# Shut out in 13 month reservation window first time ever.



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 16, 2017)

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

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

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

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


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 16, 2017)

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

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

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


----------



## grupp (Jan 16, 2017)

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


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 16, 2017)

grupp said:


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


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


----------



## Emi (Jan 16, 2017)

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

Thanks


----------



## GregT (Jan 16, 2017)

Joe, 

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

Good luck, and I hope you get your weeks!

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

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


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 16, 2017)

I'm referring to original tower inventory.

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

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


----------



## GregT (Jan 16, 2017)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I'm referring to original tower inventory.
> 
> I had a discussion with one of the CSRs to try to figure it out and I suggested it's somehow related to the DC because I'm not sure what could've changed on the weeks side and she dismissed it as impossible but I think it is possible.
> 
> *If Marriott is buying up weeks in ROFR is it possible they're putting them into the trust and changing the ratio of weeks to DC points and then lowering the allocation of what Marriott makes available for the weeks owners? * I'm really ignorant about the DC program so  not sure if that is possible but it does sound logical that it might play a part in having no weeks available.



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

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

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

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

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I'm referring to original tower inventory.
> 
> I had a discussion with one of the CSRs to try to figure it out and I suggested it's somehow related to the DC because I'm not sure what could've changed on the weeks side and she dismissed it as impossible but I think it is possible.
> 
> *If Marriott is buying up weeks in ROFR is it possible they're putting them into the trust and changing the ratio of weeks to DC points and then lowering the allocation of what Marriott makes available for the weeks owners? * I'm really ignorant about the DC program so  not sure if that is possible but it does sound logical that it might play a part in having no weeks available.



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


----------



## Fairwinds (Jan 16, 2017)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I'm referring to original tower inventory.
> 
> I had a discussion with one of the CSRs to try to figure it out and I suggested it's somehow related to the DC because I'm not sure what could've changed on the weeks side and she dismissed it as impossible but I think it is possible.
> 
> *If Marriott is buying up weeks in ROFR is it possible they're putting them into the trust and changing the ratio of weeks to DC points and then lowering the allocation of what Marriott makes available for the weeks owners? * I'm really ignorant about the DC program so  not sure if that is possible but it does sound logical that it might play a part in having no weeks available.



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


----------



## bastroum (Jan 16, 2017)

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


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 16, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


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





Fairwinds said:


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



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

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


----------



## gwhamm (Jan 16, 2017)

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

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


----------



## davidvel (Jan 16, 2017)

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

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


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

gwhamm said:


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



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


----------



## gblotter (Jan 16, 2017)

MOXJO7282 said:


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


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


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

davidvel said:


> It really is (should be) irrelevant who owns the weeks, whether it be you, me, Bill Gates, or some trust set up by Marriott. ALL weeks that exist should be available to all owners to try to reserve  at 12(13) months. Every owner of any type has a legal right to fairly and equitably compete to reserve ANY week in their season at the appropriate time, regardless of who owns it.
> 
> It would only matter if one of the owners also controlled the reservation process and gave itself an unfair advantage in that process , or tried to set up some proportional system to guarantee itself a certain number of intervals, etc. This would be illegal, and many suspect it is occuring.



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

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


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 16, 2017)

gblotter said:


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



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


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

gblotter said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 16, 2017)

gblotter said:


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


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


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

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

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

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


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 16, 2017)

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

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


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 16, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> If I'm reading you correctly, I don't think that opening up every interval to every owner is proportional at all, and it's definitely not "legal" based on the wording in the governing docs for my owned Weeks or the DC Exchange Company.  The proportional allocation of available intervals is vital to protecting the usage rights of Weeks Owners who do not elect any other usage except home resort usage!  What would be "illegal" is MVW allowing DC members to gain access to any owned Weeks whose owners haven't elected other usage, and the docs give them the right to proportionally allocate that inventory across the seasonal calendars.  On the flip side, it would also be "illegal" for MVW to allow access of Weeks inventory (not elected for other usage by Owners) to DC Members using DC Points.
> 
> Availability has always been first-come-first-served within the parameters of the Reservation Procedures (i.e. window openings, 13/12-month eligibility, exchange capabilities, etc.)  Competition among owners/members for available intervals will always exist in a floating timeshare system, especially among the highest-demand intervals.  The DC hasn't changed anything in that regard other than, some Weeks Owners are electing to play in Points rather than Weeks which results in decreases of both the available Weeks and the owners vying for them.



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

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



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


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I agree with what you wrote, that in order to protect the usage rights in both systems, there has to be some proportional allocation of intervals to the Points and weeks systems. But as I understand David's concern that he has expressed above and in other threads, he is concerned that Marriott could play games to benefit the DC system over the weeks system. Using a simplistic example, if a given resort had 25% of it's units either owned by the Trust or available to the DC Exchange Company due to owner election for points, instead of Marriott allocating 25% of Presidents Day weeks to DC Points reservations, they could perhaps allocate 40% of that high demand week for Points reservations and then offset that by allocating another lower demand week to only 10% for Points. In that scenario, the overall supply-demand equation would remain in balance for Points vs. Weeks, but the Points owners would be advantaged in grabbing a Presidents Day week. If Marriott were playing games like this they could set up the system to reserve the Trust inventory, plus any weeks that had already been elected for points, other uses, etc., at 9:00:01 on release day. As an automated routine, that could happen in a millisecond and would certainly beat any human on a computer or telephone.
> 
> I have no reason to think that they are, in fact, playing games, but I think that is the concern that David has expressed in the past. The language in the governing docs is fairly broad, so I'm not sure whether it technically prevents this kind of situation or not. The exact wording relative to demand balancing is:



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

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


----------



## cp73 (Jan 16, 2017)

At 12 months rather than call I would make them online. I have found this to be a more reliable way to get the reservation wanted. By the time your call goes through and you start talking someone else can grab that week online. I don't know if this is yet available for 13 month reservations.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I'm just trying to understand why something I've been able to do for many years is now not possible. I'm being very cordial because I know the CSRs can only see what they can see.  The one i just spoke with suggested a supervisor can see what was released today so if that is possible   If it's not possible to get then I have to adjust my strategy.
> 
> I did speak with a supervisor and they could see units released today but wouldn't tell me how many and just said I got lucky in the past if I always got the week and that nothing has changed.   So it is what it is and I'll try for the 12 month window and I have to leave it at that although I still believe something in the dynamic changed that I'll need to adjust to.



Joe, you don't have to "leave it at that [12 month window]."  You have the multi-consecutive/concurrent Weeks advantage for the entire month before the 12-mos window opens, and there have been _many_ reports to TUG of owners having success when trying throughout the interim.  Keep trying, and good luck!


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

cp73 said:


> At 12 months rather than call I would make them online. I have found this to be a more reliable way to get the reservation wanted. By the time your call goes through and you start talking someone else can grab that week online. I don't know if this is yet available for 13 month reservations.



It's not.  There is a request form online that you can fill out detailing the specifics of your desired 13-mos multi-consecutive/concurrent Weeks, but those requests are handled by the reps after the telephone queues are handled.  MVW suggests very clearly that if you're trying for high-demand intervals you should be calling in as soon as the windows open.

Joe can fill it out today but in his shoes even if I sent the form I would still be calling every day at 9AM.  (On owners.marriottvacationclub.com, sign in and click on "Book My Stay" --> "Use My Week" --> select "Occupy - Consecutive or Concurrent" --> complete the form and click "Submit Request.")


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 16, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I agree with you and with David's position that MVW shouldn't be giving the DC a disproportionate number of Weeks intervals, regardless of whether they're high-demand or not.  I may have read his post differently than you did, though, because my objection was to his first paragraph which I took as meaning that all Weeks intervals should be available to all Weeks Owners/DC Members (assuming first-come-first-served?) completely disregarding proportionality.  So while I agree that they can't act as in your example, i.e. allocating 40/10 high-demand to the DC and 10/40 to Weeks, neither can they act in ways that don't properly allocate intervals according to whether Owners are electing Home Resort usage or something else.  (And I agree with you that we're not seeing a reason, specifically in this thread, to believe that they're doing anything other than what they're supposed to be doing as far as proper allocation.)
> 
> Another factor to consider is that the Reservation Windows in the Weeks and DC systems do not open on the same day for the same intervals.  Generally, the DC windows open days after the Weeks windows.  If intervals are not allocated proportionately according to Trust Conveyances and the usage options elected by Weeks Owners, the resulting availability metric would be much more tilted - "illegally" - in favor of Weeks Owners than DC Members.



I think we read his post the same. Based on similar threads in the past, I think David's contention is that the Trust/Marriott is just another owner, and therefore should not have the right to reserve or allocate _*any*_ proportion of units for Points owners - that general timeshare or real estate laws dictate that it should be first-come-first served for everyone. I think his concern is that they are protecting Points owners to the detriment of Weeks owners, and could even be taking that one step further and skewing the allocation to benefit points owners as noted in my example.

I think there was a theory posted in the past by someone that one reason the Points windows open a few days after the Weeks windows, is so Marriott can reserve their Trust/Exchange Company intervals after the windows open in keeping with Week reservation rules, then make them available to Points owners a few days later. I think David's concern is that if Marriott has the ability to run an automated routine at 9:00:01 when the Weeks are legally released, they have an advantage over other owners who are calling in and can't book in milliseconds. Having said that, I agree with you that I don't see how the Points/Weeks systems could operate together fairly without some allocation system. I would assume that Marriott's lawyers have fully analyzed this and feel they are in full compliance with all timeshare and real estate laws.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I think we read his post the same. Based on similar threads in the past, I think David's contention is that the Trust/Marriott is just another owner, and therefore should not have the right to reserve or allocate _*any*_ proportion of units for Points owners - that general timeshare or real estate laws dictate that it should be first-come-first served for everyone. I think his concern is that they are protecting Points owners to the detriment of Weeks owners, and could even be taking that one step further and skewing the allocation to benefit points owners as noted in my example.
> 
> I think there was a theory posted in the past by someone that one reason the Points windows open a few days after the Weeks windows, is so Marriott can reserve their Trust/Exchange Company intervals after the windows open in keeping with Week reservation rules, then make them available to Points owners a few days later. I think David's concern is that if Marriott has the ability to run an automated routine at 9:00:01 when the Weeks are legally released, they have an advantage over other owners who are calling in and can't book in milliseconds. Having said that, I agree with you that I don't see how the Points/Weeks systems could operate together fairly without some allocation system. I would assume that Marriott's lawyers have fully analyzed this and feel they are in full compliance with all timeshare and real estate laws.



Ah.  Now I see it, and remember that past discussions looked at it from a different viewpoint that I also didn't understand, because I've always thought that the proportioning was done so as to allow MVW and owners/members an equal crack at availability within the proportions _as of the moment a request is being made_, rather than any DC-proportioned intervals being pre-determined by check-in date.

Another consideration is that the governing docs for SurfWatch (at least, though I'm not sure about any others) contain wording that prohibits MVCI - and now MVW - from using the 13-mos Reservation Window to book Weeks intervals that it controls.  They are expressly limited to booking SW single Weeks at the 12-mos windows.  So if they are circumventing any rules that protect the proportionality of Weeks/DC inventory, especially via the method suggested by David and others, you can add this particular prohibition wherever it exists to the list of rules they're breaking.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 16, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> Ah. Now I see it, and remember that past discussions looked at it from a different viewpoint that I also didn't understand, because I've always thought that the proportioning was done so as to allow MVW and owners/members an equal crack at availability within the proportions _as of the moment a request is being made_, rather than any DC-proportioned intervals being pre-determined by check-in date.
> 
> Another consideration is that the governing docs for SurfWatch (at least, though I'm not sure about any others) contain wording that prohibits MVCI - and now MVW - from using the 13-mos Reservation Window to book Weeks intervals that it controls.  They are expressly limited to booking SW single Weeks at the 12-mos windows.  So if they are circumventing any rules that protect the proportionality of Weeks/DC inventory, especially via the method suggested by David and others, you can add this particular prohibition wherever it exists to the list of rules they're breaking.



Yeah, I don't think we really know how the proportioning is done - whether its done as the requests are being made as you say or by actual pre-determined MVC Trust bookings. Everything has just been speculation.

The MVC Trust is technically not MVCI nor MVW. It is a separate legal entity that owns weeks. It has its own Board, so I'm pretty sure it is legally separate from MVW. So the 13-month prohibition in the SurfWatch resort docs (and presumably others) may not apply to the Trust, since it is just another legal entity that owns weeks. MVW doesn't own the weeks in the Trust - the MVC Trust does. Weeks can be owned by individuals or Family Trusts, so maybe legally the MVC Trust is just considered another type of trust owner.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Jan 16, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> Ah.  Now I see it, and remember that past discussions looked at it from a different viewpoint that I also didn't understand, because I've always thought that the proportioning was done so as to allow MVW and owners/members an equal crack at availability within the proportions _as of the moment a request is being made_, rather than any DC-proportioned intervals being pre-determined by check-in date.
> 
> Another consideration is that the governing docs for SurfWatch (at least, though I'm not sure about any others) contain wording that prohibits MVCI - and now MVW - from using the 13-mos Reservation Window to book Weeks intervals that it controls.  They are expressly limited to booking SW single Weeks at the 12-mos windows.  So if they are circumventing any rules that protect the proportionality of Weeks/DC inventory, especially via the method suggested by David and others, you can add this particular prohibition wherever it exists to the list of rules they're breaking.



I was one of those discussions. But even with the 12 month limitation at Surfwatch, that wouldn't stop the automated "front running" (at 9:00:001 AM) for the 12 month weeks, if the system is set up that way. Leaving the one week owner "up a creek without a paddle".

That is why I exited Marriott timeshares and went with Hilton. . . .


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 16, 2017)

BTW I could get a reservation using points ... if i wanted to use more than i get per week of course.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

MOXJO7282 said:


> BTW I could get a reservation using points ... if i wanted to use more than i get per week of course.



That's not a surprise, just as it's not a surprise that there is generally better availability using Points in the DC than Weeks in II at the HHI resorts during high seasons.  Maui/HI Owners who enroll their Weeks get a good amount of DC Points when they elect to convert just as the HHI Plat season Weeks Owners do.  As you say with the skim it's not enough to book the same Week interval using Points but often converting to DC Points is a better value than exchanging in II, because exchanging out of high-demand HHI and HI resorts often means a downgrade in II (especially when you're talking 3BR units.)  And getting back to your OP, when enrolled Weeks are converted to Points those intervals and their owners leave the Weeks playing field and get in the Points game.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 16, 2017)

MOXJO7282 said:


> BTW I could get a reservation using points ... if i wanted to use more than i get per week of course.


How can you know for sure? Points inventory isn't released until tomorrow.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Yeah, I don't think we really know how the proportioning is done - whether its done as the requests are being made as you say or by actual pre-determined MVC Trust bookings. Everything has just been speculation.
> 
> The MVC Trust is technically not MVCI nor MVW. It is a separate legal entity that owns weeks. It has its own Board, so I'm pretty sure it is legally separate from MVW. So the 13-month prohibition in the SurfWatch resort docs (and presumably others) may not apply to the Trust, since it is just another legal entity that owns weeks. MVW doesn't own the weeks in the Trust - the MVC Trust does. Weeks can be owned by individuals or Family Trusts, so maybe legally the MVC Trust is just considered another type of trust owner.



Now there's another lightbulb moment from you that I hadn't ever considered!  Doh!

The docs for SW also prohibit booking by "bots" and other automated systems, for whatever that's worth.  I think like you do that the MVW legal department has been careful and is complying with whatever regulations they're required to follow, if only because it doesn't make any sense for them to not comply.  As designed both the Weeks and Points systems give MVW plenty of options and a very good revenue source; they don't have to be out of compliance in order to get what they need from the systems they designed.  Plus it's fairly apparent that they have a lot more to lose collectively than we do individually by acting illegally, and I just don't expect them to be that blatantly stupid.

Neither do I expect them to ever be completely transparent about inventory allocation, not because I think they're doing it wrong but because it goes against all business sense for them to arm their adversaries with knowledge that they're not required to disclose.  IMO when it comes to owners digging into the details on sites like TUG, there is no doubt that we oftentimes make it a very adversarial relationship.


----------



## davidvel (Jan 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I think we read his post the same. Based on similar threads in the past, I think David's contention is that the Trust/Marriott is just another owner, and therefore should not have the right to reserve or allocate _*any*_ proportion of units for Points owners - that general timeshare or real estate laws dictate that it should be first-come-first served for everyone. I think his concern is that they are protecting Points owners to the detriment of Weeks owners, and could even be taking that one step further and skewing the allocation to benefit points owners as noted in my example.
> 
> I think there was a theory posted in the past by someone that one reason the Points windows open a few days after the Weeks windows, is so Marriott can reserve their Trust/Exchange Company intervals after the windows open in keeping with Week reservation rules, then make them available to Points owners a few days later. I think David's concern is that if Marriott has the ability to run an automated routine at 9:00:01 when the Weeks are legally released, they have an advantage over other owners who are calling in and can't book in milliseconds. Having said that, I agree with you that I don't see how the Points/Weeks systems could operate together fairly without some allocation system. I would assume that Marriott's lawyers have fully analyzed this and feel they are in full compliance with all timeshare and real estate laws.


Yes, this is correct. My point has always been, and I'm confident from a legal standpoint, that the DC system cannot alter the underlying usage rights of all owners (including the trust). [Frankly, I think the DC system violates the CC&R's prohibition on commercial activity, but that's another topic.] So, whatever the trust's rules are with its members, its can't distribute weeks, days, or whatever to its members in exchange for points until its RESERVES those weeks just like any other owner.  It would be illegal if it used an automated system that regular owners don't have access to.


----------



## davidvel (Jan 16, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> Ah.  Now I see it, and remember that past discussions looked at it from a different viewpoint that I also didn't understand, because I've always thought that the proportioning was done so as to allow MVW and owners/members an equal crack at availability within the proportions _as of the moment a request is being made_, rather than any DC-proportioned intervals being pre-determined by check-in date.


I don't  know where this whole proportiong idea comes from. If I just happened to own 10% of the weeks in my season (and hold them in a trust and dole them out to friends and family according to my rules) do you think Marriott would automatically give me reservations "in proportion" to that 10%, or would they make me call or go online to reserve the intervals I want like everyone else? We all know the answer to that. So why does Marriott get to do it (if in fact they do as has been reported)?


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 16, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> How can you know for sure? Points inventory isn't released until tomorrow.


The CSR looked it up and told me but I don't really know what he was looking at.  I did mention any late Jan or any Feb week so he was probably referring to that.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 16, 2017)

davidvel said:


> I don't  know where this whole proportiong idea comes from. If I just happened to own 10% of the weeks in my season (and hold them in a trust and dole them out to friends and family according to my rules) do you think Marriott would automatically give me reservations "in proportion" to that 10%, or would they make me call or go online to reserve the intervals I want like everyone else? We all know the answer to that. So why does Marriott get to do it (if in fact they do as has been reported)?



I don't know if I'm saying it correctly but here's how I think things have worked/are working in practice.

First, prior to the DC inception, assuming 100 same resort/same size unit/same season Weeks with 80 sold and 20 still held by MVCI.  These 100 Weeks are the result of ten like units on property with the seasonal calendar running 10 weeks, which allows for 8 units each of the 10 weeks to be allotted to Owners and 2 each Week to be allotted to Marriott.  For purposes of the 12- and 13-mos Reservation Procedures, this allows for 5 like units to be held back for the 12-mos window while the other 5 like units can be booked prior to the 12-mos windows as parts of concurrent/consecutive-interval bookings.

In the simplest metric the 80 owned Weeks are booked by Owners and the 20 held by MVCI are used as lodging for Preview stays.  In the most convoluted metric MVCI as the management company has to account for and apportion Weeks by factors such as which Owners are and are not eligible for the 13-mos window, Owners exchanging out through II, Owners ineligible to use their Weeks due to mortgages/mf's in arrears, Owners who don't follow the Reservation Rules resulting in MVCI gaining unbooked intervals, eligible Owners electing MRP's, Owners simply not using their Weeks, and any number of other things that I'm not thinking of.  Over all the years when Weeks were the only game in town MVCI wasn't completely transparent about inventory allocation but what they did say was that their allocation was fine-tuned as best it could be to the point that like units were spread out over the available check-in days, and we didn't automatically assume that they were acting out of compliance when we weren't able to book our first choice of home resort stays.

Now comes the DC and MVCI's separation from MI, re-branding as MVW.  The same 100 like intervals still exist but Owners now have an array of DC-related options via enrolling their Weeks that didn't exist before, some of the intervals are conveyed to a Trust, and MVW's responsibility as the Management Company is to allocate inventory such that the usage rights of Weeks Owners (enrolled and un-enrolled) and Trust Members are protected.  If I'm reading you correctly you think that means the Trustee must conform to the Reservation Procedures for Weeks on the same basis as every other Weeks Owner, effectively pre-designating specific intervals by check-in date for usage by DC Members.  I think differently, that MVW can in advance of the Reservation Windows opening, pre-designate the proportional number of intervals that will be available for Weeks Owners using their 12- or 13-mos windows, DC Members using their applicable windows, MRP stays, cash stays, II exchanges, etc etc etc, but that MVW doesn't pre-designate any specific intervals to DC usage instead releasing it as it's requested by eligible DC members.

I think that the Weeks Reservation Procedures and the DC Trust and Exchange Procedures governing docs allow MVW the leeway to manipulate the inventory in such a way that after the Reservation Windows are open, the over-riding first-come-first-served mandate is protected so long as MVW doesn't release too many Weeks into either the Weeks system or the DC system.  In that way, the inventory is properly proportioned on an ongoing basis but the DC Members aren't limited to only the intervals which the Trustee can successfully reserve.  What I see is that they've implemented safeguards to ensure that if 40 of the existing 80 Weeks Owners in my example have not elected other usage and are in good standing, then no more or less than 40 like intervals will be available to them on the same f-c-f-s basis.  Sure, the DC introduces all kinds of metrics that didn't exist before, that make a simple scenario all but impossible, but that doesn't automatically equate to MVW needing to be out of compliance in order to make it work.

Since the DC introduction, MVW has tried to assure Weeks Owners and DC Members that they are as committed to proper inventory allocation as MVCI always had been, that careful consideration was given during the DC design process to ensure that the rights of Weeks Owners were of primary importance.  And notably, they've continued to say that their allocation metrics still are fine-tuned right down to proportionally allocating check-in days.  If they didn't allocate proportionately, how could any of that be possible?  If they hadn't been able to protect Weeks Owners' rights while simultaneously allowing Weeks to be integrated in the DC via the DC Exchange Company, then the regulatory agencies wouldn't have approved MVW's introduction of the DC as is.  Instead MVW would have been forced to introduce the DC as wholly separate from the existing Weeks program, allowing for no integration between the two.  But we, at least here on TUG, are so much less willing to accept those reassurances since the DC inception.  I don't get it.

I know that anything is possible and MVW may very well be doing nefarious things that I haven't even thought of, or that my read on all this is so far off base it's out of the park entirely.  But always I go back to, what would be the point of them doing anything that would put their business at such a high level of risk?  That just doesn't make sense when the products they do have, their co-existing systems that have been approved by the regulatory agencies, allow their business a healthy revenue source while they're delivering to Weeks Owners and DC Members the usage rights that they've been promised.

Sorry, this is another novel.  If I could figure out how to use fewer words and say the same thing then I'd do it, but I think we're in agreement that a complex system can't be explained with simplicity.  (Still, I'm sure some TUGger will come along and do a better job of it than I have.  No doubt I have many more "DOH!  Why didn't I think of that?!" moments ahead of me.)


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jan 16, 2017)

After I couldn't get a measily reservation at Manor Club Original for Thanksgiving at either 13 months or 12 months I came to the conclusion that MVCI is definitely doing something illegal with the inventory. Not just thanksgiving but literally the entire months of Oct and Nov not available at any point. In my case points reservations were available according to a few Tuggers that checked. A supervisor gave the explanation that it was such a high demand time that everything was booked in mere seconds. Complete hogwash. I was so ticked off.

I later very easily exchanged in II using cheap non-Marriott units. I got three units for Thanksgiving several weeks later.

Weeks owners are generally more savvy at reserving early. I wonder if Marriott is performing dummy reservations to block weeks owners from taking the available inventory. Possibly under the names of "related" parties.

I would wager that we are going to hear more of these occurrences. It reminds me of a sales presentation a few years ago at Oceana Palms. "Marriott's goal is to control the inventory". It was in reference to the rights of weeks owners. I took it with a grain of salt at the time and still do but this whole thing reminds me of that statement.


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 16, 2017)

Saintsfanfl said:


> After I couldn't get a measily reservation at Manor Club Original for Thanksgiving at either 13 months or 12 months I came to the conclusion that MVCI is definitely doing something illegal with the inventory. Not just thanksgiving but literally the entire months of Oct and Nov not available at any point. In my case points reservations were available according to a few Tuggers that checked. A supervisor gave the explanation that it was such a high demand time that everything was booked in mere seconds. Complete hogwash. I was so ticked off.
> 
> I later very easily exchanged in II using cheap non-Marriott units. I got three units for Thanksgiving several weeks later.
> 
> ...


One questions which bucket does II inventory come from?  It should only be from weeks owners who successfully reserved these weeks and deposit into II.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 16, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> One questions which bucket does II inventory come from?  It should only be from weeks owners who successfully reserved these weeks and deposit into II.



DC Points members can also exchange DC points for exchange rights in II. For example, 3000 DC points can be exchanged for an II exchange into a 1BR with a TDI of 140-150; for 4500 DC points you can get a 2BR with a 140-150 TDI. There is a chart that outlines all the TDI/unit size combinations. If a point owner did that, then Marriott would, I assume, be obligated to give II a week from the Trust or DC Exchange Company with a similar TDI.


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> DC Points members can also exchange DC points for exchange rights in II. For example, 3000 DC points can be exchanged for an II exchange into a 1BR with a TDI of 140-150; for 4500 DC points you can get a 2BR with a 14-150 TDI. There is a chart that outlines all the TDI/unit size combinations.


True, but in this case, DC would not deposit a prime week into II, right?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 16, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> One questions which bucket does II inventory come from?  It should only be from weeks owners who successfully reserved these weeks and deposit into II.


There could also be inventory in II from unreserved inventory on short notice. Marriott has also bulk banked in the past with unsold inventory. They still do similar things today, but usually much closer to checkin.


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 16, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> There could also be inventory in II from unreserved inventory on short notice. Marriott has also bulk banked in the past with unsold inventory. They still do similar things today, but usually much closer to checkin.


In the above post, it was reported that the same Thanksgiving weeks were available in II several weeks later and exchanged with non-Marriotts for 3 Thanksgiving weeks.  Those would not be late deposits.  I feel that it may not deliberate but a bug in Marriott reservation system that is causing major issues to week owners.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 16, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> True, but in this case, DC would not deposit a prime week into II, right?



I'm not 100% sure, but I would suspect that II would expect a like-for-like exchange from Marriott. So if an owner exchanged 4500 DC points for a 150 TDI 2BR unit, then I would expect II would want Marriott to deposit a similarly high demand, high TDI week. I guess it would depend to some extent on what you mean by "prime" week, but 150 TDI weeks are the highest demand, prime season weeks. But if by "prime" week you mean a cream of the crop holiday week, maybe the agreement with II doesn't require that Marriott give II the tip-top holiday weeks, but I would certainly expect that II would at least expect a prime season week.


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I'm not 100% sure, but I would suspect that II would expect a like-for-like exchange from Marriott. So if an owner exchanged 4500 DC points for a 150 TDI 2BR unit, then I would expect II would want Marriott to deposit a similarly high demand, high TDI week. I guess it would depend to some extent on what you mean by "prime" week, but 150 TDI weeks are the highest demand, prime season weeks. But if by "prime" week you mean a cream of the crop holiday week, maybe the agreement with II doesn't require that Marriott give II the tip-top holiday weeks, but I would certainly expect that II would at least expect a prime season week.


Yes, that is what I meant, just one that satisfies the TDI, and not necessary the holiday weeks.  Or it could be "proportional".


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 16, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I'm not 100% sure, but I would suspect that II would expect a like-for-like exchange from Marriott. So if an owner exchanged 4500 DC points for a 150 TDI 2BR unit, then I would expect II would want Marriott to deposit a similarly high demand, high TDI week. I guess it would depend to some extent on what you mean by "prime" week, but 150 TDI weeks are the highest demand, prime season weeks. But if by "prime" week you mean a cream of the crop holiday week, maybe the agreement with II doesn't require that Marriott give II the tip-top holiday weeks, but I would certainly expect that II would at least expect a prime season week.


Couldn't Marriott also just deposit two 75 TDI weeks to satisfy the 150 week that was pulled out?


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 16, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Couldn't Marriott also just deposit two 75 TDI weeks to satisfy the 150 week that was pulled out?



Perhaps. I guess it depends on how their agreement is worded and what terms they negotiated with II. I would expect that II would prefer one higher TDI week rather than two lower ones since I guess they get more requests for the higher demand weeks, but that's something we'll never know without access to info on the negotiated business relationship between II and Marriott.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Jan 16, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> Another factor to consider is that the Reservation Windows in the Weeks and DC systems do not open on the same day for the same intervals.  Generally, the DC windows open days after the Weeks windows.



Two or three years ago I compared all 13 month reservation dates for Weeks and DC users.  What you say is generally true, but there were a few weeks around March where that was not true.  I don't know it that happens every year or if leap years affect this.  Whatever, it's not always the case.


----------



## bogey21 (Jan 17, 2017)

bastroum said:


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



I understand that once one has his/her money "invested" in a Floating Week or Points program they have to do what is necessary to get the usages they want.  Personally I didn't want the hassle and sold my Floating Weeks and bought Fixed Week/Fixed Units at a number of HOA Controlled Resorts.  The negatives were lesser quality and being locked into specific destinations and the Week I owned.  Often though I found that the Resort would swap my Week for the Week of another Owner.  There was never a charge for this and it was pretty much a hassle free process.  This worked out for me well as I owned at 6 locations I liked to visit every year.  Avoiding the situation OP describes made it worthwhile for me.

George


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jan 17, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> In the above post, it was reported that the same Thanksgiving weeks were available in II several weeks later and exchanged with non-Marriotts for 3 Thanksgiving weeks.  Those would not be late deposits.  I feel that it may not deliberate but a bug in Marriott reservation system that is causing major issues to week owners.



That's what I thought so I talked to a supervisor and pushed hard. My issue wasn't just Thanksgiving but the entire month of November Not one check-in day was ever available at any point. Not at 13 and not at 12. The supervisor claimed that every check-in day was so high demand that the units were gone within seconds at each opening. I told this supervisor that the demand they were describing did not exist. It is not that high of a demand timeframe. Furthermore I stated that if what they were saying was true, then at least a couple of those reservations would be deposited. We ended on agree to disagree. 

Could it be that they were merely speculating? My guess is yes, and the real issue is some type of bug. 

A few weeks later units started popping up on II, and the vast majority of them were not under Marriott preference.


----------



## DanH (Jan 17, 2017)

MOXJO7282 said:


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


This is very disappointing.  I hope this is just some bad luck you had this year.  I love my vacation club, but I haven't enjoyed a lot of the changes in the past few years.  Good luck to you.


----------



## chrono88 (Jan 18, 2017)

We were shut out from reserving the weeks we wanted as well at 13 months. Almost made us consider getting DC points, but the $$ required still doesn't quite work for us.

Sent from my KFSAWI using Tapatalk


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jan 18, 2017)

One of my three units at MMC is a getaway for $477. High demand stuff? Quite the opposite.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 18, 2017)

Saintsfanfl said:


> One of my three units at MMC is a getaway for $477. High demand stuff? Quite the opposite.


Same thing I was told about the "Missing" getaways in II. I will post followup in that thread.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Jan 19, 2017)

I had the same issues in 2014. Whatever the issue is, it is systemic, and shows no sign of being fixed.

Marriott profits off of the skim, every time a weeks owner shifts to using DC points to make a reservation. . .


----------



## icydog (Jan 23, 2017)

I didn't read the whole thread so pardon me if this was already mentioned.  I have no inventory in HI but I do own at Lakeshore Reserve. I *couldn't* reserve my week at 13 months, I own two weeks there, becasuse they were sold out.


But I *could* reserve the exact villa I owned at 13 months using my Destination Club Points!  Doesn't that prove the OPs supposition that DC points are getting more prevalent and powerful in the marketplace than weeks inventory!


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 23, 2017)

icydog said:


> I didn't read the whole thread so pardon me if this was already mentioned.  I have no inventory in HI but I do own at Lakeshore Reserve. I *couldn't* reserve my week at 13 months, I own two weeks there, becasuse they were sold out.
> 
> 
> But I *could* reserve the exact villa I owned at 13 months using my Destination Club Points!  Doesn't that prove the OPs supposition that DC points are getting more prevalent and powerful in the marketplace than weeks inventory!



Remember, DC Points and Weeks inventory are two totally separate pools. The supply-demand characteristics of each may be different, but each should have a balance of supply and demand for the owners of each. If more weeks owners elect for points in any given year, more points reservations will be available that year, but that also means that there will be more owners competing for those reservations. While that scenario (owners electing for points) would reduce the number of weeks in the legacy Weeks system, the number of owners competing for those weeks would also be less.

It does seem, however, that TUGgers are increasingly reporting that difficult reservations are often easier to get with DC points than traditional Weeks. I'm not sure anyone has ever solved that question, but it could be that owners with high season/high point value weeks are more likely to elect for points (since they get a lot of points), so the supply of these high value weeks winds up being *relatively *greater in the Points inventory pool than the Weeks inventory pool. Perhaps Weeks owners are more conditioned to reserving early so the portion of the Weeks inventory that gets released at 13 months gets snapped up quickly. Perhaps points owners aren't quite so inclined to reserve at 13 months. Another factor might be the ability of owners of high-value points weeks to elect their weeks for points, but then use that high number of points to reserve two or three weeks at lower point value resorts/seasons, use the points for short stays, etc. Since there are so many different uses for points than just a one week reservation, the demand in the Points pool is spread more broadly and not so concentrated in the high demand, high value resorts/seasons. Just speculating...


----------



## Sandy VDH (Jan 23, 2017)

Wyndham had a fixed/float full week exchange system, they maintained for a long while even after they introduced the points program.  They then decided after so many years that members who want fixed week only trades and didn't convert to points well they can do it now through RCI or II and the stopped the Fixed week trade program.  Give it a decade or less after DC is introduced and I might guess that the weeks side goes away and the DC side inventory is all that is left standing.  Any remaining week inventory holders are just left to either convert finally or go to an external exchange company.  My guess is the writing is on the wall, it will just take more years to get there.


----------



## davidvel (Jan 23, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> Remember, DC Points and Weeks inventory are two totally separate pools. The supply-demand characteristics of each may be different, but each should have a balance of supply and demand for the owners of each. If more weeks owners elect for points in any given year, more points reservations will be available that year, but that also means that there will be more owners competing for those reservations. While that scenario (owners electing for points) would reduce the number of weeks in the legacy Weeks system, the number of owners competing for those weeks would also be less.
> 
> It does seem, however, that TUGgers are increasingly reporting that difficult reservations are often easier to get with DC points than traditional Weeks. I'm not sure anyone has ever solved that question, but it could be that owners with high season/high point value weeks are more likely to elect for points (since they get a lot of points), so the supply of these high value weeks winds up being *relatively *greater in the Points inventory pool than the Weeks inventory pool. Perhaps Weeks owners are more conditioned to reserving early so the portion of the Weeks inventory that gets released at 13 months gets snapped up quickly. Perhaps points owners aren't quite so inclined to reserve at 13 months. Another factor might be the ability of owners of high-value points weeks to elect their weeks for points, but then use that high number of points to reserve two or three weeks at lower point value resorts/seasons, use the points for short stays, etc. Since there are so many different uses for points than just a one week reservation, the demand in the Points pool is spread more broadly and not so concentrated in the high demand, high value resorts/seasons. Just speculating...


What is this "pool" you speak of. I can't find it anywhere in my resort's governing documents.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 23, 2017)

davidvel said:


> What is this "pool" you speak of. I can't find it anywhere in my resort's governing documents.



"pool" may be a poor choice word. Basically what I mean is that the DC points inventory is managed separately from the Weeks inventory - i.e. - Points reservations come from Trust inventory plus weeks deposited into the DC Exchange Company. That structure is outlined in the DC Program docs. Weeks reservations come from weeks still in the traditional weeks system that have not been elected for points or other uses. As we've discussed/debated previously, how that translates into a specific interval's availability is shrouded in the opaqueness of the overall inventory management structure of MVC.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 23, 2017)

Sandy VDH said:


> Wyndham had a fixed/float full week exchange system, they maintained for a long while even after they introduced the points program.  They then decided after so many years that members who want fixed week only trades and didn't convert to points well they can do it now through RCI or II and the stopped the Fixed week trade program.  Give it a decade or less after DC is introduced and I might guess that the weeks side goes away and the DC side inventory is all that is left standing.  Any remaining week inventory holders are just left to either convert finally or go to an external exchange company.  My guess is the writing is on the wall, it will just take more years to get there.



Marriott Weeks exchanges (out of the owned resort/season/unit size) have always been processed through an external exchange company, either RCI or II.  Marriott didn't offer a system-wide internal exchange option until the DC was introduced, i.e. the DC Exchange Company, but it's available only for DC Points exchanges.  II is still the affiliated Weeks exchange conduit although since the DC inception, Weeks enrolled in the DC can be exchanged through a corporate II account with a different, less-expensive fee structure than the standard individual II account.

I think Marriott's Weeks and Points systems will continue to co-exist as they do now until the costs for managing Weeks-only ownerships becomes a drain on MVW, at which time they'll offer generous incentives to the existing Weeks Owners to sell their Weeks back to MVW, or, they'll remove the restrictions that make some Weeks ineligible for DC-enrollment and give Owners the choice to enroll or sell back.  IMO that time is a long way away - there are many, many, many Marriott Weeks that aren't affiliated at all with the DC and they're still providing a healthy profit margin for MVW.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 23, 2017)

I think the issue with the Exchange Company, is that it really should be holding physical inventory. When an owner deposits their week for points, Marriott should be making a reservation and that inventory gets deposited. Just like with II. It shouldn't be inventory that is in flux and on an IOU. One problem with that is that an owner can elect points at 25 months before the first day of the use year. The problem is that a reservation can't even be made until 13 months at most. So what is actually getting deposited when an owner elects early, IOUs? What is the process for redeeming those IOUs?


----------



## davidvel (Jan 24, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> I think the issue with the Exchange Company, is that it really should be holding physical inventory. When an owner deposits their week for points, Marriott should be making a reservation and that inventory gets deposited. Just like with II. It shouldn't be inventory that is in flux and on an IOU. One problem with that is that an owner can elect points at 25 months before the first day of the use year. The problem is that a reservation can't even be made until 13 months at most. So what is actually getting deposited when an owner elects early, IOUs? What is the process for redeeming those IOUs?


Bingo. This is my point exactly. The "pool" of days/weeks referred to by JiminNC that is available to DC points members should only get its "water" from an actual reservation of such weeks by the Trust from the overall inventory; the same way you or I as week owners have to reserve. The same way that any weeks owner has to reserve. There should be no IOUs, "allocation", proportioning, etc., or other artificial management of the reservations.

This is how I view it in my mind, based on the governing documents and the DC's structure:


----------



## davidvel (Jan 24, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> One problem with that is that an owner can elect points at 25 months before the first day of the use year. The problem is that a reservation can't even be made until 13 months at most. So what is actually getting deposited when an owner elects early, IOUs? What is the process for redeeming those IOUs?


The way I see it (how it should happen), is the right to reserve an interval for the the deposited enrolled week simply assigns from the owner to the exchange co. It must hold it until is has a right to reserve it just like any other owner. No need for IOU, etc.


----------



## JIMinNC (Jan 24, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> I think the issue with the Exchange Company, is that it really should be holding physical inventory. When an owner deposits their week for points, Marriott should be making a reservation and that inventory gets deposited. Just like with II. It shouldn't be inventory that is in flux and on an IOU. One problem with that is that an owner can elect points at 25 months before the first day of the use year. The problem is that a reservation can't even be made until 13 months at most. So what is actually getting deposited when an owner elects early, IOUs? What is the process for redeeming those IOUs?





davidvel said:


> Bingo. This is my point exactly. The "pool" of days/weeks referred to by JiminNC that is available to DC points members should only get its "water" from an actual reservation of such weeks by the Trust from the overall inventory; the same way you or I as week owners have to reserve. The same way that any weeks owner has to reserve. There should be no IOUs, "allocation", proportioning, etc., or other artificial management of the reservations.
> 
> This is how I view it in my mind, based on the governing documents and the DC's structure:
> View attachment 3166



We actually don't know that this is or isn't they way it works. There have been two schools of thought suggested earlier in this thread (and in a number of other threads in past months/years). One school of thought says that MVC actually does book and reserve specific intervals for use by the DC at the resorts based on the weeks owned by the Trust and the weeks deposited by owners into the Exchange Company (davidvel's example). The other line of thinking says that they don't actually pre-reserve/designate the exact intervals, but that their reservation system just ensures that Weeks and Points owners get proportional access to the various intervals/check-in days, and the actual requests determine what's available any given day. That has been debated ad-nauseum, but the reality is we just don't have a window into how the process actually works. Some have even suggested that these kinds of reservation or allocation processes could even violate the old Weeks system reservation procedures and covenants. I have to think that Marriott feels they are on sound legal footing with whatever they do, so unless someone challenges their processes in court and the processes are uncovered during legal discovery proceedings, we will likely never know how it all works.

While it's just speculation on my part, I could see how dioxide45's early election scenario could function under either scenario. For example, if you are one who buys into the theory that MVC actually reserves specific inventory for use by DC members (per davidvel's post just above), then any weeks elected prior to 12-13 months could just be designated for assignment to the DC points system, and when the reservation window for that week rolls around, MVC "claims" a week for the DC system, just as they do for Trust-owned weeks (as outlined in davidvel's diagram). On the other hand, if you buy into the "proportional allocation" theory, then any weeks that are elected prior to the 12-13 month windows just increase the DC points system's proportion or allocation when DC owners go to make their reservations whenever their windows open. Irrespective of which scenario is legal or not under the governing docs, it would seem that the only practical difference to owners of the two possible approaches is that under the "Marriott pre-reserve" scenario, Marriott determines which intervals will be available to DC owners, but in the second "allocation" scenario, the DC owners themselves choose which intervals they select, subject only to limitations imposed by Marriott to ensure that neither Weeks nor Points owners are disadvantaged.


----------



## ljmiii (Jan 24, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> We actually don't know that this is or isn't they way it works. There have been two schools of thought suggested earlier in this thread (and in a number of other threads in past months/years)...


Indeed...I can remember this discussion a couple of years ago as it affected the 'magic trick' of an owner of a week normally reservable at 12 months electing that week into DPs and then making a 13-month reservation.

But I've been thinking about this issue of the increasing difficulty of making 13 month reservations and my opinion is that the 'pre-reserving' of trust weeks for DP use is only a part of the problem - perhaps a small one in resorts like MOC. The larger problem is that new buyers of MVCI - each year's 'noobies' - buy DPs now. And so, for the most part, a resale week buyer is a relatively sophisticated one. And the pool of weeks used as weeks is being held by ever increasingly knowledgeable owners. Who often have ever increasing number of weeks and can consecutively reserve their weeks into the far-er future.

The way MVCI chose to implement DPs - weeks have to be enrolled, don't yield the number of DPs they are worth when elected, and lose their enrollment when sold - has exacerbated this issue. But I don't think we need to look for additional 'evils' beyond the ones established in the creation of the DP system.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Jan 26, 2017)

Follow the money. . . 

The skim is profit to MVCI. For sake of illustration, I'll set the skim at 16.67%. That means, if one converts his owned week every year, and used the points to buy back at the same resort/season each year, for every 5 years he converts, he would pay for 6 years worth of MFs, (and not have any vacation for the 6th year.)

That "6th" week is available for MVCI to use as they see fit, for their profit. They could use it for a DP reservation, for which they get MF's on the DP points, _for a week that already has the MFs paid for_, causing those DP MFs to be pure profit, or renting it out for cash, which is straightforward profit.

That is the system as it was initially set up. I can't believe that MVCI is "Shocked, shocked, to find at profit embedded in the system". It would be a way to make a profit off of existing week owners, that they wouldn't get otherwise.

But it only works if enrolled weeks owners can only get the week they want via DP and not by week reservation. 

Which is exactly the occurrence we see here.

Like I said, follow the money. . .


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 26, 2017)

gblotter said:


> I advise you to escalate this situation to a higher level of management.


So the latest is I did question the availability and spoke to a very nice agent who said she would keep checking for me.  I really didn't think she would follow through but to my pleasant surprise I received 3 emails today where she secured me 3 late Feb weeks for 3 of my OV weeks and said she would keep looking for President's week for the 2 OF and other OV unit.  I'm not sure if it is because I'm platinum or an isolated excellent CSR but I think this is absolutely fantastic customer service and made sure to send in a kudos to the CSR's supervisor.

Now i'll hope that i can secure the rest at the 12 month window for Pres week or maybe my friend will find them before then.


----------



## GregT (Jan 27, 2017)

A few years ago when I was trying to figure out the inventory system, Customer Advocacy told me that Marriott will "forecast" how many weeks in the coming year will be redeemed for Elected Points and for MRPs, and will only release what is left for week owner reservations -- releasing 50% at Month 13 and 50% at Month 12.  This approach made sense, and I hoped their forecasts were reasonably accurate.

If this is still the approach, which I expect that it is, and Marriott's forecasts is now based on multiple years of actual experience, then we may also being seeing the impact of more enrolled weeks being redeemed for points, which in addition to whatever is in the Trust, will limit the number of weeks released at Month 13.   

Unfortunately, we will never know for sure, but this was the experience I had back in February 2015 that bummed me out and made me realize that it would be tough to predict availability of traditional weeks.

I don't know if Joe ever got his week, but if not, I hope it comes up at Month 12.

Best,

Greg


----------



## m61376 (Jan 28, 2017)

I was told the same as you were told by the head of Customer Advocacy at the time. Of course, we have to be hopeful that they are carrying through. It may be that as more legacy weeks turn over that there's a higher percentage of remaining owners using their weeks consecutively, as a winter retreat. I know in Aruba there are many Northeasterners who stay for multiple weeks instead of being a Florida snowbird. 

Joe- while of course that's very, very nice of the CS rep., the one problem I see with having her book late February weeks for you is that will preclude you from booking online at the 12 month mark. Of course, you can book by calling in, but I've found repeatedly that I have booked while the CS rep. is basically looking up my information when I've booked online while calling in. If you can utilize the late Feb. weeks that's one thing, but if you need one or more weeks for personal use while the kids are off from school, you might want to consider canceling them and trying yourself online, perhaps with multiple electronic devices so that you can be doing each week rapidly without having to go back to the selection screen. Just wanted to point that out in case you hadn't considered it, although it in no way takes away from the CS's service.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 31, 2017)

So over the weekend I had a previous client contact me about 2 weeks and a studio for March 3rd to March 17 so all my effort to get Pres week was not entirely needed and yesterday I got on the phone myself and got almost everything I needed for her using a Feb 25th to start and then trying for a Mar 3rd unit and (2) Mar 10 units. Got everything but the 2nd unit for March 10th which I was going to split for the studio. I also asked my CSR if I could then cancel the Feb 25 and she said yes so yesterday I got the 2 of the 3 March units I wanted.

So the 13 month weeks, at least for MOC, are definitely not as available as they previously have been for sure because it's one thing not to get a Pres week but then yesterday I couldn't get the 2nd March 10th even this far out. I see some obvious reasons so it could be just an aberration and I'm not complaining just sharing my outcome.  Now at 12 months I hope to get Pres weeks for remaining OV and OFs and the 2nd March 10th for the studio my client wants.


----------



## davidvel (Jan 31, 2017)

GregT said:


> A few years ago when I was trying to figure out the inventory system, Customer Advocacy told me that Marriott will "forecast" how many weeks in the coming year will be redeemed for Elected Points and for MRPs, and will only release what is left for week owner reservations -- releasing 50% at Month 13 and 50% at Month 12.  This approach made sense, and I hoped their forecasts were reasonably accurate.
> 
> If this is still the approach, which I expect that it is, and Marriott's forecasts is now based on multiple years of actual experience, then we may also being seeing the impact of more enrolled weeks being redeemed for points, which in addition to whatever is in the Trust, will limit the number of weeks released at Month 13.
> 
> ...


Greg, 
I still don't understand what "will only release" (or will hold back) means. Can you explain in the context of my post above?


----------



## grupp (Feb 11, 2017)

I just booked my March 2018 weeks a for several resorts. The 13 month inventory for Marriott Canyon Villas is already gone for the period between February 25 and March 23, 2018. There is availablility on March 23 and 24, but nothing for a Saturday check-in on the 25th.


----------

