# [2018] Marriott Ko Olina - Rooms Control Villa Prioritization



## hangloose (Feb 16, 2018)

Marriott's Ko Olina Rooms Control will prioritize villa placement in this order:

*PRIORITY*

1-     OWNERS (Weeks, Pure Vacation Club Points and Hybrid Vacation Club Point Owners)

_Note: _ I've asked for clarity on this point, to understand whether Weeks or DC Pts reservations are given priority first. 
2-     ENROLLED OWNER (When Using Exchange Points)

3-     OWNER EXCHANGE (MVC Site and Non-Site Owner Exchange)

4-     MARKETING GUEST

5-     RENTAL GUEST

6-     NON-MVC OWNER EXCHANGE

* 
OTHER BLOCKING FACTORS*

7-     CONFIRMED RESERVATION TYPE (Villa Size and View Type) 

For 3BRS, MKO is limited in number.  As such, full 3BR villas are blocked first, then 2BR Master of a 3BR unit second.

_Note: _ I've asked for clarity on this point, as it indicates locking off a 3BR will always place the 2BR Master at a disadvantage for villa placement, given all full 3BRs are blocked first.  
8-     BOOKING DATE -  An important factor in which many Owners will book 12 – 13 months in advance.  Although even booking dates doesn’t always mean that an Owner will get the location and high floor.  The reason for that is the Friday, Saturday, Sunday arrivals, along with Destination Point Owners who arrive any day of the week.  Best to say that it has to be available on your arrival date based on availability.

9-      OTHER FACTORS:  ADA, Length of Stay, Scheduled/Unscheduled Maintenance, Emergency Situations, Villa Preferences (communicated by guests)


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 16, 2018)

3- OWNER EXCHANGE (MVC Site and Non-Site Owner Exchange)

Your comments on this one confuse me.  Non-Site I get, as that would be via an II exchange.  But the only MVC Site owner exchange would be using DC points (Trust or Legacy) am I right ....which would put you at class 1 or 2 on your list, depending.  No?


----------



## hangloose (Feb 16, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> 3- OWNER EXCHANGE (MVC Site and Non-Site Owner Exchange)
> 
> Your comments on this one confuse me.  Non-Site I get, as that would be via an II exchange.  But the only MVC Site owner exchange would be using DC points (Trust or Legacy) am I right ....which would put you at class 1 or 2 on your list, depending.  No?



This is the terminology which came directly from Ko Olina rooms control, which confused me a little also. 

I imagine all II exchanges fall into this category and that they are using “site” to mean the II exchange is via an MKO owner week (re-exchanging as an MKO owner into a different MKO week) ...whereas “non-site” to mean another MVC resort II exchange?


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 16, 2018)

hangloose said:


> This is the terminology which came directly from Ko Olina rooms control, which confused me a little also.
> 
> I imagine all II exchanges fall into this category and that they are using “site” to mean the II exchange is via an MKO owner week (re-exchanging as an MKO owner into a different MKO week) ...whereas “non-site” to mean another MVC resort II exchange?


Gotcha....that makes sense.


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 16, 2018)

I'll be there in early April in a full 3BR OV booked via Trust points 13 months out....which should be #1 above.  We'll see if I get a better allocation than it sounds like you ended up with (based on your posts in the other thread).


----------



## rthib (Feb 16, 2018)

I am curious how I will fair. Have first night on points and then week on exchange Marriott to Marriott with II. Both have same view type by code, but will be interesting to see what they do.


----------



## VacationForever (Feb 16, 2018)

I exchanged via II into 2 consecutive weeks of 3BR OV at MKO last March. We were assigned 8th floor OV on Moana.  At that time, we had no status, except as owner of 2 Marriott weeks and Gold elite.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 17, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> 3- OWNER EXCHANGE (MVC Site and Non-Site Owner Exchange)
> 
> Your comments on this one confuse me.  Non-Site I get, as that would be via an II exchange.  But the only MVC Site owner exchange would be using DC points (Trust or Legacy) am I right ....which would put you at class 1 or 2 on your list, depending.  No?



This may refer to the type of II membership used to make the exchange. Owners with enrolled weeks would be using their II MVC corporate account to make the exchange. Owners who did not enroll their weeks in the destination club would be using a personal (non-corporate) account to complete Marriott to Marriott exchanges.

Essentially they appear to be saying there is no preference granted to weeks exchange owners using either enrolled (MVC corporate II account) over non-enrolled weeks exchangers (personal II account)


----------



## hangloose (Feb 18, 2018)

VacationForever said:


> I exchanged via II into 2 consecutive weeks of 3BR OV at MKO last March. We were assigned 8th floor OV on Moana.  At that time, we had no status, except as owner of 2 Marriott weeks and Gold elite.



(Arrow to the heart).    Just kidding.  

Those were great II exchanges.  Especially two consecutive 3BR MKO II exchanges!  Congrats.  I'm curious, what did you use to find a 3BR in MKO in March.  Were you exchanging using a 3BR via an OGS?  Or did these just show up in inventory when searching online?

I've had a few Maui II exchanges with fantastic rooms.  Two years ago for July 4th, we had a MOC 1BR OV exchange which got 7th or 8th floor in Molokai nearest the ocean.  Great view and with an II exchange during a peak holiday.  Sometimes, it's just luck of the draw based on what's available that exact day you check in.   

Your post makes me think MKO rooms control places all 3BR OV units first (owner, II exchange, renter, etc)...even before an Owner's 2BR Master (of a 3BR unit).   Again, disappointing as an MKO 3BR owner, if true.


----------



## hangloose (Feb 18, 2018)

Updates from MKO Rooms Control:


OWNERS - They do not distinguish between a Weeks owner reservation vs a DC Pts owner reservation. 

MKO 3BR OVs are the hardest for MKO Rooms Control to allocate room placement, given the limited number.   They confirmed they always allocate the full 3BRs first.  While that does not ALWAYs mean an Owner reservation for a 2BR Master (of a 3BR unit) will get a lower floor, it's probably a high probability. 

Efficiency portion of an MKO 3BR unit, will always be within a 3BR villa location.   Nowhere else. 

BOOKING DATE - MKO Rooms Control re-iterated that this plays a large role into villa placement.  So, book early!

Lastly, after lookin at the MKO Building Views, I realized the ground floor in the 3BR OV stack, is actually a 2BR OV unit because they lose the efficiency portion due to the hallway entrance.


----------



## bazzap (Feb 18, 2018)

I suspect my views might heavily divide opinions, but I believe for allocation priorities there should be a level of preference for home resort weeks owners (who have 100% commitment to that one resort) over DC Points owners (who may well have equivalent overall ownership commitment, but spread across the full MVC portfolio of resorts)


----------



## jhac007 (Feb 18, 2018)

bazzap said:


> I suspect my views might heavily divide opinions, but I believe for allocation priorities there should be a level of preference for home resort weeks owners (who have 100% commitment to that one resort) over DC Points owners (who may well have equivalent overall ownership commitment, but spread across the full MVC portfolio of resorts)




I strongly agree and that should be the policy at any resort!


----------



## Dean (Feb 18, 2018)

bazzap said:


> I suspect my views might heavily divide opinions, but I believe for allocation priorities there should be a level of preference for home resort weeks owners (who have 100% commitment to that one resort) over DC Points owners (who may well have equivalent overall ownership commitment, but spread across the full MVC portfolio of resorts)


I'm not sure that's truly possible or reasonable since there's no home resort priority for points usage.  In spite of the wording I'd be truly surprised if they looked at the points used for that exchange or even at what you actually own.  Some resorts, but not most, give preference for those that own there but exchange in and most treat all points owners simply as a Marriott to Marriott exchange, no more and no less.  I personally believe points owners actually using their points should be above other exchangers but it's reasonable to put those who own AND are using their owned weeks ahead.


----------



## GregT (Feb 18, 2018)

hangloose said:


> Updates from MKO Rooms Control:
> 
> 
> OWNERS - They do not distinguish between a Weeks owner reservation vs a DC Pts owner reservation



I am interpreting this to mean that there is no priority given to an owner at the property and booking their week reservation, versus a DC point owner using points. 

If that's the case, that's an interesting interpretation.  I suppose theoretically that the booking date will make this a non-issue for multi-week owners, but single week owners will be at a disadvantage versus a Presidential/Executive/Chairman booking points 13 months out that owns Trust Points.

Interesting.  This may simply be the most recent version of Marriott struggling with accommodating the needs of both owners, and comparing up with what (in their view) is the most fair solution to implement.

I think it is very important that Hangloose learned about the drawback of not booking a fully intact 3BR, however I suspect many 3BR owners do the same -- keep the Master Suite and deposit the Studio, and may be surprised to see that they are getting lower floors.

Ko Olina is a great property and I'm happy to own it, but if my interpretation is correct, then I would have been just as happy now to be booking with points versus owning.

Best,

Greg

Edited:  Fasttr has pointed out that the priority is given only for DC point owners, not enrolled owners, so I've corrected my note to reflect the same -- thanks Fasttr!


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 18, 2018)

GregT said:


> I am interpreting this to mean that there is no priority given to an owner at the property and booking their week reservation, versus a DC point owner (*or enrolled owner*), using points.


Per the original post, Legacy owners using Legacy points are slotted below MKO weeks owners/Trust point users.


----------



## VacationForever (Feb 18, 2018)

hangloose said:


> (Arrow to the heart).    Just kidding.
> 
> Those were great II exchanges.  Especially two consecutive 3BR MKO II exchanges!  Congrats.  I'm curious, what did you use to find a 3BR in MKO in March.  Were you exchanging using a 3BR via an OGS?  Or did these just show up in inventory when searching online?
> 
> ...


I used 2 weeks of the 1BR portion of DSV I red season to book the 2 back-to-back weeks.  Someone posted a large bulk deposit which spanned February through March 2017 of 3BRs and 2BRs under Sightings about 6 months before the travel dates.


----------



## taffy19 (Feb 18, 2018)

I may be all wrong but I believe that Marriott wants us, Legacy week owners who enrolled to decide as early as possible if we want to use points instead of our enrolled week.  We can do this about 18 months out and, at the same time, you can request to be put on the wait list for another location instead.  In that case, you will only compete with owners who own more than 18 weeks.

We own a fixed week/unit and don't know if this is the same for floating week/units too?  In our case (Lahaina fixed week/unit owners who bought before the change) we would be hurt by the skim but we could take a smaller unit or stay less days if we still would like to end up with a very good view if we decide early.  We will be there very soon and I will discuss it with room control and report back here.

PS.  Edited text to try to be more clear.


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 18, 2018)

taffy19 said:


> I may be all wrong but I believe that Marriott wants us, Legacy week owners who enrolled to decide as early as possible if we want to use points instead of our enrolled week.  We can do this about 18 months out and, at the same time, you can request to be put on the wait list for another location instead.  In that case, you will only compete with owners who own more than 18 weeks.
> 
> We own a fixed week/unit and don't know if this is the same for floating week/units too?  In our case (Lahaina tower fixed week/owners) we would be hurt by the skim but we could take a smaller unit or stay less days if we still would like to end up with a very good view if we decide early.  We will be there very soon and I will discuss it with room control and report back here.


You can convert your week to points that early (earlier even), but you are still limited to the booking windows available based on your ownership status, which at the earliest is 13 months out for booking with points.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 18, 2018)

bazzap said:


> I suspect my views might heavily divide opinions, but I believe for allocation priorities there should be a level of preference for home resort weeks owners (who have 100% commitment to that one resort) over DC Points owners (who may well have equivalent overall ownership commitment, but spread across the full MVC portfolio of resorts)



For placement purposes I've always believed that DC Trust Members using Trust Points to book into Trust-conveyed intervals should absolutely be on the same level as Weeks Owners using their owned Weeks, and, DC Exchange Members using Exchange Points to book into Trust-conveyed or any other type of DC interval should be a level below that top tier but higher than II exchangers.  It makes sense to me that the tiers should be according to the different product originations: 1, Weeks and Trust-conveyed intervals being the inventory that makes up the pool from which MVC products can be purchased; 2, DC Exchange intervals being the inventory that's given up by Owners but manipulated internally via the DC Exchange Company; and 3, II intervals being the inventory that's given up by Owners but manipulated through an external company.

The catch with #1, though, is that the majority of intervals, including Trust-conveyed, booked through the DC are manipulated through the DC Exchange Company (as evidenced by the majority of DC confirmations coded as "MVC Exchange" inventory,) and it doesn't appear that the individual resort staff is able to drill down enough to differentiate between Trust-conveyed and all other DC intervals.  Absent that, and considering that they are able to differentiate between owners of DC Trust Points and Enrolled Weeks, I think they should do as Ko 'Olina appears to be doing and allow that DC Trust Members be on an equal tier with Weeks Owners.

You're absolutely right, bazzap, that opinions on this topic are "heavily divided."  No doubt I'm in a very, very small minority here, but I am really happy to see that finally a resort has updated the placement priority this way.  Hopefully others will follow.


----------



## VacationForever (Feb 18, 2018)

OK... I need a little clarity and I am new to the use of Trust and Exchange points system.  

If I need 4,500 points to book a week and I want to use 3,000 trust points and 1,500 Exchange points.  

Can I make 1 booking and that the system will combine the points from my 2 buckets to make the booking?  

If so, am I making a Trust point reservation or an Exchange point reservation?  

Are there 2 different buckets of inventory and if so, how does the system know which one to book against, or do I have to select?  This is assuming that the system will combine my points to make the reservation.


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 18, 2018)

VacationForever said:


> OK... I need a little clarity and I am new to the use of Trust and Exchange points system.
> 
> If I need 4,500 points to book a week and I want to use 3,000 trust points and 1,500 Exchange points.
> 
> ...


Yes, you can use combined Trust and Legacy points on one single ressie.  But if booking online, the system requires each night to be booked with one type or the other, so that can cause issues if your point quantities don't match up perfectly to per night requirements.  It has been reported that a call to MVC can override that issue.

When booking with all Legacy or combined Trust/Legacy points, all those ressies come from the MVC Exchange.  That said, out of all of my ressies booked with 100% Trust points, I have only ever seen 2 that came from MVC Trust....they almost always say they came from MVC Exchange as Sue indicated in her post above (even recent ones in the 13 month window).

I think Sue's point is valid....if I book using 100% Trust points but my ressie is an MVC Exchange ressie, does room control know I have Trust points so they put me in #1, or do they think it was an Enrolled booking, putting me in the #2 slot.

To further complicate things, what if I rent Legacy points and use those to book.  Am I #1 because I own Trust points, or am I #2 because ressie was booked with transferred Legacy points.  Is it the ownership that controls, or what the ressie was booked with.  So many questions.   It's certainly very complicated as there are so many variables.


----------



## bazzap (Feb 18, 2018)

SueDonJ said:


> For placement purposes I've always believed that DC Trust Members using Trust Points to book into Trust-conveyed intervals should absolutely be on the same level as Weeks Owners using their owned Weeks, and, DC Exchange Members using Exchange Points to book into Trust-conveyed or any other type of DC interval should be a level below that top tier but higher than II exchangers.  It makes sense to me that the tiers should be according to the different product originations: 1, Weeks and Trust-conveyed intervals being the inventory that makes up the pool from which MVC products can be purchased; 2, DC Exchange intervals being the inventory that's given up by Owners but manipulated internally via the DC Exchange Company; and 3, II intervals being the inventory that's given up by Owners but manipulated through an external company.
> 
> The catch with #1, though, is that the majority of intervals, including Trust-conveyed, booked through the DC are manipulated through the DC Exchange Company (as evidenced by the majority of DC confirmations coded as "MVC Exchange" inventory,) and it doesn't appear that the individual resort staff is able to drill down enough to differentiate between Trust-conveyed and all other DC intervals.  Absent that, and considering that they are able to differentiate between owners of DC Trust Points and Enrolled Weeks, I think they should do as Ko 'Olina appears to be doing and allow that DC Trust Members be on an equal tier with Weeks Owners.
> 
> You're absolutely right, bazzap, that opinions on this topic are "heavily divided."  No doubt I'm in a very, very small minority here, but I am really happy to see that finally a resort has updated the placement priority this way.  Hopefully others will follow.


The question for me then, would be is there any limit at all to this?
Should a DC Trust member, who may perhaps own just the minimum number of points and booking just 1 or 2 days be on the same level for placement purposes as a home weeks owner booking 1 or perhaps more weeks?
For me, that would not be fair.


----------



## rickxylon (Feb 18, 2018)

Adding another factor that I heard in Aruba. They said they consider DC level as well as Marriott Reward level. So a Chairman and Lifetime Platinum has a higher priority than anyone. Not sure how they use these factors along with the others talked about here. I wonder if these factors are used by other properties.


----------



## davidvel (Feb 18, 2018)

SueDonJ said:


> You're absolutely right, bazzap, that opinions on this topic are "heavily divided."  No doubt I'm in a very, very small minority here, but I am really happy to see that finally a resort has updated the placement priority this way.  Hopefully others will follow.


Here's an even smaller minority opinion: All owners should be treated equally, and all owners should be free to assign their usage, along with all the attendant rights of ownership, to anyone they want in exchange for whatever they want. So if I use my home week, or let my kids use it, or let my neighbor use it, or rent it to my uncle, or trade it through II, TUG or Redweek, all rights should transfer, including view category and priority. The ownership rights shouldn't go away (and be stolen by Marriott) simply because you don't personally stay there. This gives the owner full value in gifting, renting or trading their week.

Either use a random system, lottery, or rotation to give the best views within category.

I know this will never happen, and probably no one agrees, but its still my opinion with respect to property rights in general.


----------



## VacationForever (Feb 18, 2018)

davidvel said:


> Here's an even smaller minority opinion: All owners should be treated equally, and all owners should be free to assign their usage, along with all the attendant rights of ownership, to anyone they want in exchange for whatever they want. So if I use my home week, or let my kids use it, or let my neighbor use it, or rent it to my uncle, or trade it through II, TUG or Redweek, all rights should transfer, including view category and priority. The ownership rights shouldn't go away (and be stolen by Marriott) simply because you don't personally stay there. This gives the owner full value in gifting, renting or trading their week.
> 
> Either use a random system, lottery, or rotation to give the best views within category.
> 
> I know this will never happen, and probably no one agrees, but its still my opinion with respect to property rights in general.


I believe if you rent out a reservation, you still keep your name on it, and add the guest's name. It would still show up as owner / point reservation.


----------



## Dean (Feb 18, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Per the original post, Legacy owners using Legacy points are slotted below MKO weeks owners/Trust point users.


I'd point out that just because this was communicated doesn't mean it's actually done this way.  Room assigners often uses their own version.  The "official" Marriott direction is far simpler and more condensed than this.



bazzap said:


> The question for me then, would be is there any limit at all to this?
> Should a DC Trust member, who may perhaps own just the minimum number of points and booking just 1 or 2 days be on the same level for placement purposes as a home weeks owner booking 1 or perhaps more weeks?
> For me, that would not be fair.


That's why I suggested they don't look or know a lot of the info posted and even if they did, I doubt they actually put it into practice, just too complicated.  For me personally I'd need a lot of data points before I believed some of the nuances posted were reality.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 18, 2018)

davidvel said:


> Here's an even smaller minority opinion: All owners should be treated equally, and all owners should be free to assign their usage, along with all the attendant rights of ownership, to anyone they want in exchange for whatever they want. So if I use my home week, or let my kids use it, or let my neighbor use it, or rent it to my uncle, or trade it through II, TUG or Redweek, all rights should transfer, including view category and priority. The ownership rights shouldn't go away (and be stolen by Marriott) simply because you don't personally stay there. This gives the owner full value in gifting, renting or trading their week.
> 
> Either use a random system, lottery, or rotation to give the best views within category.
> 
> I know this will never happen, and probably no one agrees, but its still my opinion with respect to property rights in general.



Ownership rights to view types aren't taken away in any of the examples you gave except II exchanges, and other than that I actually don't disagree with you as far as random/lottery/rotational placements.  In fact I prefer the rotational placement system that my resorts use, and wouldn't at all mind if a lottery system was used during the highest/holiday-demand periods for BOTH availability and unit placement.  The reason I'm okay with manipulating II exchanges differently (other than it's an II rule, I mean) is because that gives the rooms controllers some wiggle room to reward status or other factors within the exchange pool.

In the simplest example say that you have 2 same-size units available to II exchangers, 1 oceanfront and 1 gardenview, because 2 owners deposited their Weeks to II, and, those 2 units are matched to 2 other Marriott owners who deposited same-size units from other resorts.  The unit view type makes absolutely no difference in the exchange value of what's deposited to II or what gets matched in II, but they do consider the dates of deposit and requests, i.e. the further out you deposit and the further out you request a match, the better your chance at success.  Now say I deposit a Barony oceanfront and request a Maui Ocean Club as far out as possible which gets matched to a MOC gardenview immediately because that owner also deposited as far out as possible, and I get the II confirmation with the code that indicates an MOC gardenview.  Then a month later the same thing happens in reverse with a new request matching newly-deposited inventory, resulting in a Barony gardenview owner getting matched to an MOC unit coded as oceanfront.

Two deposits and two matches of two different view type but same-size units, with all other ownership factors being equal.  But because of the timing of deposits and requests the person, me!, who deposited the oceanfront view type at an earlier date gets the gardenview confirmation while the later-deposited oceanfront confirmation goes to the person who later deposited a gardenview unit.  The fact that at check-in Marriott can then manipulate those two exchanges to give the person, ME!, who deposited earliest the "better" unit - which also coincidentally matches the view type that I deposited - is a good thing!

You're right in that inventory allocation is never this simple.  My example leaves no room, for one thing, for the deposits which are made but never matched to other owners and thereby can be manipulated by Marriott with any other inventory available for cash guests.  Thus, Marriott can (and does, we assume!) cherry-pick the "better" oceanfront units for cash stays leaving the "lesser" gardenview units for II exchangers.  Add in the metric that the individual resorts are all over the map with how they choose to reward Destination Club status, Marriott Rewards status, etc. and there's even more room for manipulation.  But on the whole, despite knowing that Marriott's end game is to enrich themselves before the owners, if in the simplest examples I may benefit from their manipulation, that's okay with me.  It's better than always being the underdog, anyway.  

For the record, despite owning multiple high-value Weeks that convert to Chairman's Club DC status and being Lifetime Plat MR Rewards status (which I say not to brag but to prove a point,) I don't have nearly as much success with unit placement as many TUGgers report.  Never have and don't expect I ever will.  I fill out the request forms, I'm polite when I talk to reps, at check-in I offer to wait hours for a better unit to become available ... none of it works.  I've decided to believe that the people who think it's a breeze to ask for and get their desired unit placement are slipping twenties into the pockets of front desk staff, and I just can't bring myself to do that.  Yet.


----------



## BocaBoy (Feb 18, 2018)

SueDonJ said:


> For placement purposes I've always believed that DC Trust Members using Trust Points to book into Trust-conveyed intervals should absolutely be on the same level as Weeks Owners using their owned Weeks.


I could not disagree more with this statement.  The weeks owner has in nearly all cases made a much greater commitment, financial and otherwise, to the particular resort.


----------



## taffy19 (Feb 18, 2018)

davidvel said:


> Here's an even smaller minority opinion: All owners should be treated equally, and all owners should be free to assign their usage, along with all the attendant rights of ownership, to anyone they want in exchange for whatever they want. So if I use my home week, or let my kids use it, or let my neighbor use it, or rent it to my uncle, or trade it through II, TUG or Redweek, all rights should transfer, including view category and priority. The ownership rights shouldn't go away (and be stolen by Marriott) simply because you don't personally stay there. This gives the owner full value in gifting, renting or trading their week.
> 
> Either use a random system, lottery, or rotation to give the best views within category.
> 
> I know this will never happen, and probably no one agrees, but its still my opinion with respect to property rights in general.


I agree with you and it used to be that way when almost all developers sold fixed week/units but they went over to the floating system so that the inventory could be more controlled by the resort developers.  In this case, they can also reward their most loyal hotel guests by letting them use 1, 2 or even 3 bedroom condos instead of only hotel rooms or suites.

It also made it easier to sell the timeshare project faster while promising flexibility to the timeshare buyers but there is too much competition for the most popular dates and locations, size of units and views to make everyone happy.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 18, 2018)

BocaBoy said:


> I could not disagree more with this statement.  The weeks owner has in nearly all cases made a much greater commitment, financial and otherwise, to the particular resort.



No doubt we'll always disagree about this but I still have to ask, how so?  Certainly not in direct purchase prices for like intervals because in most cases it's more costly to buy the amount of DC Points that are required to book an interval purchased as a Week.  Considering then the MF's, the DC Trust is the "owner" of the Weeks which are conveyed to it and must pay MF's for each Week conveyed to it based on the same Operating Budget that the Weeks Owners are subject to, and the same for any Special Assessments.  Voting rights?  The DC Trustee presumably has rights to vote in resort matters for the Weeks conveyed to it (although do we know if that's on a one Week/one Vote basis or one Resort/one Vote?)  The Trust shouldn't be voting for anything that takes value away from the condition and desirability of any resort, considering that a DC Trust Member who comes away from a poor onsite experience leaves the system altogether which impacts the entire portfolio, as opposed to a single Week Owner giving up his ownership and impacting only his home resort.

The financial obligations of Weeks Owners and Trust Members (via the Trustee) aren't dissimilar for each same interval.  So I really would like to understand why you say that "otherwise" the Weeks Owners have more of a stake?  In my view every owner, Weeks or Trustee, has the same interest in securing the value of the individual resorts whether in terms of financial or usage-related issues.


----------



## bazzap (Feb 18, 2018)

SueDonJ said:


> No doubt we'll always disagree about this but I still have to ask, how so?  Certainly not in direct purchase prices for like intervals because in most cases it's more costly to buy the amount of DC Points that are required to book an interval purchased as a Week.  Considering then the MF's, the DC Trust is the "owner" of the Weeks which are conveyed to it and must pay MF's for each Week conveyed to it based on the same Operating Budget that the Weeks Owners are subject to, and the same for any Special Assessments.  Voting rights?  The DC Trustee presumably has rights to vote in resort matters for the Weeks conveyed to it (although do we know if that's on a one Week/one Vote basis or one Resort/one Vote?)  The Trust shouldn't be voting for anything that takes value away from the condition and desirability of any resort, considering that a DC Trust Member who comes away from a poor onsite experience leaves the system altogether which impacts the entire portfolio, as opposed to a single Week Owner giving up his ownership and impacting only his home resort.
> 
> The financial obligations of Weeks Owners and Trust Members (via the Trustee) aren't dissimilar for each same interval.  So I really would like to understand why you say that "otherwise" the Weeks Owners have more of a stake?  In my view every owner, Weeks or Trustee, has the same interest in securing the value of the individual resorts whether in terms of financial or usage-related issues.


Putting aside for a moment that we may not be talking about “like intervals”, as week’s owners will always be staying for 1 week or more whereas point’s owners may be staying for as little as 1 day or more:-
Week’s owners staying at their home resort have invested 100% of their money and mostly their time and commitment in that one resort
Point’s owners have invested their money and their time and commitment spread across some 50+ resorts, which should certainly be valued and rewarded but can’t be directly comparable when looking at an individual resort.


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 18, 2018)

Oddly enough, as a Trust points owner, my gut reaction is to fall on the side of bazzap and others who feel that weeks owners using their owned week should receive first priority on room assignments.  That said, I do hear what Sue is saying, in that the Trust is just as much an owner of the weeks that it owns, as is an individual who owns a week, and as such, why should that week that the Trust owns not be treated at the same high priority level for room assignments.  Certainly an interesting debate.


----------



## Jayco29D (Feb 18, 2018)

hangloose said:


> Updates from MKO Rooms Control:
> 
> 
> Lastly, after lookin at the MKO Building Views, I realized the ground floor in the 3BR OV stack, is actually a 2BR OV unit because they lose the efficiency portion due to the hallway entrance.
> ...



Great Map! I have never seen this map. It looks like most 2 bedroom oceanview units are pretty good.


----------



## Jayco29D (Feb 18, 2018)

davidvel said:


> Here's an even smaller minority opinion: All owners should be treated equally, and all owners should be free to assign their usage, along with all the attendant rights of ownership, to anyone they want in exchange for whatever they want. So if I use my home week, or let my kids use it, or let my neighbor use it, or rent it to my uncle, or trade it through II, TUG or Redweek, all rights should transfer, including view category and priority. The ownership rights shouldn't go away (and be stolen by Marriott) simply because you don't personally stay there. This gives the owner full value in gifting, renting or trading their week.
> 
> Either use a random system, lottery, or rotation to give the best views within category.
> 
> I know this will never happen, and probably no one agrees, but its still my opinion with respect to property rights in general.



I think giving owners priority and then using the date stamp make sense for assigning views. That seems to give owners using their own unit the highest priority. Personally, I wish II would have a way for us to pick our view when exchanging even if it costs an extra fee for that. I hate the idea of exchanging my ocean view and oceanfront units and not knowing what view I will get. II has a fee for upgrading room size so why not have a fee for guaranteeing a view type?


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 18, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Oddly enough, as a Trust points owner, my gut reaction is to fall on the side of bazzap and others who feel that weeks owners using their owned week should receive first priority on room assignments.  That said, I do hear what Sue is saying, in that the Trust is just as much an owner of the weeks that it owns, as is an individual who owns a week, and as such, why should that week that the Trust owns not be treated at the same high priority level for room assignments.  Certainly an interesting debate.



Yes, so odd, considering you own Trust Points and I don't!

Really the ONLY thing that gives me pause is the interval origination thing with respect to reservations.  I think MVW does a disservice to Trust Members by not making it perfectly clear to the onsite resort staff when Trust Points are being used to book Trust-conveyed intervals.  If that were to happen then it would be easier for Trust Members to plead their case for equal placement priority, easier for the resort staff to justify giving them that priority, and I hope easier for Weeks Owners to understand that position.


----------



## Dean (Feb 18, 2018)

SueDonJ said:


> Yes, so odd, considering you own Trust Points and I don't!
> 
> Really the ONLY thing that gives me pause is the interval origination thing with respect to reservations.  I think MVW does a disservice to Trust Members by not making it perfectly clear to the onsite resort staff when Trust Points are being used to book Trust-conveyed intervals.  If that were to happen then it would be easier for Trust Members to plead their case for equal placement priority, easier for the resort staff to justify giving them that priority, and I hope easier for Weeks Owners to understand that position.


Maybe I'm missing your point.  Are you saying book the actual physical units in the trust specifically?  If so you'd have 3 buckets of inventory, owned weeks, Trust Inventory, and enrolled converted to weeks.  I doubt they can or will differentiate between reservations with trust vs DC points and given the floating nature of most resorts, I doubt they can book specific villa inventory.  For a fixed week option it might be possible but there are few of those that would apply and even fewer where the owner would be likely to take DC points.  Some systems do consistently track the underlying week and villa but I don't think Marriott does or even feasibly can with their current setup.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 18, 2018)

Dean said:


> Maybe I'm missing your point.  Are you saying book the actual physical units in the trust specifically?  If so you'd have 3 buckets of inventory, owned weeks, Trust Inventory, and enrolled converted to weeks.  I doubt they can or will differentiate between reservations with trust vs DC points and given the floating nature of most resorts, I doubt they can book specific villa inventory.  For a fixed week option it might be possible but there are few of those that would apply and even fewer where the owner would be likely to take DC points.  Some systems do consistently track the underlying week and villa but I don't think Marriott does or even feasibly can with their current setup.



No, not booking the specific units that were conveyed and then denoting them as specifically fixed on reservation confirmations, but somehow a notation that a Trust Member has used Trust Points to book a reservation that conforms to an interval conveyed to the Trust.  It would effectively result in the onsite resort staff being able to differentiate between Trust-conveyed inventory and DC Exchange Company inventory (from enrolled/converted Weeks,) despite the majority of DC inventory being manipulated through the DC Exchange Company.  Done that way the staff would be aware of and be able to equally prioritize at the top Weeks Owners and Trust Members using Trust-conveyed intervals, then next prioritizing the Trust or Exchange Members using non-Trust-conveyed DC intervals as internal exchanges, and next II exchanges.

I do think that MVW has to track all inventory completely even if only to be able to provide a defense when charged with mismanagement, but it's understandable that each and every metric isn't disclosed at each and every point from origination to usage.  That would be an avalanche of info for the onsite staff who have better things to do than mine through hundreds of data fields.  I just want this one to be available to them, though.


----------



## Dean (Feb 19, 2018)

SueDonJ said:


> No, not booking the specific units that were conveyed and then denoting them as specifically fixed on reservation confirmations, but somehow a notation that a Trust Member has used Trust Points to book a reservation that conforms to an interval conveyed to the Trust.  It would effectively result in the onsite resort staff being able to differentiate between Trust-conveyed inventory and DC Exchange Company inventory (from enrolled/converted Weeks,) despite the majority of DC inventory being manipulated through the DC Exchange Company.  Done that way the staff would be aware of and be able to equally prioritize at the top Weeks Owners and Trust Members using Trust-conveyed intervals, then next prioritizing the Trust or Exchange Members using non-Trust-conveyed DC intervals as internal exchanges, and next II exchanges.
> 
> I do think that MVW has to track all inventory completely even if only to be able to provide a defense when charged with mismanagement, but it's understandable that each and every metric isn't disclosed at each and every point from origination to usage.  That would be an avalanche of info for the onsite staff who have better things to do than mine through hundreds of data fields.  I just want this one to be available to them, though.


Susan, I'm still having a little trouble following your thoughts.  Here's my understanding of how it's done.  They do track what dates and how many units/types are available for points vs weeks, they have to else they could oversell it.  After that there's relatively little distinction between DC points and Trust points and IMO there should be little distinction.  Are you suggesting to divide up the resort by Trust and Weeks (inc DC points) and allow & track them separately?  If so I don't think that's feasible on the villa assignment front.  Plus you'd have to prevent commingling of trust/DC points or at least downgrade or upgrade one or the other.  My view of how the villa assignments priorities should be is owner using owned week, ALL points users, then II Marriott exchanges, cash guests/previews, then other exchangers all within reserved category.  Pretty close to the OP.  I do not believe it reasonable to divide it up further by drawing lines between trust/DC points or by giving owners at that resort a leg up when no using their owned weeks.  Many of the resorts treat all points reservations as exchanges and therefore treat points reservations and Marriott to Marriott II exchanges the same and while I can see that, I do think there's a difference between internal and external.  And yes, I do see II exchanges as external given the current setup unlike before the points came onboard.


----------



## Superchief (Feb 19, 2018)

I think the reality of the situation is that the room controllers try their best to keep all owners happy, but room assignments have become a nightmare with the points system. With short/long stays, weekday checkins, multiple week stays, points combinations (trust & exchange), and combined reservations (II plus points stay), it is virtually impossible to apply any structured hierarchy except during periods where a majority of guests are home resort owners. Additionally, now II doesn't even identify MVC exchangers vs non-MVC exchangers. I am fortunate to be Chairman level and tend to travel to resort during the non-peak weeks. I try to call or email my preferences in advance and provide my priority list. If I'm staying in a popular season, I request locations in buildings that are less popular. In most cases, we have been very happy with our villa placements regardless with the method used for our stay.

I find it interesting that they are differentiating trust point vs exchange point reservations. My stays have always involved a combination of the two, so I don't know how they can keep things straight.


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 19, 2018)

Superchief said:


> I find it interesting that they are differentiating trust point vs exchange point reservations. My stays have always involved a combination of the two, so I don't know how they can keep things straight.


I'm not so sure they are.  

Based on this...
1- OWNERS (Weeks, Pure Vacation Club Points and Hybrid Vacation Club Point Owners)

They seem to be awarding your ownership type when it comes to points ressie's vs what you used to book the ressie.  Based on this wording, it seems to say if you own at least some Trust points, and book using points, you will get slotted above point based ressie's where the owners are Legacy owners who own no Trust points at all.

Which seems like that would be how a Trust points driven sales organization would want to structure things.


----------



## Superchief (Feb 19, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> I'm not so sure they are.
> 
> Based on this...
> 1- OWNERS (Weeks, Pure Vacation Club Points and Hybrid Vacation Club Point Owners)
> ...


Good point. This goes back to when the sales people were trying to get us to supercharge our points by buying trust points.


----------



## bazzap (Feb 20, 2018)

As a personal opinion I would find it outrageous, having spent a fortune buying and enrolling all my weeks to give me almost 25,000 DC points, if I am prejudiced against for not owning pure Trust points.


----------



## Dean (Feb 20, 2018)

bazzap said:


> As a personal opinion I would find it outrageous, having spent a fortune buying and enrolling all my weeks to give me almost 25,000 DC points, if I am prejudiced against for not owning pure Trust points.


From a unit assignment or interactional standpoint I would agree.  However, I'm sure you knew up front you would be playing second fiddle to trust owners from a reservation standpoint in that you would not automatically have access to trust inventory.


----------



## bazzap (Feb 20, 2018)

Dean said:


> From a unit assignment or interactional standpoint I would agree.  However, I'm sure you knew up front you would be playing second fiddle to trust owners from a reservation standpoint in that you would not automatically have access to trust inventory.


Agreed, I had no expectation of the co-mingling of Elected Points and Trust Points Inventory.
I did though expect Weeks owners on “home” resort week stays to have highest allocation priority
(or if MVC really wanted to change this at all to give all owners equal priority, be they Weeks owners, Elected Points owners or Trust Points owners)


----------



## BocaBoy (Feb 24, 2018)

SueDonJ said:


> No doubt we'll always disagree about this but I still have to ask, how so?  Certainly not in direct purchase prices for like intervals because in most cases it's more costly to buy the amount of DC Points that are required to book an interval purchased as a Week.


Simply because the weeks owner has made a great investment IN THAT SPECIFIC RESORT.  MVCI manages the resort on behalf of the weeks owners, and MVCI does not own that resort, except for the weeks in the trust of which a trust owner has only a very small share.  I cannot even begin to see the logic in saying an owner of a small portion of a trust week is equal to the owner of a full ownership week.  

The relevant purchase price comparison (if it is relevant at all) would be to compare the price paid to purchase the traditional week to something like 2% of the price paid to purchase trust points (representing the portion of the points purchase applicable to the specific resort in question).


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 24, 2018)

BocaBoy said:


> Simply because the weeks owner has made a great investment IN THAT SPECIFIC RESORT.  MVCI manages the resort on behalf of the weeks owners, and MVCI does not own that resort, except for the weeks in the trust of which a trust owner has only a very small share.  I cannot even begin to see the logic in saying an owner of a small portion of a trust week is equal to the owner of a full ownership week.
> 
> The relevant purchase price comparison (if it is relevant at all) would be to compare the price paid to purchase the traditional week to something like 2% of the price paid to purchase trust points (representing the portion of the points purchase applicable to the specific resort in question).


I think what Sue is saying is that the Trust owns the week, just like you own your week, so the Trust should be treated the same as you regarding their ownership of that specific week... and by virtue of that, whomever books that week owned by the Trust should be treated the same as you would be treated when using your ownership.  Not arguing one side or the other, but I can certainly see both sides of the argument.


----------



## jeepie (Feb 24, 2018)

taffy19 said:


> I may be all wrong but I believe that Marriott wants us, Legacy week owners who enrolled to decide as early as possible if we want to use points instead of our enrolled week.  We can do this about 18 months out and, at the same time, you can request to be put on the wait list for another location instead.  In that case, you will only compete with owners who own more than 18 weeks.


I believe wait list requests are only available at 12 months, whether using elected or trust points. Would appreciate anyone’s comments. Cheers.


----------



## VacationForever (Feb 24, 2018)

Do you have to call to get on wait list (points booking)?


----------



## rthib (Feb 24, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> I think what Sue is saying is that the Trust owns the week, just like you own your week, so the Trust should be treated the same as you regarding their ownership of that specific week... and by virtue of that, whomever books that week owned by the Trust should be treated the same as you would be treated when using your ownership.  Not arguing one side or the other, but I can certainly see both sides of the argument.


So do they treat some who does a private rental of a week as an owner or as a rental guest?


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 24, 2018)

rthib said:


> So do they treat some who does a private rental of a week as an owner or as a rental guest?


I believe as an owner, but others who have more experience renting will hopefully chime in.


----------



## bazzap (Feb 24, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> I think what Sue is saying is that the Trust owns the week, just like you own your week, so the Trust should be treated the same as you regarding their ownership of that specific week... and by virtue of that, whomever books that week owned by the Trust should be treated the same as you would be treated when using your ownership.  Not arguing one side or the other, but I can certainly see both sides of the argument.


I agree 100% with BocaBoy.
A Resort weeks owner has invested and committed totally in that one resort.
A DC trust points owner has invested and commiitted into all MVC trust resorts and therefore their per resort investment and commitment is significantly less.
If trust points owners were to be treated the same as weeks owners at all resorts, they would effectively be getting the same benefit as owners who had bought weeks in every single resort at a cost no doubt of many $millions.
This would clearly be unjustifiable.


----------



## Fasttr (Feb 24, 2018)

bazzap said:


> I agree 100% with BocaBoy.
> A Resort weeks owner has invested and committed totally in that one resort.
> A DC trust points owner has invested and commiitted into all MVC trust resorts and therefore their per resort investment and commitment is significantly less.
> If trust points owners were to be treated the same as weeks owners at all resorts, they would effectively be getting the same benefit as owners who had bought weeks in every single resort at a cost no doubt of many $millions.
> This would clearly be unjustifiable.


Just taking your argument to the extreme a bit and playing devil's advocate.  If you placed your weeks ownership into a Family Trust for your children after you pass, and as such, each of your children (lets say you have 4 of them) is a Trustee in that Family Trust after you pass.  Lets also say they rotate usage and each of your 4 children get to use the week once every 4 years.  Do you feel each of your 4 children should be treated as an owner when they use that week.  They paid nothing for that week and it is the Trust that actually owns the week.  Just saying....its not as black and white as you would like to make it from a truly legal standpoint.  The Trust, just like an individual is the owner of the week and has the same rights as any other owner.


----------



## Dean (Feb 24, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Just taking your argument to the extreme a bit and playing devil's advocate.  If you placed your weeks ownership into a Family Trust for your children after you pass, and as such, each of your children (lets say you have 4 of them) is a Trustee in that Family Trust after you pass.  Lets also say they rotate usage and each of your 4 children get to use the week once every 4 years.  Do you feel each of your 4 children should be treated as an owner when they use that week.  They paid nothing for that week and it is the Trust that actually owns the week.  Just saying....its not as black and white as you would like to make it from a truly legal standpoint.  The Trust, just like an individual is the owner of the week and has the same rights as any other owner.


Let me take it the other way.  For disclosure, I agree that Trust and DC should not be treated the same as an owner at that resort using their week.  I do feel DC and Trust should be treated the same, ahead of all exchanges and that an owner exchanging in should be treated the same as any other Marriott exchange member.  But the problem with the idea that a Trust reservation should be the same as any other owner would mean they get home resort priority at all resorts using Trust/DC points.  Maybe this could be a sales angle.  The other alternative is to treat the all the same just like they were a renter using an owners week.


----------



## bazzap (Feb 24, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Just taking your argument to the extreme a bit and playing devil's advocate.  If you placed your weeks ownership into a Family Trust for your children after you pass, and as such, each of your children (lets say you have 4 of them) is a Trustee in that Family Trust after you pass.  Lets also say they rotate usage and each of your 4 children get to use the week once every 4 years.  Do you feel each of your 4 children should be treated as an owner when they use that week.  They paid nothing for that week and it is the Trust that actually owns the week.  Just saying....its not as black and white as you would like to make it from a truly legal standpoint.  The Trust, just like an individual is the owner of the week and has the same rights as any other owner.


I hesitate to suggest this, but if you start looking at all possible, different scenarios, there could be a case made that MVC should follow the recent trend of some airline frequent flyer programmes and base their benefits (including priority allocation) purely on total $ spend be that MVC weeks, trust or enrolled points or a combination of all of these?


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 24, 2018)

I think one could make any case they want about who should be more important from an owners perspective when it comes to room placement............but MVC really doesn't have to care about the owners perspective do they? What they care about is selling timeshares/points and, if you can tell a buyer that, as a trust points owner, you have top priority and, if you have status, your at the top of the heap in priority, that's what MVC will do.
How long have salesmen been promoting "super charge" your enrolled points? Well, would it be any surprise to any of us that those who have "supercharged" their enrolled points are given priority when it comes to room placement?
Believe what you want. The rules change with the direction the sales wind is blowing. I stopped paying to maintain any sort of status years ago. If my room assignment suffers, it's going to suffer. I'm not willing to give MVC another $15,000+ to "supercharge" my enrolled points in order to have a status advantage or any other advantage. In another 10 years it will be something else and another $15,000 plus the higher MF's associated with owning more and more timeshares/points.
Argue it how you want. MVC already has YOUR money. Even if you sell your timeshare interest they still have YOUR money. What they want is someone else's money or more of your money in order to keep playing the game. Any point of view other than that which promotes additional sales is likely a moot point.


----------



## hangloose (Feb 24, 2018)

Quite an interesting turn on this thread with plenty of opinions.  My goal was just to give further visibility into how MKO rooms control prioritizes.  My personal hope is that I can learn from my poor room placement this year as a Legacy Owner to help my room placement in future years.  Sounds like book early and don't lockoff a 3BR OV are the answers for my MKO 3BR week.

I do feel for Marriott Rooms Controls, especially at high demand resorts during peak periods.  With the introduction of the DC Pts program and potential daily check in/check out, it has to be an extremely challenging endeavor to manage.  Almost nearly impossible.  There must be some software program they use to help at least calculate the first pass, then they tweak based on other factors?  In any event, I don't envy their position at all.  

As far as Owner prioritization, my personal opinion leans towards Weeks Owners reservations having priority over DC Pts reservations.  While each is an "Owner" respectively, it does seem that Weeks Owners invested in that single property.  Giving a DC Pts reservation (who technically own at all resorts) priority, seems off to me.  That's like saying every MVC Week Owner has priority at any MVC resort (almost).  Either way, MVC "Owners" both Legacy and DC Pts should take top billing on the priority list above all others.

In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if prioritization changes over time...based on individual resort prioritization formulas, changes in the MVC program, sales tactics changing impacting rules, etc.   More of a reason to own Fixed week, Fixed unit where possible...to avoid the floating season challenges which impact villa placement (reservation dates, etc).

Just my 2 cents. I hope others share what they hear from other MVC resorts around their villa prioritization.   I'm now also a bit worried that locking off my other weeks at MOC (2BR OF) or MPB (3BR OF) may see the same fate at my MKO (3BR OV) week did this past month.  Time will tell.  

No matter what villa I get, I'll still enjoy my vacations as I build those memories with my family!


----------



## JIMinNC (Feb 24, 2018)

hangloose said:


> I'm now also a bit worried that locking off my other weeks at MOC (2BR OF) or MPB (3BR OF) may see the same fate at my MKO (3BR OV) week did this past month.  Time will tell.



Reading this thread gave me the exact same thought regarding our newly-acquired 2BR OV at MOC. We'll be booking the whole unit for our first visit in 2019, but considering this issue does give me pause about locking off in the future (especially considering we aren't enamored with trying to rent the studio portion anyway). From where I sit, this just adds another reason to hope that we can find an opportunity to enroll this post-2010 external week before our next use year in 2021. That way, if we don't need the full 2BR in 2021, we could elect for points and just book the 1BR in whatever view we want.


----------



## BocaBoy (Feb 25, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> I think what Sue is saying is that the Trust owns the week, just like you own your week, so the Trust should be treated the same as you regarding their ownership of that specific week... and by virtue of that, whomever books that week owned by the Trust should be treated the same as you would be treated when using your ownership.  Not arguing one side or the other, but I can certainly see both sides of the argument.





JIMinNC said:


> Reading this thread gave me the exact same thought regarding our newly-acquired 2BR OV at MOC. We'll be booking the whole unit for our first visit in 2019, but considering this issue does give me pause about locking off in the future (especially considering we aren't enamored with trying to rent the studio portion anyway). From where I sit, this just adds another reason to hope that we can find an opportunity to enroll this post-2010 external week before our next use year in 2021. That way, if we don't need the full 2BR in 2021, we could elect for points and just book the 1BR in whatever view we want.


Jim, I wouldn't worry about it.  We have locked off our Maui (new towers) ocean front weeks many times, although not in the past 3 or so years.  And we have with only one exception gotten superior room assignments every time.  The one exception is when we made a very late reservation (available only because of a cancellation) and were near the bottom of the date stamp list.  It was still a good view but not on a particularly high floor.  If anything, ocean view villas in the original section should be even easier for you.


----------



## JIMinNC (Feb 25, 2018)

BocaBoy said:


> Jim, I wouldn't worry about it.  We have locked off our Maui (new towers) ocean front weeks many times, although not in the past 3 or so years.  And we have with only one exception gotten superior room assignments every time.  The one exception is when we made a very late reservation (available only because of a cancellation) and were near the bottom of the date stamp list.  It was still a good view but not on a particularly high floor.  If anything, ocean view villas in the original section should be even easier for you.



That’s good to know. Maybe the situation hangloose experienced was unique to KoOlina 3BR and maybe had more to do with the late date stamp he mentioned in the other thread. 

What I will be interested to see next year is what effect our 12 month date stamp will have on our placement at MOC. We will be reserving our full 2BR week this coming week at the 12-month mark, but multiweek owners will be ahead of us with their earlier date stamp. So it will be interesting to see how much a 12-month date stamp hurts us vis-a-vis the 13-month folks.


----------



## TXTortoise (Feb 25, 2018)

Possibly previously lost in this thread, but if you reserve at 12 or 13 months at MOC, then decide to lock off later and not change any dates, you should contact room control. 
I received guidance that they would note the original date on both units and prioritize accordingly.  No way to to assure that happens, but the fact that they offered it shows they are being thoughtful in their approach.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 25, 2018)

Here’s what I’ve observed as times have changed.

1.Booking as early as possible has a definite impact, but it only goes as far as the “class” of reservation you hold (owner/trust points, Marriott exchanger, renter, all other exchangers)

2. Elite status or being a multi-week owner works as a tie breaker when all other things are equal.

3. When exchanging, even getting the reservation at the furthest point in time and having elite status or being a multi week owner, if it’s high season and the resort has high owner occupancy, you can still receive a crappy room assignment.

4. The DC allowing elite status point reservations at 13 months has had an effect on our ability to book the arrival day and unit placement at our home resorts as weeks owners. This year was the first time we didn’t have our choice of arrival days booking on the first day reservations could be made (Thursday and Friday arrivals were off the table already). Ticks me off that I’ve been a weeks owner at this resort since 2001 and now I appear to be trumped by points reservations that can be booked 13 months in advance.

On the plus side, we were able to book, using points, the unit size and view we wanted at MOC. So I may be somewhat shafted at my home resort of Ocean Pointe but I’m likely on the other end of that shaft using points to book into MOC a full 13 months in advance. So I guess the blade cuts both ways.

I’d have felt better about the points program if not for the skim. If it wasn’t for that I could convert my Ocean Point week to points, book 13 months in advance and have my choice of arrival days. Instead MVC gives me fewer points for my week than what it takes to book the same week. But this debate has been hammered so much it’s just beating a dead horse. It’s better to understand the playing field and manipulate it to best of your ability to get the best results you can for your own situation.


----------



## JIMinNC (Feb 25, 2018)

dougp26364 said:


> Here’s what I’ve observed as times have changed.
> 
> 4. The DC allowing elite status point reservations at 13 months has had an effect on our ability to book the arrival day and unit placement at our home resorts as weeks owners. This year was the first time we didn’t have our choice of arrival days booking on the first day reservations could be made (Thursday and Friday arrivals were off the table already). Ticks me off that I’ve been a weeks owner at this resort since 2001 and now I appear to be trumped by points reservations that can be booked 13 months in advance.



I don't think the DC 13 months reservations is directly responsible for why you couldn't get your arrival day. Remember, weeks owners can book their week the day *before* points owners. For example, for a Feb 23 check-in, multi-weeks owners were able to book at 13-months on Monday, January 22. Points owners could not book until Tuesday, January 23. Same thing at the 12-month point - weeks owners could book their week on Thursday, February 22. Points owners could do 12-month bookings the next day, Friday, February 23.

While we don't know exactly how they do it inside the black box that is the DC exchange system, TUGgers in the know have said they have been told by senior folks at MVC (not sales) that based on the number of enrolled & elected weeks at the resort and the percentage of Trust ownership for each week, MVC's system ensures that weeks owners don't snarf up all the desirable weeks before the points owners get a chance. Supposedly, this protection/allcoation goes all the way down to the check-in day level. Think of it that if there are 100 units available in a given resort/unit size/view, and the Trust owns 20 of those, and another 25 are elected for points by enrolled owners, points owners would have access to 45 intervals, while weeks owners would retain exclusive access to the other 55. But while the available intervals for weeks owners has declined in my example, so have the number of weeks owners competing for that inventory, since those owned by the Trust or those who elected for Points are now only competing for the 45 intervals in the Points bucket, leaving the remaining weeks owners to compete for the 55 intervals left in the weeks bucket. So, the system balance should be exactly as it was before.

I think a possible explanation for your experience with the Thursday/Friday check-ins is that it may be more likely that those weeks owners who want to book the highest-demand weeks (I'm assuming you are talking about a high demand school holiday or something like that) are less likely to choose to elect for points, whereas those who are not targeting those in demand weeks might be more inclined to elect points. As a result, the demand for those high-demand weeks in the weeks bucket falls less than the supply of weeks is reduced, making it somewhat more competitive than it was previously.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 25, 2018)

JIMinNC said:


> I don't think the DC 13 months reservations is directly responsible for why you couldn't get your arrival day. Remember, weeks owners can book their week the day *before* points owners. For example, for a Feb 23 check-in, multi-weeks owners were able to book at 13-months on Monday, January 22. Points owners could not book until Tuesday, January 23. Same thing at the 12-month point - weeks owners could book their week on Thursday, February 22. Points owners could do 12-month bookings the next day, Friday, February 23.
> 
> While we don't know exactly how they do it inside the black box that is the DC exchange system, TUGgers in the know have said they have been told by senior folks at MVC (not sales) that based on the number of enrolled & elected weeks at the resort and the percentage of Trust ownership for each week, MVC's system ensures that weeks owners don't snarf up all the desirable weeks before the points owners get a chance. Supposedly, this protection/allcoation goes all the way down to the check-in day level. Think of it that if there are 100 units available in a given resort/unit size/view, and the Trust owns 20 of those, and another 25 are elected for points by enrolled owners, points owners would have access to 45 intervals, while weeks owners would retain exclusive access to the other 55. But while the available intervals for weeks owners has declined in my example, so have the number of weeks owners competing for that inventory, since those owned by the Trust or those who elected for Points are now only competing for the 45 intervals in the Points bucket, leaving the remaining weeks owners to compete for the 55 intervals left in the weeks bucket. So, the system balance should be exactly as it was before.
> 
> I think a possible explanation for your experience with the Thursday/Friday check-ins is that it may be more likely that those weeks owners who want to book the highest-demand weeks (I'm assuming you are talking about a high demand school holiday or something like that) are less likely to choose to elect for points, whereas those who are not targeting those in demand weeks might be more inclined to elect points. As a result, the demand for those high-demand weeks in the weeks bucket falls less than the supply of weeks is reduced, making it somewhat more competitive than it was previously.



Interesting, but, we are not able to book at the 13 month date. We own multiple weeks but not at the same resort. 

I’ve always booked online due to my schedule. Perhaps if I called it might be different.

The reason I’m reasonably certain points is affecting my availability is our history of booking dating back to 2002. We’ve ALWAYS had our choice of arrival dates until this year. Sure it could be somethin g else but, post DC points we’ve been unable to get our first choice of building (we prefer Kingfish) and this year Thursday and Friday arrival dates were not available, even if we locked off our unit.

Our situation is complicated by the fact we own a 3 bedroom ocean front unit and those are a definite minority of units at this resort.


----------



## JIMinNC (Feb 25, 2018)

dougp26364 said:


> Interesting, but, we are not able to book at the 13 month date. We own multiple weeks but not at the same resort.
> 
> I’ve always booked online due to my schedule. Perhaps if I called it might be different.
> 
> ...



The situation is exactly the same at 12-months. Note my dates above, that for 12-month reservations, weeks owners can reserve on Thursday, and points owners can't reserve until the next day, on Friday.

At the 12-month mark, I'm convinced it is far, far better to reserve online than calling because you can get access to the inventory within seconds of release. I'm preparing to book our MOC week this coming Thursday on weeks release date, but I went online last Thursday morning to do a dry run, and I could have booked any of the three available check-in days - Fri, Sat, Sun - within a few seconds of 9am. If I had tried to call, it would have taken longer just to get through the phone menu, and if I was put on hold, who knows when I would have been able to book. I watched the inventory for about 20 minutes, refreshing the availability page, and Friday check-ins lasted about 5 minutes or less, Saturday check-ins about 9 minutes, and the Sunday check-ins were still there 20 minutes after release.

Also remember that the weeks and points reservations that can be booked at 13 months are still limited to the 50% or so of the inventory that MVC makes available for 13-month reservations. They still hold a proportionate amount of inventory for release in both the Points and Weeks buckets for the 12-month release date.

I think you are correct that the DC Points system is making it somewhat harder, but not for the reason that DC Points owners are booking the time *before* weeks owners. If MVC is managing the buckets as we believe they are, then all buckets should still be in balance across the entire season/year. The weeks system should still be in theoretical balance since the weeks and points buckets are kept separate (just like cash reservations are in a different inventory bucket than owner usage), but I suspect that certain weeks tend to attract traditional weeks owners at a higher than average rate, making those specific weeks harder to get despite the average proportional split between the weeks and points buckets. The fact that you just noted above that you own a somewhat rare unit at the resort, means that it only takes a few people that get in ahead of you, looking for the same week, to beat you to the punch. Is the week you were looking for a high-demand holiday week? I think those are the weeks that might tend to attract traditional weeks owners at a higher rate vs Points owners.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Feb 25, 2018)

dougp26364 said:


> Here’s what I’ve observed as times have changed.
> 
> 3. When exchanging, even getting the reservation at the furthest point in time and having elite status or being a multi week owner, if it’s high season and the resort has high owner occupancy, you can still receive a crappy room assignment.
> 
> 4. The DC allowing elite status point reservations at 13 months has had an effect on our ability to book the arrival day and unit placement at our home resorts as weeks owners. This year was the first time we didn’t have our choice of arrival days booking on the first day reservations could be made (Thursday and Friday arrivals were off the table already). Ticks me off that I’ve been a weeks owner at this resort since 2001 and now I appear to be trumped by points reservations that can be booked 13 months in advance.



It depends on the resort. At MDS, I can say in 20 years I have never received a crappy room and as far as I recall, always get my choice. If I didn't once, I likely forgot, but, it's simply not an issue in high season where they are always sold out. Not sure what gives priority there. On the down side, I have filled out their form for preferences for all of those 20 years (or whenever it first became available), and, not once have they ever received my preferences. I still do it each year, and, a few days later always call, and they always tell me they didn't receive it, and, I always tell them to fix it, but give them my preferences over the phone. 

As far as 13 months goes, if you are not multi week, what my last presentation salesman said is to reserve the stay at the 13 month mark via points. Then, when 12 month window comes into play, call and have MVCI cancel the points reservation and book the room via your ownership. He claims they can hold the cancel just for you and rebook without using it even if it isn't otherwise available on the phone. Have not tried this myself as I always book exactly the day it becomes available and have not had trouble. Since the cancel is more than 60 days out, the points just go back into your account.


----------



## hangloose (Feb 25, 2018)

dougp26364 said:


> Our situation is complicated by the fact we own a 3 bedroom ocean front unit and those are a definite minority of units at this resort.



I picked up an Ocean Pointe 3BR OF Platinum last year.  While a fantastic resort, villa and view....I have the same future concern as you do.  It is going to be very hard to book the prime weeks (Presidents, Easter, etc) at 12 or even 13 months.  So many owners at Ocean Pointe who stay all winter and own MANY weeks.  I think this one is just as hard as prime Hawaii, unfortunately...and DC booking may make limited 3BR villas even harder.  Time will tell.


----------



## JIMinNC (Feb 25, 2018)

Steve Fatula said:


> As far as 13 months goes, if you are not multi week, what my last presentation salesman said is to reserve the stay at the 13 month mark via points. Then, when 12 month window comes into play, call and have MVCI cancel the points reservation and book the room via your ownership. He claims they can hold the cancel just for you and rebook without using it even if it isn't otherwise available on the phone. Have not tried this myself as I always book exactly the day it becomes available and have not had trouble. Since the cancel is more than 60 days out, the points just go back into your account.



If what other TUGgers have been told by MVC people outside of Sales, this might not work as advertised by the sales rep, since the general understanding has been that the Points and Weeks reservations are in somewhat separate "buckets". So the cancelled points reservation would go back to other points owners, not to a weeks owner. I doubt a sales rep has much more insight into the complex inventory allocation processes used by MVC than we do, to be honest.

Having said that, the general strategy he mentioned might actually be a viable way to ensure you have some sort of reservation if it is a week you must travel. Book it with points first at 13-months to ensure you have the week booked. Then, when the 12-months weeks inventory opens up a month or so later, try to book it with your week. If the system works as we believe it to work, that weeks reservation would have to be separately available in the weeks bucket, but if it is and you book it, you can then cancel the points reservation and get your points returned to your account without penalty. So a similar strategy to what your rep advocated, just a slightly different twist/sequence.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 25, 2018)

Steve Fatula said:


> It depends on the resort. At MDS, I can say in 20 years I have never received a crappy room and as far as I recall, always get my choice. If I didn't once, I likely forgot, but, it's simply not an issue in high season where they are always sold out. Not sure what gives priority there. On the down side, I have filled out their form for preferences for all of those 20 years (or whenever it first became available), and, not once have they ever received my preferences. I still do it each year, and, a few days later always call, and they always tell me they didn't receive it, and, I always tell them to fix it, but give them my preferences over the phone.
> 
> As far as 13 months goes, if you are not multi week, what my last presentation salesman said is to reserve the stay at the 13 month mark via points. Then, when 12 month window comes into play, call and have MVCI cancel the points reservation and book the room via your ownership. He claims they can hold the cancel just for you and rebook without using it even if it isn't otherwise available on the phone. Have not tried this myself as I always book exactly the day it becomes available and have not had trouble. Since the cancel is more than 60 days out, the points just go back into your account.



Way to much work to book a simple vacation week.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Feb 25, 2018)

dougp26364 said:


> Way to much work to book a simple vacation week.



Depends how badly you want it, he said he could not get it. Whats your alternative to help him? JIMinNC may be correct in that it can't work, but, there's no penalty to trying either since the cancellation that far out means nothing. So, another strategy is to book via points at 13 months, then, convert your week into points if it is not available at 12 month mark as JIMinNC mentioned, so you get most of the points you used back depending on the season. Not the best use of points, but it might get you where you want to be when you want. Yes, you lose some, but again, depends how badly you want it. As far as "way too much work", might be 5-10 minutes? Cheaper than a throw away week with MF yearly to me at least. Everyones desires and use is different. I would find a way if I wanted it that badly.


----------



## Dean (Feb 25, 2018)

dougp26364 said:


> Interesting, but, we are not able to book at the 13 month date. We own multiple weeks but not at the same resort.
> 
> I’ve always booked online due to my schedule. Perhaps if I called it might be different.
> 
> ...


You likely know but the weeks do not have to be at the same resort to use the 13 month window, they simply have to be bookable at the same time for concurrent or consecutive reservations.


----------



## dougp26364 (Feb 25, 2018)

Dean said:


> You likely know but the weeks do not have to be at the same resort to use the 13 month window, they simply have to be bookable at the same time for concurrent or consecutive reservations.


. 

Which doesn’t work out for us and, is just to much hassle to book a simple vacation week


----------



## vpplayer (Feb 27, 2018)

hangloose said:


> Marriott's Ko Olina Rooms Control will prioritize villa placement in this order:
> 
> *PRIORITY*
> 
> ...




Interesting timing for me. Searching through this site and others has been my research in advance of a presentation we will be attending tomorrow morning. It's been very helpful, thank you to everyone.

We are a Ko Olina deeded 1-week OV owner (2007), and are currently (as I type this) in the first of two weeks having locked off the efficiency for this week and the 1B villa next.  We drank the kool-aid 11 years ago, but but not for the purpose of trading, but because we love it here. Our experience with room assignments have been positive (disclaimer - I'm always at the computer ready to hit the button at the very second the inventory is released at T-minus 12 months), and somehow made the 15th floor corner in the Hale Moana this time around.  Since 2010, I have been fearful that the "competition" for room assignments between points owners and deeded owners would reduce the likelihood of us getting our desired assignments.  Not yet for us although I only have a limited number of data points.  We aren't here every year, but will do so once I retire in a couple of years.  So far, so good.

Apologies if this is a little off-topic but I have yet to see any advantage in enrolling in points for someone in our situation, even if we have to take a year off from time to time.  But I signed up for the presentation more for the education of how points work and cost (the expected sales deceptions notwithstanding). OK and for the freebies.  I am curious how the salesperson would justify points when:

1. My deeded week gets me in every year (although the maintenance cost has and probably will continue to increase -- $2200 this year)
2. MVCI can set the points required to anything they want.  I know they've already done so, perhaps yearly?  I just haven't bothered to check.
3. If I exchange my week for points, they are not enough to get into my own resort for most of the year. 
4. On top of all that, why would I ever want to PAY an enrollment fee for conversion?

Having said that, the advantage of converting to points does in theory (and hopefully in practice) provide more flexibility in trading locations within the MVC network, and I hope that is true.   

I'm actually a huge fan of Marriott Hotels (PFL), but I truly feel bad for all of the victims of MVCI's deceptive practices.  We got lucky, relatively speaking.

As an aside, I've made a couple of observations this week:
1:  It's not a ghost town, but the number of guests here at Ko Olina BC by my estimation this week so far is considerably lower than in the past.
2:  Check-in dates seem to be available long after the inventory is released.


----------



## TXTortoise (Feb 27, 2018)

The ability to rent points was the sole reason I enrolled my meager pre-2010 Vail Week, worth all of 550 points, via an Encore visit. 

Recent threads have folks enrolling simply by watching a webcast at home. No fees other than a new II account at $180(?) a year.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Feb 27, 2018)

I don't think this is true: "MVCI can set the points required to anything they want.". I believe it's pretty much a constant except for calendar differences year to year causing slight date changes.

I always hated points as well at first. The main reason is they are so darn expensive. There is some extra flexibility there, and, when used in certain manners, can yield better results. We find ourselves taking advantage of the 25% discount for reservations within 30 days. That makes them go further. So, 4,500 points we own is 4 weeks for us. Sometimes, II getaways are cheaper, other times, the points are cheaper or there are no getaways. Overall though, we still do like our weeks better. A little extra flexibility is nice though.

We've been tracking in a spreadsheet month by month what Marriott resorts had weeks available in which months 30 days out to assist with our planning. It doesn't mean they are available every year like that, it's just a tool to see what typical options might be for various months. It's been very surprising how many have that availability actually. Much more than we thought.


----------



## vpplayer (Feb 27, 2018)

Steve Fatula said:


> I don't think this is true: "MVCI can set the points required to anything they want.". I believe it's pretty much a constant except for calendar differences year to year causing slight date changes.



I believe you are accurate, thanks for the correction.  I reexamined previous years' charts going back to 2012, and the variances for the full weeks seem to be based on those with calendar holidays and seasonal demand. What was interesting was around 2016 they were adjusting some rates down to the day of the week.  Looks like they are now back to a simpler rate structure -- two daily rates for a given week: S-Th, and Fr-Sat, which do seem to consistently add up to the weekly rate. The cynic in me wonders if that will remain the case.  Splitting a lock-off -- not surprisingly -- costs more than keeping the 2bdr villa intact.  They figured that one out early.


----------



## vpplayer (Feb 28, 2018)

Presentation update:  info here probably applies to multiple topics but I'll post it here:

Attended Ko Olina presentation this morning -- first attended presentation since 2010. As a note, we received our "gift package" in advance of the presentation. If you are going to a presentation, then I recommend that approach as our only commitment was to stay 90 minutes, so we weren't captive in order to receive said gifts.

The salesperson did what salespeople do -- no surprises here -- told us the many benefits of enrolling our week and then buying more points, and avoided answering direct questions (e.g., why should I convert when I would then have to buy more points for what I can get now using my weeks? never got an answer) by changing the subject. As expected, he emphasized flexibility and how we could go to all of the MVC properties and a slew of (privately owned?) homes.  He ignored that our interest was only in staying in our home resort (Ko Olina), and no desire for trading (at least for the next several years). At the end (shockingly!) he became very pushy about buying 1,000 points. I thanked him for his time and the education, and he said (paraphrased but not by much) "Do you believe knowledge is power?  If you don't act on it then you haven't learned anything. I'm flabbergasted that you're not going to take this opportunity and buy the 1,000 pts". In spite of having my intelligence insulted, I again politely declined.  Surprisingly, the closer that they brought in at the end was non-pushy, and we were soon on our way. 

Being prepared and knowing the hidden costs and other challenges, I was able to walk out of there calm, and under two hours. Other interesting things the salesperson stated during the presentation that are suspect -- the first is probably of most interest for this thread:

1) He claimed ALL points owners can book at the 13 months point.  That seems to be true but with the caveat that owners with <4,000 would have to pay more for the privilege. At least that's what I infer from reading the Elite Level charts.  That does concern me, as it confirms legacy owners are at a distinct disadvantage for availability, and (by virtue of reservation date) priority for considering villa assignment.

2) 80% of legacy owners have enrolled

3) Only points owners can get a cash discount at MVC properties. (e.g., "7VC") Legacy owners cannot.

4) Current cost is $13.90/point 

5) Enrollment fee.  He stated what it was, but I don't remember, as I had pretty much tuned out by then.  He gave no offer of waiving it, and I didn't ask.

On the other hand, that 2-hr session paid for our whale-watching cruise, two free breakfasts and $25 voucher at Roy's.  But I don't think we will do it again for another 8 years.


----------



## JIMinNC (Feb 28, 2018)

vpplayer said:


> 1) He claimed ALL points owners can book at the 13 months point.  That seems to be true but with the caveat that owners with <4,000 would have to pay more for the privilege. At least that's what I infer from reading the Elite Level charts.  That does concern me, as it confirms legacy owners are at a distinct disadvantage for availability, and (by virtue of reservation date) priority for considering villa assignment.



That is true, all points owners can book at 13 months, but those us us with less than 4000 points have to pay a 20% penalty to book outside of 12 months. But legacy owners are *not* at a disadvantage, because once an owner elects for points in a given year, they are competing only for points inventory, not legacy weeks inventory. Marriott keeps the two buckets of inventory separate. So, if you elect points for your week, that week goes into the MVC Exchange (part of the Points system) and is no longer available to legacy owners to book. But that legacy owner that converted their week is also no longer competing with the other legacy week owners for bookings either. So a week is lost to points, but so is a potential weeks user.


----------



## vpplayer (Feb 28, 2018)

JIMinNC said:


> That is true, all points owners can book at 13 months, but those us us with less than 4000 points have to pay a 20% penalty to book outside of 12 months. But legacy owners are *not* at a disadvantage, because once an owner elects for points in a given year, they are competing only for points inventory, not legacy weeks inventory. Marriott keeps the two buckets of inventory separate. So, if you elect points for your week, that week goes into the MVC Exchange (part of the Points system) and is no longer available to legacy owners to book. But that legacy owner that converted their week is also no longer competing with the other legacy week owners for bookings either. So a week is lost to points, but so is a potential weeks user.



Thank you for the clarification on booking availability -- it has been difficult to find authoritative and accurate information online.  However, what about actual room assignment prioritization? Does not the 13-month booking get prioritization over the 12-month booking, regardless of whether the owner is legacy or points?


----------



## JIMinNC (Feb 28, 2018)

vpplayer said:


> Thank you for the clarification on booking availability -- it has been difficult to find authoritative and accurate information online.  However, what about actual room assignment prioritization? Does not the 13-month booking get prioritization over the 12-month booking, regardless of whether the owner is legacy or points?



The very first post in this thread from the OP outlines how KoOlina prioritizes room requests. It appears to be a more complex formula that involves a lot more variables than just the reservation date.


----------



## bazzap (Mar 1, 2018)

vpplayer said:


> Presentation update:  info here probably applies to multiple topics but I'll post it here:
> 
> Attended Ko Olina presentation this morning -- first attended presentation since 2010. As a note, we received our "gift package" in advance of the presentation. If you are going to a presentation, then I recommend that approach as our only commitment was to stay 90 minutes, so we weren't captive in order to receive said gifts.
> 
> ...


Having only purchased weeks (developer and resale), but enrolled all my eligible ones, I would add a few comments:-
I still do not acknowledge the term “Legacy” owner, as the dictionary definition of this word is “obsolete” and my weeks ownership is not obsolete!
Re:1) 
Whilst eveyone can book at 13 months, Owner level has to pay a premium as JiminNC says, also only Executive, Presidential and Chairman’s Club level can book 1+ nights at 13 months, Owner and Select level are limited to booking 7+ nights
Re:2)
I don’t believe that 80% of weeks owners have enrolled and I won’t until MVC publish this figure.
I know many US owners who have not enrolled and the large majority of those I know and speak to in Europe and Asia have not.
Re:3) 
This is simply untrue.
I do not own Trust points, but I frequently use the “2VC” code as an enrolled weeks owner to get the 35% cash discount at MVC properties.


----------



## GregT (Mar 1, 2018)

TXTortoise said:


> The ability to rent points was the sole reason I enrolled my meager pre-2010 Vail Week, worth all of 550 points, via an Encore visit.
> 
> Recent threads have folks enrolling simply by watching a webcast at home. No fees other than a new II account at $180(?) a year.


Vpplayer, 

I agree with this comment - even if you never redeem your week for points, it is very powerful being able to rent points from others and still access the point system.  Currently, you can rent points for approximately the same as the Trust point Mfs without limit, and the system is going more towards points.  

You’ve got an excellent use for your home week but may ascribe some value to the ability to both use your home week and also have ability to book anywhere else, for whatever length stay you wish. 

Congrats on your ownership, and Ko Olina is a lovely property!

Best,

Greg


----------



## vpplayer (Mar 1, 2018)

Greg:

Clearly I need to educate myself more on the benefits of points and how to use them (incl points rentals).  The hard sell for purchasing additional points plus the very idea of paying an enrollment fee was/is very difficult to stomach, so I was pleased to read that at least some folks are getting targeted offers for free enrollment.  Perhaps my rejection of the sales pitch yesterday will generate such an offer for me. I'll take it seriously.  I know there are dues on top of it even if I don't convert in any given year, but it still may be worthwhile as time goes on.  Even if it's just the advantage of a 13-month room assignment priority over a 12-month one (see how I meandered back to the OP's topic--sorry for hijacking!)

Thanks again all!


----------



## TravelTime (May 18, 2022)

hangloose said:


> Marriott's Ko Olina Rooms Control will prioritize villa placement in this order:
> 
> *PRIORITY*
> 
> ...



Is #5 renters renting from an owner? If so, how do they know it’s a renter?


----------



## dioxide45 (May 18, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> Is #5 renters renting from an owner? If so, how do they know it’s a renter?


I suspect #5 is rentals through Marriott.com.


----------



## TravelTime (May 18, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I suspect #5 is rentals through Marriott.com.



I would think renters renting from Marriott.com would have higher priority than a marketing guest or II exchangers. Very odd if that is what it means.

I thought MVC did not distinguish between #1 and #2. Everyone says elected points and trust points function the same way. How would inventory control at the resort level know the difference?


----------



## frank808 (May 18, 2022)

List is a little outdated. 

Rooms control does not know now if you are exchanging in with Marriott unit or non Marriott unit. It used to show up in system. 

Being a multi week Plat and Plat+ owner at MKO, I have not seen better placement in room assignments unless I ask.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## TravelTime (May 18, 2022)

frank808 said:


> List is a little outdated.
> 
> Rooms control does not know now if you are exchanging in with Marriott unit or non Marriott unit. It used to show up in system.
> 
> ...



So are you saying that trust points and elected points are indeed the same thing for booking as well as room assignments? That is what I thought but just want to re-clarify since seeing this priority list.

If you are multi week Platinum owner at MKO, why do they not give you the best views consistently? Based on the priority list, even if outdated, it seems to imply that being an owner will give you the best views.

It seems like time stamp does not mean as much compared to ownership status and other factors.


----------



## bazzap (May 18, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> So are you saying that trust points and elected points are indeed the same thing for booking as well as room assignments? That is what I thought but just want to re-clarify since seeing this priority list.
> 
> If you are multi week Platinum owner at MKO, why do they not give you the best views consistently? Based on the priority list, even if outdated, it seems to imply that being an owner will give you the best views.
> 
> It seems like time stamp does not mean as much compared to ownership status and other factors.


Allocation criteria, even for the few resorts where it is published, seem to vary.
Time stamp is probably more of a factor at some than others.
So at Marbella, for example, in their FAQs
As I made my request 12-13 months in advance shouldn’t my request be guaranteed?
While making your request early on certainly should place you higher on the priority list, there is no guarantee that your preferences can be met upon arrival. As noted above, there are many reasons for this. In addition, more and more Owners book and place their requests 13 months in advance; hence making the allocation options more limited than in past years. This means that even simple requests at times are difficult to fulfill.


----------



## Dean (May 18, 2022)

TravelTime said:


> Is #5 renters renting from an owner? If so, how do they know it’s a renter?


This is rental using cash or points through Marriott directly.  A private renter will normally get the owner preference as appropriate.  


TravelTime said:


> I thought MVC did not distinguish between #1 and #2. Everyone says elected points and trust points function the same way. How would inventory control at the resort level know the difference?


I am not aware of a MVC resort that does not put owners using their weeks higher than MVC points.  Some give you a bump if you own at that resort but are exchanging in or using points but not at or above using an owned week.  


TravelTime said:


> So are you saying that trust points and elected points are indeed the same thing for booking as well as room assignments? That is what I thought but just want to re-clarify since seeing this priority list.
> 
> If you are multi week Platinum owner at MKO, why do they not give you the best views consistently? Based on the priority list, even if outdated, it seems to imply that being an owner will give you the best views.
> 
> It seems like time stamp does not mean as much compared to ownership status and other factors.


Points are points, doesn't matter whether it's trust or elected points.  Technically and legally, it's an internal exchange.  They have a lot to balance to it's difficult to give the best views on a consistent basis.  MKO is also one of the resorts that's gotten very hard line on the unit type of the exchange which further complicates the picture.  I haven't seen any indication that time stamp means anything in a long time, there are simply too many other variables for them to deal with.


----------



## SueDonJ (May 18, 2022)

_*Moderator Note*: Thread locked. This newer thread has also been revived with the same question: [2021] Ko 'Olina Pecking Order ..._


----------

