# Worldmark Wyndham Yellowstone



## Karen G (Jun 19, 2009)

When we were in West Yellowstone this week we stopped by the new Worldmark resort there to see if they'd show us one of their units. The friendly desk clerk obliged and showed us a three-bedroom, three-bath unit.  Wow! It was gorgeous.  We could live there.

Has anyone been able to exchange into this property? If so, what did you exchange with and what dates were you able to get?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jun 19, 2009)

We stayed there last summer.  It was fantastic.  The only issue was the ventilation in the units.  And, it was a bit tight for the furniture.

I would just do a direct trade with a WorldMark owner.  The demand within WorldMark is huge.   So, there probably won't be many deposits.


----------



## Icc5 (Jun 19, 2009)

*Last Year*



Karen G said:


> When we were in West Yellowstone this week we stopped by the new Worldmark resort there to see if they'd show us one of their units. The friendly desk clerk obliged and showed us a three-bedroom, three-bath unit.  Wow! It was gorgeous.  We could live there.
> 
> Has anyone been able to exchange into this property? If so, what did you exchange with and what dates were you able to get?



We stayed there last year for a week.  We are Worldmark owners.  We had a two bedroom with 5 of us and it worked out fine.  There is no air condition and we wound it to be fine.  I think we were there in the very start of June.
Bart


----------



## loosefeet (Jun 19, 2009)

I thought the 2 BR for 5 was way too crowded--and poor ventilation so everyone had their doors open both to the patio and to the hallway.  I did tour the 3 BR penthouse (which is probably what you saw) and it was gorgeous--definitely the way I will go in the future.  It's hard to book...but if you do 13 mos ahead of time, it may be possible (or trade w/ a WM member and have them book for you).


----------



## Patty (Jun 19, 2009)

We were in a one bedroom April 11 - 18 using RCI points.  The unit and  swimming pool were nice.  The kid's play area was under 2 feet of new snow.
 Yellowstone opened on Friday of that week.  Gorgeous!  Animals were everywhere (including a wolf), very few people, snow with no tracks or footprints.  I highly recommend that time frame.  We had been to Yellowstone several times in the summer but this was so much nicer.


----------



## MuranoJo (Jun 19, 2009)

I saw this available on RCI last night, but didn't pay attention to the dates.  Actually saw a lot of Worldmark.  Haven't checked today, so who knows if it's still there.


----------



## ecwinch (Jun 19, 2009)

The problem is that West Yellowstone has a relatively small usage season. In the winter the only access to the park other than snowcoach is via the North entrance. 

And WM (actually Wyndam) determines what resorts are deposited into II when a WM member does an exchange into II. They rarely deposit the peak season high demand WM resorts like Marina Dunes, Depoe Bay, Camlin (Seattle), and West Yellowstone. They hold those units for WM usage. They deposit the peak season WM resorts that are not in high demand by WM members like Grand Lakes (Afton, Ok), and others. 

Essentially we give II the weeks with the lowest owner usage in any season (Red,Blue,White), so certain resorts will rarely show up in II. They will be listed in the resort directory, but like the Westin St. Johns property, will rarely show up for exchange.


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 19, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> And WM (actually Wyndam) determines what resorts are deposited into II when a WM member does an exchange into II. They rarely deposit the peak season high demand WM resorts like Marina Dunes, Depoe Bay, Camlin (Seattle), and West Yellowstone. They hold those units for WM usage. They deposit the peak season WM resorts that are not in high demand by WM members like Grand Lakes (Afton, Ok), and others.



That's good for us WorldMark owners.  We keep the high demand weeks in our system for our use and exchange our lower demand weeks for high weeks elsewhere.


----------



## LLW (Jun 20, 2009)

WM West Yellowstone is going to be RCI only, as II only gets the WMs that were in service prior to 2004, when Wyndham switched WM back to RCI, a Wyndham/Trendwest sister company.


----------



## LLW (Jun 20, 2009)

cotraveller said:


> That's good for us WorldMark owners.  We keep the high demand weeks in our system for our use and exchange our lower demand weeks for high weeks elsewhere.




However, because RCI is a Wyndham company, we don't really know if that's going to be true. Only empirical evidence will tell.


----------



## LLW (Jun 20, 2009)

loosefeet said:


> I thought the 2 BR for 5 was way too crowded--and poor ventilation so everyone had their doors open both to the patio and to the hallway.  I did tour the *3 BR penthouse (which is probably what you saw) and it was gorgeous*--definitely the way I will go in the future.  It's hard to book...but if you do 13 mos ahead of time, it may be possible (or trade w/ a WM member and have them book for you).



The only 3BR 3 Bath penthouses at W Yellowstone are the Presidentials, which are 2,141 square feet and sleep 6. They are about double the points of the regular 3BRs, which have 3BR 2 Baths, 1,272 to 1,590 SF, and sleep 8 (Murphy bed in the living room).


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 20, 2009)

LLW said:


> However, because RCI is a Wyndham company, we don't really know if that's going to be true. Only empirical evidence will tell.



WorldMark has been associated with RCI since at least 1995.  I don’t have any documentation from the years before that.  RCI has been associated with Wyndham, formerly Cendant, since 1996.  Worldmark has been associated with Wyndham, formerly Cendant, since 2002.  That is a lot of years of providing existing empirical evidence.  How much longer do we need to wait to see if it is true that we keep our good weeks while still getting good exchanges.


----------



## ecwinch (Jun 20, 2009)

cotraveller said:


> WorldMark has been associated with RCI since at least 1995.  I don’t have any documentation from the years before that.  RCI has been associated with Wyndham, formerly Cendant, since 1996.  Worldmark has been associated with Wyndham, formerly Cendant, since 2002.  That is a lot of years of providing existing empirical evidence.  How much longer do we need to wait to see if it is true that we keep our good weeks while still getting good exchanges.



Sometime it is convenient to suggest that anything we have today will disappear tomorrow to further an agenda.

Yes, developers do try to tip the playing field to negate the price differential between by resale and retail through the means of creating rights that you can only attain by buying retail. This is not the same issue.


----------



## LLW (Jun 20, 2009)

cotraveller said:


> WorldMark has been associated with RCI since at least 1995.  I don’t have any documentation from the years before that.  RCI has been associated with Wyndham, formerly Cendant, since 1996.  Worldmark has been associated with Wyndham, formerly Cendant, since 2002.  That is a lot of years of providing existing empirical evidence.  How much longer do we need to wait to see if it is true that we keep our good weeks while still getting good exchanges.



Maybe you know what the contract with RCI says. I sure don't. Neither do I know how many good WM weeks Wyndham gives RCI, or II. Maybe there are exchange requests for a hundred good weeks (and a mix of other weeks), and WM owner requests for 50, and they only contract for 60 good weeks (and a mix of other weeks), which would give the good trade power that WM enjoys.

In the business world, why would any exchange company give high trade power to a company that keeps "the high demand weeks"  "and exchange" their "lower demand weeks for high weeks elsewhere?" So there must be some high demand weeks given, and Tuggers would not get one if they don't request one. Getting a good week would be an empirical evidence. A review of the RCI contract would be another. A review of the exchanged weeks would be yet another.


----------



## ecwinch (Jun 20, 2009)

LLW said:


> Maybe you know what the contract with RCI says. I sure don't. Neither do I know how many good WM weeks Wyndham gives RCI, or II. Maybe there are exchange requests for a hundred good weeks (and a mix of other weeks), and WM owner requests for 50, and they only contract for 60 good weeks (and a mix of other weeks), which would give the good trade power that WM enjoys.
> 
> In the business world, why would any exchange company give high trade power to a company that keeps "the high demand weeks"  "and exchange" their "lower demand weeks for high weeks elsewhere?" So there must be some high demand weeks given, and Tuggers would not get one if they don't request one. Getting a good week would be an empirical evidence. A review of the RCI contract would be another. A review of the exchanged weeks would be yet another.



He just drawing upon the trends of exchanging over the last 10-20 years.  You are speculating the the trend will end. Sure it can end. But lets not assume a fact yet recorded. Obviously the common ownership provides a greater level of protection, over similar agreements that RCI has with other resort systems. 

We are not keeping giving RCI dogs. They still receive a prime week. We are just retaining our best weeks for our own usage. Also, since WM allows daily usage, we need to deposit full weeks into the exchange systems. All systems do the same thing. See Starwood for a case in point.

You are suggesting the evidence that would be required to proof his point. What is the evidence to support yours?


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 20, 2009)

My empirical data says that I have and continue to get good exchanges.  Except for the few times I have done a deposit first I do not know what WorldMark week the exchange company received for the week I traded into.  Nor do I care.  Good is in the eye of the beholder, and in this case it's my eyes.  I'm happy with the exchanges I have made and have no reason to think that I will not be happy with future exchanges.

If others want to worry about the nitty gritty details let them go for it.  I see no point in it.  The objective is to exchange into a resort I want to visit at a time I want to visit.  I can decide if I want to do it at full credit value or wait until the flexchange period opens and try for a lower cost swap, but other than that I have no interest in what WorldMark deposits for my exchange.


----------



## LLW (Jun 20, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> He just drawing upon the trends of exchanging over the last 10-20 years.  You are speculating the the trend will end. Sure it can end. But lets not assume a fact yet recorded. Obviously the common ownership provides a greater level of protection, over similar agreements that RCI has with other resort systems.
> 
> We are not keeping giving RCI dogs. They still receive a prime week. We are just retaining our best weeks for our own usage. Also, since WM allows daily usage, we need to deposit full weeks into the exchange systems. All systems do the same thing. See Starwood for a case in point.
> 
> You are suggesting the evidence that would be required to proof his point. What is the evidence to support yours?





cotraveller said:


> My empirical data says that I have and continue to get good exchanges.  Except for the few times I have done a deposit first I do not know what WorldMark week the exchange company received for the week I traded into.  Nor do I care.  Good is in the eye of the beholder, and in this case it's my eyes.  I'm happy with the exchanges I have made and have no reason to think that I will not be happy with future exchanges.
> 
> If others want to worry about the nitty gritty details let them go for it.  I see no point in it.  The objective is to exchange into a resort I want to visit at a time I want to visit.  I can decide if I want to do it at full credit value or wait until the flexchange period opens and try for a lower cost swap, but other than that I have no interest in what WorldMark deposits for my exchange.



All that I was saying was, in the business world, no business can do an unfair trade and keep doing it for long, in the past, present, or future. Therefore the premise that we can keep our high demand weeks and give only low demand weeks for others' high demand weeks can NOT true, especially when they were/are dealing with a sister company.

There had/have to be high demand weeks that we are giving. I wasn't just talking about the future, I was talking about the past, present, and future. And I really wan't asking him to prove his point. I was just saying that to say that WM can keep doing an unfair trade, there needs to be evidence to prove it.

And exchanging is such an art anyway. Is April 11-18 a bad week? Not according to a poster in this thread who exchanged in. If there is demand for it, then it's a good week. Just like when people rush in for non-school holiday Starwood weeks, or January Manhattan Club weeks.

So can a Tugger exchange into a good week at WM West Yellowstone? Absolutely. Put in a request for a week that is good for you. Of course, as has been suggested, working with a WM owner for a direct exchange at the same time would be an additional, safer bet, if you can and want to go that route.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jun 20, 2009)

I think WorldMark by Wyndham does a great job at keeping prime weeks for its owners.  Of course there must be some give and take at the negotiating table between WorldMark and the exchange companies.  But, on balance, I think WorldMark by Wyndham has done an excellent job at managing this equation on behalf of owners.  We get excellent exchanges and we have access to excellent inventory that exchangers almost never see.

As it relates to WorldMark West Yellowstone, an owner with some diligence can get any week in any size unit they want at this resort as long as they own enough credits.  The outside exchanger looking in has almost no chance.


----------



## ecwinch (Jun 20, 2009)

LLW said:


> All that I was saying was, in the business world, no business can do an unfair trade and keep doing it for long, in the past, present, or future. Therefore the premise that we can keep our high demand weeks and give only low demand weeks for others' high demand weeks can NOT true, especially when they were/are dealing with a sister company.
> 
> There had/have to be high demand weeks that we are giving. I wasn't just talking about the future, I was talking about the past, present, and future. And I really wan't asking him to prove his point. I was just saying that to say that WM can keep doing an unfair trade, there needs to be evidence to prove it.
> 
> ...



As Boca stated, in theory what you are outlining is true. But since WM owners do not deposit weeks directly, I think there are certain resorts in peak windows, will never be seen in RCI. They are the proverbial unicorn.

Can you get in a good week at Yellowstone - sure. A prime summer week - only if demand from WM owners suddenly falls off the table. 

Thinking of it from a business standpoint, why would WM handle it any differently. They know what resorts have low WM owner demand within the seasons set by RCI. It only makes sense to send that inventory to RCI first. For Yellowstone, RCI classifies red as Apr 29-Oct 28. So I can see a red week being deposited, but not a prime summer week.

Is there a possibility it can change - sure. Someone


----------

