you are still innocent until proven guilty.



Guilt and innocence are not issues in civil court, only things like liability.  The plaintiffs in the RCI class action can win a tough injunction and millions in damages, and RCI will still not be ''guilty'', only ''liable''.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 29, 2007)

RCI could not have handled the spin better themselves.  




PerryM said:


> Here's my position with RCI:
> 
> •	RCI is a monopoly in the timeshare exchange world – twice a big as ALL the other exchange companies combined.
> 
> ...


----------



## JLB (Jul 29, 2007)

I thought I was done with this when I said, "Adios!" up yonder, but while on the dock enjoying this beautiful day my mind wandered back to it.

I can only surmise from the intensity that Steve puts into his cause that he will only be satisfied when RCI is disassembled and something done with the parts, like cremation.  But until that day we are stuck with RCI the way it is and we have to try to make it work for us.

I, too, have been critical of RCI and I, too, do not like the way it is today, as opposed to the good ole days, but I like to think I have the common sense to know where to draw the line.  Being stuck with what we have, I know that it is wise to be constructive with the criticism and free to praise when praise is due.

One thing many of us need occassionally is help to solve a problem and that help is not there if we burn all our bridges.  Several in this thread have expressed their appreciation for the help that Madge gave them.  I know Inside Guy intervened on behalf of TUG users, and got things done for them.  I know it helps (helped) to put TUG or Madge in the topic line in messages to Feedback.

Is that all gone?

As others have said, I would not blame RCI for leaving, if they have.  I certainly would be disinclined to assist or even look favorably on folks here, given the intensity of criticism expressed here.

So, while at the dock, it occurred to me that a casualty of a few person's desire to do away with RCI altogether, and their zeal in that endeavor, may be the ability of the many who use this site to get things done for them.

I'm sure I didn't say that just the way a certain someone would have me say it, but y'all probably get the jist of it, because of a few, many suffer.


----------



## Mel (Jul 29, 2007)

*Severus Snape is in charge of RCI!*

For those that have finished Deathly Hallows, you know exactly what I mean.

For those that have not - what do you think of him?  You don't know.  He appears evil, but someone we trust explicitly also trusts him.  We are told that he is on the good side, but the supreme authority on the good side, yet all actions lead us to believe otherwise.

RCI and II both fit this same description.  We don't know everything that drives them.  We don't like what we see, but we also don't truly know everything that is being done, or why.  There are possible explanations that fit both ways.

RCI is evil, they sell off all the good inventory and leave timeshare owners with nothing good.

RCI really is good, after all.  They only sell off what they need to balance the system - while there are exchangers that would like the weeks they sell off, most of them would not qualify, or they end up taking other weeks that come in from non-exchange sources.  

I won't argue that RCI is a bunch of angels anymore than someone would argue that the fictional character of Severus Snape is a goody-two-shoes.  It's just not true.  But that does not mean that their intentions are not good.  This not simply black & white, but shades of gray.  Because we can't see everything happening in the background (due in part to trade secrets, and in part to not wanting to anger developers over the value of their weeks), we don't know if what RCI does is truly in our best interest.  

RCI still works for me, and is the best available system for my needs.  If it wasn't I would quit, and get a refund of my fees.

I think the mini-systems are having a bigger impact that some realize.  As small a percentage as they are within the whole system, they still have major name recognition.  Non-tug members don't have the same tools to distinguish one resort from another, and are very likely to prefer the resort with a name they know, because they will have a better idea of what to expect.  Because they are such a small part of the systme, they provide very small supply, BUT because of their name recognition they have higher demand than everyone else - and that higher demand gives them power.  Why do you think Disney gets away with a transportation charge?  before the days of Cendant, RCI refused to allow it, and Disney jumped ship to II.  It was not the individual owners at Marriott and various other groups that chose to switch, it was the developers.  II didn't give them a better package to sell to their members, they gave the developers a better deal.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 29, 2007)

I well remember some of the same arguments on the Delta boards at Flyer Talk after Borden's new plan that gutted Sky Miles and particularly its elite Medallion program.  Some vigorously defended Delta's actions or tried to explain them away, but others banded together in www.saveskymiles.com and fought back to defend the interests of members against the corporate juggernaut.  I was one who played my small role, wearing my ''parachute man'' button on DL flights, handing out the Save Sky Miles boarding cards to fellow passengers, and making a modest contribution toward the US Today ads and billboards.

It was a two year fight, but you know what?  When the smoke cleared, the members had won.  The big corporation waved a white flag and restored the members benefits that had been taken away.

I view the activists in the RCI class action lawsuit the same way.  They are consumer heros.  Yes, I would rather have seen the issue raised by a state AG consumer protection lawsuit, which has a number of advantages, but nonetheless the plaintiffs have put it on the line to make a difference for all of us.

Hopefully, when the smoke clears on this one, the self-appointed defenders of RCI's new policies will look just as foolish as the Delta management defenders did at FlyerTalk.

As with Delta, the goal is not to destroy RCI but to reform it so that members can go back to using it with confidence in its integrity and the integrity of the RCI Weeks exchange system, which in its pre-Cendant days was the best timeshare exchange system that has ever been devised.  The idea is to save them, not destroy them.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 30, 2007)

*What is that thing?*

I don’t defend RCI - nor do I attack RCI – I am a voluntary customer that has gotten what I consider a fair shake from them.  Truth be told the 10+ RCI exchanges I’ve made were fantastic upgrades – all 10 of them.  Put me down as taking RCI to the cleaners.

Out of the 4,020 active TUG members, what 5 or so believe that RCI is actively out to screw their members thru nefarious means.  Heck, let’s bump that up to 1% or 40 of you.  The other 99% of us find RCI offers great value and probably obscene value, or could care less.

It is the natural inclination of folks to follow – just walk out to a busy street corner and look up and point – you will have dozens/hundreds doing the same thing within 1 minute.

Just because someone points the finger at RCI and shouts “Crook” does not mean we should take them any more seriously than the guy pointing at Superman.  I’m doing my little bit by trying to keep other TUG members from looking upwards and spotting Superman darting around the clouds.


There is as much evidence supporting the notion that RCI is a crook as there is that I'm Perry White, the managing editor of the Daily Planet that employs Superman.


P.S.
This is not to say it wouldn't be hard to round up 12 folks pointing skywards shouting "I see him too".


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

Ah, the same little group of predictable RCI defenders.  I remember when one of those who has defended RCI is this thread jumped to their defense when some Tuggers discovered the SkyAuction timeshare rentals that were obviously coming from RCI.  No, this RCI defender stridently contended.  Pointing at RCI was unfair, they said, because all of these rentals were obviously coming from one guy who had A LOT of timehares!  Well, not long afterward, some Tuggers starting winning those cheap rentals at SkyAuction and received standard RCI confirmations for those weeks.  No, the smoking gun was there.  It was not some guy with A LOT of timeshares.  It was RCI.

What most of the RCI defenders on these boards, perhaps all, have in common is that they are strong points advocates.  They defend Points members being able to poach inventory from the Weeks system.  The fraudulent crossover grids that grossly undervalue prime Weeks inventory by overaveraging are there for all to see, another smoking gun, but it benefits Points members so they look the other way.  They personally stand to gain from the continued existance of crossover trades based on these grids.

Bootleg became a real danger to RCI when he spilled the beans about being able to look back and see where prime RCI rental inventory came from and it was from regular exchange deposits unconnected to points for deposit, cruises, etc. Of course, a higher up at RCI would do everything possible to try to discredit him.  Undoubtedly they also must have had a witchhunt trying to ferret hmi out that ultimately scared him off of further participation on these boards. That is much more of a loss to TUG than the apparent departure of Madge.  Bootleg gave us straight scoop rather that corporate speak.

The defense of RCI on the rentals issue has been so strident here at TUG by the predicatble little group that many of those who have expressed concerns over the rentals have departed to other t/s boards, but my skin is thick enough I am not about to do likewise.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

Ah, the same little group of predictable RCI defenders.  I remember when one of those who has defended RCI is this thread jumped to their defense when some Tuggers discovered the SkyAuction timeshare rentals that were obviously coming from RCI.  No, this RCI defender stridently contended.  Pointing at RCI was unfair, they said, because all of these rentals were obviously coming from one guy who had A LOT of timehares!  Well, not long afterward, some Tuggers starting winning those cheap rentals at SkyAuction and received standard RCI confirmations for those weeks.  No, the smoking gun was there.  It was not some guy with A LOT of timeshares.  It was RCI.

What most of the RCI defenders on these boards, perhaps all, have in common is that they are strong points advocates.  They defend Points members being able to poach inventory from the Weeks system.  The fraudulent crossover grids that grossly undervalue prime Weeks inventory by overaveraging are there for all to see, another smoking gun, but it benefits Points members so they look the other way.  They personally stand to gain from the continued existance of crossover trades based on these grids.

Bootleg became a real danger to RCI when he spilled the beans about being able to look back and see where prime RCI rental inventory came from and it was from regular exchange deposits unconnected to points for deposit, cruises, etc. Of course, a higher up at RCI would do everything possible to try to discredit him.  Undoubtedly they also must have had a witchhunt trying to ferret hmi out that ultimately scared him off of further participation on these boards. That is much more of a loss to TUG than the apparent departure of Madge.  Bootleg gave us straight scoop rather that corporate speak.

The defense of RCI on the rentals issue has been so strident here at TUG by the predicatble little group that many of those who have expressed concerns over the rentals have departed to other t/s boards, but my skin is thick enough I am not about to do likewise.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 30, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> ...
> 
> What most of the RCI defenders on these boards, perhaps all, have in common is that they are strong points advocates.  They defend Points members being able to poach inventory from the Weeks system.  The fraudulent crossover grids that grossly undervalue prime Weeks inventory by overaveraging are there for all to see, another smoking gun, but it benefits Points members so they look the other way.  They personally stand to gain from the continued existance of crossover trades based on these grids.
> 
> ..


For the record, this accusation has a long history.  Originally, there were five of us who were regularly identified by a name that Carolinian is no longer allowed to use on this board, but had Points as part of its title.  Two of us (myself included) actually owned points, the other three did not.  One of them did not even use RCI. To my knowledge, that listing has not changed.

So, since I am apparently the guilty party, here is a listing of my crossover trades over six and a half years of Points ownership.  Two crossover trades to England, one of which I gained a small profit over a similar trade within Points and one of which I would have been better off if I had used Points.  (Both of these trades were in the fairly early days of Points.  English Point membership has been growing substantially.  I doubt that I would do anything but a points trade these days based upon greater availability, especially since I would not have to plan so far out on the calandar as one does within the Weeks system.)  A trade for a white week in Texas.  A trade to a recently opened megacomplex in western Massachussetts.  This trade came the closest to being an absolute steal.  Still, while the complex was fairly full over the weekend, ninety percent empty on Monday.  Most of the people there on the weekend were fresh meat the developers were bringing in on promotion packages. So, if I stole anything from Weeks people in this case, it was the opportunity for someone to pay developer prices.  Units were available for anyone who wanted to trade there. Most recently, a trade for a week in Florida the week after New Years.  The unit that I took had been available for a least a month and a half before I took it.

[I realized after posting this, someone used to Weeks might think "Well, five out of six years you did not use anything from the Points system."  While I would have to check back in the records, I believe I made a Points trade every year including the most recent one.  The fact that I have been able to make multiple trades is one of the real reasons for my having converted.  Contrary to what Carolinian claims, not every trade within Weeks is a fair trade.  I had been losing part of the value of my timeshare every year prior to Points.]


----------



## sage (Jul 30, 2007)

*Shaken & stirred!*

I originally started this thread to see if anyone else had heard the same information as me regarding  Club Le Bourse. 

Seems that the topic has really shaken & stirrd an already boiling pot!!!!:hysterical:


----------



## PerryM (Jul 30, 2007)

*The western front...*



sage said:


> I originally started this thread to see if anyone else had heard the same information as me regarding  Club Le Bourse.
> 
> Seems that the topic has really shaken & stirrd an already boiling pot!!!!:hysterical:




Sadly your thread was hijacked and is part of a war that consumes much of TUG now – the “*RCI is a crook*” war.  It is waged by one person (ok, maybe 2) and many of us take turns refuting the baseless charges.  If we don’t this will escalate even more and turn into a class action web site against RCI.

After RCI then it will be II then it will be Marriott then it will be …anyone with deep pockets.

I’ve done my little bit lately, I will fade back, reload, and once again head for the front lines.

But such is life…


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 30, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Ah, the same little group of predictable RCI defenders.  I remember when one of those who has defended RCI is this thread jumped to their defense when some Tuggers discovered the SkyAuction timeshare rentals that were obviously coming from RCI.  No, this RCI defender stridently contended.  Pointing at RCI was unfair, they said, because all of these rentals were obviously coming from one guy who had A LOT of timehares!  Well, not long afterward, some Tuggers starting winning those cheap rentals at SkyAuction and received standard RCI confirmations for those weeks.  No, the smoking gun was there.  It was not some guy with A LOT of timeshares.  It was RCI.
> 
> What most of the RCI defenders on these boards, perhaps all, have in common is that they are strong points advocates.  They defend Points members being able to poach inventory from the Weeks system.  The fraudulent crossover grids that grossly undervalue prime Weeks inventory by overaveraging are there for all to see, another smoking gun, but it benefits Points members so they look the other way.  They personally stand to gain from the continued existance of crossover trades based on these grids.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure if I am included in this group you label as RCI Defenders.  I suspect I am. 

I don't like RCI very much anymore.  And I keep my membership with my eyes wide open.  I hardly use them anymore since there are so many alternatives that are better.  If everyone did the same, there wouldn't be a problem.

I have always held that this is a free market and owners can choose to use or not use RCI.  That is the best way to exercise your rights.... by your own free choices.  That is the single best way to ensure that greedy companies remain in check.

Lawsuits just make lawyers rich.  The current class action lawsuit is going nowhere.  

Do I think RCI is cheating by renting out spacebank deposits?  Probably.  Do I think it is the primary reason why RCI is harder to use today than it was allegedly many years ago?  Probably not.

Why do I believe that?  Because after several years of studying this problem, I have concluded that the alleged degradation of exchanges can easily be explained by the legitimate removal of free prime week deposits from resort developers out of the spacebank and into the rental pool.  A Weeks based timesharing system cannot survive without them.  In fact, any third party exchange company whether it be points or weeks based needs them to close the inherent exchange gap caused by bonus weeks, expiring deposits and rental weeks.

What I do appreciate is that the debates on this topic are more civil than they used to be.  I believe that is a major difference between today and a couple of years ago.  People can read the arguments and make their own decision on whether or not RCI is guilty of screwing over its customers and then make their own choice on whether or not to stay with them.


----------



## JLB (Jul 30, 2007)

To keep it off track, can someone answer the point I brought up in #43?

If TUG has lost the presence of RCI, whether it be Madge, Inside Guy, or whomever, perhaps because of the incessant Internet consumer warfare waged here, *do we have anyone to go to when we need help with a present-day, real-life situation?*


----------



## PerryM (Jul 30, 2007)

*"That's why"*



JLB said:


> To keep it off track, can someone answer the point I brought up in #43?
> 
> If TUG has lost the presence of RCI, whether it be Madge, Inside Guy, or whomever, perhaps because of the incessant Internet consumer warfare waged here, *do we have anyone to go to when we need help with a present-day, real-life situation?*




I volunteer to help keep out baseless charges against timeshare companies for this very reason - we would like their help once in a while.

I'd bet that if RCI responded they would point a finger and say "That's why".

P.S.
It's not just RCI - I can name several companies that when you ask them for help and they learn you are a TUG member slam the door in your face.

When an individual defames and makes charges against a timeshare company they speak for TUG - when an individual asks for help from that company the TUG name stains the person with a reputation that is impossible to overcome - trust me on this.

There are unintended consequences to defaming a company that spread far and wide.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 30, 2007)

JLB said:


> To keep it off track, can someone answer the point I brought up in #43?
> 
> If TUG has lost the presence of RCI, whether it be Madge, Inside Guy, or whomever, perhaps because of the incessant Internet consumer warfare waged here, *do we have anyone to go to when we need help with a present-day, real-life situation?*



Absolutely, there's Dr. Phil, Oprah and Dr. Laura.


----------



## icydog (Jul 30, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> I don't like RCI very much anymore. And I keep my membership with my eyes wide open. I hardly use them anymore since there are so many alternatives that are better. If everyone did the same, there wouldn't be a problem.


I agree with you in your assessment of RCI, however I have not found a good alternative exchange company with which to beat them over the head.I've tried DAE, TPI and SFX with similarily bad results, so now what? 

RCI has the inventory, the developer contacts, and a good search system, however they continue to sell weeks in their "pseudo sites" like Sky Auction and Snap travel all the time, leaving us owners holding the bag. 




BocaBum99 said:


> Do I think RCI is cheating by renting out spacebank deposits? Probably. Do I think it is the primary reason why RCI is harder to use today than it was allegedly many years ago? Probably not.


 
I don't think we can accept that RCI can steal weeks for their own gain while we continue to pay maintenance fees for those same weeks; and that RCI can then offer us less than a fair exchange because our weeks have been sold off? Can anyone accept this? Those are my weeks, our weeks, your weeks! It would be cavelier to dismiss the fact that RCI raids our weeks to sell them off. This is stealing! NO polite way of saying it, they are stealing something that has been intrusted to them and selling it on street. How would anyone like it if their brokers sold off some of their annunities, made a profit on them, and then offered you a five year diminishing returns CD instead. That would be stealing, just as RCI is doing everyday. I think that RCI is BROKEN and that it CAN be fixed. Throwing the exchange company out like dirty bath water is not a solution. If RCI will not fix themselves, _voluntarily_, then it could be up to a  large groups of owners to remind them of their business model.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 30, 2007)

I have no answer to your question, Jim.  You point to a real loss (and, the cause); people should go back to read your post.  In fact, you brought your A-game to this entire thread.

Hopefully, RCI is huddling and will come up with an alternative.  It would also be nice for II to reestablish a presence here.  I am afraid, however, that the nastiness that was sometimes displayed will discourage both companies from providing a needed service.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 30, 2007)

*Supersizing the American way.....*



icydog said:


> I agree with you in your assessment of RCI, however I have not found a good alternative exchange company with which to beat them over the head.I've tried DAE, TPI and SFX with similarily bad results, so now what?
> 
> RCI has the inventory, the developer contacts, and a good search system, however they continue to sell weeks in their "pseudo sites" like Sky Auction and Snap travel all the time, leaving us owners holding the bag.
> 
> ...




Can we all agree that no proof exists that RCI is doing any of this – we can guess and that’s perfectly ok.  We can look at a situation and guess what’s going on – but beyond that we, as consumers, have a simple choice – use the service or not.

Over the years I’ve presented many ways for clever programmers and managers to make what you charge completely legal.  If you want I can run thru the scenario again.  If I can show a scenario where it is perfectly ok to do the interchange of reservations between RCI Weeks and Points and the resulting renting of reservations would that satisfy folks here?

I suspect not, aren’t we really talking about fewer and fewer upgrades and that’s the real problem?  If we had a plethora of high quality upgrades who here would be demanding RCI be sued – no one.

If fewer upgrades is the problem there are many possible causes – randomly picking RCI as the crook is just too easy.  I think we Americans are so used to Supersizing that when presented with reality we have real problems.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 30, 2007)

icydog said:


> I don't think we can accept that RCI can steal weeks for their own gain while we continue to pay maintenance fees for those same weeks; and that RCI can then offer us less than a fair exchange because our weeks have been sold off? Can anyone accept this? Those are my weeks, our weeks, your weeks! It would be cavelier to dismiss the fact that RCI raids our weeks to sell them off. This is stealing! NO polite way of saying it, they are stealing something that has been intrusted to them and selling it on street. How would anyone like it if their brokers sold off some of their annunities, made a profit on them, and then offered you a five year diminishing returns CD instead. That would be stealing, just as RCI is doing everyday. I think that RCI is BROKEN and that it CAN be fixed. Throwing the exchange company out like dirty bath water is not a solution. If RCI will not fix themselves, _voluntarily_, then it could be up to a  large groups of owners to remind them of their business model.






> Serenity Prayer
> 
> God grant me the serenity
> to accept the things I cannot change;
> ...



The best way to deal with RCI is the quit using them if they don't work for you anymore or you believe they are cheating you.

Trying to change them is NOT being practical and a waste of time and money.

If you don't have a better alternative than RCI, then keep using them.

You don't have to accept anything except your own choices made of your own free will.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 30, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Can we all agree that no proof exists that RCI is doing any of this – we can guess and that’s perfectly ok.  We can look at a situation and guess what’s going on – but beyond that we, as consumers, have a simple choice – use the service or not.



No, we can't.  On the internet, you are guilty until proven innocent.   It's the nature of the beast.

I think the saddest of facts is that there are those who don't like them, know the alternatives, stick with them and still whine about it.  That is the definition of insanity.  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 30, 2007)

icydog said:


> ...
> I don't think we can accept that RCI can steal weeks for their own gain while we continue to pay maintenance fees for those same weeks; ...It would be cavelier to dismiss the fact that RCI raids our weeks to sell them off. This is stealing! NO polite way of saying it, they are stealing something that has been intrusted to them and selling it on street....


Maybe, but maybe not.  (I am going to take guff for posting this, but so what.)

Let's do some backwards engineering.  Suppose a developer has scads of unsold units.  He could give them away, but would be much more interested in getting a small amount of money for their use.  RCI agrees to rent them.  This is a good bargain for both RCI (income) and the developer (income and fresh meat.)

Now it so happens that a bunch of RCI exchangers would love to go to this resort.  (It is the flashy new resort in the book.)  The choices that RCI now faces are ...

(1.)  They could keep the developer weeks and exchange inventory in entirely separate pools.  (This is what many posters mad at RCI seem to call for.)  But that would be bad for those exchangers in that they could not exchange into this resort.  

(2.)  Another possibility would be for the developer weeks available to exchangers for free - a gift from RCI.  (That would be bad for the stockholders of RCI - especially when RCI has to pay a promised rental fee to the developer.  As Craig noted, no exchange company can afford to do this. My bet is that II does not do this.)  

(3.) A third possibility would be substitute existing inventory of the same value (that would be the deposits we made - the ones that some people say should never be touched) for the developer weeks. Unfortunately, since the developer weeks are at some of the newest, flashiest resorts, what is traded could be some fairly valuable stuff. Still, this exchange could be of value to the exchangers interested in this new resort, the developers, and RCI (especially, if they can rent units in multiple locations instead of at just one resort) all at once.

Is it being done properly? Maybe, maybe not.  Superficial stories and screen prints of a single deposit will not tell the story.  If it is not being done properly, however, RCI will be in trouble not just with the lawsuit, but some of its officials and the accounting firm that checks up on them will be in trouble given the Sarbanes Oxley law (which applies to internal accounting as well as external).  If that happens so be it.


----------



## Mel (Jul 30, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> (3.) A third possibility would be substitute existing inventory of the same value (that would be the deposits we made - the ones that some people say should never be touched) for the developer weeks. Unfortunately, since the developer weeks are at some of the newest, flashiest resorts, what is traded could be some fairly valuable stuff. Still, this exchange could be of value to the exchangers interested in this new resort, the developers, and RCI (especially, if they can rent units in multiple locations instead of at just one resort) all at once.
> 
> Is it being done properly? Maybe, maybe not.  Superficial stories and screen prints of a single deposit will not tell the story.  If it is not being done properly, however, RCI will be in trouble not just with the lawsuit, but some of its officials and the accounting firm that checks up on them will be in trouble given the Sarbanes Oxley law (which applies to internal accounting as well as external).  If that happens so be it.


This is what I have suggested all along - on the surface, it looks like RCI is pulling prime weeks out and selling them.  But I don't think that is what is happening - look at the new resorts within the exchange system.  Do people here honestly think all those deposits are from other individual owners?  I don't think so - I think they are developer inventory, and the developer has to be compensated.  The developers & RCI used to have a compensation plan where they were converted to bonus weeks - but the value of those has diminished.  That can be attributed to greed both on the parts of developer and RCI, and on the part of our fellow exchangers.  We all want to trade up with our regular exchange weeks, and are better able to do so with online trading, but that leaves less available for those bonus weeks.

So now, the developer want more than worthless bonus weeks for their inventory.  RCI probably has to pay them for that inventory now, and they have to recover those costs somehow.  This is no different than all the smaller exchange companies that we are supposed to jump ship to.  If they use an outside source to aquire a week you want, don't you expect them to compensate whoever gives them that week?

What RCI has done is make themselves a mega-owner.  Think of it as a special member account, holding all the developer deposits.  As each week frows from that account into the regular space bank, another equally valuable week flows out.  Because these are brand new top notch resorts, what flows out will have to be of equal quality, hence the peak weeks.  The difference between this account on the rest of us is that the "no commercial use" clause does not apply.  This account is set up for the express purpose of commercial transactions.

It is from this account that clubs like the one referred to in the original post get their inventory.  Most of them are lower-demand weeks, in the shoulder seasons, as well as the weeks nobody wants.  But some of them are these same weeks that were taken from the spacebank in exchange for the developer weeks.  For all we know, they may control some timeshare weeks that are deposited into the system, which wouldn't be that far different from some of the mini-systems.  They probably have a corporate account with RCI, just like Hilton and some others - not that they operate like Hilton, but their relationship with RCI may be very similar.


Think about this - there is some new resort that you really want to exchange to, but there are NO owner deposits because it will only have been open 8 months when you want to visit.  This is such a nice resort, that very few owner deposits are expected when it is in full operation.  If the owners are more likely to use or rent their own weeks, how are you going to exchange in?  How happy are you going to be when RCI tells you they can't get you a week here, but they have something you might like at thses 10 peak weeks they do have (the weeks that would have been rented, but for the injunction on removing them from the spacebank)?  They're not what you really wanted, but they _are the best weeks at the best resorts._


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 30, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Now it so happens that a bunch of RCI exchangers would love to go to this resort.  (It is the flashy new resort in the book.)  The choices that RCI faces are to keep developer and exchange inventory entirely separate.  (This is what many posters mad at RCI seem to call for.)  But that would be bad for those exchangers.  Another possibility would be for them to make this inventory available to exchangers for free.  (That would be bad for the stockholders of RCI.  As Craig noted, no exchange company can afford to do this.)  A third possibility would be substitute existing inventory of the same value (that would be the deposits we made - the ones that some people say should never be touched - that would put us back to the first of the three choices) for the developer weeks. Unfortunately, since the developer weeks are at some of the newest, flashiest resorts, what is traded could be some fairly valuable stuff. Still, this exchange could be of value to the exchangers interested in this new resort, the developers, and RCI (especially, if they can rent units in multiple locations instead of at just one resort) all at once.



This is the most likely scenario that is occurring. But now you're into "my old beach/mountain view/center of town  resort is better than the new one because it's on the beach/mountain/center of town". Yet we all know that it IS the flashy, newest, most featured filled that most (perhaps not the seasoned traveler) members try to get.  That blind spot to the reality of the average trader helps create the strong belief that the exchange companies are cheating when in fact they may really be doing what members demand. It may not fit some peoples notion of what a fair trade is but it may meet the criteria and demand that RCI/II sees.  We don't know but the chances are they are trying to make the majority happy not mad.  

Unless we know how the whole system actually works and what values are given to what we are taking shots in the dark.  Going further and saying that the companies have night vision scopes to pick off the gnats in the dark while we can't hit the cows with a shotgun seems to stretch credibility. It has to be assumed that what they are doing is within the rules we accept. If you don't believe it is then you really shouldn't place your time (trust) with that company.  It is voluntary after all.  

I agree with those that say things aren't going to change due to any suits, that carping here won't change things, that its the lawyers - not the customers - who are chasing the deep pockets not the "problem".  The issue is best handled by the users of the systems.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> The best way to deal with RCI is the quit using them if they don't work for you anymore or you believe they are cheating you.
> 
> Trying to change them is NOT being practical and a waste of time and money.
> 
> ...



That sounds like some of the Delta defenders over at Flyer Talk when some of them were bashing the www.saveskymiles.com campaign.  But, surprise, surprise, SaveSkyMiles won!  Delta reversed course and restored what they had taken away.  A defeatist attitude gets you nowhere.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 30, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> That sounds like some of the Delta defenders over at Flyer Talk when some of them were bashing the www.saveskymiles.com campaign.  But, surprise, surprise, SaveSkyMiles won!  Delta reversed course and restored what they had taken away.  A defeatist attitude gets you nowhere.



And isn't Delta a respected, money making, user friendly airline today? No? Hmmm, what happened? I guess the lawsuits won the battle and not the war. That is the usual outcome when companies are forced into untenable actions. They don't get better and they may disappear altogether.


----------



## bnoble (Jul 30, 2007)

Score: consumers 1, big companies 1,432.

I know you like to continually use the Delta situation as an example, but even just in the _airline industry_, the industry has pretty much made change after change that loyal customers hate, but suck up and accept anyway.  Examples include standby fees, which are not waived for anyone except those in the very highest tier, and only on some airlines.  Premium seat selection fees, removing those seats from the pool elite flyers can chose from until 24 hours prior to departure.  The removal of even peanuts in coach, and the reduction of food service in first class.  The near-gifting low-tier status to nearly anyone who asks, diluting the value of the bulk of loyal flyers.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

bnoble said:


> Score: consumers 1, big companies 1,432.
> 
> I know you like to continually use the Delta situation as an example, but even just in the _airline industry_, the industry has pretty much made change after change that loyal customers hate, but suck up and accept anyway.  Examples include standby fees, which are not waived for anyone except those in the very highest tier, and only on some airlines.  Premium seat selection fees, removing those seats from the pool elite flyers can chose from until 24 hours prior to departure.  The removal of even peanuts in coach, and the reduction of food service in first class.  The near-gifting low-tier status to nearly anyone who asks, diluting the value of the bulk of loyal flyers.



Delta passengers were not alone.  A bit earlier, US Airways passengers, styling themselves the ''cockroaches'' forced that airline to rescind some negative ff changes in a matter of weeks.  They did not have to go through the prolonged battle that Delta passengers did.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

Delta is MUCH more user friendly today than in the Rob Borden era.  The changes were made with consumer pressure rather than lawsuits.  They are actually doing okay financially, too.  That happens when a company makes its customers happy or at least happier than they were.




timeos2 said:


> And isn't Delta a respected, money making, user friendly airline today? No? Hmmm, what happened? I guess the lawsuits won the battle and not the war. That is the usual outcome when companies are forced into untenable actions. They don't get better and they may disappear altogether.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

There is a market segment that takes flash over location, but it is not the majority.  I well remember the SoCal experts on TUG telling people to buy a beachfront standard resort over a Gold Crown that was off the beach because the exchange demand was for location not frills.  The same is true on the other coast on the Outer Banks.  The newest, fanciest resort, BIS-Kitty Hawk is also the lowest demand resort because it is in the woods behind the Wal-Mart, a long way from the beach.  Even when owners at BIS-Duck price rentals $100 under the oceanfront standard resorts, they don't even get any interest until all of the oceanfront weeks are rented.  And its not just beach areas.   Allen House, an older resort well located in central London, for example has more demand than Gold Crown but remote Odessa Wharf, way out in the Docklands.   Like all real estate, the three most important things about timeshare are location, location, and location.





timeos2 said:


> This is the most likely scenario that is occurring. But now you're into "my old beach/mountain view/center of town  resort is better than the new one because it's on the beach/mountain/center of town". Yet we all know that it IS the flashy, newest, most featured filled that most (perhaps not the seasoned traveler) members try to get.  That blind spot to the reality of the average trader helps create the strong belief that the exchange companies are cheating when in fact they may really be doing what members demand. It may not fit some peoples notion of what a fair trade is but it may meet the criteria and demand that RCI/II sees.  We don't know but the chances are they are trying to make the majority happy not mad.
> 
> Unless we know how the whole system actually works and what values are given to what we are taking shots in the dark.  Going further and saying that the companies have night vision scopes to pick off the gnats in the dark while we can't hit the cows with a shotgun seems to stretch credibility. It has to be assumed that what they are doing is within the rules we accept. If you don't believe it is then you really shouldn't place your time (trust) with that company.  It is voluntary after all.
> 
> I agree with those that say things aren't going to change due to any suits, that carping here won't change things, that its the lawyers - not the customers - who are chasing the deep pockets not the "problem".  The issue is best handled by the users of the systems.


----------



## Aldo (Jul 30, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> (3.) A third possibility would be substitute existing inventory of the same value (that would be the deposits we made - the ones that some people say should never be touched) for the developer weeks. Unfortunately, since the developer weeks are at some of the newest, flashiest resorts, what is traded could be some fairly valuable stuff. Still, this exchange could be of value to the exchangers interested in this new resort, the developers, and RCI (especially, if they can rent units in multiple locations instead of at just one resort) all at once.
> 
> Is it being done properly? Maybe, maybe not.  Superficial stories and screen prints of a single deposit will not tell the story.  If it is not being done properly, however, RCI will be in trouble not just with the lawsuit, but some of its officials and the accounting firm that checks up on them will be in trouble given the Sarbanes Oxley law (which applies to internal accounting as well as external).  If that happens so be it.




A few comments about this.

First, I imagine that most developers would far rather see a guest who had rented their unit from SkyAuction rather than someone via an RCI exchange.  They want their guests to purchase a week.  I suspect that current TS owners are a far more difficult sale, for a number of reasons.

Secondly, if there was such a scheme afoot, and it was managed fairly and correctly, you'd see one good week go out of the pool and one good developer week go in, so on and so forth.  The net effect of this on the trading power of all the TS in the pool would be negligable...a good week in, a good week out, etc.  And yet we have had literally thousands of reports/complaints about diminished trade power.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

The RCI defenders, who often seem to claim they are not RCI defenders although they rush to spin anything they can in RCI's favor, tell us the solution to concerns is not through lawsuits or consumer activism.  One or two have even suggested censorship and a kind of "timeshare ''correctness'' where everyone is required to ''be nice to poor little downtrodden RCI''.

A type of low key but effective consumer activism I have been suggesting all along is to work with our HOA's to help grow the competition.  RCI can only run over us because they are a quasi-monopoly.  We need to talk to our resorts about dual affiliation with II, and in getting the word out on the independents.  Several independents like DAE and Platinum will pay the postage for HOA newsletters if you include one of their brochures.  This saves money for the HOA while helping the independents get their message out to timeshare owners.

And actually, a good way to crack down on the rental shananigans is not just judicial but legislative.  There are already disclosure laws at the state level for timeshare exchange companies.  These need to be rewritten to cover rentals and be so detailed as to make the developers, who are required to hand out these disclosures, tell the exchange companies to stop the rentals.
You have got to put the squeeze on the developers to put the heat on the rental operations of the exchange companies through state legislation.

I am also amused that the very RCI defender who came up with the excuse that all those SkyAuction rentals must be from one guy with A LOT of timeshares is again coming up with excuses in this very thread to explain away what RCI is doing.  The excuses are no more likely to be accurate this time as they were then.

I also remember the RCI defenders who vigorously argued on the old TUG board that it just wasn't so when I pointed out that built into GPN (the early name of RCI Points) when they first rolled it out was a mechanism that would lead to massive spacebank rentals to the general public by RCI.  We saw who was right on that one!

Of course, it is refreshing when the ''RCI can do no wrong'' cheering section on TUG is distracted by some other person or entity who dares do something to suggest that some of the policies of dear old uncle RCI are not in the best interests of its members.  When a few of us would sometimes put a link up to the newsletter of the Seasons timeshare chain in Europe when they announced they were bolting to II over points and rentals and fired a withering broadside against RCI on both subjects, it used to send the RCI defenders into orbit attacking Seasons.  Too bad that issue of their newsletter rotated off of their website so we can't link to it anymore.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 30, 2007)

Aldo said:


> ....  And yet we have had literally thousands of reports/complaints about diminished trade power.


And those complaints started when online trading really began to draw large numbers.  Prior to then, people would timidly ask for an area.  Then, when they could see what was available, they said "Hey, look we can get a two bedroom in ..."  Guess what happens when everyone starts maximizing their trades? 

No one wants to blame online trading, however, because they like to do it themselves.  Better to scapegoat.

(Just so you know, Carolinian's alternative theory was that Points people were taking all the good stuff from the inventory.  At the time less than one half of one percent people were in Points.)


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 30, 2007)

Aldo said:


> A few comments about this.
> 
> First, I imagine that most developers would far rather see a guest who had rented their unit from SkyAuction rather than someone via an RCI exchange.  They want their guests to purchase a week.  I suspect that current TS owners are a far more difficult sale, for a number of reasons.


I understand it the other way around.  Traditionally, the biggest hurdle developers have faced in sales is the overcoming the negative images of timesharing.

When they are making their sales presentation to existing owners, that problem is significantly reduced.  Timeshare owners who have been able to exchange into a newly opened quality resort are likely to be satisfied timesharers.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> .
> 
> (Just so you know, Carolinian's alternative theory was that Points people were taking all the good stuff from the inventory.  At the time less than one half of one percent people were in Points.)




You're half right.  Rentals from the spacebank, as I have always pointed out is
the other head of the monster.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

*A challenge to the RCI defenders*

I have challenged the RCI defenders before.  How many of you are willing to work with your home resorts to promote more competition in timeshare exchanging by asking them to dual affiliate with II and make their owners aware of the independents?  

Do I have any takers?


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 30, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> And those complaints started when online trading really began to draw large numbers.  Prior to then, people would timidly ask for an area.  Then, when they could see what was available, they said "Hey, look we can get a two bedroom in ..."  Guess what happens when everyone starts maximizing their trades?
> 
> No one wants to blame online trading, however, because they like to do it themselves.  Better to scapegoat.
> 
> (Just so you know, Carolinian's alternative theory was that Points people were taking all the good stuff from the inventory.  At the time less than one half of one percent people were in Points.)



Whatever appears to move the blame away from the fact that 80% of deposits are not prime yet they are chasing that 20% that are will do. Rentals, Points  - those work because they are "evils" that don't fit the pure free upgrade model as it once operated. The obvious answers - Internet booking, easy rentals to the world, reduced numbers of stand alone resorts vs resort groups that control their own inventory rather than give it for free to the big exchangers, more owners overall chasing the best, fragmentation of deposits, the increase in information available to a timeshare owner to make better choices  - those wouldn't be fodder for lawsuits so we can't even acknowledge those.  And the lawyers smile.  

*******

US AIR was another victory?  If that is what happens to successful consumer lawsuits PLEASE let me out of RCI now.  I was a steady USA customer for a decade and reached the highest levels of FF standing. But the negative changes, not in the FF package but the airline operation, has driven me to use them only as a last resort.  Getting a better seat only to sit on a runway for 3 hours during a layover that used to be a direct flight isn't worth the free flights or the convenience of early boarding/First class seating.  If the service sucks I don't sue or hope for a class action I take my business elsewhere. Now what USAir wants to do couldn't mean less to me just like I don't care what II does for / to the individual members.  I don't pay for that anymore as it wasn't the service I wanted. Problem solved and not one lawyer involved.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 30, 2007)

*II just doesn't produce*



Carolinian said:


> I have challenged the RCI defenders before.  How many of you are willing to work with your home resorts to promote more competition in timeshare exchanging by asking them to dual affiliate with II and make their owners aware of the independents?
> 
> Do I have any takers?



Steve - The first thing we did in 2001 when we made a management change at one of the resorts I serve on the Board for was dual affiliate with II. We also invited SFX to come on site if they desired (they accept the resort but say they can't affiliate due to State restrictions).  At the other resort it has been dual affiliated for all but 1 year of it's 20 years of existence. 

The results? Over 90% of the deposits at both are to RCI.  We have practically begged II to solicit for members/deposits and they talk a big push then we hear nothing and see no action until we ask again. Then there are more promises that never get followed up on.  It is so bad that one of the two General Managers has asked the Board to "de-affiliate"  with II as they never get things right and never follow through.  This is a guy who was anxious to bring in competition to RCI and now has no use for II whatsoever. 

When I talk about II not being a viable player it is from experience in two direct relationships and many more indirect. I took the challenge and acted on it over 5 years ago.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 30, 2007)

I have very little contact with my home resort and it is now affiliated with Wyndham.  I have not been shy in personal contacts about mentioning the independents, however.  

I also would suggest that any one with influence should inquire about having their resort become a Points resort.  Not a single owner has to join Points in order to do that.  It would have the double effect of giving owners more options and ending Carolinians complaint about cross over trades - at least into that one resort.  Any takers?


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 30, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> I have very little contact with my home resort and it is now affiliated with Wyndham.  I have not been shy in personal contacts about mentioning the independents, however.
> 
> I also would suggest that any one with influence should inquire about having their resort become a Points resort.  Not a single owner has to join Points in order to do that.  It would have the double effect of giving owners more options and ending Carolinians complaint about cross over trades - at least into that one resort.  Any takers?



Roger - Good "point" (sorry).  I am proud to say I also voted to bring points to both resorts when they became available. One is RCI the other a mini-system. Options for owners should be the number one goal for every Board/resort.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 30, 2007)

*Never Mind.*

[ -- total delete following inadvertent double post -- ] 

[ -- sheesh -- ]


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 30, 2007)

*Repercussions When Timeshares Join Points.*




"Roger" said:


> I also would suggest that any one with influence should inquire about having their resort become a Points resort.  Not a single owner has to join Points in order to do that.  It would have the double effect of giving owners more options and ending Carolinians complaint about cross over trades - at least into that one resort.


It would also upset the applecart by making it so that owners can no longer do _Points For Deposit_ with their unconverted weeks at timeshares that join up with Points. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> *******
> 
> US AIR was another victory?  If that is what happens to successful consumer lawsuits PLEASE let me out of RCI now.  I was a steady USA customer for a decade and reached the highest levels of FF standing. But the negative changes, not in the FF package but the airline operation, has driven me to use them only as a last resort.  Getting a better seat only to sit on a runway for 3 hours during a layover that used to be a direct flight isn't worth the free flights or the convenience of early boarding/First class seating.  If the service sucks I don't sue or hope for a class action I take my business elsewhere. Now what USAir wants to do couldn't mean less to me just like I don't care what II does for / to the individual members.  I don't pay for that anymore as it wasn't the service I wanted. Problem solved and not one lawyer involved.



As a former Piedmont flyer, I can relate to your opinion of USAIR.  The are my 6th choice US airline, although I will be taking a couple of flights on them in a couple of weeks, on someone else's dime.

However, while the cockroaches did not try to go after service problems, they did back USAIR down from some very negative ff changes, and again like Delta not with a lawsuit but with consumer pressure.


----------



## Aldo (Jul 30, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> *******
> 
> US AIR was another victory?  If that is what happens to successful consumer lawsuits PLEASE let me out of RCI now.  I was a steady USA customer for a decade and reached the highest levels of FF standing. But the negative changes, not in the FF package but the airline operation, has driven me to use them only as a last resort.  Getting a better seat only to sit on a runway for 3 hours during a layover that used to be a direct flight isn't worth the free flights or the convenience of early boarding/First class seating.  If the service sucks I don't sue or hope for a class action I take my business elsewhere. Now what USAir wants to do couldn't mean less to me just like I don't care what II does for / to the individual members.  I don't pay for that anymore as it wasn't the service I wanted. Problem solved and not one lawyer involved.




What would you do if it became absolutely apparent that everytime US AIR "lost" your luggage, they were taking it down to a pawnshop and selling it?

Simply take your business elsewhere or sue for the recovery of your property?


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

Aldo said:


> What would you do if it became absolutely apparent that everytime US AIR "lost" your luggage, they were taking it down to a pawnshop and selling it?
> 
> Simply take your business elsewhere or sue for the recovery of your property?



Touche!  Good analogy.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 30, 2007)

*I accept and issue a challenge...*



Carolinian said:


> I have challenged the RCI defenders before.  How many of you are willing to work with your home resorts to promote more competition in timeshare exchanging by asking them to dual affiliate with II and make their owners aware of the independents?
> 
> Do I have any takers?




We own at the Park Plaza, in Park City, UT and it is affiliated with II, RCI, RCI Points, and some other independent that I don’t track for many years now.

The Park Plaza also lets you roll forward your usage this year and next and the next year and borrow from next year’s usage too.

They have a free van shuttle that takes you to the slopes and restaurants at night.

I dare say the little Park Plaza is one of the most unique and owner friendly resorts out there.

My work is done.

I last used RCI Weeks 3 years ago, so there must be something else involved with many of us here who will stand up and present the sane side of the insanity that is racking RCI today and other deep pocket companies tomorrow.

*How about accepting my challenge and getting a sworn affidavid from someone to backup just one of your allegations against RCI? * You are calling them crooks in no uncertain terms.  If not, what does that say about your allegations?  Baseless is what comes to mind.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 30, 2007)

I suspect the class action boys are hard at work on discovery, affidavits, etc. and they are getting paid well for doing so.

As far as pointing to obvious fraud by RCI, all that is necessary is to look at the generic crossover grids by which RCI allows both Points members and itself to loot Weeks inventory.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 30, 2007)

Aldo said:


> What would you do if it became absolutely apparent that everytime US AIR "lost" your luggage, they were taking it down to a pawnshop and selling it?
> 
> Simply take your business elsewhere or sue for the recovery of your property?



Sue. If I had proof that was what was happening. Or an agency would step in if something blatant was actually happening - thats what Government Agencies live for.  But more importantly before it got that far I took proactive action and gave up checking luggage 5 years ago.  I acted in self defense to stop a problem. Not complain about it or hope for a favorable outcome for  the  "lost/diverted luggage class action" to make the airlines pay more or to pay to have a "Federal watchdog of luggage" at each airport along with my "one bag free" coupon (the added costs to check bags with the new rules added $100 to each flight).   So now I travel lighter, use a more responsive airline and not a penny to lawyers or class actions needed. The most power you will ever wield is your business.  The loss of that is far more feared than any drawn out class action or lawsuit.  Don't look for others to solve the issue - act to correct it as best you can and others will follow your lead. No class action shysters required.  Save the lawyers for really important stuff when real people are hurt physically or financially by actions by others they CAN"T control by simply not giving them the ammunition. There are few finer or more principled people than a lawyer who can effectively argue for a true victims and few that deserve more scorn than the class-action hucksters looking for the deep pocket dollar from those who won't help themselves.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 30, 2007)

Aldo said:


> What would you do if it became absolutely apparent that everytime US AIR "lost" your luggage, they were taking it down to a pawnshop and selling it?
> 
> Simply take your business elsewhere or sue for the recovery of your property?



Sue. If I had proof that was what was happening. Or an agency would step in if something blatant was actually happening - thats what Government Agencies live for.  But more importantly before it got that far I took proactive action and gave up checking luggage 5 years ago.  I acted in self defense to stop a problem. Not complain about it or hope for a favorable outcome for  the  "lost/diverted luggage class action" to make the airlines pay more or to pay to have a "Federal watchdog of luggage" at each airport along with my "one bag free" coupon (the added costs to check bags with the new rules added $100 to each flight).   So now I travel lighter, use a more responsive airline and not a penny to lawyers or class actions needed. The most power you will ever wield is your business.  The loss of that is far more feared than any drawn out class action or lawsuit.  Don't look for others to solve the issue - act to correct it as best you can and others will follow your lead. No class action shysters required.  Save the lawyers for really important stuff when real people are hurt physically or financially by actions by others they CAN"T control by simply not giving them the ammunition. There are few finer or more principled people than a lawyer who can effectively argue for a true victim and few that deserve more scorn than the class-action hucksters looking for the deep pocket dollar from those who won't help themselves.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 30, 2007)

*Hang 'em high...*



Carolinian said:


> I suspect the class action boys are hard at work on discovery, affidavits, etc. and they are getting paid well for doing so.
> 
> As far as pointing to obvious fraud by RCI, all that is necessary is to look at the generic crossover grids by which RCI allows both Points members and itself to loot Weeks inventory.



Let me get this right - you issue challenges to us and we respond.

I issue a challenge and you decline.

Do you really think your credibility will inspire hoards of followers to grab a torch and join the lynch mob against RCI?


If you say you have theories and that RCI "Might" be guilty of crimes I would not be upset in the slightest - but that's not what you are saying.  You are stating, without any proof or anyone else on this planet to back you up, that RCI is a crook.  There is a huge difference.

I use RCI Points and this affects me.  Others on this web site relied on RCI to answer questions, they stopped abruptly  - I believe a direct result of your unsubstantiated and baseless charges.  You are impacting many of us here.

I believe you owe TUG members an apology for your relentless attacks against RCI.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 31, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> I have challenged the RCI defenders before.  How many of you are willing to work with your home resorts to promote more competition in timeshare exchanging by asking them to dual affiliate with II and make their owners aware of the independents?
> 
> Do I have any takers?



No, I'm not willing to take up that cause because I think there are far bigger problems in the timeshare industry like the postcard companies.  That is the problem I am interested in working.  Exchanging simply isn't that bad at this time and there are plenty of choices available to owners.

Here's a challenge for you.  You NEVER give RCI any benefit of the doubt.  Why don't you admit that there is a chance that you could be wrong and RCI could be innocent or NOT liable for the allegations you have been casting for years?  All that will take is a single post.

You are the one with a clear agenda.  No matter what happens in the discovery process against RCI in the class action suit, you will continue with your anti-RCI rhetoric. 

For the record, I simply don't agree with you on how an exchange company should operate.  Evidently, most of them don't either.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 31, 2007)

*Looting, Shmooting.*




Carolinian said:


> As far as pointing to obvious fraud by RCI, all that is necessary is to look at the generic crossover grids by which RCI allows both Points members and itself to loot Weeks inventory.


Folks who get their RCI points via _Points For Deposit_ do so by depositing their straight timeshare weeks into the points system.  When they turn around & use those PFD points to snag exchange reservations into RCI Weeks timeshares, they aren't exactly looting the Weeks inventory.  What they're actually doing is making straight-week timeshare exchanges that just happen to detour into & then back out of the points system. 

Weird?  Yes. 

Semi-complicated?  Sure. 

Looting anybody?  No way José. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 31, 2007)

Aldo said:


> What would you do if it became absolutely apparent that everytime US AIR "lost" your luggage, they were taking it down to a pawnshop and selling it?
> 
> Simply take your business elsewhere or sue for the recovery of your property?



Sure, but that's not happening in RCI.  So, what's your point?  Your property was the one you deposited.  You don't own anything you didn't exchange for.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 31, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Touche!  Good analogy.



Wrong again.  If it were so apparent, then the RCI class action should be over by now.  It's not and most likely will yield nothing for RCI members.

Cross over grids are fine.  ALL OF THEM.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 31, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Let me get this right - you issue challenges to us and we respond.
> 
> I issue a challenge and you decline.
> 
> ...



It is posts like yours that led to a post by someone else on another t/s bbs asking whether RCI owned TUG.  I defended TUG in response to that post saying that one could not sharcterize TUG that way based on a handful of shrill RCI defenders who don't seem to think RCI can do any wrong.

You know very well that your ''challenge'' is just rhetoric.  You expect me to fly around at my expense, taking time off from my own livlihood to collect sworn affidavits when there are paid teams of lawyers doing that right now in the class action??????  Get real!

Your accusation that ''Madge'' left TUG because of my posts makes as much sense as my claiming that Bootleg (who was a MUCH better resource BTW) left becuase of yours.  I was NOT one of the ones that used to stick it to Madge on Ask RCI.  I learned early on that all we got there was corporate spin and rarely even read that board.  I think you owe me an apology for that wild and unsubstantiated charge, Perry.

Some in timesharing can see what is going on and the danger it poses to timesharing.  The Seasons chain in Europe comprehended that even if you cannnot.  They acted, taking their business to II, and blasting RCI over points and rentals in their resort newsletter.  Seasons saw the same dangers I have warned of.  Indeed some on TUG even said it sounded like I had written that commentary in the Seasons newsletter.

The RCI defenders remind me of the monkey statues entitled ''See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'' with one monkey covering his eyes, another covering his ears and the third covering his mouth.  You want to always look at RCI through rose colored glasses.

Apparently things like all of the Tuggers who won weeks at Sky Auction and got standard RCI confirmations for  those weeks don't count in your mind as evidence that RCI is renting out weeks.   You want me to fly around at my expense and on my time to collect affidavits from them.  The rose colored glasses approach is well illustrated by the RCI defender who vigorously argued on these boards that the SkyAuction rentals were simply not from RCI; that they were from one guy who owned a LOT of timeshares.  That very Tugger is still at it, throwing up theories to defend RCI in this very thread.

There is simply no amount of proof that will satisfy the RCI defenders.  When the plaintiffs win the class action, I am sure even that will still not be enough proof.

Perry, why don't you go fly around at your expense and collect affidavits that RCI is run by Boy Scouts and completely on the up and up?

You also need to apologize for your wild accusations.  I have repeatedly pointed out the difference between criminal court and civil court, and that the accusations against RCI are in civil not criminal court.  What RCI stands accused of is a civil wrong not a criminal offense.  The class action is in CIVIL court under consumer protection laws.  Neither I nor anyone else that I can recall has accused them of a crime.  But that is the typical ''set up a straw man and knock it down'' approach on these boards so often seen from some of the RCI defenders.

Please learn the difference between a civil wrong and a crime.

If you want to look at wild accusations, the wildest I have seen on these boards is your contention that state governments tell gas stations how much to charge for gasolene.  Why don't you go collect some affidavits on that one!

You say that you use Points and ''this effects you''.   Why?  Because if RCI is finally honest and fair with its Weeks owners and stops using Weeks to subsidize Points, then Points members will no longer be able to put their hands in Weeks pocket?  Great!  I hope that day of fairness comes soon!!


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 31, 2007)

I suggest you learn a bit more about complex lawsuits.  They are never quick, unless one side throws in the towel early.  The phased discovery, as in this one, alone takes a lot of time.  Be patient!

Dishonest values on a crossover grid are NOT ''fine'' for those on the side that are cheated, in this case Weeks members.




BocaBum99 said:


> Wrong again.  If it were so apparent, then the RCI class action should be over by now.  It's not and most likely will yield nothing for RCI members.
> 
> Cross over grids are fine.  ALL OF THEM.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 31, 2007)

You need to understand the impact of overaveraging on the RCI generic grids.

Prime weeks and resorts in the Weeks system are substantially undervalued while marginal weeks and resorts are substantially overvalued.  The grids are a bargain basement for Points members taking out prime weeks and resorts, but they would be fools to use it to take out lesser weeks and resorts.  Similarly, depositing pink weeks and so-so resorts overvalues deposits but they would have to be fools to deposit prime weeks and resorts.  The skewed values from overaveraging allow Points members to work the system on both ends, putting in overvalued deposits on one end and drawing out undervalued inventory for exchanges on the other.




AwayWeGo said:


> Folks who get their RCI points via _Points For Deposit_ do so by depositing their straight timeshare weeks into the points system.  When they turn around & use those PFD points to snag exchange reservations into RCI Weeks timeshares, they aren't exactly looting the Weeks inventory.  What they're actually doing is making straight-week timeshare exchanges that just happen to detour into & then back out of the points system.
> 
> Weird?  Yes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 31, 2007)

You obviously have a selective memory.  Let me remind you of the proactive posts I made when it was learned that RCI was reworking the crossover grids. I posted a number of thoughts on how RCI could improve them to make them more fair for the exchange system.  I didn't even say they should just abolish them, because some significant reforms were better than nothing.  However, RCI didn't touch any of the problems with the basics and just tweaked the numbers a bit.

Let me also remind you that I am no more ''anti-RCI'' than I was anti-Delta in the Save Sky Miles campaign.  I oppose some policies that have substantially deviated from the traditions of RCI prior to the Cendant takeover, specifically their widespread rental campaign from the spacebank to the general public, and the interface between points and week which is unfair to Weeks.  IMHO RCI under the Christel deHaan plan was a great company with the best exchange program ever devised.  I would love nothing better in timesharing than to have the old, customer-oriented RCI back!

If you don't agree that an exchange company should operate honestly without cheating any category of its members, then I guess we do have a difference of perspective.





BocaBum99 said:


> No, I'm not willing to take up that cause because I think there are far bigger problems in the timeshare industry like the postcard companies.  That is the problem I am interested in working.  Exchanging simply isn't that bad at this time and there are plenty of choices available to owners.
> 
> Here's a challenge for you.  You NEVER give RCI any benefit of the doubt.  Why don't you admit that there is a chance that you could be wrong and RCI could be innocent or NOT liable for the allegations you have been casting for years?  All that will take is a single post.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aldo (Jul 31, 2007)

*Hey Carolinian*

Your Private Messages box is full.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 31, 2007)

*Sermon on the hill*

Wow!  And I thought I got a lot of sermons at chruch.  (Truth be told I sometimes tune them out too)


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 31, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> I suggest you learn a bit more about complex lawsuits.  They are never quick, unless one side throws in the towel early.  The phased discovery, as in this one, alone takes a lot of time.  Be patient!
> 
> Dishonest values on a crossover grid are NOT ''fine'' for those on the side that are cheated, in this case Weeks members.



Time will prove who is right.  I make the very firm assertion that broadly averaged crossover grids are legal and a completely legitimate pricing methodology.  You claim they are illegal or at the very least somehow cheats weeks owners.  That is flatly wrong.  

As a marketing and product management professional who has over 20 years of experience in pricing, I can state unequivocally that creating broad averages is exactly the way that MOST pricing is done.  The key is to make it as simple as possible so that it's easy for the consumers to digest while doing the best at capturing profit so customers don't game your pricing structure while optimally mapping supply and demand.  At the end of the day, pricing has to be acceptable to customers.  A business owner would love to have all of his or her fixed and variable costs captured in their pricing structure, but that rarely ever is possible.  So, they simply aggregate buckets of costs into simple structures that are easy for consumers to understand.  And, they end up with very simple tables of pricing for exchanges such as crossover trades. 

There are tons of very simple crossover grids in the timesharing industry.  Just look at the crossover tables for HGVC, Disney, Hyatt, Sunterra, WorldMark, SVC and others.  They are far more simplistic than RCI Points currently is.  And, they are ALL ONE WAY CROSSOVER GRIDS.  RCI weeks owners do NOT have the ability to exchange into any of these systems without owning them.

I suggest your learn how pricing of products are actually done before you continue to comment about how RCI's crossover grid is somehow illegal or cheats consumers.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 31, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> You obviously have a selective memory.  Let me remind you of the proactive posts I made when it was learned that RCI was reworking the crossover grids. I posted a number of thoughts on how RCI could improve them to make them more fair for the exchange system.  I didn't even say they should just abolish them, because some significant reforms were better than nothing.  However, RCI didn't touch any of the problems with the basics and just tweaked the numbers a bit.
> 
> Let me also remind you that I am no more ''anti-RCI'' than I was anti-Delta in the Save Sky Miles campaign.  I oppose some policies that have substantially deviated from the traditions of RCI prior to the Cendant takeover, specifically their widespread rental campaign from the spacebank to the general public, and the interface between points and week which is unfair to Weeks.  IMHO RCI under the Christel deHaan plan was a great company with the best exchange program ever devised.  I would love nothing better in timesharing than to have the old, customer-oriented RCI back!
> 
> If you don't agree that an exchange company should operate honestly without cheating any category of its members, then I guess we do have a difference of perspective.



Your recommendations fall short of reasonable suggestions, so nobody in RCI  takes them seriously, nor should they.  They come across as hallow recommendations to prove that RCI is a bad and evil company when indeed your proposals for pricing could not be reasonably met by any company.   

Your limited understanding of how pricing is done for products leads you to the wrong conclusions about how to fix them.  It would be like David Boies coming to me for suggestions on how to argue a supreme court case.  I may have an opinion, but it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on in helping him win the case.  

On the specific point of one-way crossover grids.  Your initial assumption is completely wrong.  You claim that they are somehow illegal.  They are not and they are employed across the timeshare industry as a reasonable method of pricing a request first exchange.

The ironic thing is that in all the various versions of the RCI Class Action Suit, none of the complaints seriously consider your idea about crossover grids being the source of any misconduct.  They all excluded it when push came to shove.  Even you complained about it.  Why don't you admit that you could be wrong about it?

Could it be that many very sharp legal experts looked at the argument you have make ad nauseum regarding crossover grids and those arguments fell on deaf ears.  If there were any chance that that argument could remotely help them with their case, they would have included it.  Obviously, it can't.

RCI may be guilty of a lot of wrong doing.  Creating a one-way crossover grid is certainly NOT one of them.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 31, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> If you don't agree that an exchange company should operate honestly without cheating any category of its members, then I guess we do have a difference of perspective.



I do believe they should operate honestly.  And, I want for them to be severely penalized for any and ALL illegal activity.  What I don't want is for them to be hung out to dry for baseless allegations such as those you make regarding their crossover grids.

Where we differ is you just want RCI to be convicted or held liable for acts they YOU believe are illegitimate because YOU BELIEVE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN.  Let me remind you.  IT HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVEN.  And, NOT EVERYBODY agrees with you about your allegations.  I, for one, COMPLETELY DISAGREE with your assertions about crossover grids.  Apparantly, so do all the attorneys who make decisions on the class action lawsuits.

You don't even allow for the possibility that you could be wrong about RCI.  Well, I believe you are.  And, so do many others.  

Your agenda appears to be to do anything you can to get our legal and judicial system to force RCI to do business they way you want it done regarding crossover grids.  Unless you become a product manager for RCI who makes that decision or one of the executives accountable for that decision, it's NOT YOUR CALL.

I am fine with you stating your opinion that others should avoid RCI if they keep the crossover grid.  I have no problem with that.  All consumers should vote with their wallets.  That is the BEST way to get a company to change their ways. My problem is you go too far by making what I believe are false allegations of wrong doing.  Obviously, others here believe that as well which is in my view the real reason why they continue to post counterarguments to your assertions.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 31, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> You need to understand the impact of overaveraging on the RCI generic grids.



Actually, it's YOU who needs to understand the FACT that there is NO perfect pricing mechanism.  In 100% of ALL pricing methods ever created, including Bid/Ask auctions, there are prices that do not make sense.

Underpricing prime weeks only leads to faster out of stock conditions where supply cannot meet demand.  

Over pricing non-prime weeks simply leads to inventory that doesn't move.

You could create any pricing methodology you wanted for any product and I could find fault with it.  

The system that cheats consumers the least is the one that provides them with the most information on which to make a purchase decision.   Then, they can make a decision to make or not make an exchange with full knowledge of what they are doing.

The system that cheats them the most is the one where they are clueless about the value of what they own such as a weeks based trading power formula system and they end up taking anything they can to avoid a complete loss of their week.  That is the epitome of corrupt systems.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 31, 2007)

*Tolerating Imperfection.*




BocaBum99 said:


> The system that cheats them the most is the one where they are clueless about the value of what they own such as a weeks based trading power formula system and they end up taking anything they can to avoid a complete loss of their week.


It's hard to get much into the _Yea-Boo_ kerfuffle over whether RCI is good guys or bad guys -- that's too much like cheering or razzing the local video store.  I mean*,* sheesh*,* who cares? 

Sidestepping all that as much as possible, I think what it boils down to for regular walking-around people who just want luxury vacation accommodations for roughly Motel 6 & Super 8 costs is that week-for-week timeshare exchanging is becoming more & more a shot in the dark while points-based timeshare exchanging -- flawed, not to say corrupt, as it may be -- at least shows what the values are on both ends (depositing & reserving) in advance of committing to an exchange. 

If too many folks come round to seeing it as a raw deal, the customers will stay away in droves & the system will be forced to improve or wither away.  

If enough folks are OK with it more or less as it is, then it's apt to muddle along pretty much unchanged. 

Meanwhile, what make the imperfections tolerable is the huge margin between the prices that the timeshare companies sell their used* timeshares for & the minimal prices for used* timeshares on the secondary market.  The difference -- thousands of dollars -- means the full-freight buyers who exchange are getting hosed from the get-go while the resale buyers who exchange are merely seeing their gigantic advantage trimmed down to enormous.  (Not all timeshare owners exchange.  For non-exchangers, this whole kerfuffle is pretty much _mox nix_.) 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

*** By the time anybody shows up & checks in, _all_ timeshares are used -- even the 1s sold full-freight for big bux by the timeshare companies.  So it goes. ​


----------



## bruwery (Jul 31, 2007)

PerryM said:


> If you say you have theories and that RCI "Might" be guilty of crimes I would not be upset in the slightest - but that's not what you are saying.  You are stating, without any proof or anyone else on this planet to back you up, that RCI is a crook.  There is a huge difference.
> 
> I use RCI Points and this affects me.  Others on this web site relied on RCI to answer questions, they stopped abruptly  - I believe a direct result of your unsubstantiated and baseless charges.  You are impacting many of us here.
> 
> I believe you owe TUG members an apology for your relentless attacks against RCI.



Let's put things in perspective.  Well first, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not attacking you, Perry.  I chose to quote you because there were a couple of points I want to specifically discuss, but in all honesty, I could have quoted a dozen different posts by several members.

Okay, the disclaimer's out of the way, so now, the perspective.  This is merely an internet forum, where opinions are expressed.  It's not the Chamber of Commerce, or the Better Business Bureau, or some large Washington lobbying agency.  Our assertions on this website don't have to be based in facts, and we really don't possess that much clout.  We all post our opinions; likewise Carolinian can post his opinions however he chooses, within the rules of the forum.  His assertions may seem ridiculous to some, but demanding proof in an internet forum seems equally absurd.

Interestingly, the people on here calling for apologies are the same ones who have been the most bullheaded about this issue.

In any case, I'm glad for all the people posting on this topic, because it shows that this is a complex situation.  At the end of the day, probably nobody's completely right, and nobody's completely wrong.

Let's keep in mind that all of us here want the same thing: positive and predictable timeshare experiences.  Clearly, we don't all agree on how best to obtain them, or even what the problems are, but I'm not sure we need to be adversarial about it.

For me, it's simple.  If I go to a restaurant and have an unpleasant experience, I simply don't go there anymore.  I don't sue them.  (My wife's the pickiest eater on the planet; I'd be in court constantly...)  I figure the marketplace will punish them if they continue to disappoint others.  

I am not confident that RCI can get me the exchange I want, so I'm not depositing my week with them.  If somebody wants to sue them, that's fine, but I'm not going to help.  Nor am I going to defend them.

For what it's worth, I don't think Madge disappeared because of Carolinian.  Maybe RCI decided that *we're all* way too full of ourselves and opted to distance themselves from us.

Or, with the lawsuit pending, perhaps legal counsel advised them that it was best to avoid having sponsored representation in places where speculation regarding said lawsuit is being freely tossed about.

Thanks to all for posting.  This has been a most enjoyable topic, although I honestly can't remember what the OP's question was...


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jul 31, 2007)

bruwery said:


> For me, it's simple.  If I go to a restaurant and have an unpleasant experience, I simply don't go there anymore.  I don't sue them.  (My wife's the pickiest eater on the planet; I'd be in court constantly...)  I figure the marketplace will punish them if they continue to disappoint others.
> 
> I am not confident that RCI can get me the exchange I want, so I'm not depositing my week with them.  If somebody wants to sue them, that's fine, but I'm not going to help.  Nor am I going to defend them.



That's the attitude I've always taken and propounded.  My personal RCI membership is ending in a couple of months, and I have no intention of renewing it.  I've not been dissatisfied with exchanges I've received through RCI - I simply have better alternatives.  With my minis I can get to 75% of the locations I want to visit, I can reserve directly without having to wait for an exchange, I can swap one week in prime time for two weeks in shoulder seasons, and I don't have to pay an additional fee.

For the times when I want to venture outside the minis, independent exchange companies work just fine and cost less than RCI.  Or I can access II or RCI through my mini and receive preferred treatment.

***

For people in my situation - and I believe there are a growing number of us - RCI and II aren't bad - they're just increasingly irrelevant.

If I were managing RCI and I saw the market heading this direction, I would be scrambling to try to get a new business model in place before my current one crumbled.  Which is one of the reasons I believe that RCI is endeavoring to become more than just an exchange company. And it's why I believe RCI perceives their biggest competitor to be ResortQuest, not II.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 31, 2007)

*Niche Marketing ?  (Not That There's Anything Wrong With That.)*




T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I believe RCI perceives their biggest competitor to be ResortQuest, not II.


Looks like ResortQuest is letting RCI & I-I handle overbuilt Orlando & is just renting out resorts itself in the rest of Florida. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## PerryM (Jul 31, 2007)

*Stand around if you want...*



bruwery said:


> Let's put things in perspective.  Well first, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not attacking you, Perry.  I chose to quote you because there were a couple of points I want to specifically discuss, but in all honesty, I could have quoted a dozen different posts by several members.
> 
> Okay, the disclaimer's out of the way, so now, the perspective.  This is merely an internet forum, where opinions are expressed.  It's not the Chamber of Commerce, or the Better Business Bureau, or some large Washington lobbying agency.  Our assertions on this website don't have to be based in facts, and we really don't possess that much clout.  We all post our opinions; likewise Carolinian can post his opinions however he chooses, within the rules of the forum.  His assertions may seem ridiculous to some, but demanding proof in an internet forum seems equally absurd.
> 
> ...




I understand that the topic “RCI is a crook” has been now associated with TUG – I’d be very surprised if RCI quit participating for any other reason but the constant, daily attacks against them and these are vicious attacks.  Why should they feel welcomed here?

I merely ask someone who calls me, a company, or a fellow Tugger, a crook to supply verifiable information – I have a long track record of doing this on TUG.  Some may remember Herb from South Africa – I asked for proof there – and it was eventually provided.

If we don’t do this we simply become a bystander watching a mugging going on and could care less.  And that’s what is happening – the high tech version of a mugging.  I choose to not stand by idly.  If you don't ask for proof - how long before you become the target?


----------



## mshatty (Jul 31, 2007)

bruwery said:


> . . . . .Or, *with the lawsuit pending, perhaps legal counsel advised them that it was best to avoid having sponsored representation in places where speculation regarding said lawsuit is being freely tossed about.*
> 
> Thanks to all for posting.  This has been a most enjoyable topic, although I honestly can't remember what the OP's question was...



If RCI were my client, you can bet that discontinuing the Ask RCI Forum would have been a high priority, especially with the questions being asked that specifically related to causes of action alleged in the class action.  To me it was astonishing that Madge continued here as long as she did after the lawsuits were filed.


----------



## JLB (Jul 31, 2007)

I equivocated, saying _if_ and _perhaps_.

And, I no longer have a A game.   



"Roger" said:


> I have no answer to your question, Jim.  You point to a real loss (and, the cause); people should go back to read your post.  In fact, you brought your A-game to this entire thread.


----------



## bruwery (Jul 31, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I understand that the topic “RCI is a crook” has been now associated with TUG – I’d be very surprised if RCI quit participating for any other reason but the constant, daily attacks against them and these are vicious attacks.  Why should they feel welcomed here?
> 
> I merely ask someone who calls me, a company, or a fellow Tugger, a crook to supply verifiable information – I have a long track record of doing this on TUG.  Some may remember Herb from South Africa – I asked for proof there – and it was eventually provided.
> 
> If we don’t do this we simply become a bystander watching a mugging going on and could care less.  And that’s what is happening – the high tech version of a mugging.  I choose to not stand by idly.  If you don't ask for proof - how long before you become the target?



...and you're the self-appointed police?

I don't necessarily agree that this is a mugging.  I see it as a few people who have a problem with RCI and have vented their frustrations.

I do not believe, for one moment, that the items posted here have any overall impact on RCI's business.  We are but a handful of people in a giant world.  Additionally, no conclusion is ever reached on this topic.  One post says RCI is bad, the next says RCI is good.  It's a wash.

Microsoft takes a serious bashing every day on a multitude of websites.  Are you rushing to their defense?

Is there any proof _that the topic RCI is a crook has now been associated with TUG_?  Or can you merely point me to a website where a couple of people may have expressed that opinion?

When I talk to people about timesharing, nobody has ever come back to me and said "Hey, avoid that TUG website, because their official opinion is that RCI is a scoundrel".

Rather, as a general rule, they say "Timesharing is stupid.  Why would you buy one of those?  Umm, by the way, what the @#$% is TUG?"

It doesn't appear to me that TUG is an enemy of RCI.  The reputation of the industry itself is a much more real problem.


----------



## PerryM (Jul 31, 2007)

bruwery said:


> ...*and you're the self-appointed police*?
> 
> I don't necessarily agree that this is a mugging.  I see it as a few people who have a problem with RCI and have vented their frustrations.
> 
> ...




You bring up the perfect example “*and you're the self-appointed police*”  now I’m expected to demonstrate that I am not the police.  You make my case perfectly – just saying a phrase like “RCI is a crook” results in it becoming the “Internet truth” unless someone asks for it to be proven.

You make my case – thanks.


----------



## bruwery (Jul 31, 2007)

PerryM said:


> You bring up the perfect example “*and you're the self-appointed police*”  now I’m expected to demonstrate that I am not the police.  You make my case perfectly – just saying a phrase like “RCI is a crook” results in it becoming the “Internet truth” unless someone asks for it to be proven.
> 
> You make my case – thanks.



Deleted.  It isn't worth it.


----------



## Aldo (Jul 31, 2007)

bruwery said:


> I do not believe, for one moment, that the items posted here have any overall impact on RCI's business.  We are but a handful of people in a giant world.




Where do you think the lead plantiffs were found, anyway?  By attorneys discussing timesharing with the neighbors over the backyard hedge?

And where do you think the literally tens of thousands of emails the class action attorneys have received from other disgruntled RCI members which collaborate the charges of the lead plantiffs came from?  Where do you think they heard about this class action suit?

Give you a hint.  It wasn't from "Endless Vacations" magazine.


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 31, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> The system that cheats consumers the least is the one that provides them with the most information on which to make a purchase decision.   Then, they can make a decision to make or not make an exchange with full knowledge of what they are doing.
> 
> The system that cheats them the most is the one where they are clueless about the value of what they own such as a weeks based trading power formula system and they end up taking anything they can to avoid a complete loss of their week.  That is the epitome of corrupt systems.


I hope that RedWeek is listening and taking notes.    I also hope that they will make the system transparent so we know that we are treated fairly.

I like the idea very much that weeks are given a number of points so you know immediately what your week is worth and can accept or reject the offer.  I also understand that they have to give you a limited time for accepting the offer or not.  All they need now is some good inventory.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 31, 2007)

The old command economies of the eastern bloc provided plenty of information on prices, but it wasn't a pro-consumer arrangement.  You need a market that responds to supply and demand not a calcified schedule of prices.





BocaBum99 said:


> Actually, it's YOU who needs to understand the FACT that there is NO perfect pricing mechanism.  In 100% of ALL pricing methods ever created, including Bid/Ask auctions, there are prices that do not make sense.
> 
> Underpricing prime weeks only leads to faster out of stock conditions where supply cannot meet demand.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 31, 2007)

What I want is for the system to be FAIR with the Weeks members who are getting royally screwed by the crossover grids.  You are into Points so you simply don't seem to care that people on the Weeks side are getting hosed.  It really depends on which side of the fence you are on.  The big advocates of the crossover grids are Points members who can snatch our prime inventory with those grids at bargain basement prices.  It is all self interest.
Those of us in Weeks want to protect our inventory from being poached, and at least some of those in Points want to continue to be able to poach our inventory.

As to how downright fraudulent the crossover grids can be, I will use an example from the Points book I inherited from a member who bailed out because he was getting hosed by RCI Points on international air tickets and just got a bellyfull of it.  This is not the current book and the grids have changed some, but not that much.

British Virgin Islands caramaran cruise resorts - Gold Crown:

in Points - Trade Winds Cruise Club - BVI, Tortola, week 5-17 116,000 points

in Weeks - The Yachting Club, Tortola, week 5-17   24,000 points

That is a big ripoff if I have ever seen one.  Of course since that directory, I understand The Yachting Club has swtiched to points.  They had to, as RCI was royally hosing their members with the crossover grids.

I have posted numerous other examples on these boards before.  The points advocates simply don't care whether the system is fair or not to Weeks members.




BocaBum99 said:


> I do believe they should operate honestly.  And, I want for them to be severely penalized for any and ALL illegal activity.  What I don't want is for them to be hung out to dry for baseless allegations such as those you make regarding their crossover grids.
> 
> Where we differ is you just want RCI to be convicted or held liable for acts they YOU believe are illegitimate because YOU BELIEVE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN.  Let me remind you.  IT HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVEN.  And, NOT EVERYBODY agrees with you about your allegations.  I, for one, COMPLETELY DISAGREE with your assertions about crossover grids.  Apparantly, so do all the attorneys who make decisions on the class action lawsuits.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 31, 2007)

Amusing!  Don't you comprehend that it is you who is saying ''RCI is a crook''.
Those of us who question RCI's policies and the class action plaintiffs are simply saying ''RCI is violating civil consumer protection laws'', which is a huge difference.  It is the RCI defenders who are suggesting that RCI may have violated the criminal law.

And Perry, you still haven't proven to us that state governments are telling gas stations how much to charge!  That is an amusing one, and I am still waiting for your proof!




PerryM said:


> You bring up the perfect example “*and you're the self-appointed police*”  now I’m expected to demonstrate that I am not the police.  You make my case perfectly – just saying a phrase like “RCI is a crook” results in it becoming the “Internet truth” unless someone asks for it to be proven.
> 
> You make my case – thanks.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 31, 2007)

PerryM said:


> If we don’t do this we simply become a bystander watching a mugging going on and could care less.  And that’s what is happening – the high tech version of a mugging.  I choose to not stand by idly.  If you don't ask for proof - how long before you become the target?



I quite agree that we should not be mere bystanders while RCI is cheating its members with the rentals and one-sided points/weeks interface.  You may call it a mugging (which is criminal) but I will only call it cheating which is civil.

Hooray for the class action plaintiffs.  They took a stand to make a difference!

Hooray for timeshare resorts which speak out strongly on these problems like Seasons.


----------



## Carolinian (Jul 31, 2007)

You are making assumptions about those posts of mine on that subject. Your assumptions are wrong.

I knew RCI wasn't going to go as far as it really should to make things right, so my suggestions were an incremental step and were based on the way RCI Points grids already work in the European market for crossovers and taking it a relatively small step farther.  While that wouldn't have completely cured the problem, it would have made it a whole lot better by easing the overaveraging discrepancies.  Instead, they just tweaked the numbers a little while leaving the grid format intact.





BocaBum99 said:


> Your recommendations fall short of reasonable suggestions, so nobody in RCI  takes them seriously, nor should they.  They come across as hallow recommendations to prove that RCI is a bad and evil company when indeed your proposals for pricing could not be reasonably met by any company.
> 
> Your limited understanding of how pricing is done for products leads you to the wrong conclusions about how to fix them.  It would be like David Boies coming to me for suggestions on how to argue a supreme court case.  I may have an opinion, but it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on in helping him win the case.
> 
> ...


----------



## CarolF (Aug 1, 2007)

sage said:


> They had a brochure with a list of t/s resorts from various areas - quite substantial - some II properties but a lot that I think belong to RCI. No Marriotts, HGVC or Disney but saw a couple of Sheratons.



Thought I would also let you know that the same company ran promotions here (a couple of weeks ago I think).  The person who told me is not aware of timeshares and I didn't ask about the resorts that were listed.  Did you notice any of the APVC listed?


----------



## sage (Aug 1, 2007)

Carol, 
Fortunately there were no APVC resorts listed. I think this would be because APVC sells their unused time directly to members or possibly through the Accor website (although I'm not sure about the latter). 
We have enough trouble getting prime weeks at short notice so I doubt they would need to sell them off elsewhere.
Gillian


----------



## John Cummings (Aug 1, 2007)

I canceled my membership with RCI several years ago. I let my II membership lapse a couple of years later. That is how I deal with anybody that is not giving me what I want. I simply do NOT do business with them. Personally. I don't care what RCI or II are doing or not doing. If one doesn't like them, then don't use them. There are plenty of alternatives.

Most of this whole thread is nothing but allegations about wrong doing because somebody doesn't agree with how they conduct their business. I have been a member of TUG for several years and the same old ranting and raving about RCI goes on all the time. It is such a waste of time and effort. If you feel that you have a case then contact an attorney and start a class action suit. Ranting and raving on TUG is not going to accomplish anything. Better yet, if RCI or II isn't providing the service you want then don't do business with them.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 1, 2007)

Just burying your head in the sand and personally not using RCI doesn't work.

The financial health of timesharing is significantly dependent on the exchange system. If exchangers start bailing, as is already happening to some extent from RCI's actions, to the point that it raises m/f's significantly and undermines the financial underpinnings of resorts, it will impact everyone including those who just bought to use and have never cared about exchanging.

Just personally not using a particular company in this instance is a simplistic solution that just doen't get it.

We need to be proactive and get alternatives out there in front of our fellow timesharers.  And we need to give at least moral support to those who are trying to deal with the problem through the class action lawsuit that has been filed.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 1, 2007)

*Why is voluntary so hard to grasp? Forget adhesion, you don't have to use them*



Carolinian said:


> The financial health of timesharing is significantly dependent on the exchange system. If exchangers start bailing, as is already happening to some extent from RCI's actions, to the point that it raises m/f's significantly and undermines the financial underpinnings of resorts, it will impact everyone including those who just bought to use and have never cared about exchanging.



Even if this were the case, and I'm not at all ready to agree it is, the point is there are plenty of alternatives to RCI. It is voluntary to be a member and use the system.  That is why simply walking away from any company including II or RCI if they don't meet your or your resort's needs is the most effective answer. Trying to force things to operate the way we think they should - and heaven knows we can't even agree on that - is never going to result in a viable system.


----------



## John Cummings (Aug 1, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Just burying your head in the sand and personally not using RCI doesn't work.
> 
> The financial health of timesharing is significantly dependent on the exchange system. If exchangers start bailing, as is already happening to some extent from RCI's actions, to the point that it raises m/f's significantly and undermines the financial underpinnings of resorts, it will impact everyone including those who just bought to use and have never cared about exchanging.
> 
> ...



I am not looking for a solution because I do NOT have a problem. I get the trades that I want as always. If you want to waste your time then that is your business. Have you actually done anything pro-actively, such as contacting an attorney? In any event, I have more important things to do with my time then worry about what RCI and II are doing.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 1, 2007)

*Ahhh.  A Refreshing Breath Of Fresh Air.*




timeos2 said:


> Trying to force things to operate the way we think they should - and heaven knows we can't even agree on that - is never going to result in a viable system.


That's for sure. 

Thanks for the refreshing breath of fresh air on this worn-out topic -- much less tiring than the continuing tilt against windmills. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## BillR (Aug 1, 2007)

*RCI Bashing/Defense*

It was interesting reading the "differences" between Carolinian and Boca.  My perspective on this is simple.

RCI simply has management that has NO CLUE - *typical* of large companies.  If they do not adapt to the industry and current trends, then they will diminish in size and could eventually be taken over by a more astute and forward leaning company.   

*Below is a list of the Original Dow Industrials companies from 1896:*

American Cotton Oil
American Sugar
American Tobacco
Chicago Gas
Distilling & Cattle Feeding
General Electric
Laclede Gas
National Lead
North American Company
Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company
U.S. Leather pfd.
U.S. Rubber 

In the past couple of weeks I have had conversations with four RCI employees (including supervisors) in customer relations.  These people certaintly meant well and were very polite when I tried to explain to them that RCI has POOR public relations.

They defended RCI as they have no knowledge of the past year adage that "The customer is always right."  This, from RCI and businesses in general,  is simply not true today!

We have multiple options besides RCI.  I am very pleased with my "inventory" of TS's and what I can do with them.  I, personally, am choosing to NOT deposit into RCI weeks but am very active in RCI Points, SunOptions and II.

I remember well as a child walking into a bank with my father and being introduced to the PRESIDENT of that bank.  For years I believed that bank presidents were SPECIAL.  It took a lot of years and experience to realize that a president of a bank is just another employee and is PROBABLY president because he learned how to _ _ _ _   _ _ _.

RCI is not evil and, if you read their 16 pages of single spaced Terms and Conditions, they almost have achieved the rights to your first born.  THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT WITH YOU DEPOSITED WEEK.

Do they have an excellent legal staff?  I believe so.  Do they have a fabulous IT staff?  In their marketing division, I believe so.  In their web-site and internal operations, they are COMPLETELY INEPT.  When I asked WHY the Point Values were ALL eliminated from the web-site, they stated that they could not remove just the ones they were going to change - they had to remove ALL of them.  That is the way the program was written.

I tried to explain that *I could easily construct*, in a few days, a temporary spreadsheet that could be used by RCI members who wanted access to these points values - a simple scan, drag and drop into a spreadsheet.  The data base was NOT needed.

I also explained that IF they had simply added a large note in the point value are  stating that these values were not necessarily correct and should be used as a guide UNTIL the new values were released on XX/XX/XXXX.

Their answer was simple.   We have our own agenda and our own timeframe.  Why should RCI do this for YOU?  If RCI does not know, the marketplace will tell them.  I have spent a LOT on money on dues and excanges in the past.  RCI will still get revenue from me - but far less than prior years.  I have Sunterra - II - SFX - CT exchange - Redweek etc. etc.

*Life is good!​*


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 1, 2007)

*Ahhh.  Another Refreshing Burst Of Clarity.*




BillR said:


> RCI simply has management that has NO CLUE - *typical* of large companies.  If they do not adapt to the industry and current trends, then they will diminish in size and could eventually be taken over by a more astute and forward leaning company.


Thanks for that. 

Got to love it when such a bright burst of clarity comes along to shine through all that fog. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 1, 2007)

The notion a company can do anything they want just because they say in their own documents that they can is simply wrong.  Enron learned that a company cannot simply do anything it wants.  All companies are constrained by state and federal consumer protection laws, which are generally very broad.  A company can essentially be sued for any of its acts and practices that are ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' and the terms and conditions THEMSELVES may be the items that are unfair or deceptive.  Indeed that is exactly what is happening with the current class action suit against RCI.

I know that some strong Points advocates just want to bury all of these issues under rug and make them go away.  That is a natural self interest reaction.  Points members benefit personally from being able to loot prime Weeks inventory through the unfair generic crossover grids, and the rental operations help sustain the Points Partner operations.  Weeks owners, however, are in a different situaiton.  We need to keep doing all we can to spotlight the problems these policies are causing for our system by depleting our inventory to prop up points and line RCI pocket.

I fully understand the motivation of Points members wanting to muzzle the criticism of RCI practices, but they should understand why vocal Weeks members cannot just sit back and accept the fraud being perpetrated against Weeks members (FYI, I mean fraud in a civil rather than criminal context) by Cendant-inspired RCI policies.

I also fully understand that the shrill postings of some of the RCI defenders on these boards over the years have led some Weeks supporters to either move to other boards or to refrain from posting.  I appreciate the email encouragement I have received in the course of this thread, and I can understand why some people would rather not jump into the fray.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 1, 2007)

*How much will be said when the class action fiasco ends?*

I will be very interested in seeing what gets posted/acknowledged by the lawsuit backers when one of the most likely outcomes - total dismissal of the frivolous lawsuit or virtually meaningless promises and a few worthless vouchers get sent out - occurs.  Will the tirades continue to bash every RCI move or will they move on?  Will anything that RCI does in response, including those worthless vouchers, be declared a "victory" for the members?

If, by some ill fated twist, there actually was a serious order issued - such as the absolute prohibition of rental outside of the owner base - I'll be happy to come here and declare the lawsuit supporters victorious.  There can't be outcomes some desire like the separation of Points and Weeks since, as noted above, that isn't even on the table. So besides the now extremely limited scope of the lawsuits and the unlikelihood of any real change we sit back to wait - most likely years - to see how much this farce will cost us.  And to see what the response of the "sue them all" cheerleaders will be when it fails.

And I too understand why those who want the old days of free upgrades on others dimes to return back the suit.  That desire has every bit as much self-interest as the Points view would have for the methods of today.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 1, 2007)

*Lawsuit Aimed At Turning Back The Clock Will Not Succeed.*




timeos2 said:


> And I too understand why those who want the old days of free upgrades on others dimes to return back the suit.  That desire has every bit as much self-interest as the Points view would have for the methods of today.


I am not a lawyer.  I do not play 1 on TV.  Shucks (just to show how big an in-the-dark doofus I am) I didn't even know this TUG-BBS topic was about taking sides in the big RCI class action lawsuit.  I thought it was about something else.  Who'd a-thunk? 

However that may be, I can pretty much offer assurance that a lawsuit, class-action or otherwise _mox nix_, whose aim is to turn back the clock to the way things used to be way back during some long gone _Golden Age_, is not going to succeed. 

Sure, plaintiffs might prevail.  Settlements might be reached.  For sure attorney fees will be awarded.  The sound of a judge's gavel smacking wood will be heard.  All will rise.  And when the dust settles, as it eventually will, the _Golden Age_ of pre-points timeshare exchanging will still be just a memory. 

The bell cannot be unrung. 

So it goes. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## bruwery (Aug 1, 2007)

For those tuning in late, I will provide Cliff Notes summarizing this thread:

OP: Where does Club LaBourse get the thousands of weeks they claim they can access?

A: RCI Stinks.
A: No, RCI is great.
A: You stink for thinking RCI is great.
A: No, you stink for thinking RCI stinks.
A: Yeah, well, you stink for thinking that I stink.
A: What?
A: What?
A: Lawsuits are great.
A: No, lawsuits stink.
A: II stinks.
A: Hey keep it on topic, this post is about how RCI stinks.
A: A tree fell in the forest and made no sound, therefore RCI doesn't stink.
A: Who made you the boss?
A: You just proved my point.
A: What?
A: What?
A: Points stinks.
A: No they don't.
A: The judge in the lawsuit smacks his wood.


----------



## CarolF (Aug 1, 2007)

> A: RCI Stinks.
> A: No, RCI is great.
> A: You stink for thinking RCI is great.
> A: No, you stink for thinking RCI stinks.
> ...


:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:


----------



## Elan (Aug 1, 2007)

bruwery said:


> For those tuning in late, I will provide Cliff Notes summarizing this thread:
> 
> OP: Where does Club LaBourse get the thousands of weeks they claim they can access?
> 
> ...




  Best post I've read in ages.  Thanks!


----------



## Mel (Aug 1, 2007)

Mark

You missed the fact that the answer to the original question was in fact burried deep among the other responses.  In case you didn't notice it, the answer is that the inventory given to these "vacation clubs" is likely to be what RCI calls excess inventory.  The ensuing arguments are based on RCI's definition of said excess inventory.

The real problem with all these arguments it that whatever solution comes from these lawsuits, someone (not just RCI) is going to be unhappy.  There are several exchange companies precisely because one size does not fit all.  Yes, the way RCI works has changed over time, but much of that has been due to adapting to a changing marketplace.  The problem is that when something happens to improve exchanges for part of the membership, it almost always comes at the expense of other members.  If you think we can't agree here in this forum, a microcosm of timeshare owners, what do you think will happen when some settlement is forced upon all timeshare owners, because that is what it will feel like.


----------



## Aldo (Aug 1, 2007)

Mel said:


> The problem is that when something happens to improve exchanges for part of the membership, it almost always comes at the expense of other members.




That's simply not true.  If the class action lawsuit succeeds in stopping RCI from looting the Spacebank and renting out weeks deposits rather than making them available to weeks members, then there will simply be more weeks available from which to exchange.  All members win.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 1, 2007)

Renting exchange deposits to the general public creates a conflict of interest for an exchange company because it creates a huge incentive for them to skew the exchange system to create artificial ''excesses'' so they can rent such weeks out to line their own pockets.  Than can do it by setting points grids where certain weeks back up in the system or they can do it with weeks by manipulated trading power.  Either way it is bad news for timesharers.  An exchange company can set up the system to make any category of inventory they want ''excess''.  Such conflicts of interest should either be prohibited entirely or subject to extensive and far reaching disclosure laws to try to keep the exchange company honest.

A result that dictates a fair, honest, and evenhanded system, where it is not rigged so the inventory of one element is looted to prop up another element, will cause heartburn for those who had been given the keys to the candy store.  But so what, bringing them back down to earth so they are on the same level playing field with everyone else is only fair.  The only ones who will scream from an honest system are those who are beating the system now.





Mel said:


> Mark
> 
> You missed the fact that the answer to the original question was in fact burried deep among the other responses.  In case you didn't notice it, the answer is that the inventory given to these "vacation clubs" is likely to be what RCI calls excess inventory.  The ensuing arguments are based on RCI's definition of said excess inventory.
> 
> The real problem with all these arguments it that whatever solution comes from these lawsuits, someone (not just RCI) is going to be unhappy.  There are several exchange companies precisely because one size does not fit all.  Yes, the way RCI works has changed over time, but much of that has been due to adapting to a changing marketplace.  The problem is that when something happens to improve exchanges for part of the membership, it almost always comes at the expense of other members.  If you think we can't agree here in this forum, a microcosm of timeshare owners, what do you think will happen when some settlement is forced upon all timeshare owners, because that is what it will feel like.


----------



## bruwery (Aug 1, 2007)

Mel said:


> Mark
> 
> You missed the fact that the answer to the original question was in fact burried deep among the other responses.  In case you didn't notice it, the answer is that the inventory given to these "vacation clubs" is likely to be what RCI calls excess inventory.  The ensuing arguments are based on RCI's definition of said excess inventory.
> 
> The real problem with all these arguments it that whatever solution comes from these lawsuits, someone (not just RCI) is going to be unhappy.  There are several exchange companies precisely because one size does not fit all.  Yes, the way RCI works has changed over time, but much of that has been due to adapting to a changing marketplace.  The problem is that when something happens to improve exchanges for part of the membership, it almost always comes at the expense of other members.  If you think we can't agree here in this forum, a microcosm of timeshare owners, what do you think will happen when some settlement is forced upon all timeshare owners, because that is what it will feel like.



Umm, thanks for your concern regarding my reading and interpretation skills.  I don't mind that your sense of humor is clearly quite different than mine.  However, your pedantic lecture - which basically repeated what's already been stated about 50 times - seemed to be a bit over the top.


----------



## Mel (Aug 6, 2007)

Aldo said:


> That's simply not true.  If the class action lawsuit succeeds in stopping RCI from looting the Spacebank and renting out weeks deposits rather than making them available to weeks members, then there will simply be more weeks available from which to exchange.  All members win.


Since when?  Do you honestly think that RCI will infuse weeks from outside the exchange system if they can't take anything out in exchange?  The same number of weeks will be available, but inventory will ONLY be from individual weeks members.  Very few weeks will come from new resorts.  The cost will be to those who want to exchange into those new resorts, but can't because that inventory will be segregated from the regular exchange inventory, and it will trickle down.

Say I own a prime week at a prime location, with among the best trading power in RCI's system.  I want to travel next summer to a brand new resort that is about to open.  RCI has told me they can't accomodate me, because the only inventory they have is from the developer, and it is in a rental pool.  My response is to take my week for next year, and rent it out, rather than deposit it.  I will use the proceeds to rent a week at this new resort from RCI.

Net result - RCI doesn't get my week, it ends up as a rental, and I visit the new resort.  Whoever might have gotten my week as an exchange won't because it never even entered the exchange pool.  Is that really any different than it works now, with RCI acting as an intermediary?  

Under the current system, it costs me an exchange fee to go to the resort I want.  Under your "improved" system, it might or might not cost me more to rent out my week and use the proceeds.  However, under that system I am legally obliged to pay taxes on any rental income above maintenance fees.  So if I pay $1000 in fees, rent for $2000 and have to pay RCI $2000 for a similar week at the new resort, I will be out any costs associated with renting my week (which are not deductible), plus income tax on $1000.

My point was that there is a net balance.  I don't think RCI is the only one benefitting from the current system.  If a change is forced, someone will lose, and it will likely be some of us.  In most class-action lawsuits, when a settlement is reached, the only winners are the lawyers and the original parties to the suit.  Even if the corporations have to "pay up" it simply results in higher costs down the road - those costs are passed on to us, the consumers.

Carolinian:

I agree that the secrecy could allow RCI to loot, I just don't think that they are doing so at this point.  There are too many other possible answers.   I won't state that I know they are not doing so, because I don't know.  But my perspective is different from yours.  RCI has multiple "customers" to satisfy - the exchangers, the developers and the shareholders.  They won't exist without any one of those three, it would dramatically change the system.  I simply believe we must consider the implications of these lawsuits, and be careful about what we ask for.  We don't want to swing too far in the opposite direction, or we risk destroying the exchange system in other ways.  I think RCI made an honest effort by developing the points program, but made mistakes in its implementation.  Without the large conversion fees, the other problems with assigning points could work themselves out eventually, and maybe they still will.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 6, 2007)

Who cares about ''new'' resorts?  Most care about resorts located where they want to go.  Often the better locations are already taken and the ''new'' resorts don't get them.

RCI seems big into ''flexibility'' and the concept of ''excess inventory'' is extremely ''flexible''.  It can be anything RCI wants it to be and to adjust the numbers to accomplish that.  Renting spacebank inventory to the general public is simply a huge conflict of interest and needs to be brought to a screaching halt.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 6, 2007)

*The Pudding Stirs.  The Pot Boils.*

I was wondering whether the various TUG-BBS participants might have resolved all this while I was away over the weekend. 

Guess not. 

Meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting for that screeching halt to happen.  

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 6, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Who cares about ''new'' resorts?  ....


???  If no one cares about those resorts, the developers have made multi-million dollar boo-boos.  Of course, there are people who want to go to those resorts.

Are you preposing that all exchangers be shut out from those resorts?  Is this being proposed just for RCI or also II, SFX, etc.?


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 6, 2007)

Whether they have made a boo-boo or not depends on LOCATION.  However, it is not necessarily that the location is high demand for exchange.  The key for them is that the location is where they have good access to potential customers.

When a developer finishes selling one resort, he is likely to build another, so there will always be new resorts.

As a demand factor for exchanging a resort being ''new'', however is a very secondary driver of demand.  Location is the principal driver of demand.  A good example is London, where the old but well located Allen House has much better demand than distant but much newer and Gold Crown Odessa Wharf.

People are indeed going to care about well located new resorts, just like they care about other well located resorts.





"Roger" said:


> ???  If no one cares about those resorts, the developers have made multi-million dollar boo-boos.  Of course, there are people who want to go to those resorts.
> 
> Are you preposing that all exchangers be shut out from those resorts?  Is this being proposed just for RCI or also II, SFX, etc.?


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 6, 2007)

You are avoiding the real issue.  Are you and Aldo saying that developer weeks should be segrated - that no exchanger should want to are be allowed to trade into one?  That way the exchange pool can be kept pure?  ("Who cares about "new" resorts" -- So what if no one is allowed to exchange into them.)

(I find it hard to believe that no one wants to trade into the newest resorts.  In fact, they seem to be quite popular. Since Cedent - the ruination of timesharing - the percentage go GC resorts has risen from less that 5% to about 30%.  Most of these started with developer weeks being put into the exchange pool.  But NO ONE cares about this.  No one wants these weeks.)


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 6, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> You are avoiding the real issue.  Are you and Aldo saying that developer weeks should be segrated - that no exchanger should want to are be allowed to trade into one?  That way the exchange pool can be kept pure?
> 
> (I find it hard to believe that no one wants to trade into the newest resorts.  In fact, they seem to be quite popular.)



If a new resort is in a good location, it will be popular.  If it is in a mediocre location, it will not.

On the OBX, for example, the newest resort and only one still in sales has by far the lowest demand because it has a poor location.  Location always trumps other factors.


----------



## John Cummings (Aug 6, 2007)

I see nothing wrong with exchanging into developer weeks. Many of my exchanges, going back to my RCI and II days as well as SFX have been into developer weeks. When I make an exchange, I don't give a hoot where it came from as long as it is what I want.


----------



## Mel (Aug 6, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Who cares about ''new'' resorts?  Most care about resorts located where they want to go.  Often the better locations are already taken and the ''new'' resorts don't get them.


Perhaps we should have a poll.  While there are many here who care more about location, I would venture to say there are quite a few that care as much if not more about quality.  For some, they don't care as much where the resort is located, as they do about the amenities, because they will never leave the resort.

If people didn't care so much about the quality of the resort, then Marriott, Hilton, and the other big hospitality names wouldn't do so well.  Some people want to be papmpered, and that is what happens at some of the newest resorts.  Some people have to continue their work on vacation, and the newer resorts make that more convenient, while the older resorts cobble together solutions.  There are plenty of "timeshare snobs" who ONLY want to stay in the newest resorts.  Who cares about new resorts indeed?

Yes, for the millionth time, you are right that most people would rather stay ON the beach in the outer banks, but that doesn't translate to nobody wanting to stay at BIS Kitty Hawk, or any other new resort.  Some of those new resorts are in better locations than other existing resorts, and do have higher demand.  Some of them are newer phases of existing resorts too.  Like John, I have staying in developer units several times, and enjoyed them.  I don't want them removed from the exchange pool.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 6, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> If a new resort is in a good location, it will be popular.  If it is in a mediocre location, it will not.
> 
> On the OBX, for example, the newest resort and only one still in sales has by far the lowest demand because it has a poor location.  Location always trumps other factors.


You are still evading the topic.  When Mel posted that people would not be happy if there were no developer weeks within the exchange system, your response was that no one would care.  Flat out - no one would care if there were no developer weeks in the system. That is a mistaken belief.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 6, 2007)

The key, of course, is WHERE the developer weeks are FROM.  If they are from overbuilt areas where there is plenty of inventory, anyway, who cares? If they are from mediocre locations within a decent resort area, then ho-hum. If they are from a super hot destination, then yes they matter.  Location, as always, is the key.

I look at the areas I trade into and I really don't see developer inventory from new resorts as making much difference.  I can't think of any resort I would trade into just because it is ''new''.  In fact, I could name a long list of ''old'' resorts I would much rather have than anything ''new'' I can think of.  It is all about location.


----------



## John Cummings (Aug 7, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> The key, of course, is WHERE the developer weeks are FROM.  If they are from overbuilt areas where there is plenty of inventory, anyway, who cares? If they are from mediocre locations within a decent resort area, then ho-hum. If they are from a super hot destination, then yes they matter.  Location, as always, is the key.
> 
> I look at the areas I trade into and I really don't see developer inventory from new resorts as making much difference.  I can't think of any resort I would trade into just because it is ''new''.  In fact, I could name a long list of ''old'' resorts I would much rather have than anything ''new'' I can think of.  It is all about location.



Everybody has their own preferences. You obviously have your preferences but others have theirs and they are equally as valid. You only speak for yourself, not the timeshare community. Personally, location is very important to me which is one of the main reasons why many of our vacations are non-timeshare. I don't care about the areas where you trade into as they have no interest for me. I imagine you probably aren't interested in my preferences. Each person should do what is best for them. Again, I do not care where the week comes from as long as it satisfies my request. Yes, resort quality does matter to me which is one reason why we like the Grand Mayans so much. I want a luxury resort, not just some condo. I would rather stay in an upscale hotel than most timeshares. But like I said, that is our preferences and it is right for us but may not be for others.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 7, 2007)

John -  Perhaps I should have been a little more clear.  It is not just my personal preferences.

There have been threads at various times on various t/s boards on the Location vs. ''Quality'' issue, and it is *location* that has always won hands down.

Further, I look to comments at various times from the So Cal experts that it is better to buy location, such as oceanfront, for trading over Gold Crown because it is the location that has the big demand, not the ''quality''.  I am myself aware that the same is true on the Outer Banks, where the newest resort witht he most bells and whistles also is by far the lowest demanded because of location so far from the beach compared to others.

My comments are about overall demand, not my personal preferences.




John Cummings said:


> Everybody has their own preferences. You obviously have your preferences but others have theirs and they are equally as valid. You only speak for yourself, not the timeshare community. Personally, location is very important to me which is one of the main reasons why many of our vacations are non-timeshare. I don't care about the areas where you trade into as they have no interest for me. I imagine you probably aren't interested in my preferences. Each person should do what is best for them. Again, I do not care where the week comes from as long as it satisfies my request. Yes, resort quality does matter to me which is one reason why we like the Grand Mayans so much. I want a luxury resort, not just some condo. I would rather stay in an upscale hotel than most timeshares. But like I said, that is our preferences and it is right for us but may not be for others.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 7, 2007)

*Vacation Destination Statistics -- Relevant Or Shmellavent ?*




> ''The Beach'' - top vacation experience choice of RCI members, with 37% - compared to 5% for amusement parks.


How current is that statistic? 

What about I-I members. 

What about minisystem members? 

And what about TUG & TUB-BBS members? 

The thing is, "the beach" cover lots & lots of geography.  That is, if I say "the beach," I could be talking about Coney Island, Cape Cod, Spray Beach, Atlantic City, Delaware Seashore State Park, Ocean City, Virginia, Beach, OBX, Jacksonville Beach, Ponte Vedra Beach, Fort Lauderdale, the Keys, & plenty more north & south & in between -- not to mention the Gulf beaches, various lakeside & bayside locations, & the Pacific coast.  And that's just USA.  Plenty of other countries have beach locations as well -- all of'm the same yet no 2 alike. 

As for "amusement parks," that doesn't quite describe complexes like the Disney establishments in Orlando FL & Southern California, not to mention the copycats & the wannabe theme parks that have sprung up here & there.  I mean, _The Magic Kingdom_ isn't exactly _Six Flags Over Central Florida_*,* if you get my drift. 

The _Dream Book_ has enough pages to offer resorts & locations to fit just about anybody's preference(s).  If your favorite timeshare vacation spot is somewhat farther down on my list, that's no reflection on you or on that particular vacation spot -- & vice versa. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 7, 2007)

RCI did the survey.  It was announced not too many months ago, so it is fairly current.  As to the other questions, ask them!




AwayWeGo said:


> How current is that statistic?
> 
> What about I-I members.
> 
> ...


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 7, 2007)

*The overaveraging of location*



Carolinian said:


> John -  Perhaps I should have been a little more clear.  It is not just my personal preferences.
> 
> There have been threads at various times on various t/s boards on the Location vs. ''Quality'' issue, and it is *location* that has always won hands down.
> 
> ...



Talk about points being "over averaged".  To take a (unknown) poll result that "location" is the most important factor in exchange and then extrapolate it to mean that a non-seasonal beach week somehow equates to a high end, top ranked warm weather or theme park location is really stretching things. 

I'm sure most people, given the carefully crafted polls we all see, would say the general term "location" is important or even very important to them.  But does that mean they would pick an off season beach front resort over a south Florida one in February? Of course not.  Location as a term simply means they get into the area they desire.  For some it may be down to the 100 yards of beach front or at the entry gate to WDW and for that they may give up more or pay extra. But for others it's simply being within a few miles of the desired activities or landmarks or whatever and their location desire is satisfied.  While quality may not rank quite as high on that poll it certainly plays a part (see John Cummings post above - quality may trump timesharing overall for some). Tell the exchange guest they can stay at the Motel 6 on the beach or at the gate of WDW or that they can have a Marriott a mile away from that gate and a block off the beach. 9 out of ten will take the Marriott all else, such as cost, being equal.  But of course it isn't equal.  The Marriott will cost more - on the beach or next to the gate or not. And not only will people take it they will pay MORE to get the quality.  

As usual trying to use a simple generality like "location" to justify demand or exchange value doesn't cut it.  It certainly plays a part - maybe even a big part - but it is not the factor that it would be if this were a real estate purchase or locating a business.  These are usually once or twice in a lifetime visits to an area not a lifelong commitment.  When most people visit they are looking for the whole package of loaction, quality, unit size, activities, and more not just if the sand is at their door or a few yards away.  Different if you planned to buy a cabin or a condo. 

The protest that this is not a personal view but somehow reflects the traveling masses at large has zero basis in fact.  Just like using overseas locations as examples to justify twisted values for lower quality or smaller timeshares doesn't reflect the common way a North American timeshare owner usually use their ownerships.  If you want to compare London timeshares then use urban timeshares in the US like NYC, Boston or Washington. The size shrinks, the demand skyrockets yet, somehow, in the US the quality tends to be very high.  Is a non-ranked, small beach front condo, despite the high seasonal demand that may see, an equal trade to the Custom House? I don't think many would say it is.  So location - in both cases high demand at least in some seasons - can't wipe out the quality difference of those two locations.  The same is true in every trade where it is a delicate balance - seldom equal - between the location, quality and size you give up as compared to the location, size and quality you get in return.  It is usually downward in most peoples eyes and thats one reason week for week exchanges disappoint so often.  The fact that the values used to determine those critical items is hidden makes it all the worse.


----------



## bluehende (Aug 7, 2007)

*Score*

Lets see.

We have Delta and Us Air.
Ford with the Pinto was a pretty famous case.
I also have paperwork (proof that would even stand up in a criminal court) for settlements from  Amazon, Enterprise, Netflix, and Motorola.

new score...

Consumers 7   big companies........ZILCH.   I see no proof of any win let alone 1,432 of them.

Now for the serious side.

Lawsuits are a vital part of our society.  The instances or even the threat of a lawsuit keeps corporate america in check.  Without them they would definitely run amuck.  Having said that I believe that many are brought for frivolous reasons.  The high cost of these suits from a corporate side  are a burden.  Also the high cost to bring one of these suits probably stiffles some from the other side.  I believe we are pretty close to balanced with a slight advantage to the consumer.

As for RCI.  I do not use them.  My timeshare is cheap and the added cost with RCI is prohibitive.  Even if it was economically feasible I would not use them.  This is due to the practice of occasionally depositing  a week by "mistake".  This type of business practice, even rare, would keep me from doing business with them.

The most interesting theme in this thread is the effect on timeshares of rentals.  I am a perfect example.  I always hated the concept of timeshares due to the horrible public image it possessed.  A few years ago I rented an exchange week  through ebay.  This brought me to tug and eventually to be a timeshare owner.  However on the other side,  I have gone for many cheap rentals.  Many of these places I would love to own but will not pay anywhere near what they are probably worth due to the fact that a cheap rental always seems to be right around the corner.  I am sure this will eventually balance out too, but right now timeshare economics are being severely depressed by cheap rentals that should dry up as more people take advantage of them and the prices rise.








bnoble said:


> Score: consumers 1, big companies 1,432.
> 
> I know you like to continually use the Delta situation as an example, but even just in the _airline industry_, the industry has pretty much made change after change that loyal customers hate, but suck up and accept anyway.  Examples include standby fees, which are not waived for anyone except those in the very highest tier, and only on some airlines.  Premium seat selection fees, removing those seats from the pool elite flyers can chose from until 24 hours prior to departure.  The removal of even peanuts in coach, and the reduction of food service in first class.  The near-gifting low-tier status to nearly anyone who asks, diluting the value of the bulk of loyal flyers.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 7, 2007)

John - The issue between beach resorts and Orlando is not a ''location'' issue. It is a supply issue.  Orlando is overbuilt for much of the year.  Many US beach areas tend to have an oversupply issue only in the deepest offseason.

Location is an issue two ways.  First it is a destination issue.  More people are going to want to go to the beach, cities like London or New York or San Francisco, or a major tourist attraction area like, yes, Orlando. Inland non-mountain areas like the resort in flatland Franklin County in central North Carolina are simply not going to generate the interest.  Secondly it is an issue of the best location within that destination.  Central London is going to beat an outlying area hands down.  On the beach is going to beat having to drive to the beach hands down.  A resort where you can walk to Disney World (if there is one) is going to beat one where you have to drive an hour to get to the park.




timeos2 said:


> Talk about points being "over averaged".  To take a (unknown) poll result that "location" is the most important factor in exchange and then extrapolate it to mean that a non-seasonal beach week somehow equates to a high end, top ranked warm weather or theme park location is really stretching things.
> 
> I'm sure most people, given the carefully crafted polls we all see, would say the general term "location" is important or even very important to them.  But does that mean they would pick an off season beach front resort over a south Florida one in February? Of course not.  Location as a term simply means they get into the area they desire.  For some it may be down to the 100 yards of beach front or at the entry gate to WDW and for that they may give up more or pay extra. But for others it's simply being within a few miles of the desired activities or landmarks or whatever and their location desire is satisfied.  While quality may not rank quite as high on that poll it certainly plays a part (see John Cummings post above - quality may trump timesharing overall for some). Tell the exchange guest they can stay at the Motel 6 on the beach or at the gate of WDW or that they can have a Marriott a mile away from that gate and a block off the beach. 9 out of ten will take the Marriott all else, such as cost, being equal.  But of course it isn't equal.  The Marriott will cost more - on the beach or next to the gate or not. And not only will people take it they will pay MORE to get the quality.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aldo (Aug 7, 2007)

Hmmm.  Has anyone noticed how Madge's departure has been accompanied by an increase in RCI apologists and enablers?


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 7, 2007)

Aldo said:


> Hmmm.  Has anyone noticed how Madge's departure has been accompanied by an increase in RCI apologists and enablers?



Interesting, isn't it!


----------



## bruwery (Aug 7, 2007)

Aldo said:


> Hmmm.  Has anyone noticed how Madge's departure has been accompanied by an increase in RCI apologists and enablers?



No, I haven't noticed that.  What I have noticed is that we have several people here who are unhappy with RCI for various reasons.  I've also noticed that a few of the disenchanted have chosen to put labels on those who don't share their point of view.

Personally, I have my own opinions on this whole racket, which I will now share, being the generous fool that I am...

A) RCI is in over their heads.  Timesharing has become more complex than it was 20 years ago (points, mega resorts, hotel chains, etc.), and their business model hasn't appropriately adjusted, in spite of their efforts.

B) The problems with timeshare exchanging are not solely, or even primarily, the fault of the exchange companies.  The problem lies with:

1) Developers building resorts in highly seasonal locations.
2) The "caught up in the moment" folks who bought dog weeks at these locations under the sales pitch of "you can trade for anything you want and travel all over the world", without stepping back to reason through the relatively simple concept of supply/demand.  This causes a massive influx of dogs into the exchange systems.  At the same time, a smaller percentage of prime weeks are never entered into the exchange system due to the increased array of options available to the holders of prime weeks (personal use, rentals, private exchange, internal exchange).

As a result of the sales pitches, the mindset is that fixing this problem is the responsibility of the large exchange companies.

C) The RCI lawsuit will solve nothing.  Y'all can continue to debate the merits of it, because this is a very enjoyable thread, but the end result is as the "apologists" have said: the lawyers will get paid, and everybody else will get a coupon for a free RCI Souvenir Cup upon their next exchange.

By all means, though, let's make them spend millions defending the lawsuit.  Then, let's all hop over to another thread and complain about RCI's fees being too high.


----------



## John Cummings (Aug 7, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> John -  Perhaps I should have been a little more clear.  It is not just my personal preferences.
> 
> There have been threads at various times on various t/s boards on the Location vs. ''Quality'' issue, and it is *location* that has always won hands down.
> 
> ...



I agree with you 100% about location vs resort quality. That is why Hawaii timeshares are such great traders. The same goes for Coastal California. With a few exceptions the resort quality in Hawaii is pretty mediocre to say the least. I can't imagine somebody choosing a vacation destination simply because of the resort. I am sure there are some that do, but they have to be a small minority of vacationers.

As I have said many times, we love the Grand Mayan resorts because they are about the closest you can get to a luxury resort hotel. However, I would never choose to stay in one unless it was in a location that we wanted to visit.

I also agree that the beach is in much greater demand than amusement parks. With the exception of Orlando, I can't think of any places that have a lot of timeshares because there is an amusement park nearby. Orlando is popular but it pales in comparison to all the beach area timeshares around the world.


----------



## Mel (Aug 7, 2007)

Because we want something different from what you want out of the exchange system, that make us RCI apologists?

Most of us agree that RCI pulls weeks from the exchange pool for rentals.

Most of us agree that the process is not open, so we don't know they criteria for determining which weeks are pulled, and how the exchange pool is compensated, if it is.

But the changes in _perceived_ exchange power have happened over time.  There have been many other changes at RCI that could be equally responsible for the perceived reduction in trade power, that some seem to ignore.

RCI has a membership agreement that allows them to use deposited weeks in any way they see fit.  Some would call that an unreasonable contract of adhesion, but nobody is required to join RCI, and RCI is not the only way to exchange timeshare weeks, even if the weeks are not affiliated with II (which engages in similar activities anyway).

You and Carolinian ask us all to dump RCI and use the smaller exchange companies, but perhaps we should consider how they get their inventory too.  Some of them pledge to use thier resources to aquire the week you want in trade.  When they do this, are they giving YOUR week to their partner, or perhaps something else their partner needs to fulfil one of their own requests?  And what if that week they gave to their partner was MY deposit?

If you see RCI renting your week, and they can't come up with a fair exchange, I can see your complaint.  But you are complianing that they aren't holding onto weeks you want as exchanges.  What if they don't have any requests from people who qualify for those exchanges?  Are you saying they have to give it to someone with lower trade power than they deem appropriate?  

I don't see RCI changing their methods without an injuction.  Any settlement outside of court will be something like everyone gets one free exchange, or one free year of membership.  They won't stop the rentals you so hate.  I suspect RCI is confident enough in how they conduct business that they will allow any demands to stop the rentals to go to court, and unless RCI is blatantly abusing the system, I don't see a court ruling against them.  And if they do, I can't picture any relief that will make everybody happe (or even that will make most happy only at the expense of those that have learned to use the existing system to their advantage).


----------



## bruwery (Aug 7, 2007)

Aldo said:


> Where do you think the lead plantiffs were found, anyway?  By attorneys discussing timesharing with the neighbors over the backyard hedge?
> 
> And where do you think the literally tens of thousands of emails the class action attorneys have received from other disgruntled RCI members which collaborate the charges of the lead plantiffs came from?  Where do you think they heard about this class action suit?
> 
> Give you a hint.  It wasn't from "Endless Vacations" magazine.



I don't know where the evidence came from.  You don't know where it came from, either, unless you're directly involved in the litigation, in which case you wouldn't be discussing it (unless you were itching to be disbarred or fired).

I don't doubt that a mountain of discovery may have come from this site, but I believe the defense counsel would have an absolute field day discrediting it.  For one, nearly everybody on this site has contradicted themselves at one point or another.  Even the greenest attorney on the team could ferret out these contradictions and feast upon them.

Another factor is that as intelligent as we may think we are - and most of you truly are quite astute (I am not, unfortunately) - this site comprises but a few of thousands upon thousands of RCI members.  I don't believe the judge will extrapolate the opinions expressed herein across the general population.  In his eyes, we're just a bunch of people engaged in a debate, and he'd likely treat it as hearsay.


----------



## chris5 (Aug 7, 2007)

bruwery said:


> I don't know where the evidence came from.  You don't know where it came from, either, unless you're directly involved in the litigation, in which case you wouldn't be discussing it (unless you were itching to be disbarred or fired).
> 
> I don't doubt that a mountain of discovery may have come from this site, but I believe the defense counsel would have an absolute field day discrediting it.  For one, nearly everybody on this site has contradicted themselves at one point or another.  Even the greenest attorney on the team could ferret out these contradictions and feast upon them.
> 
> Another factor is that as intelligent as we may think we are - and most of you truly are quite astute (I am not, unfortunately) - this site comprises but a few of thousands upon thousands of RCI members.  I don't believe the judge will extrapolate the opinions expressed herein across the general population.  In his eyes, we're just a bunch of people engaged in a debate, and he'd likely treat it as hearsay.



Mark,  

I wish I had your wit; your posts are cracking me up!  This has got to be one of the more entertaining threads I've seen in years here at Tug.  It is so amusing to me to hear the simple-minded, proclamations of authority on this thread. 

Hearsay, this is triple-ranked hearsay, squared, at best!

I think the RCI folks who think this lawsuit will result in substantial changes to RCI's operations are just taking a long trip to coupon city, if the case doesn't get tossed at the class certifcation stage. If certifcation is awarded, the lawyers on both sides will make out like fat rats, as they will navigate themselves to a settlement. And the customers will be holding $25 coupons off their next exchanges, along with token adjustments to RCI operations.

Mark my words.


----------



## John Cummings (Aug 7, 2007)

bruwery said:


> ...The problem lies with:
> 
> 1) Developers building resorts in highly seasonal locations.
> 
> ...



1. This is not a problem but are the facts of life. Developers build resorts where they think there will be able to sell their units. Often these are seasonal locations such as ski areas, beach locations, warm winter areas, etc. Some areas, such as Palm Springs, etc. are highly seasonal. Other areas, such as Hawaii, Las Vegas, Coastal California, etc. are not as seasonal. However it all boils down to where the tourists choose to vacation and that is hardly the developers fault.

C. I agree that for the most part this is a rather entertaining and enjoyable thread. I don't take it seriously and I am sure that RCI doesn't either.


----------



## Mel (Aug 7, 2007)

I finally waded back through some of the newer posts I missed while away on vacation, and felt a need to respond



Carolinian said:


> A company can essentially be sued for any of its acts and practices that are ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' and the terms and conditions THEMSELVES may be the items that are unfair or deceptive.  Indeed that is exactly what is happening with the current class action suit against RCI.


Maybe we can get down to the datails.  Which parts of the terms of membership do you consider unfair or deceptive?  While I would call most of the sales presentations I've attended deceptive, I would not say the same of the RCI terms of membership.  I realize many RCI members don't ever read those terms, but that is not RCI's fault.  

I know one part you find infair is the idea of members not being allowed to rent out weeks, but that is not the purpose of the exchange system.  Further, I don't want you, or any other member renting out the week I own.  Those same terms of membership would need to be amended to include a clause stating that not only do I agree to allow RCI to do as it sees fit with my week, but that I also agree to the same for anyone they assign my week to.  No way, I don't agree.



> I also fully understand that the shrill postings of some of the RCI defenders on these boards over the years have led some Weeks supporters to either move to other boards or to refrain from posting.  I appreciate the email encouragement I have received in the course of this thread, and I can understand why some people would rather not jump into the fray.


It works both ways.  There are those who are tired of your unsupported claims of RCI's abuses, and who no longer post here, but converse with _me_ by email.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 7, 2007)

The problem with oversupply is primarily in the overbuilt areas, which when you get down to it are really seasonal, too, rather than resorts in ''seasonal'' areas.  Overpointing the overbuilt areas in RCI Pooints doesn't solve that problem even if it makes developers happy.

As to the lawsuit, the key is what the lead plaintiffs will sign off on, and one lead plaintiff who I have learned a bit about since the lawsuit was filed, seems to be very firmly committed to real reform at RCI.  Based on that the ''coupon result'' contention is just the RCI supporters whistling past the graveyard.  No, you will either see 1) a settlement that achieves real reform, 2) a full scale trial in which the chips will fall with who has the evidence, or 3) someone bumps off the lead plaintiff (which is not likely).

The problem is exchange companies putting their hands in the till to rent out the weeks that have been deposited in good faith by members who thought they were using an exchange system.  The developers may not be angels in other ways, but they have absolutely nothing to do with that.





bruwery said:


> No, I haven't noticed that.  What I have noticed is that we have several people here who are unhappy with RCI for various reasons.  I've also noticed that a few of the disenchanted have chosen to put labels on those who don't share their point of view.
> 
> Personally, I have my own opinions on this whole racket, which I will now share, being the generous fool that I am...
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 7, 2007)

Lawsuits are decided upon the evidence presented, not the opinions of litigants.  Most of that evidence will likely come through the discovery process.  I doubt anything from these boards will directly end up in evidence, but it might be extremely useful in pointing the attorneys where to look as they turn over the rocks in RCI's records.




bruwery said:


> I don't know where the evidence came from.  You don't know where it came from, either, unless you're directly involved in the litigation, in which case you wouldn't be discussing it (unless you were itching to be disbarred or fired).
> 
> I don't doubt that a mountain of discovery may have come from this site, but I believe the defense counsel would have an absolute field day discrediting it.  For one, nearly everybody on this site has contradicted themselves at one point or another.  Even the greenest attorney on the team could ferret out these contradictions and feast upon them.
> 
> Another factor is that as intelligent as we may think we are - and most of you truly are quite astute (I am not, unfortunately) - this site comprises but a few of thousands upon thousands of RCI members.  I don't believe the judge will extrapolate the opinions expressed herein across the general population.  In his eyes, we're just a bunch of people engaged in a debate, and he'd likely treat it as hearsay.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 7, 2007)

*I guess the supporters want RCI weeks to end. Not that it's a bad thing*



Carolinian said:


> Lawsuits are decided upon the evidence presented, not the opinions of litigants.  Most of that evidence will likely come through the discovery process.  I doubt anything from these boards will directly end up in evidence, but it might be extremely useful in pointing the attorneys where to look as they turn over the rocks in RCI's records.



The fallacy of thinking a lawsuit can make a company change is that they can simply walk away from an unworkable model despite any agreement, as unlikely as an agreement or court order is.  If they agree not to rent from the spacebank - virtually insuring that the system will be buried in unwanted white and blue time - they cannot be forced to continue to offer week for week trades under those rules.  They could simply say we now do all trades in points (not a part of the suit) or that we no longer accept the dog times since we have no way to move them.  They could also agree to enforce the like for like rule - another way to ensure there will be no leftovers as you can't trade up but only get something equal (mud for mud).  But I'd expect they would simply shut down the week for week system rather than have some heavy and even less knowledgeable (if THATS possible) group tell them how it has to operate.  It would not be the "victory" those who support lawsuits as a management tool think it would be but most likely spell the end to the whole weeks system at RCI.  I laugh when I read that the "plaintiffs" won't settle or accept anything but "real reform".  They don't get the chance to decide if it's a court ruling and RCI isn't likely to settle anything if it leaves them in an unsustainable model.  So, like opinions here, it doesn't matter what the parties think they'll accept its what the court decides that will matter.  And that isn't likely to be much beyond a token slap on the wrist.  

How much easier and less costly if those who feel they are being cheated simply helped themselves and cut off RCI at the knees.  Just like you can't force a company to operate in a model they don't find workable neither can a company rent timeshares they don't have.


----------



## Mel (Aug 7, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Who cares about ''new'' resorts?  Most care about resorts located where they want to go.  Often the better locations are already taken and the ''new'' resorts don't get them.
> 
> RCI seems big into ''flexibility'' and the concept of ''excess inventory'' is extremely ''flexible''.  It can be anything RCI wants it to be and to adjust the numbers to accomplish that.  Renting spacebank inventory to the general public is simply a huge conflict of interest and needs to be brought to a screaching halt.



I'm not going to respond on the other thread, I want it to go forward with people having a chance to answer the original question.  You say this here, yet on the other thread you obviously don't want anyone to voice an opinion about the new resorts. 

You say the developers will never stop putting them into the exchange pool, so why should we even consider it a possibility.  I for one would like to know what you think will happen if RCI is told they cannot remove weeks to use for rentals?  Will developer sit idly by and accept more and more useless bonus weeks?   (Yes they are useless to them as well as to us, because they don't add value to the package they are selling)

Will you get off the fence?  

Do you support moving to a system where the only weeks in the system are exchange weeks?  Where Developer weeks are handled in a different program, and exchangers no longer have access to those weeks as exchanges?  Yes, or no?


----------



## Aldo (Aug 7, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> The fallacy of thinking a lawsuit can make a company change is that they can simply walk away from an unworkable model despite any agreement, as unlikely as an agreement or court order is.  If they agree not to rent from the spacebank - virtually insuring that the system will be buried in unwanted white and blue time - they cannot be forced to continue to offer week for week trades under those rules.  They could simply say we now do all trades in points (not a part of the suit) or that we no longer accept the dog times since we have no way to move them.  They could also agree to enforce the like for like rule - another way to ensure there will be no leftovers as you can't trade up but only get something equal (mud for mud).  But I'd expect they would simply shut down the week for week system rather than have some heavy and even less knowledgeable (if THATS possible) group tell them how it has to operate.  It would not be the "victory" those who support lawsuits as a management tool think it would be but most likely spell the end to the whole weeks system at RCI.  I laugh when I read that the "plaintiffs" won't settle or accept anything but "real reform".  They don't get the chance to decide if it's a court ruling and RCI isn't likely to settle anything if it leaves them in an unsustainable model.  So, like opinions here, it doesn't matter what the parties think they'll accept its what the court decides that will matter.  And that isn't likely to be much beyond a token slap on the wrist.
> 
> How much easier and less costly if those who feel they are being cheated simply helped themselves and cut off RCI at the knees.  Just like you can't force a company to operate in a model they don't find workable neither can a company rent timeshares they don't have.




The proposed model was certainly workable under the direction of DeHaan.

It was fair, it moved weeks, it gave value to the mud weeks, and was profitable enough that Cendant bought it in the first place.

If one can make MORE money by treating people unfairly, by looting the Spacebank, that is no justification for doing so.  Ripping people off is easy; in fact my experience is that many people ask for just that; and it is indeed quite profitable.  It is, however, never justified.

At any rate, it has been proven beyond any doubt that garnering a fair and reasonable return for a timeshare exchange company CAN be done without ripping off the members of the system.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 7, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> The fallacy of thinking a lawsuit can make a company change is that they can simply walk away from an unworkable model despite any agreement, as unlikely as an agreement or court order is.  If they agree not to rent from the spacebank - virtually insuring that the system will be buried in unwanted white and blue time - they cannot be forced to continue to offer week for week trades under those rules.  They could simply say we now do all trades in points (not a part of the suit) or that we no longer accept the dog times since we have no way to move them.  They could also agree to enforce the like for like rule - another way to ensure there will be no leftovers as you can't trade up but only get something equal (mud for mud).  But I'd expect they would simply shut down the week for week system rather than have some heavy and even less knowledgeable (if THATS possible) group tell them how it has to operate.  It would not be the "victory" those who support lawsuits as a management tool think it would be but most likely spell the end to the whole weeks system at RCI.  I laugh when I read that the "plaintiffs" won't settle or accept anything but "real reform".  They don't get the chance to decide if it's a court ruling and RCI isn't likely to settle anything if it leaves them in an unsustainable model.  So, like opinions here, it doesn't matter what the parties think they'll accept its what the court decides that will matter.  And that isn't likely to be much beyond a token slap on the wrist.
> 
> How much easier and less costly if those who feel they are being cheated simply helped themselves and cut off RCI at the knees.  Just like you can't force a company to operate in a model they don't find workable neither can a company rent timeshares they don't have.



The Weeks model made Christel deHaan a rich lady.  It works.

The Points mini-system model came out of the gate first in timesharing (Hapimag of Switzerland) but was quickly ecliped when French developers came up with the superior Weeks model.

There are lots of comparable things that blue and white weeks can trade for, that are also in oversupply compared to demand, and that is weeks from the overbuilt areas - an equal trade based on supply and demand.

If you really want like for like, maybe overbuilt areas should only trade for other overbuilt areas.

Weeks is necessary for Points to loot to prop up the otherwise unsustainable Points system.  If they pull the plug on Weeks, they kill Points.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 7, 2007)

Maybe I should ask if you support adding trips to the center of the earth to points partners.

Your proposal is purely rhetorical, and your screaming in this post clearly illustrates it.

Would an exchanger support that?  Of course not.  Would a developer?  Of course not.  An exchange company?  probably not, unless there were an ulterior motive.

Some developers want, for their own purposes, to put weeks into the exchange pool.  They should have a right to do so.  I would not support an exchange company requiring them to only put their weeks somewhere else. Developers should have the right to place their weeks where they want to.  If that means developer renting to the public, that is fair game.  Developers created the weeks themselves, unlike an exchange company which took them in trust for exchange purposes, which is a huge difference.  When developers want to put them in the exchange pool, that is great and they should not be discouraged from doing so.




Mel said:


> I'm not going to respond on the other thread, I want it to go forward with people having a chance to answer the original question.  You say this here, yet on the other thread you obviously don't want anyone to voice an opinion about the new resorts.
> 
> You say the developers will never stop putting them into the exchange pool, so why should we even consider it a possibility.  I for one would like to know what you think will happen if RCI is told they cannot remove weeks to use for rentals?  Will developer sit idly by and accept more and more useless bonus weeks?   (Yes they are useless to them as well as to us, because they don't add value to the package they are selling)
> 
> ...


----------



## chris5 (Aug 8, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> As to the lawsuit, the key is what the lead plaintiffs will sign off on, and one lead plaintiff who I have learned a bit about since the lawsuit was filed, seems to be very firmly committed to real reform at RCI.  Based on that the ''coupon result'' contention is just the RCI supporters whistling past the graveyard.  No, you will either see 1) a settlement that achieves real reform, 2) a full scale trial in which the chips will fall with who has the evidence, or 3) someone bumps off the lead plaintiff (which is not likely).



I have no finanical or even a mild academic interest in the never-ending debate about the RCI's practices that appear to upset several RCI customers. Heck, I'm not even in the RCI system. So, I'm not an "RCI supporter" (that's really a funny name by the way).  However, I do enjoy the entertaining silliness that these threads often display, especially since many of you posters make such authoritative statements about the out-come of things.  

Your statement above is not grounded in the reality of class action litigation.  Over the course of my professional career, I've been involved in a few of these actions. In consumer protection cases, a lead plaintiff has little, if any, influence over the course of the litigation or the settlement negotiations. You are completely off-base if you really think the named plaintiff class representatives can drive the litigation. 

Additionally, there is seldom a full-scaled trial on the merits for these cases.  If the case is not tossed at the certification stages, which defense counsel will vigorously pursue, then the parties have a strong business incentive to reach a settlement.  Plaintiff's class counsel has a built-in bias to reach a settlement for obvious reasons, and a lead plaintiff cannot really countermand the wishes of class action counsel whose representation is broader than those named as lead plaintiffs!

Yep, I think you're heading, at best, to coupon city.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 8, 2007)

Aldo said:


> The proposed model was certainly workable under the direction of DeHaan.
> 
> It was fair, it moved weeks, it gave value to the mud weeks, and was profitable enough that Cendant bought it in the first place.
> 
> ....


Oh Aldo, do I have to post this once again.

When I first bought my timeshare, I could not find a single person who thought that I was doing the right thing.  Everyone I talked to either had been burned or knew someone that had been burned.  Several years later, I did run into a happy owner (points system - Fairfield).  I asked her how I didn't know that she owned a timeshare before.  Her answer was that she didn't tell people because she didn't want them to think she was gullible.  The going figure on TUG was that somewhere between 75% and 80% of the depositors never got anything in return. 

Fair?  That certainly was not the reputation of timesharing back in the DeHahn days (lower than low in the press as well as with people that I talked to).  What raised its reputation was hotels like Marriott moving into the business and treating people better.  Oh yes, those hotel chains included Hyatt and Hilton which established points systems.  (By the way, they tried to run away from being called timeshares because of the connotation of the word.)


----------



## Mel (Aug 8, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> Maybe I should ask if you support adding trips to the center of the earth to points partners.
> QUOTE]
> Sure, if RCI can come up with a supplier.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 8, 2007)

More rhetorical games from one of the more tenacious of the self appointed RCI defenders!  If you read my posts in this thread, you will find I have discussed both issues.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 8, 2007)

I have read your earlier posts.  As best that I can tell, this is your definitive answer.  You think RCI should segregate developer weeks from the exchange weeks because no one cares to go to any of them anyway.

If this becomes the outcome of the suit, should the same apply to SFX?



Carolinian said:


> Who cares about ''new'' resorts?  Most care about resorts located where they want to go.  Often the better locations are already taken and the ''new'' resorts don't get them.
> 
> RCI seems big into ''flexibility'' and the concept of ''excess inventory'' is extremely ''flexible''.  It can be anything RCI wants it to be and to adjust the numbers to accomplish that.  Renting spacebank inventory to the general public is simply a huge conflict of interest and needs to be brought to a screaching halt.


----------



## John Cummings (Aug 8, 2007)

Many years ago, when I used to use RCI, I was able to get a second consecutive week in Mazatlan because of developers weeks. As I have said many times, I do NOT care where my week comes from as long as I get it.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 8, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> I have read your earlier posts.  As best that I can tell, this is your definitive answer.  You think RCI should segregate developer weeks from the exchange weeks because no one cares to go to any of them anyway.
> 
> If this becomes the outcome of the suit, should the same apply to SFX?



How typical to take something out of context.  That quote refers what governs demand.  It is location, not ''newness'' that drives demand.

You are well aware from the posts directly on the subject of developer weeks that I have not taken the position you allege.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 8, 2007)

In post #140 Mel was pointing out that if developer weeks become unavailable to RCI exchangers, those who own good weeks and want to go to some of the newer resorts will drop out of the system.  Post #141 (quoted above) was your response.

[Added: Mel is obviously frustrated in that she can't find your answers to her questions.  Given the context of post #141, that was the best I could find.  This is an excellent opportunity for you to make your position clear.  Please provide direct and clear answers to the questions she poses in post #176.  Thanks.]


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 8, 2007)

*Today isn't 1985, is it?*



Carolinian said:


> The Weeks model made Christel deHaan a rich lady.  It works.
> 
> The Points mini-system model came out of the gate first in timesharing (Hapimag of Switzerland) but was quickly ecliped when French developers came up with the superior Weeks model.
> 
> ...



Even if the system did work in the old days, and TUGS' very existence says there were serious problems even then, the timeshare landscape of today isn't the one that existed then.  We have covered those changes time and time again so no need to repeat them. But that model simply doesn't have legs anymore. 

It may surprise you to find out that if a crazy result like red for red only was fully implemented (effectively limiting what you call overbuilt areas to other similar areas and the limited red times of the seasonal resorts) the owners of those areas would for the most part be happy while the seasonal blue and white owners, now officially regulated to equal trades, would be the ones complaining.  Ending the free ride enjoyed by those owners has always been fair game. Actually that is what the systems implied they enforced all along so THAT result of the class action would actually be good. Not that any result is likely.  The colors are there for a reason. In a simple world they would determine what you could get.  Talk about rigged and fixed.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 8, 2007)

*Great Idea.  Where Do I Sign Up ?*




Carolinian said:


> If you really want like for like, maybe overbuilt areas should only trade for other overbuilt areas.


Now that's the 1st creative timeshare exchange idea I've encountered in quite a while -- & it's so way-out crazy it just might work. 

By "overbuilt," do we agree on *. . . *

Orlando FL ?
Williamsburg VA ? 
Las Vegas NV ? 
Branson MO ? 

Any others ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 8, 2007)

My suggestion was overbuilt area for overbuilt area, NOT red for red.

There are too many ''red'' weeks in the RCI system that should be blue or white.  There was a day that it was well justified to make all weeks in Orlando red.  Marvin Beard used to speak of the day that timeshare there was like gold - ''mousefront property'' he said it was called.  But a LOT of timeshare has been built since then, and the Availibility tables in the European version of the RCI Directory clearly show that much of it now should be blue or white.  Don't expect the developers in sales to ever allow that to happen, however.  In Europe, the Canary Islands is a similar example where in the current market it is laughable to call it ''red all year''  Ha! Ha!






timeos2 said:


> Even if the system did work in the old days, and TUGS' very existence says there were serious problems even then, the timeshare landscape of today isn't the one that existed then.  We have covered those changes time and time again so no need to repeat them. But that model simply doesn't have legs anymore.
> 
> It may surprise you to find out that if a crazy result like red for red only was fully implemented (effectively limiting what you call overbuilt areas to other similar areas and the limited red times of the seasonal resorts) the owners of those areas would for the most part be happy while the seasonal blue and white owners, now officially regulated to equal trades, would be the ones complaining.  Ending the free ride enjoyed by those owners has always been fair game. Actually that is what the systems implied they enforced all along so THAT result of the class action would actually be good. Not that any result is likely.  The colors are there for a reason. In a simple world they would determine what you could get.  Talk about rigged and fixed.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 8, 2007)

AwayWeGo said:


> Now that's the 1st creative timeshare exchange idea I've encountered in quite a while -- & it's so way-out crazy it just might work.
> 
> By "overbuilt," do we agree on *. . . *
> 
> ...



Bootleg's list was:

Orlando
Williamsburg
Branson
Massanutten

For Europe, you could add:

Canary Islands
Costa Del Sol, Spain


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 8, 2007)

*Lest make REdWeek mean Redweek. Thats all it trades for*



Carolinian said:


> My suggestion was overbuilt area for overbuilt area, NOT red for red.
> 
> There are too many ''red'' weeks in the RCI system that should be blue or white.  There was a day that it was well justified to make all weeks in Orlando red.  Marvin Beard used to speak of the day that timeshare there was like gold - ''mousefront property'' he said it was called.  But a LOT of timeshare has been built since then, and the Availibility tables in the European version of the RCI Directory clearly show that much of it now should be blue or white.  Don't expect the developers in sales to ever allow that to happen, however.  In Europe, the Canary Islands is a similar example where in the current market it is laughable to call it ''red all year''  Ha! Ha!



So who declares a region "overbuilt"?  What would be the criteria? What if OBX was declared "overbuilt" because 6 months a year there is a massive supply overload?  Or would it take 7 months of <50% occupancy to be "overbuilt"? If any occupancy rate above 50% means it's in demand then Orlando isn't in overbuilt territory.  But OBX, with 5 month of low demand, would be.  

The same issues you raise with red vs pink vs white vs blue arise again. Just substitute "Overbuilt" for "blue" and "Underbuilt" for red.   The disagreements would be exactly the same as everyone thinks they own the best I'm sure. 

Or lets go down the idyllic path of "overbuilt for overbuilt" only. Provided the plan is fair and it's also off season for off season, etc. where do you think the howls would come from?  The Orlando/Branson/ Las Vegas owners who get to trade freely between those "overbuilt" locations OR the seasonal owner of OBX or Cape Cod who wanted a trip to Orlando/LV but is blocked as those are available for "overbuilt" owners only?  Remember, even the red times would no longer qualify for "overbuilt" areas.  So they get to pick from other red times in seasonal areas but not the top destinations - they are "overbuilt".   That system wouldn't last long for those not in the "overbuilt" group.  Which is the whole issue.  Weeks aren't equal and "overbuilt" is a catch phrase while seasonal is a fact.  Should all construction stop tomorrow and the same number of timeshares exist in Orlando for the next ten years "overbuilt"would fade away. Seasonal is forever and cannot be altered.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 8, 2007)

Boca would say the rest of the country is just underbuilt.  :rofl: 

It is true that the system would work well for us if every area we wanted to travel had as many resorts as Orlando.  I used to say Orlando was overbuilt, but I changed my mind because, as Boca says, Orlando has enough to satisfy most everyone during the busy times of year.  Of course, some of the resorts are going to be the lesser ones, because not even half are GC.  The less knowledgable exchangers will take whatever RCI assigns them, which is such a shame, because TUGgers are just hogging all the good ones.


----------



## John Cummings (Aug 8, 2007)

I don't think TUGGERS are hogging too much of anything. I hate to break the news to you but TUG really has only a minuscule effect, if any on the timeshare world.


----------



## Steve Barr (Aug 8, 2007)

AHHH, my brain's going to explode from laughing as I read the WHOLE thread (and we never exchange, we use 5 weeks and rent out the 3 others- every year). Best thread yet for entertainment value.

Let's see- chronologically so far it's 'I'm right, you're right, the developers are pond scum, it's RCI's fault, RCI is great, points is screwing weeks, points have no effect on weeks availability, Cendant (the devil) made me do it, you are scum, no-you misinterpreted what I meant/thought I said from your response to my response to your earlier response to my response to the third party's response to the original post, I understand what you said- you're still an idiot, exchange systems are great/bad/unethical/the reincarnation of Enron, let's sue, no you should sue, no let a third party sue, no one should sue'. Did I miss anything major?

About the only explanation I have not seen is that it must be CFI/Wastegate trying to take over the world (which I find as likely as some of the other proposed theories).

Now I'll admit I've NEVER traded/exchanged with a company. So I have no experience but also no dog in this fight. It strikes me that many are fine with exchanging as long as they get to trade up when they want with the trade. Do the math, for all deposits vs. trades in a system it's a zero sum game. 

As I said, great entertainment value. Let's have a tag team wrestlemania rumble- it's RCI vs. non-RCI, winner takes all.


----------



## bruwery (Aug 8, 2007)

This thread has taken an interesting tangent into the land of overbuilt vs. underbuilt vs. red vs. white vs. whatever.


This is really getting fun!!  I am learning absolutely nothing, and loving every word of it.

One could make an argument that almost every location is overbuilt, because most areas have softer periods or excess units.  Now, I didn't say ALL areas.  Those of you who believe you live in a perpetually hot spot with no excess (you don't, but I don't mind if you believe otherwise), please don't take offense and shoot me.

Due to the fact that I own in overbuilt Orlando, I'll just assume that anything I can trade into must be overbuilt and therefore worthless.  Hence, I shouldn't trade into it, or I'm somehow getting shortchanged, because even though Orlando's overbuilt, my resort is an exception because it has great location (according to me).  However, if I deposit my resort, that would make it available for exchange - a key indicator in the "overbuilt" rankings.  Therefore, nobody should trade into it...

At the end of the day, all of us timeshare owners should just jump in a lake and drown ourselves because all timeshares are worthless and nothing will trade for anything that isn't overbuilt.

I know somebody from southern California or New York City is going to come on here and tell me they have no soft period.  They may be right, but I don't want to go to either place, so that makes those locations overbuilt to me.  And, when you cut right to the chase, "me" is all I really care about...


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 8, 2007)

*You Can't Get There From Here.*




bruwery said:


> At the end of the day, all of us timeshare owners should just jump in a lake and drown ourselves because all timeshares are worthless and nothing will trade for anything that isn't overbuilt.


Sounds very much like the situation I'm in when I ask for directions in New York City *. . .* 

_Pardon me, sir. 
Could you please tell me how to get to Times Square? 
Or should I just go *bleep* myself ? _​
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## John Cummings (Aug 8, 2007)

It is true that this overbuilt vs under-built, etc. is laughable. Seeing as I only participate in these useless discussions for the entertainment value, I find this thread to be a great one.

In all seriousness, does any of this really matter? To me, the only important thing is that one gets to go where they want whether it is overbuilt, under-built, seaside, mountain, desert, beach, and yes, even amusement parks. Gosh even developer weeks work just fine.

I have been trading weeks for 17 years and have always been able to go where I wanted so I am happy. End of story.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

That's why a valid system should only be built on supply and demand, as is RCI Weeks.  The market determines what is overbuilt not someone aribtrarily designating an area overbuilt or arbitrarily setting numbers.  Many Tuggers who have expereience using the system are able to identify it.  Bootleg, with his access to RCI's computers was able to see it more graphically.  The avilibility tables in the European version of the RCI directory also show it.

The season with excess supply on the OBX runs a bit less than 3 months, not 5.  Yearround, the OBX t/s has better occupancy than Orlando.

Any system should allow trades down.  That would mean that a red week from a high demand area certain should be able to trade down into an overbuilt area.






timeos2 said:


> So who declares a region "overbuilt"?  What would be the criteria? What if OBX was declared "overbuilt" because 6 months a year there is a massive supply overload?  Or would it take 7 months of <50% occupancy to be "overbuilt"? If any occupancy rate above 50% means it's in demand then Orlando isn't in overbuilt territory.  But OBX, with 5 month of low demand, would be.
> 
> The same issues you raise with red vs pink vs white vs blue arise again. Just substitute "Overbuilt" for "blue" and "Underbuilt" for red.   The disagreements would be exactly the same as everyone thinks they own the best I'm sure.
> 
> Or lets go down the idyllic path of "overbuilt for overbuilt" only. Provided the plan is fair and it's also off season for off season, etc. where do you think the howls would come from?  The Orlando/Branson/ Las Vegas owners who get to trade freely between those "overbuilt" locations OR the seasonal owner of OBX or Cape Cod who wanted a trip to Orlando/LV but is blocked as those are available for "overbuilt" owners only?  Remember, even the red times would no longer qualify for "overbuilt" areas.  So they get to pick from other red times in seasonal areas but not the top destinations - they are "overbuilt".   That system wouldn't last long for those not in the "overbuilt" group.  Which is the whole issue.  Weeks aren't equal and "overbuilt" is a catch phrase while seasonal is a fact.  Should all construction stop tomorrow and the same number of timeshares exist in Orlando for the next ten years "overbuilt"would fade away. Seasonal is forever and cannot be altered.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

According to Bootleg, who with his access to RCI computers would know, the two resorts with the biggest oversupply in the entire RCI system are both Gold Crowns in Orlando.

That is why a blue week from anywhere will trade into Orlando much of the year.  Their supply/demand profiles are similar, so they are an equal trade.




rickandcindy23 said:


> Boca would say the rest of the country is just underbuilt.  :rofl:
> 
> It is true that the system would work well for us if every area we wanted to travel had as many resorts as Orlando.  I used to say Orlando was overbuilt, but I changed my mind because, as Boca says, Orlando has enough to satisfy most everyone during the busy times of year.  Of course, some of the resorts are going to be the lesser ones, because not even half are GC.  The less knowledgable exchangers will take whatever RCI assigns them, which is such a shame, because TUGgers are just hogging all the good ones.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 9, 2007)

bruwery said:


> ....Due to the fact that I own in overbuilt Orlando, I'll just assume that anything I can trade into must be overbuilt and therefore worthless.  Hence, I shouldn't trade into it, or I'm somehow getting shortchanged, because even though Orlando's overbuilt, my resort is an exception because it has great location (according to me).  However, if I deposit my resort, that would make it available for exchange - a key indicator in the "overbuilt" rankings.  Therefore, nobody should trade into it...
> 
> At the end of the day, all of us timeshare owners should just jump in a lake and drown ourselves because all timeshares are worthless and nothing will trade for anything that isn't overbuilt....


Thanks for providing me with a good laugh.


----------



## bruwery (Aug 9, 2007)

AwayWeGo said:


> Sounds very much like the situation I'm in when I ask for directions in New York City *. . .*
> 
> _Pardon me, sir.
> Could you please tell me how to get to Times Square?
> ...



Now THAT'S funny!!


----------



## Mel (Aug 9, 2007)

Carolinian said:


> More rhetorical games from one of the more tenacious of the self appointed RCI defenders!  If you read my posts in this thread, you will find I have discussed both issues.


Maybe, but you don't answer the questions.  Roger tried to clarify your answer and you jumped down his throat accusing him of taking things out of context.

If you insist on hinting at your answers, rather than answering, then perhaps all of your posts should include the following disclaimer:

"ignore the man behind the courtain"

You have every right to your opinion, but if you're going to insist on telling us we're all wrong, at least give us the courtesy of answering our questions so we know where you truly stand.

1 - you don't like RCI
2 - you think weeks-for-weeks is the only fair system
3 - you think developer should put their weeks into the exchange system
4 - you think nothing should be taken out in exchange
5 - eliminating rentals by RCI will solve all the major problems
6 - if Developers remove their weeks from the system, it won't matter, because nobody in their right mind wants them anyway.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

Ah!  The pro-RCI spinmaster.

To correct the spin of your assertions:

1.  I have stated many times that RCI created the best timeshare exchange system there has ever been.  Unfortunately Cendant hijacked it.  Timesharers should try to get it back to where it will be dependable again.  I have never joined those who advocated cancelling RCI membership, just diverting as many deposits as feasible to other companies until some corrective action occurs at RCI.

2.  Weeks is the best system, but I have actually set out at some lengths how most of the bugs could be taken out of a points system.  Unfortunately, as long as they use paper and ink to public tables, points systems are always going to be seriously flawed.

3.  I think developers should do whatever they want with their weeks.  They can get certain advantages in putting them in the exchange system, but some may see more benefit elsewhere.  That is up to them, not you.

4.  (I really don't know what you mean by this distortion!)

5.  Eliminated rentals by exchange companies to outsiders from exchange deposits will solve one major problem.  It will not solve all major problems, like the unfair crossover grids.

6.  The same out of context distortion as above!  The driver of demand is location not ''newness''.  If the developer weeks are from an oversupply area or a poor location, they will make no difference if they are in the system or not.  If they are from an area with more demand than supply then yes they will make a difference.  Some might actually benefit if developers pulled their inventory, such as an overbuilt area since this would decrease the glut of supply to some extent and therefore probably help trading power for owners there.




Mel said:


> Maybe, but you don't answer the questions.  Roger tried to clarify your answer and you jumped down his throat accusing him of taking things out of context.
> 
> If you insist on hinting at your answers, rather than answering, then perhaps all of your posts should include the following disclaimer:
> 
> ...


----------



## Mel (Aug 9, 2007)

I wasn't spinning, I was asking if it was an accurate representation of your opinion, because you won't answer questions directly - much like a politician. 

We shouldn't accuse you of bashing RCI and anyone that understands their model of business, because you don't dislike RCI, just Cendant.  Yet it's OK for you to call us names because we feel that your accusations deserve a response.

1 - you used to like RCI, now you won't take a stand, though you don't like what Cendant has done to RCI.

2 - you are entitled your your opinion that weeks is the best system.  Many others, however, disagree, or Point would never have gotten off the ground.

3 - I never said it was up to me.  You don't seem to have an opinion

4 - what distortion?  Should anything be removed from the spacebank in exchange for the developer weeks?  This is the one question you seem to have the most trouble with.  Should the developers have a right to something from the spacebank in exchange for the weeks they deposit?

5 - good, you realize it won't solve the problem.  The solution to your other little delemma is for all resorts to affiliate, and there won't be any crossover grids.

6 Your words from post # 141,


Carolinian said:


> Who cares about ''new'' resorts? Most care about resorts located where they want to go. Often the better locations are already taken and the ''new'' resorts don't get them.


and post # 150


Carolinian said:


> I look at the areas I trade into and I really don't see developer inventory from new resorts as making much difference.  I can't think of any resort I would trade into just because it is ''new''.  In fact, I could name a long list of ''old'' resorts I would much rather have than anything ''new'' I can think of.  It is all about location.



An interesting statistic - a recent ARDA poll showed that location was considered "very important" to only 68% of 2005 buyers surveyed, while quality was very important to 82% 

Copy/paste functionality has been disabled during the survey.


----------



## Carolinian (Aug 9, 2007)

Still spinning!  You take a post on the issue of location vs. ''newness'' and try to apply it to something else.  You also try to spin questions that are overbroad and you don't seem to like anwers that deal with different aspects of the issue which deserve different responses.

You clarified the gibbersih that was your #4. In response,  I am aware that HOA's get tentative bulkbank exchange credits for their deposits, so I suspect that developers would get the same.  That seems perfectly fair to me.

As to #3, my opinion is that developers should have a right to do what they want.  You say it is not up to you, but imply that it should be up to someone other than the developer.  With that I certainly disagree with you.

As to #5, ending the rentals WILL solve one of the major problems, just not all of the major problems.  Again, you seem to like to spin to overgeneralize.

Same ole' same ole'  .  Your spin is NOT my answer.

Your ARDA survey appears to deal with new buyers, which is a far different group than timeshare exchangers for a variety of reasons.  There have been quite a few location vs. ''quality'' threads on several t/s boards, and location always blows away ''quality''.




Mel said:


> I wasn't spinning, I was asking if it was an accurate representation of your opinion, because you won't answer questions directly - much like a politician.
> 
> We shouldn't accuse you of bashing RCI and anyone that understands their model of business, because you don't dislike RCI, just Cendant.  Yet it's OK for you to call us names because we feel that your accusations deserve a response.
> 
> ...


----------



## Evildad (Aug 12, 2007)

Having had our timeshare for about 7 years, I'm still not savvy on all this discussion, but we had an interesting meeting (read: sales pitch) from the Southwind/Spinnaker folks (I'm always confused as to actually WHO does what) when we visited Hilton Head last month.

Basically, they said that there will be no more construction on HHI. They said they are building a marina style on the north side of the island, and they did the usual BS about how much those places will go for, and how much the latest places (new sales, of course) at Waterside go for compared to the first units they sold. (of course, if you check the resale market you know they only go for half what you paid new) They also told us they were PO'ed at RCI because of the way they handled the excess inventory SW would hand over to them. They said that RCI was supposed to put this into the exchange program, but instead they held back a lot of it for direct rentals, thus screwing exchange folks who couldn't plan a year ahead of time.

All this leads to their latest sales pitch, which appears that they are going into the exchange system (sort of) within their own HHI resorts. We would upgrade from our Cottages 2BR unit (which we bought used) to a 3BR townhouse unit (floating week) elsewhere in Shipyard, plus get 3 extra floating weeks that we could use simply for paying the maintenance fee for that week.

IOW, now that they are running out of new places to sell, especially at any kind of reasonable price, they are looking to a new business plan that makes use of the excess inventory they used to pass on to RCI, and take advantage of the fact that most folks can't really take all that time off.

If you bought new from them, you could apply 100% of your purchase price toward the upgrade. If not, they would apply perhaps 50% of your purchase price toward the upgrade. They also used a lot of scare tactics about impending costs at the Cottages (which may be true, but these guys do NOT know how to sell), which turned us off badly (not that we were going to buy, but we were at least being polite).

Pricewise, it was not bad, but we are still working and don't have that much time to go to HHI (it's all day drive each way), plus I always know that no matter how good the deal, there's always another good deal, and if they are selling something, the advantage is to them, not me.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 12, 2007)

*Weasel bedding - don't let them use your green*



Evildad said:


> Basically, they said that there will be no more construction on HHI. They said they are building a marina style on the north side of the island, and they did the usual BS about how much those places will go for, and how much the latest places (new sales, of course) at Waterside go for compared to the first units they sold. (of course, if you check the resale market you know they only go for half what you paid new) They also told us they were PO'ed at RCI because of the way they handled the excess inventory SW would hand over to them. They said that RCI was supposed to put this into the exchange program, but instead they held back a lot of it for direct rentals, thus screwing exchange folks who couldn't plan a year ahead of time.



Ah yes. Playing to your perceptions and making themselves the answer. Don't you just love a cuddly sales weasel? 



Evildad said:


> All this leads to their latest sales pitch, which appears that they are going into the exchange system (sort of) within their own HHI resorts. We would upgrade from our Cottages 2BR unit (which we bought used) to a 3BR townhouse unit (floating week) elsewhere in Shipyard, plus get 3 extra floating weeks that we could use simply for paying the maintenance fee for that week.



The only think as bad as a straight week for week exchange system that offers secret values and no flexibilty is a tiny multi-resort group.  They expect you to pay to join, pay to be in the system each year, pay when you use it but your choices are from less than ten resorts or you are still forced to go outside the system.  Not a good plan - not a good system.  Let the weasel snuggle up to his massive disclosure statements at night rather than your money in his pocket.  You were right to walk away from that one.


----------

