# Call to Starwood about new system



## gmarine (Aug 31, 2009)

I recently hung up after 45 minutes on the phone with Starwood's Director of Customer relations. I explained I was going to report back to other owners via the internet. I was asked to please try out the new system before making a judgement. I explained that I had serious doubts that this will benefit owners and in my experience any "enhancement" is just the opposite but agreed to listen to the details with an open mind.

I really went into the phone call with a very negative feeling of the new system. However,the new system appears to have some positive attributes. The only negative to me is that we dont have control over the week that has been deposited. But if trading power remains high the other positives of the system may make up for this lack of control over the week deposited.

I explained to the Director that I have concerns over trading power. I was assured that trading power will remain high for all Starwood weeks. I was also told Starwood/II is also taking into account fixed high season weeks that should have more trading power. According to the person I spoke to this was addressed and trading power assigned accordingly. II and Starwood have agreed to deposit/accept a certain percentage high/low season weeks and assign the same trade power to all floating weeks within an ownership season. 

I have to admit trading power for both the lock offs and the full two bedroom units of my SBP and SDO Gold Plus units remain very high.

I was told the following about the system which is much like was described in the other thread.

 When you want to make an exchange you call Starwood and request an "assignment" for the purpose of an II exchange. This unit is good until June 30 of the second year after your usage year. For example, any assignment in 2009 expires June 30 2011. If you change your mind,this assignment (deposit) can be canceled any time during your year of usage and you can then retain your home resort usage. 

I was concerned about "Request First " exchanges and was told it would work like this.  You would make your reservation at your home resort then institute an ongoing search. If/when the search is confirmed you would have to notify Starwood that you wish to cancel the reservation so as to confirm an II exchange. Or II will get notified by Starwood that your week is not available for confirmation in which case you will get notified by II and then have the opportunity to call Starwood while your exchange is still on hold with II. If you do not get a confirmed exchange and/or cancel the request you still retain your home resort reservation.

If you are not using your home resort you do not have to make a reservation for a specific high season week to gain trading power or decide whether to split the lock off or not. You can make an exchange and the appropriate size unit will be deducted from your Starwood account based on the unit size you made the exchange with.

In some ways this reminds me of the way Worldmark works minus the points of course. 

I hate to admit it but all in all it doesnt sound bad if it works as described and if trading power remains as it should. However, I'm going to have to test it out in order to have a more informed opinion. 

Thoughts ?


----------



## barndweller (Aug 31, 2009)

You have described exactly how I have analyzed this new system. It sounds okay on the surface. I just don't want to be the one to do a test run!! I own E/ODD/Y at SDI so for me the issue won't be a problem until next year when I decide whether to use or exchange. A big question still remains as to getting the 2 bedroom exchanges for my 1 bedroom L/O as I have done in the past. I will only exchange if I can get 2 great exchanges from my SDI. The MF are high so that way I can justify even owning there. It certainly is not my favorite resort to stricly use for myself. The units are way to small and the resort, although certainly nice, is too crowded for my taste.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Aug 31, 2009)

Hi George, thanks for making this call.  

Can we get assignments two both sides of the lockoff, for searching purposes?  

So what happens if you confirm a 2 bed exchange, do you lose a 2 bedroom deposit (both sides of the lockoff)?


----------



## Captron (Aug 31, 2009)

Those of us in the know used the systems rules to our advantage by booking prime weeks to deposit and saw awesome exchanges as a result. We are a small minority doing this (note someone got a Easter SDO week this week so only a few can be doing this) .

We were told at purchase (pre Starwood for my Vistana Cascades and SBP weeks) that we can BOOK a week and deposit that week. That is how the CC&Rs are written. They cannot unilaterally change the rules on the fly. That is why documents like that exist and are on record with the county.

I cannot see how they say a SDO 1-52 wil remain strong. There are a small number of power weeks and a larger number of duds. There is a LARGE number of medium power weeks. They cannot make them all strong! I did not buy for a medium power trader. The trading power MAY be strong relative to non-hotel system weeks but NOT as strong as the power March weeks or Easter at SDO or summer at SBP. I was using the system to my advantage but was FULLY within the rules. 

I believe they will have problems with some resorts depending on the exact statements in the CC&Rs. All it will take is someone to challenge them. It appears from comments here they will have that challenge from individuals or groups. I am afraid that unless the wording is exactly the same this may have to be done on a resort by resort basis.

I am in for a fight! Count me in!


----------



## gmarine (Aug 31, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Hi George, thanks for making this call.
> 
> Can we get assignments two both sides of the lockoff, for searching purposes?
> 
> So what happens if you confirm a 2 bed exchange, do you lose a 2 bedroom deposit (both sides of the lockoff)?



Hey Cindy,

You can ask for just a one bedroom assignment if you plan on using the other side or ask for a two bedroom lock off assignment. With the two bedroom lock off assignment you only lose the portion that you exchange with. You dont have to decide ahead of time whether you want to lock off or not. 
You only lose the two bedroom portion if you use the two bedroom portion to exchange with. You can still confirm a two bedroom using a one bedroom assuming sufficient trade power.


----------



## Politico (Aug 31, 2009)

I also can't see how they make all the SDO weeks strong.  That is why the system is extremely suspect to me.


----------



## gmarine (Aug 31, 2009)

Captron said:


> Those of us in the know used the systems rules to our advantage by booking prime weeks to deposit and saw awesome exchanges as a result. We are a small minority doing this (note someone got a Easter SDO week this week so only a few can be doing this) .
> 
> We were told at purchase (pre Starwood for my Vistana Cascades and SBP weeks) that we can BOOK a week and deposit that week. That is how the CC&Rs are written. They cannot unilaterally change the rules on the fly. That is why documents like that exist and are on record with the county.
> 
> ...





As far as booking and depositing any week you want you are correct and I agree 100%. However the problem is the agreement Starwood has with II. II does not have to accept the deposits from us. 

It is possible for all the weeks within a season to be strong trading weeks. Take a look at Worldmark. WM chooses the weeks to deposit and WM trades fantastic with II even though most of the resorts have very short high demand periods.

This system may be a positive for owners. Currently my SDO 1-52 trades as good or better than before. Same with my SBP. I'm going to test it out before I condemn it.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 31, 2009)

What about instant online exchanges?


----------



## gmarine (Aug 31, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> What about instant online exchanges?



You can still do them but you have to call Starwood and let them know you are going to do an exchange and you want a unit assignment for that purpose. However, you can also do the exchange and then call Starwood afterward.

I was all set to get mad and fight and now I have to wait and see how it works.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 31, 2009)

Gary - I really appreciate you making these calls and reporting back!  

But, I'm still confused - If my 2010 week is not even _showing_ in my Acct., how can I reserve an instant online exchange FIRST and THEN call Starwood?  It looks to me like I have to call Starwood first, no matter what?  

(BTW - this is hypothetical, because I own EOY at SDO, so I don't have another use year until 2012.  I hope you guys get this all straightened out before then!  )


----------



## yumdrey (Aug 31, 2009)

However, this whole new process of starwood/II exchange is so complicated!
I don't have to call WM whenever I do exchange.
WM is working perfect, because we are NOT belong to any certain resort, ALL WM owners have SAME trading power and it's pure point system. 
How Starwood can do this as a NON-point system? We own different resort in different seasons, and owners are trying to get the best possible weeks for strongest trading power. I doubt that SVN/II would work like WM/II (or WM/RCI).


----------



## gmarine (Aug 31, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Gary - I really appreciate you making these calls and reporting back!
> 
> But, I'm still confused - If my 2010 week is not even _showing_ in my Acct., how can I reserve an instant online exchange FIRST and THEN call Starwood?  It looks to me like I have to call Starwood first, no matter what?
> 
> (BTW - this is hypothetical, because I own EOY at SDO, so I don't have another use year until 2012.  I hope you guys get this all straightened out before then!  )




According to both Starwood and II you use the 2009 "shell" that shows in your online account for any exchanges and the appropriate week will be taken from your Starwood account.

Definitely seems confusing which I did explain to the director at Starwood. She said all members should be receiving documents detailing the system.


----------



## djyamyam (Aug 31, 2009)

gmarine said:


> When you want to make an exchange you call Starwood and request an "assignment" for the purpose of an II exchange. This unit is good until June 30 of the second year after your usage year. For example, any assignment in 2009 expires June 30 2011. If you change your mind,this assignment (deposit) can be canceled any time during your year of usage and you can then retain your home resort usage.



The problem with this is you have to give up that prime reservation in order to get the assignment to search.  Under the old method, you didn't have to.  AND, if nothing turns up for what you want, depending on when you cancel the request, all the prime reservation dates are likely all gone and you're left with dogs to choose from.



> I was concerned about "Request First " exchanges and was told it would work like this.  You would make your reservation at your home resort then institute an ongoing search. If/when the search is confirmed you would have to notify Starwood that you wish to cancel the reservation so as to confirm an II exchange. Or II will get notified by Starwood that your week is not available for confirmation in which case you will get notified by II and then have the opportunity to call Starwood while your exchange is still on hold with II. If you do not get a confirmed exchange and/or cancel the request you still retain your home resort reservation.



Part of the issue for me (and maybe some others) is that I don't always know where I want to go and when I want to go.  That's why looking online or seeing "sightings" is good as it helps acts as a prompt to make a decision on when and where to go.  It's like that impulse buy.  Now I've lost that ability to "see" where I want to go.


----------



## gmarine (Aug 31, 2009)

djyamyam said:


> The problem with this is you have to give up that prime reservation in order to get the assignment to search.  Under the old method, you didn't have to.  AND, if nothing turns up for what you want, depending on when you cancel the request, all the prime reservation dates are likely all gone and you're left with dogs to choose from.
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the issue for me (and maybe some others) is that I don't always know where I want to go and when I want to go.  That's why looking online or seeing "sightings" is good as it helps acts as a prompt to make a decision on when and where to go.  It's like that impulse buy.  Now I've lost that ability to "see" where I want to go.



I was told that you can indeed keep your home resort reservation while having an ongoing search for another destination. I'm going to confirm tomorrow.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 31, 2009)

I really dislike the feeling that Starwood is taking a step backwards by forcing us to call them on trades. This was the only part of the Starwood timeshare reservation system (ie. depositing with II) which we were able to do previously online. Now it requires a combination of both online actions and a call to Starwood. No way is this designed to lower their administrative costs. 

Part of me can't understand why they would implement such a system before an online reservation system is done, unless there was a financial incentive for them to do so. Starwood must either be earning more from this change, or saving money somehow. Follow the money!

As for my 6pm update: my two SVR fix weeks are still showing correctly at II. I see one late 2010 and one mid-2011 week ready to deposit. Of course, II is claiming I need to pay for another year to deposit them, but I apparently can still do so.


----------



## Denise L (Sep 1, 2009)

Ouch, this is hurting my brain to read  . I don't have any "shell" weeks from 2009 or 2010 showing up in my account. All I can see are my previously deposited weeks.  So I can't pretend to deposit anything at all! It will only let me use my old deposits . 

I still don't understand why they have taken away our ability to search online two years out. Why the June 30 expiration? In the past, if I had deposited a week 52, 2009 unit, I would have until week 52, 2011 to search. So I could possibly find something for the Fall 2011 or December 2011. Now it sounds like I can only look until June 30, 2011? I don't see what good that is at all. We take summer vacations in July and August, and other vacations in November or December. Does this mean that I could never search for those months at two years out?


----------



## sml2181 (Sep 1, 2009)

gmarine said:


> I was told that you can indeed keep your home resort reservation while having an ongoing search for another destination. I'm going to confirm tomorrow.



I was told the same thing.
BUT - since my week is a fixed event week, I would not be able to get MY week back. I would have to cancel my owned week before searching or before placing an ongoing request. If I would cancel my searches or ongoing requests, Starwood would give me another week back. She wasn't sure what week. I asked if it would be at least my home resort and season, but she couldn't tell.


----------



## Joshadelic (Sep 1, 2009)

Denise L said:


> Ouch, this is hurting my brain to read  . I don't have any "shell" weeks from 2009 or 2010 showing up in my account. All I can see are my previously deposited weeks.  So I can't pretend to deposit anything at all! It will only let me use my old deposits .
> 
> I still don't understand why they have taken away our ability to search online two years out. Why the June 30 expiration? In the past, if I had deposited a week 52, 2009 unit, I would have until week 52, 2011 to search. So I could possibly find something for the Fall 2011 or December 2011. Now it sounds like I can only look until June 30, 2011? I don't see what good that is at all. We take summer vacations in July and August, and other vacations in November or December. Does this mean that I could never search for those months at two years out?



It's starting to look that way.  When I called, the lady in charge of not giving you the answers your're looking for told me that there is no more deposit first method and that we will be limited to searching for only 1 year.  She said "it's always been that way".  I said "no it hasn't".  She said "yes it has".  I said "No it hasn't".  And so on...


----------



## Transit (Sep 1, 2009)

My guess is what Ken said "follow the money." If Starwood is controlling the inventory prime weeks will end up as rentals for Starwood.Example :If Starwood retains unsold inventory at SBP during gold plus season they will probably rent $th of july week themselves for top dollar.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 1, 2009)

I spoke to Starwood again today to clarify if you can search more than one year out and if you can retain a reservation while doing a "request first" search. I was told no on both accounts.

I then called the Director who I previously spoke with and she is going to confirm the details and get back to me. My biggest issue is with request first and retaining a reservation. For example, I have a July reservation at SBP. I want to put in a request first search with II for the same time period at a different resort. Normally I would be able to do this and if I dont get the exchange I would still retain my home resort week. As a Starwood supervisor explained to me today I cant do that. My reservation would be canceled when starting a search. Then if I dont get the exchange I'm left trying to secure a summer reservation at SBP only a few months before which isnt going to happen.

If the call back from Starwood confirms that it works this way I cant accept it. At that point I'm going to be asking everyone who has a problem with this new system to email me and anyone willing to help gather other owners will be appreciated. Losing the ability to deposit our own reservation was a negative which I could accept if trading power remained high, which it has, and we could still do request first as before. Not being able to do a request first is the deal breaker in my opinion.

I think this was a huge mistake by the Starwood team that rolled this out with no advance notice to owners. I'll post again when I hear back from Starwood.


----------



## barndweller (Sep 1, 2009)

> I spoke to Starwood again today to clarify if you can search more than one year out and if you can retain a reservation while doing a "request first" search. I was told no on both accounts.



That was my understanding from my conversation with Starwood back when all this started. That has been my big gripe as a non-SVN owner. Starwood has ruined the system for me because I have always done my own searching online while retaining my reserved week. I often want to look out beyond 1 year and now I can't. I can still search without involving Starwood or giving up my reserved week but the limit of only 1 year is a downgrade in my II membership. Although trade power appears the same as before, I'm not able to control the exchange process as well (for ex: grabbing a 2 bedroom with a L/O unit).

I still might exchange using II but Starwood won't be getting my reserved week. I'll just have to adjust to the 1 year search mode!


----------



## Transit (Sep 1, 2009)

If Starwood controlls the II account for non-SVN units I feel they should provide the account like in SVN. I'm not going to renew my non-SVN II account under this system .I'll use or rent the units. Does II give partial use refunds?


----------



## Stefa (Sep 1, 2009)

I want to be open minded about this, but I just can't get behind a system that requires me to call Starwood.   Most Starwood employees that I have spoken to didn't seem to have a great understanding of how things worked.  Now they have made it even more complicated...

I'm not too worried about trading power.  I own SDO and was given a late fall deposit a couple of years ago that traded quite well.   I just don't like dealing with Starwood.


----------



## Denise L (Sep 1, 2009)

Transit said:


> If Starwood controlls the II account for non-SVN units I feel they should provide the account like in SVN. I'm not going to renew my non-SVN II account under this system .I'll use or rent the units. Does II give partial use refunds?



I was always told by II that I could cancel at any time and receive a pro-rated refund. This is looking good with my 5-year membership already paid for, though I would need to exchange my two existing deposits before cancelling.


----------



## barndweller (Sep 1, 2009)

I currently have nothing deposited as I got my pending request for exchange into Highlands Inn filled this morning! Yay for that. 

I have 6 different resorts in my personal account. All of them I can exchange through other companies. Since I've already spent the money extending my membership until the next century D ) everytime I added another timeshare, I think I may just keep it until my membership expires. I'll continue to use my other units to search 2 years out for possible exchanges since I can no longer do that with my Starwood units. Then I MIGHT call Starwood for an exchange. But I'll be darned if I'll give Starwood control of my unit ahead of time. No way, no how. Not without a guarantee in writing that my reserved week remains mine until I find a suitable exchange.


----------



## bogeygolf (Sep 1, 2009)

gmarine said:


> When you want to make an exchange you call Starwood and request an "assignment" for the purpose of an II exchange. This unit is good until June 30 of the second year after your usage year. For example, any assignment in 2009 expires June 30 2011. If you change your mind,this assignment (deposit) can be canceled any time during your year of usage and you can then retain your home resort usage.



Gary, when your making a request using the "assignment" method as you describe above, do you know if II will allow your on-going request for search to be beyond the 12 months?  I believe that with a request first method, your search cannot be more than 12 months.  This is what I heard from II rep.


----------



## barndweller (Sep 1, 2009)

Bogey

When using the request first method you can continue to do online searches but you are restricted to the check-out date on the unit against which you have placed the request. You cannot search a full two years out with that unit anymore. How it would work using a Starwood unit now with the new system is not certain. The June 30th date has been thrown around but I still don't understand it. June 30th of what year?


----------



## barndweller (Sep 1, 2009)

Okay, just re-read gmarine's post. It looks like a "request first" would allow you to search until June 30 of 2011 and NOT a full 2 years. That is because Starwood is only showing 2009 units in our accounts. My 2009 is no longer available but I have no way to search using 2010 unless I call Starwood to put in a request. Would my searches allow me to look until June 30, 2012?


----------



## SCMom (Sep 1, 2009)

*Guinea Pig*

I am new to Starwood and II, as I just closed on an EY SDO last week.  This whole thing blew up as I was closing!  And I bought just to trade.... But I knew there were no guarantees.  Yesterday I booked two weeks with the two sides of my 2 bedroom.  I booked a two bedroom at the Hyatt Pinon Point in Sedona for the week of October 31 with one side of SDO and a ski week, January 23rd at the Hyatt High Sierra Lodge in Tahoe with the other side.  I have a Gold Plus designation for SDO, but it seems to be seeing all the Marriott and Hyatt and other nice resorts.  I know that the Sedona is not high season, but Tahoe certainly is!  So, this is all new to me, but I was plenty happy to trade by 2 bedroom into 2 two bedrooms at those two resorts..

Emily


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 1, 2009)

Denise L said:


> I was always told by II that I could cancel at any time and receive a pro-rated refund. This is looking good with my 5-year membership already paid for, though I would need to exchange my two existing deposits before cancelling.



Maybe all of us should call II and tell them we want refunds.  I think that would shake them up a bit, and since they are going along with this decision to limit our exchange possibilities, I will consider moving everything to another exchange company.  I am selling my Foxrun weeks anyway, already sold one...two to go.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 1, 2009)

SCMom said:


> I am new to Starwood and II, as I just closed on an EY SDO last week.  This whole thing blew up as I was closing!  And I bought just to trade.... But I knew there were no guarantees.  Yesterday I booked two weeks with the two sides of my 2 bedroom.  I booked a two bedroom at the Hyatt Pinon Point in Sedona for the week of October 31 with one side of SDO and a ski week, January 23rd at the Hyatt High Sierra Lodge in Tahoe with the other side.  I have a Gold Plus designation for SDO, but it seems to be seeing all the Marriott and Hyatt and other nice resorts.  I know that the Sedona is not high season, but Tahoe certainly is!  So, this is all new to me, but I was plenty happy to trade by 2 bedroom into 2 two bedrooms at those two resorts..
> 
> Emily




 Good job Emily, nabbing that Hyatt Tahoe in January.


----------



## K2Quick (Sep 1, 2009)

SCMom said:


> I am new to Starwood and II, as I just closed on an EY SDO last week.  This whole thing blew up as I was closing!  And I bought just to trade.... But I knew there were no guarantees.  Yesterday I booked two weeks with the two sides of my 2 bedroom.  I booked a two bedroom at the Hyatt Pinon Point in Sedona for the week of October 31 with one side of SDO and a ski week, January 23rd at the Hyatt High Sierra Lodge in Tahoe with the other side.  I have a Gold Plus designation for SDO, but it seems to be seeing all the Marriott and Hyatt and other nice resorts.  I know that the Sedona is not high season, but Tahoe certainly is!  So, this is all new to me, but I was plenty happy to trade by 2 bedroom into 2 two bedrooms at those two resorts..
> 
> Emily



Based on the this and limited other sightings from guinea pigs, I'm going to keep my pitchfork in the shed for now.  As long as I can see with this new system everything that I could see before under the old system, I have no complaint.  The execution of the roll-out of the system was abysmal and questionable from an ethical perspective (has anybody gotten one of these new, tailored-for-Starwood II guides yet?), but I don't seem to have lost anything from a trading power perspective.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 1, 2009)

K2Quick said:


> Based on the this and limited other sightings from guinea pigs, I'm going to keep my pitchfork in the shed for now.  As long as I can see with this new system everything that I could see before under the old system, I have no complaint.  The execution of the roll-out of the system was abysmal and questionable from an ethical perspective (has anybody gotten one of these new, tailored-for-Starwood II guides yet?), but I don't seem to have lost anything from a trading power perspective.



When did the new tailored for *wood II guides come out? I've talked to someone at the Starwood desk in March and  .

I talked to someone last week and they were very nice. I need to make another call as I want to double check a couple of codes at a resort I've rented from in the past(many sections and I have all but 2 of the codes figured out).


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 1, 2009)

Most people will not even notice a difference, because they just know things worked before.  They trusted Starwood, allowed the company to make a deposit of a week, and they searched against that week.  

Many of the people who were unhappy, because they didn't have the trading power they desired, so they paid postcard companies to take their weeks.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 1, 2009)

I was on a conferance call with Starwood director and a supervisor today. Here's the deal. 

Currently you cannot search or confirm an exchange more than 12 months out from the current date. This really stinks. Another words you cant even search for October of 2010 using your 2010 week. According to Starwood this is something they are evaluating.
You also cannot keep a reservation at your home resort while an ongoing search is pending. If you have a reservation and then enter an ongoing search your search or your reservation has to be canceled. This to me is a huge disappointment. You can no longer use your home resort reservation as a back up if you dont receive an exchange confirmation. I asked them to reevaluate this as well.

The Starwood reps were very nice and did agree that changes need to be made and are being considered.

They are also looking for opinions from owners. The Starwood director gave me permission to give out her contact info. If you would like to share your opinion of the system and let them know you would like changes made, please send me a PM and I will give the email/phone information and/or answer any questions you have.

George


----------



## barndweller (Sep 1, 2009)

*Thank you Emily & George*

You have both cleared up my concerns and I think I now know my suspicions are indeed reality. I certainly can make the new system work for me but I am bummed about not being able to keep my reservation when putting in a request. I see no advantage to doing a deposit except to save my week for beyond the 12 months I am able to search right now without requesting or contacting Starwood. This new system certainly levels the playing field for all non-SVN owners (except fixed week owners...a whole nother issue!)

Emily, just my opinion but as an owner of 4 weeks in Sedona where we go often, your October exchange is terrific. Summer may be high demand but it is the worst season weatherwise. Monsoon season, with frequent thunderstorms and high humidity. October is awesome, perfect temps for hiking and the lower sun makes the colors more intense. The trees turn color, too. It is our favorite time in Sedona. Pinon Point is a great location right in the center of town. We had a 2 bedroom there once and enjoyed our stay. Just be prepared if you like to do any of your own meals. The kitchens are very poorly designed. But the units are very nicely appointed other than that. Very nice exchanges.


----------



## Denise L (Sep 1, 2009)

So right now, I have an old deposit that expires March 2011. I can put in a search for anything until then.  I just put in a pending request for February 2011.

With the new system, is it true then that I would not be able to search for anything beyond one year from today?! That is incredibly annoying to me and not very useful. I am often planning 18 months out, so I am already thinking about Easter 2011.



gmarine said:


> I was on a conferance call with Starwood director and a supervisor today. Here's the deal.
> 
> Currently you cannot search or confirm an exchange more than 12 months out from the current date. This really stinks. Another words you cant even search for October of 2010 using your 2010 week. According to Starwood this is something they are evaluating.
> You also cannot keep a reservation at your home resort while an ongoing search is pending. If you have a reservation and then enter an ongoing search your search or your reservation has to be canceled. This to me is a huge disappointment. You can no longer use your home resort reservation as a back up if you dont receive an exchange confirmation. I asked them to reevaluate this as well.
> ...


----------



## gmarine (Sep 1, 2009)

Denise L said:


> So right now, I have an old deposit that expires March 2011. I can put in a search for anything until then.  I just put in a pending request for February 2011.
> 
> With the new system, is it true then that I would not be able to search for anything beyond one year from today?! That is incredibly annoying to me and not very useful. I am often planning 18 months out, so I am already thinking about Easter 2011.



Incredibly annoying is a nice way to put it. But yes, you cant do anything more than one year out. And you cant have a reservation at your home resort and use that reservation for an ongoing request.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 1, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Incredibly annoying is a nice way to put it. But yes, you cant do anything more than one year out. And you cant have a reservation at your home resort and use that reservation for an ongoing request.



That's a going to be a real pain, as I usually put my ongoing searches in before 12 months.


----------



## bogeygolf (Sep 1, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Incredibly annoying is a nice way to put it. But yes, you cant do anything more than one year out. And you cant have a reservation at your home resort and use that reservation for an ongoing request.



I know many on the marriott forum that have gotten exchanges into platinum seasons with a gold season beating out other platinum season exchangers just b/c the request was put in earlier.  Not having the ability to go beyond 12 months is a hugh issue for me!


----------



## gmarine (Sep 1, 2009)

bogeygolf said:


> I know many on the marriott forum that have gotten exchanges into platinum seasons with a gold season beating out other platinum season exchangers just b/c the request was put in earlier.  Not having the ability to go beyond 12 months is a hugh issue for me!



The date a request is entered with II is only a factor in trade power if all other things are equal.


----------



## m61376 (Sep 2, 2009)

bogeygolf said:


> I know many on the marriott forum that have gotten exchanges into platinum seasons with a gold season beating out other platinum season exchangers just b/c the request was put in earlier.  Not having the ability to go beyond 12 months is a hugh issue for me!





gmarine said:


> The date a request is entered with II is only a factor in trade power if all other things are equal.



I think the real advantage isn't that there is such a boost in trade power with the earlier request, but that the request is in place before any of the units are deposited. As the first units hit II, II will match them with on-going requests. So if a Gold week is already looking for the deposited week and there isn't a stronger trading week looking for the deposited week- voila, the request made by the Gold week owner is granted.


----------



## djyamyam (Sep 4, 2009)

gmarine said:


> They are also looking for opinions from owners. The Starwood director gave me permission to give out her contact info. If you would like to share your opinion of the system and let them know you would like changes made, please send me a PM and I will give the email/phone information and/or answer any questions you have.
> 
> George



I called and left a message yesterday morning to the person gmarine provided contact information to but I have not heard back from her.


----------



## bogeygolf (Sep 4, 2009)

djyamyam said:


> I called and left a message yesterday morning to the person gmarine provided contact information to but I have not heard back from her.



I spoke to her yesterday and pretty much got the same spiel that george received.  They are considering extending the 12 month request/exchange limitation.  The other issues like unable to keep existing reservation at home resort if you want to exchange I'm not sure if they are really going to do anything about it.  She also mentioned to me that she is interested in the opinions of other owners so I think the more people call and express their feelings about this, the more consideration they will give to us tuggers.  

When I spoke with her, I did not get the feeling that many people had complained about the new process with II.   Djyamyam, she will return your call it might just take a couple of days.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 4, 2009)

bogeygolf said:


> I spoke to her yesterday and pretty much got the same spiel that george received.  They are considering extending the 12 month request/exchange limitation.  The other issues like unable to keep existing reservation at home resort if you want to exchange I'm not sure if they are really going to do anything about it.  She also mentioned to me that she is interested in the opinions of other owners so I think the more people call and express their feelings about this, the more consideration they will give to us tuggers.
> 
> When I spoke with her, I did not get the feeling that many people had complained about the new process with II.   Djyamyam, she will return your call it might just take a couple of days.




 I think the reason they arent getting many complaints is because they havent sent notifications to owners yet. If you dont follow TUG or another message board that is talking about it, then you dont know anything about it.

The new system absolutely sucks. Next week I'm contacting II to let them know I'm unhappy with the system and wont be depositing anymore Starwood weeks because of it. 

I know I've been saying I'm waiting to see what changes they make but the more I think about it, the more annoyed I'm getting with Starwood.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 8, 2009)

*Starwood follow up call*

Starwood followed up with me today and they are already working with II to change the search period in the new system from one year out to two years out. It appears Starwood is listening to us and taking action.


----------



## mlsmn (Sep 8, 2009)

i spoke to a specialist who said they are trying to figure out with II why the future years weeks went away and how to correct it.

also confirmed the SI 2 (gold plus) coding for SDO 1-52 weeks are best that's going to be.

platinum is SI 3


----------



## l2trade (Sep 8, 2009)

The original Sheraton Desert Oasis owners bought 1-52 red weeks, not seasons.  It was first come, first serve.  What legal right does Starwood have to reduce the value of our ownerships to a gold plus season?

I think the correct action is for Starwood to continue to treat non-SVN 1-52 floating weeks as they have always been.  We are exceptions to the SVN system they created and should not be treated like 2nd class Starwood citizens.  I should have the right to request the week I own on a first come, first serve basis, just like all of us always have.  I should have the right to disposition the week as I see fit.  This action by Starwood is wrong!!!  

Is it legal???  Starwood, please reverse this unilateral decision against the interests of non-SVN owners.  Communicate with us.  Give us choices.  Let us decide.  Up until today, I have always sung the praises of the Starwood and Interval International brands.  Everywhere I go, I let people know I am a big fan of timeshares.  I want to be able to continue to do so.  However, this action, if it stands, seriously devalues my ownerships.  I feel it leaves me with no choice but to stop exchanging my Sheraton Desert Oasis timeshares with II.


----------



## pacman (Sep 8, 2009)

mlsmn said:


> i spoke to a specialist who said they are trying to figure out with II why the future years weeks went away and how to correct it.
> 
> also confirmed the SI 2 (gold plus) coding for SDO 1-52 weeks are best that's going to be.
> 
> platinum is SI 3



For someone who just purchased SDO (not closed yet) strictly as a trader, I am more concerned in the decrease in trading power than the 12+ month search capability. I was really wanting to get into WKORV in either November or Feb/Mar. Now I have no idea what kind of chances I will have. Any thoughts?

pacman


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 8, 2009)

I think you have a good chance in Nov. - but if you look back through the Sightings for Feb. and Mar., you will find very few.  As we talked about over on the Sightings Board - Feb./Mar. is high season, and Starwood hangs onto those weeks for owners.  However, we have no idea  how Starwood is going to make deposits in the future.


----------



## lily28 (Sep 8, 2009)

I talked with starwood again today.  I was told there will be no more bulk deposit.  I mention that will be less availability for exchange in II for starwood timeshares which the representative agrees.  If starwood stop bulk deposit, won't be less availability in hawaii, st john and Bahamas even in slow seasons as most of those owners won't deposit their expensive ts into II?

Also, a different representative at thestarwood resolution desk told me that SI2 (for sdo wk 1-52) will trade the same in II compared to the SDO platinum (weeks 1-20 and 51-52) as II sees these week as red.  He says that there is a lower level to SI2. I am very skeptical of this claim.  Any tugger with both type of SDO ownership may want to check this claims and let the rest of us know.  thanks


----------



## l2trade (Sep 8, 2009)

you are correct to be skeptical.  it sounds as if you were being mislead to stop your complaint.  yes, SI2 will trade in the same "way" as SDO platinum.  no, it will not be "worth" anywhere near as much.

as i was told repeatedly by several folks at II today, SI2 is valued as gold weeks 22-27 & 36-49 for value purposes.  one quick look at the chart on page 156 in the 2009 II book will show you the difference in demand between that and the weeks 1-20 & 51-52.

i have a 'greatest demand week' from 2010 that i reserved and deposited just prior to the switch.  i have two remaining reservations for that same week with starwood which i had yet to deposit with II when all this happened.  i compared the results from that search with the new generic date SI2 that were recently added to my II account.  these results are DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME!  :-(


----------



## WINSLOW (Sep 10, 2009)

Talked to a SVN representative today, a contact that I got from gmarine (by the way, Thank You).  She was very nice and patient with all of my list of questions.

She said SVN has expanded the search availability to 24 months from the 12 months due to recent customer feed back.  Also was told SVN is going to have it's own II book (like Marriott's) sent out, and they are also looking into sending out information on the changes either by email or on mystarcentral.  They must be getting alot of calls.  I don't know way they didn't plan on them to begin with? 

The best Vistana Fountains is going to get is Gold Plus status, there is also Gold for the lower season. Lakes & Cascades have more/better seasons. Was told it does not go by the deeded week.  Asked her if the rankings followed the same as the StarOption Chart colors and she said yes.  So whatever color of the week you own following the StarOption chart is what you get for a trading level/power.

Also asked about bulk banking and was told not going to be done anymore.  But that should make more availability within the SVN if they are not going to II.  

Told SVN still has 3 day priority.

Asked if this effects RCI for those that are dual affiliated and was told no, that this only effects II.  So RCI is still done the same way.

Asked why this was done.  Was told it was to make it easier, more effective, fairer and more consistant for true trade power for all owners.  

Was also told No more request first, no holding a reservation to put in a search.  Either deposit or do online instant searches. (How is this better???)


I think that was about it,  Just thought I would share the info.
Crystal


----------



## gmarine (Sep 10, 2009)

I too spoke to II today. Yes, search ability is going to 24 months from 12 months. 
Today I also spoke to a person at the Arizona Dept of Real Estate. I explained what was going on. 
 I was asked if giving the week to Interval was assigning the rights of the week to Interval as you would do if you were renting the week or giving it away. My answer was yes. I was told that a managment company cannot control the rights of a deeded property. It was explained to me that with a floating week ,once the reservation is made, that is your week. You own it. 

Any agreement Starwood makes with anyone(II) to take the rights of the deeded week away would be voided if challenged by someone, IMO.

Assume you own a deeded week SDO week float 1-52 non-SVN member. You make a reservation for Easter week, which is high season. If you were able to deposit the exact week you reserved as you have the right to, you would have excellent trading power.
With the new system, you have to cancel your reservation and in return you get Gold Plus trading power within II. 

It just seems so simple. You own a deed that gives you the right make a reservation within a certain season. You can rent that week, give it away or do what you wish with it. 
Or so you thought. Starwood then comes along and says no, if you give the week to Interval, we decide what week you give them. How do they come up with this?


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 10, 2009)

> Winslow
> 
> Talked to a SVN representative today, a contact that I got from gmarine (by the way, Thank You). She was very nice and patient with all of my list of questions.



I sent an e-mail to her a week, or so ago, and also called a couple of days ago. I have not heard back from her, as of yet. 



> gmarine
> 
> It just seems so simple. You own a deed that gives you the right make a reservation within a certain season. You can rent that week, give it away or do what you wish with it.
> Or so you thought. Starwood then comes along and says no, if you give the week to Interval, we decide what week you give them. How do they come up with this?



I agree with you. I don't believe that they have the right to do so.

The original owner of my week did not purchase through Starwood. She Purchased a "Platinum week"  with the right to reserve her deeded "Platinum" week, as far in advance as 24 months.

So, If I have the right to reserve my deeded week, and it is a "Platinum" week, how can Starwood arbitrarily designate my deeded "Platinum" week "Gold Plus?"

The same exact week is being designated as "Platinum" if purchased through Starwood.


----------



## mlsmn (Sep 10, 2009)

Has anybody spoken to anybody at The Arizona Dept of Real Estate who might be willing to put in writing that Starwood can't do what they are trying to do at SDO?

If we had this we could perhaps draw Starwood's attention .


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 10, 2009)

Here is the info. to make a formal complaint against Starwood - 

Download Form 

Since Starwood is based in Florida, this is for a Florida complaint.  I don't know if it will work in this case, but maybe it would get Starwood's attention if we all filled one out and sent it in.

Thoughts?


----------



## barndweller (Sep 10, 2009)

WINSLOW said: 





> She said SVN has expanded the search availability to 24 months from the 12 months due to recent customer feed back.



Thanks for the info, Winslow. I just checked my account and I can indeed search 24 full months. I am impressed that Starwood and II responded to this complaint in a positive way. Now they need to solve the trade power issue for deeded fixed weeks.


----------



## durrod (Sep 10, 2009)

There is something still not clear to me. I have a non SVN week that I used to search and see what other Starwood units are available. The week is no longer in my II account. Does that mean there is no more instant exchanges? Or are those coming back? Its confusing when there are people who have their weeks in their accounts and others does not.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 10, 2009)

I don't believe that people have access to their 2010 weeks unless they are fixed weeks, or they have actually been deposited already...


----------



## gmarine (Sep 10, 2009)

You need to call II/Starwood and have them put the "shell" back on your My Units screen.  This is another problem that started with the new system.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 10, 2009)

Keep in mind the "shell" that they put back on your My Units screen will not be the same as before.  It will say 2009 week, even if it is 2010.  If you own red 1-52, it will show 'gold plus' season trading power, which i've been told by II is a subset range of the full year.  You will never get to put in your actual reservation week, which is bad if you had booked a platinum week.  Starwood will cancel that reservation if you do request first.  Starwood will give II a week of their choosing, not yours, after you choose to deposit or exchange.  Compared to depositing a high demand platinum reservation week, you will miss out on some of the very best exchange choices.  You will not know what II will no longer let you even see with the gold plus season.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 11, 2009)

> DeniseM
> 
> Here is the info. to make a formal complaint against Starwood -
> 
> Download Form



Thank you Denise for the info....If I don't hear back from Starwood within a couple of days, I will make a formal complaint.


----------



## Politico (Sep 11, 2009)

ArtsieAng said:


> Thank you Denise for the info....If I don't hear back from Starwood within a couple of days, I will make a formal complaint.



if you make a formal complaint, please post here, perhaps we can all crib off the same complaint and submit to reelevant state dept.


----------



## sachs1999 (Sep 11, 2009)

*rci?*

does anyone know if this will be changing with rci also for sdo which can be deposited there also.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 11, 2009)

When owners were fighting with Wyndham over the guest certificate policies, complaint letters to Florida were quickly dismissed because our deeds were not in Florida.  Complaint letters to the states where the particular timeshares were located worked somewhat.  You really need to address your complaints to the states where your timeshare is located, I guess is what I am saying.  The management company is just that, and real estate law is by the state.  

I remember that Arkansas's Attorney General was really wanting to get Wyndham, because they had so many complaints on sales issues and the like, so they listened attentively to the concerns.  Florida didn't care one bit.....and Sheraton and Wyndham offices, you can throw a rock, one to the other.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 11, 2009)

I actually had the Starwood representative tell me several times to use RCI instead if I still wanted the ability to deposit my actual reservation week...   

USE RCI INSTEAD?  What a joke!!!  I can't wait to tell II management about that one.  My uninformed guess is that Starwood isn't playing fair with them either.  II better wake up before these big chains crush them.

I've been a very happy II customer and I want to stay that way.  Yes, losing Disney choices to RCI sucked, but I can accept that.  I am not ready to accept losing my right as a non-SVN owner to the specific week I reserved and own.  Both myself and II are hurt by this.  I will fully support II in trying to get Starwood to reverse this if they ask Tug posters for help.  Otherwise, I will likely cancel my II membership if this issue is not resolved favorably in the coming year.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 11, 2009)

I hope you got the name of the Starwood employee who told you to use RCI.  A name to go with the complaint would go a long way in establishing concern on II's part.  

Think of the ramifications of this comment, probably made out of frustration by an employee, tired of hearing the same thing from owners who are angry.  

Owners are complaining, so quickly think of something to get that owner off your back.  :rofl: 

It's actually hilarious. 

We should all reserve weeks and deposit with RCI, then call II and tell II we cannot use them anymore.  :rofl: 

I might even call Starwood and complain that I cannot use the week as I want that I have on hold for next summer, and hopefully that employee will say that to me.  I would be happy to call II and tell a supervisor that my business is gone, with the advice to deposit my weeks to RCI, directly from a Starwood employee named ______.


----------



## James1975NY (Sep 11, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I hope you got the name of the Starwood employee who told you to use RCI.  A name to go with the complaint would go a long way in establishing concern on II's part.
> 
> Think of the ramifications of this comment, probably made out of frustration by an employee, tired of hearing the same thing from owners who are angry.
> 
> ...



Not sure that reporting the Starwood agent to II will help any. Nor is it fair to assume that the agent was not being helpful when the comment was made to trade with RCI. Think about it....the bottom line is that the agent was sharing where this type of transaction could be done (direct deposit vs. bulk or generic assignment). I see this as providing available solutions and would be appreciative of that. 

The "front line" employees are there to service the best way that they can and I know that they want to do their best. They do not make any of the decisions that are of concern in this forum and to throw them into the fire is just ridiculous. :annoyed:


----------



## James1975NY (Sep 11, 2009)

l2trade said:


> I actually had the Starwood representative tell me several times to use RCI instead if I still wanted the ability to deposit my actual reservation week...
> 
> USE RCI INSTEAD?  What a joke!!!  I can't wait to tell II management about that one.  My uninformed guess is that Starwood isn't playing fair with them either.  II better wake up before these big chains crush them.
> 
> I've been a very happy II customer and I want to stay that way.  Yes, losing Disney choices to RCI sucked, but I can accept that.  I am not ready to accept losing my right as a non-SVN owner to the specific week I reserved and own.  Both myself and II are hurt by this.  I will fully support II in trying to get Starwood to reverse this if they ask Tug posters for help.  Otherwise, I will likely cancel my II membership if this issue is not resolved favorably in the coming year.



I am not sure that II is going to be hurt by this. Keep in mind that the owner representation here is likely to be well under 1%. 

Why not contact Starwood and discuss this formally with the appropriate people. The fact that an agent advised you to use RCI is not the issue?


----------



## James1975NY (Sep 11, 2009)

*For your information....*



James1975NY said:


> I am not sure that II is going to be hurt by this. Keep in mind that the owner representation here is likely to be well under 1%.
> 
> Why not contact Starwood and discuss this formally with the appropriate people. The fact that an agent advised you to use RCI is not the issue?



New Starwood system complaint contact info 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main problems with the new Starwood/II system are that you currently cant search more than one year out from the current date and you cannot keep a home resort reservation while having an ongoing search against that reservation. Starwood has also taken away the right of a non-SVN owner to deposit their deeded reservation week with Interval. 

If you arent happy about the changes Starwood has made and/or about the way the system was rolled out please send me a PM and I will give you the contact information so you can let Starwood know how you feel. 

FYI, I was given permission by the Starwood director to give out this information for the purposes of owners giving Starwood their opinion of the new system.
__________________
II member since 1994
Tug member since 2001

This was posted in the Owner Sticky area by gmarine....


----------



## l2trade (Sep 11, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> I am not sure that II is going to be hurt by this. Keep in mind that the owner representation here is likely to be well under 1%.
> 
> Why not contact Starwood and discuss this formally with the appropriate people. The fact that an agent advised you to use RCI is not the issue?



I am in contact with Starwood.  I did not publish the name of the Starwood manager on this board, nor would I.  I don't blame him personally for suggesting it.  It is the new policy that is wrong.  It discourages me from doing business with II.

As non-SVN real estate deed owners, we may be a really tiny percentage of II personal accounts, but I still think we matter to II.  Up until now, I know I have deposited holiday and/or very high demand platinum weeks to them.  These are weeks that will probably now go to SVN network members or maybe even the public (via points exchange from SVN members), before ever having a chance to make it through to II.  Instead, II will get less desirable weeks from us...  that is, if we stay with II and don't rent out or jump over to RCI.  If I worked for II, I'd be concerned about Starwood agents recommending to use RCI instead, in light of the new policy complaints, which II claims is all Starwood's doing.  After all, didn't Disney jump ship from II not long back?  II's strength is also it's biggest weakness.

The real issue here is whether or not Starwood has the legal right to take away the week I own and substitute a lower value one of their choosing.  Starwood bought Sheraton Desert Oasis and my real estate deeds and contracts pre-date their seasonal program.  I bring up II because I think that II should care.  If II ends up not caring about us as customers, well then, I guess that will be their problem.  I just hope that II would want to help us.  II agents have been kind to me on the phone so far and appear to be frustrated by the new policy, just like I am.  However, if I own a good week, I will not give it up to SVN.  I will rent it out to the general public or gift it to a friend first, just on principle alone.


----------



## James1975NY (Sep 11, 2009)

l2trade said:


> I am in contact with Starwood.  I did not publish the name of the Starwood manager on this board, nor would I.  I don't blame him personally for suggesting it.  It is the new policy that is wrong.  It discourages me from doing business with II.
> 
> As non-SVN real estate deed owners, we may be a really tiny percentage of II personal accounts, but I still think we matter to II.  Up until now, I know I have deposited holiday and/or very high demand platinum weeks to them.  These are weeks that will probably now go to SVN network members or maybe even the public (via points exchange from SVN members), before ever having a chance to make it through to II.  Instead, II will get less desirable weeks from us...  that is, if we stay with II and don't rent out or jump over to RCI.  If I worked for II, I'd be concerned about Starwood agents recommending to use RCI instead, in light of the new policy complaints, which II claims is all Starwood's doing.  After all, didn't Disney jump ship from II not long back?  II's strength is also it's biggest weakness.
> 
> The real issue here is whether or not Starwood has the legal right to take away the week I own and substitute a lower value one of their choosing.  Starwood bought Sheraton Desert Oasis and my real estate deeds and contracts pre-date their seasonal program.  I bring up II because I think that II should care.  If II ends up not caring about us as customers, well then, I guess that will be their problem.  I just hope that II would want to help us.  II agents have been kind to me on the phone so far and appear to be frustrated by the new policy, just like I am.  However, if I own a good week, I will not give it up to SVN.  I will rent it out to the general public or gift it to a friend first, just on principle alone.



I completely understand the POV expressed here on this string. I am sure II does care about its members and their thoughts and I know Starwood feels the same way. Although, it may not seem this way, I can assure you that the processes that were changed with the deposits, was with the owners in mind.....at least the vast majority of owners. 

What I am trying to promote in my comments is to contact Starwood as they have requested to discuss your concern with them. To put it simply, owners on this thread want to have the opportunity to reserve a week of their choice for deposit to gain the trade value associated to that week. Good planning IMO. So focus on that, not the Starwood agent that provided an available option.

If you go to the owner's sticky area, you will see a post by gmarine that asks you to PM him for the contact information at Starwood to discuss this with them. Thats all.....not trying to devalue the main concern or goal.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 11, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> Not sure that reporting the Starwood agent to II will help any. Nor is it fair to assume that the agent was not being helpful when the comment was made to trade with RCI. Think about it....the bottom line is that the agent was sharing where this type of transaction could be done (direct deposit vs. bulk or generic assignment). I see this as providing available solutions and would be appreciative of that.
> 
> The "front line" employees are there to service the best way that they can and I know that they want to do their best. They do not make any of the decisions that are of concern in this forum and to throw them into the fire is just ridiculous. :annoyed:



The absurdity of it all is hilarious.  Think about it!  Starwood makes an arrangement with II to keep us from depositing the weeks we want, making II the bad guy, basically.  Starwood doesn't get into trouble because it's II choosing not to take the deposits.  Then Starwood employees are advising owners to deposit with RCI, to avoid this issue.  So II loses, but II is really the victim of whatever deal Starwood made!  II looks bad, and they are going to lose deposits.  

Of course, we are still a small number of owners.  So it probably doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## tomandrobin (Sep 11, 2009)

Ok....I have been reading, reading, reading these ongoing posts about the chages being made by Starwood, with II. I am trying to how this impacts me and my weeks, and so far I am drawing a blank. I don't trade a lot in II, but the times I have traded in II, I have done well. My Harborside and St John weeks will never see II, I am better direct trading or renting. WKV and WLR still gives me use of Staroptions, and all three are platinum weeks already. 

So here are some questions.....

1. Since bulk banking is going away, are Starwood weeks deposited into II just going to trickle in daily?

2. I own WKV week 8, if I deposit my week in II.....If I read this correctly, It will show my deeded week for the deposit. If this id the case, and they are going forward with using the deeded week, are we now eligible to get the bonus weeks, like Marriott owners get?


FYI - I went to II and was able to search 24 months out with my non-deposited weeks. That is a plus.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 12, 2009)

tomandrobin said:


> 1. Since bulk banking is going away, are Starwood weeks deposited into II just going to trickle in daily?



That's a big question mark - if Starwood is going to control ALL deposits from now on, why wouldn't they do bulk space banking?  That makes no sense to me...



> 2. I own WKV week 8, if I deposit my week in II.....If I read this correctly, It will show my deeded week for the deposit. If this id the case, and they are going forward with using the deeded week, are we now eligible to get the bonus weeks, like Marriott owners get?



I think that was one of the first theories, but now it appears that you will be assigned a generic trade value, based on the season that you own.  There is no indication that we will start getting AC's.


----------



## tomandrobin (Sep 12, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I think that was one of the first theories, but now it appears that you will be assigned a generic trade value, based on the season that you own.  There is no indication that we will start getting AC's.



Has anyone asked about getting them? Are we the only system not to get AC's for depositing "premium" weeks?


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 12, 2009)

I spoke with Carla Smith yesterday.....She had asked me a number of times if I tried searching with my new "Gold Plus" designation, implying that the trade power would not differ from "Platinum."

When you do an on-line search in II, you are seeing weeks that no one has an on going request for. Under those circumstances, you most likely would not be able to distinguish any difference in trade power.....A Starwood studio might very well be able to grab a 1, 2 bdrm, etc, regardless of designation. *This is not how you test trading power!*


The real test of trading power comes into play when you place a request for a particular week in II. Request will be granted based on how far in advance the request has been placed, as well as trading power.....With Starwood giving our weeks particular designations, we can expect our trading power to equal our designation, all else being equal. If you own a "Platinum" week, and have now been given a "Gold Plus" designation, your trading power should be diminished.

They are pushing a "seasonality" theory, and ignoring your right to reserve your deeded week. 

I don't believe that they will deposit your deeded week. A generic week will be deposited for you........If they were to deposit my deeded week into II, it would be given a "Platinum" designation. It falls within the time frame of "Palmetto" which if purchased by Starwood, has been given the Platinum designation.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 12, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> That's a big question mark - if Starwood is going to control ALL deposits from now on, why wouldn't they do bulk space banking?  That makes no sense to me...
> 
> 
> 
> I think that was one of the first theories, but now it appears that you will be assigned a generic trade value, based on the season that you own.  There is no indication that we will start getting AC's.




Well we've seen some of the first deposits under the new system, tiny bulk bank of studios at WKORV-N in Flexchange. And no *wood priority. 

Last minute HRA locked-off 3br unit for Labor Day weekend(flexchange again).

9/20 WKORV 2br, flexchange unit. 

So is this what we are going to get? Flexchange units.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 12, 2009)

> DeniseM said:
> 
> 
> > That's a big question mark - if Starwood is going to control ALL deposits from now on, why wouldn't they do bulk space banking?  That makes no sense to me...
> ...


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 12, 2009)

Fredm said:


> > As I understand it, deposits will be made from the resort owned, and in the season owned.  The reason they are not bulk banking is in acquiescence to the issues raised here about its unfairness. That is a plus, as far as it goes. Prior to this change, an SVN member had zero assurance that the assigned deposit represented a home resort deposit, never mind in the season owned.
> > For non-SVN owners, it is half a loaf. They do not get to deposit the week reserved, but no more grinding telephone calls about being assigned something other than what is owned. Same resort, same season.
> >
> > Sure, it is not perfect from a non-SVN owners perspective. But, nonetheless, fair on balance. It does not place total control in the hands of the owner.
> ...


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 12, 2009)

Fredm said:


> > As I understand it, deposits will be made from the resort owned, and in the season owned.  The reason they are not bulk banking is in acquiescence to the issues raised here about its unfairness. That is a plus, as far as it goes. Prior to this change, an SVN member had zero assurance that the assigned deposit represented a home resort deposit, never mind in the season owned.
> > For non-SVN owners, it is half a loaf. They do not get to deposit the week reserved, but no more grinding telephone calls about being assigned something other than what is owned. Same resort, same season.
> >
> > Sure, it is not perfect from a non-SVN owners perspective. But, nonetheless, fair on balance. It does not place total control in the hands of the owner. But, it also assigns an average value that has representative clout with I.I.
> ...


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 12, 2009)

From my vantage point, Marriott has a much better deal through II than Starwood.  I think that is what bothers me the most.  Starwood shouldn't be shutting down internal priority periods.  

This is so odd to me. I feel like II is a victim of Starwood's attempts to shut down the resale buyers who know how to work the exchange system, just to stop a few of us who figured it out.  It seems counterproductive because it will drive resale values even lower.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 12, 2009)

Fred - I agree that we don't really understand fully what's going on, yet, but that is completely Starwood's fault!  They obviously are trying to fly under the radar here, by not providing any info. to owners about a huge change!  If they really believed this was a positive change, they would be making announcements all over the place and patting themselves on the back about "surprising and delighting us"!  

It is unbelievable to me that even though Starwood's chief counsel has told non-SVN owners over and over again that they have the legal right to deposit the week of their choice with II, that now Starwood is reversing it, with no announcement?

It's just appalling...and unethical....and it says so much about Starwood's lack of loyalty to it's customers....


----------



## Captron (Sep 12, 2009)

I agree that this is probably better for the "owner base at large" but why should I/we be penalized as the minority because we have taken the time and effort to EDUCATE ourselves and use the system to our advantage WITHIN THE RULES that they have established? They are STARWOOD's rules written by them! Some of us learned them well and shared what we know with others to get best possible advantage WITHIN THE RULES as stated. Why are they changing the rules, seemingly, to stop this activity?

Pushing the rules to the limits for ones own advantage is standard procedure whether it is in sport, business, law, or life!!! (ie ever tried to get something  stated but NOT written into the formal contract? - NOT gonna happen 9.99/10 times!) For example, do I feel for the person who takes a paltry injury (or other) settlement WITHOUT even consulting a lawyer? Sure I do! Do I feel responsible? No I DO NOT!

I feel no remorse for educating myself and using every advantage I can while working within the rules! I have no responsibility for those that get into this who can not or will not educate themselves as much as they can to do likewise. In fact, I do put out effort, as we all do here, to help those that come and wish to help themselves. We, our fearless moderator and select others in particular, answer the same questions repeatedly and SHARE the advantages we have learned (often with considerable effort and time) FREELY with all who come here, member and guest alike. We DO NOT keep our learned "tricks" secret, we DO NOT, and DO NOT ENCOURAGE others to function outside the rules. We answer questions based on what we have learned and shared when people CAN NOT get straight answers to the same questions from Starwood. 

I think we all, most here more than me, have and continue to go ABOVE and BEYOND to help out other owners. We DO NOT keep things we have learned SECRET to maintain an exclusive advantage. WE SHARE THEM FREELY! The key here is that these people have to find us and ask questions and read. Not a big task! (at least after you have caught up with years of threads) I point owners and those interested in ownership to this resource ALL THE TIME! People I come across on other boards and in person.

Do I then feel any responsibility for those that DO NOT put out the effort, factually the "owner base at large"? My general approach is the I do not take ownership of other peoples problems, particularly when they result from their own action or lack of action. So the answer is NO, I DO NOT!

So do I feel I should give up advantages gained (within the rules) because it helps the "ownership at large" NO I DO NOT!!!!!! JMHO


----------



## gmarine (Sep 12, 2009)

Giving up the right to deposit your reserved week isnt good for anyone. Let Starwood take this and who knows what could be next. In some regards the point of what is happening is getting lost. Is isnt just that trade power is or isnt affected. It isnt just that our season designation has changed with II.

It is that Starwood is taking away our RIGHT to do as we wish with a DEEDED unit. Once I make that reservation, it is MINE and nobody is going to tell me what I can do with it.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 13, 2009)

Twinkstarr said:


> Fredm said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Fred, but I don't think I'm stirring the pot. Just saying this is what I have observed in II so far.
> ...


----------



## Fredm (Sep 13, 2009)

Captron said:


> I agree that this is probably better for the "owner base at large" but why should I/we be penalized as the minority because we have taken the time and effort to EDUCATE ourselves and use the system to our advantage WITHIN THE RULES that they have established? They are STARWOOD's rules written by them! Some of us learned them well and shared what we know with others to get best possible advantage WITHIN THE RULES as stated. Why are they changing the rules, seemingly, to stop this activity?
> 
> Pushing the rules to the limits for ones own advantage is standard procedure whether it is in sport, business, law, or life!!! (ie ever tried to get something  stated but NOT written into the formal contract? - NOT gonna happen 9.99/10 times!) For example, do I feel for the person who takes a paltry injury (or other) settlement WITHOUT even consulting a lawyer? Sure I do! Do I feel responsible? No I DO NOT!
> 
> ...



Captron.

I admire your forceful presentation. It would be compelling if based in fact. However, there is a huge difference between your understanding of the system, and the system itself.
You proceed from the assumption that you have educated yourself on how to maximize the system. I would not be so certain in your righteous indignation. Just because you have digested the consensus opinion does not make the consensus correct. 

To be clear, I also prefer that an owner have the ability to deposit a reserved week. I was among those who lifted the banner in support  of non-SVN owners to not be bound by SVN member rules. Indeed, it was the very basis of my early advocacy of voluntary resort ownership.  I agree that those who can game the system within the confines of the system should be able to do so.

But, this is not about my personal preference. It is all about the legitimacy of the matter. At the end of the day THAT is what will count. Not your preference, or mine (which happen to be the same). 

I, too, know a little something about how the I.I. exchange system works. My insight was not gained here. Owner rights regarding exchange are based on the affiliation agreement between I.I. and the resort manager. The agreement must, of course, conform to the legal rights of owners. They may be implemented differently from system to system, but that's another issue.

 My view of an owner rights regarding exchange deposits has remained unchanged since day one. 
I wrote an I.I. primer for Starwood owners a couple of years ago, published here on TUG. I stated then that a non-SVN owner was entitled to a deposit representing their home resort in the season owned. 
Having not abdicated their rights to another allocation system, non-SVN owners are entitled to have what they purchased represent an exchange request. 
An SVN member had no such rights. The deposit could be from any resort in any season.

Again, this is not about personal preference, but legitimacy.
Your assumption about what knowledge you have gained does not matter either. 
If those who care about the issue want to do battle with Starwood, I strongly suggest that you be armed with the facts to support what you claim. To the best of my meager knowledge, a deposit which represents the home resort in the floating season owned, is legitimate. Indeed, it is how many deposits are made elsewhere.

You state: "why should I/we be penalized as the minority because we have taken the time and effort to EDUCATE ourselves and use the system to our advantage* WITHIN THE RULES that they have established? They are STARWOOD's rules written by them!* Some of us learned them well and shared what we know with others to get best possible advantage WITHIN THE RULES as stated. Why are they changing the rules, seemingly, to stop this activity?"

Really? What rules are those, and where are they written?
See, this is precisely what I mean. You show me where these rules are written, and you have my profound apology on a silver platter.
The only written rules I know of are those pertaining to SVN members. 

Respectfully, you may well believe what you are saying because the misinformation has been repeated enough to become the consensus opinion. Consensus opinion does not make it accurate. That's not education, its perpetuating a myth.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 13, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Fred - I agree that we don't really understand fully what's going on, yet, but that is completely Starwood's fault!  They obviously are trying to fly under the radar here, by not providing any info. to owners about a huge change!  If they really believed this was a positive change, they would be making announcements all over the place and patting themselves on the back about "surprising and delighting us"!
> 
> It is unbelievable to me that even though Starwood's chief counsel has told non-SVN owners over and over again that they have the legal right to deposit the week of their choice with II, that now Starwood is reversing it, with no announcement?
> 
> It's just appalling...and unethical....and it says so much about Starwood's lack of loyalty to it's customers....



Denise, I agree with you. Starwood could have done this much better.

But, I have a theory.  An attempt to reconcile what I have observed, and an assumption about Starwood's apparent inability to speak frankly with its owner base.

So, here it goes;
It begins with the assumption that Starwood manages inventory with its best interest in mind. I believe this is the real basis for the SVN bulk deposit procedure, and its ongoing attempt to manage non-SVN owner inventory the same way. They relented, but on a reluctant exception driven basis.
This posed several problems for Starwood. One was the disproportionate overhead associated with managing by exception. A second was the heat it was taking from disenchanted owners, mainly here on TUG. Another was the potential illegality of not representing an owners value for an exchange request. To make matters yet more difficult, it created a disconnect with I.I. who was also spending its time trying to reconcile its process with the Starwood affiliation agreement. It worked fine so long as there were not many complaints which had to be referred back to Starwood for reconciliation.

Clearly, Starwood had to end the madness. And do so in a way that preserved its options in a more limited way. But, they also had to do so in a defensible manner, and consistent with a method I.I. was able to reasonably implement as fair to its underlying system of exchange values.

So, the current implementation was devised to address the above.

Why do so without detailed explanation to the owner base? Why fly under the radar?
Well, I will answer the questions with a question.
Would you bring attention to the fact that you had your hand in the cookie jar, as you were putting the lid back on?


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 13, 2009)

Fred - thanks for your response - we appreciate your expertise here! 

It seems like you have info. about II, that we don't.  What are your sources?  That might help us to understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 13, 2009)

gmarine said:


> > It is that Starwood is taking away our RIGHT to do as we wish with a DEEDED unit. Once I make that reservation, it is MINE and nobody is going to tell me what I can do with it.




Well, let me ask you a question. Before I do, I ask you to forget what you already know about the process of depositing a week with I.I.

Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?


----------



## Fredm (Sep 13, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Fred - thanks for your response - we appreciate your expertise here!
> 
> It seems like you have info. about II, that we don't.  What are your sources?  That might help us to understand where you are coming from.



Denise, I said it was a theory of mine. One that seems consistent with observations I have made.


----------



## LisaH (Sep 13, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Well, let me ask you a question. Before I do, I ask you to forget what you already know about the process of depositing a week with I.I.
> 
> Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?



That should be fine with me if one can "request first". Once a match is made, Starwood can deposit whatever week they want if II is willing to go with this. If the request is not fulfilled, I have the right to either use the reserved week myself, rent it, or even deposit with RCI.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 13, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Well, let me ask you a question. Before I do, I ask you to forget what you already know about the process of depositing a week with I.I.
> 
> Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?



If I put in a request first, I'm using a specific week for that request, agreeing to give up that specific week if my request is confirmed. 

Once my request has been confirmed, I have at that point given II my unit that was used for the exchange and am out of the equation.

At which Starwood resort do you own?


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 13, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Well, let me ask you a question. Before I do, I ask you to forget what you already know about the process of depositing a week with I.I.
> 
> Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?



I guess the question really is are these generic markers by season have the same trading power in II as an actual reserved week. Are you going to get that request filled with one of these markers?

Now the really problem as I see it are the SDO units that float 1-52 or the SBP units that float 9-47ish. Now do you think that an average over that many weeks is going to give you the same trading power as a March week at SDO or a 4th of July at SBP?


I personally think Starwood has gotten themselves into this whole situation with the SVN, non-SVN,voluntary, mandatory resorts. Didn't you once say Fred, they should just end the madness and open SVN up to whoever wants to join.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 13, 2009)

Twinkstarr said:


> I guess the question really is are these generic markers by season have the same trading power in II as an actual reserved week. Are you going to get that request filled with one of these markers?
> 
> Now the really problem as I see it are the SDO units that float 1-52 or the SBP units that float 9-47ish. Now do you think that an average over that many weeks is going to give you the same trading power as a March week at SDO or a 4th of July at SBP?
> 
> ...



Both a March week at SDO and a summer week at SBP will have more trade power than a generic "assignment" given to owners of the seasons you mention. I confirmed this with both II and Starwood. Both of those weeks are in platinum season yet the deposits will be given Gold plus trading power by II. This is part of the problem. I reserve one of these high demand weeks as I have the right to as per my deed. I then want to give this week to II and along comes Starwood to say that I cant do that. They will in turn make a deposit for me, however that deposit will have lower trade power than the unit I have made a reservation for. Essentially your being told you cant assign usage of that week to someone else. (II)

Starwood owners should not take this lightly. You never know what could be next. Imagine reserving a specific week for the purpose of renting it, only to be told Starwood has decided that owners cant rent that week because it is such high demand and can only be owner occupied. Or imagine Starwood putting this system into effect covering ALL exchange companies, even independants like SFX. 

Its not much further than what they are doing now. You can only get taken advantage of if you let it happen. I refuse to let Starwood tell me what I can do without a fight.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 13, 2009)

gmarine said:


> If I put in a request first, I'm using a specific week for that request, agreeing to give up that specific week if my request is confirmed.
> 
> Once my request has been confirmed, I have at that point given II my unit that was used for the exchange and am out of the equation.
> 
> At which Starwood resort do you own?



I do not currently own at any Starwood resort.
For that matter, I  no longer own any timeshares.
Sold the last of them about 18 months ago. That was a 2 bedroom Presidential at Pono Kai. Bought it way back when Glen Ivy was in business. 1983, I think. 26 years ago. Whew! time flies.
 Have owned a bunch in between, including WMH. 
But, being a resale broker I have more timeshare use opportunities than I can take advantage of, so can't justify paying the fees,
and the capital is happier in my pocket.

The reason I asked the question was to try and figure out what owner "rights" are being surrendered under this new implementation.
Best I can tell non-SVN owners can request first, using their reserved week to do so. They can also do what no one else can, if I understand it right. An owner can actually place a pending request with the UNHEARD OF ability to cancel it!  If this is true (and it remains to be seen) everyone should shut up before they change their mind!

If thought about, this "system" can be gamed at least a much as any other. Understanding the system is the key to optimizing its use.

Now, I recognize that a pending request will "just" be a deposit from the owners home resort in the season owned. And the value of the deposit will be a standardized value representative of the seasons exchange clout with I.I. What specifically is wrong with that?
Not hypothetically. But actually, as it translates to obtaining a successful trade? 
Best I can tell, and I have tracked a big bunch of them, is that Starwood owners with low season weeks routinely get blockbuster trades.

So, the purists who absolutely must have the ability to trade the reserved week, can do so with a request first. If unsuccessful (and it probably will bear good fruit), the owner can pull it back, convert it to a deposit first, and STILL be able to wash it out if plans change or other opportunities present themselves.
The real difference is that this can all be accomplished with one call.

I am not saying it is identical in every nuance as other timeshare systems. All branded systems have their own wrinkle. Some good, some nor so good.
But, this particular set of wrinkles has to be compared with what existed before. That was hell on wheels for those non-SVN owners trying to pry any control at all away from Starwood, and spending hours on the phone in the attempt.

So far, I am having a hard time with the rant over this.


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 13, 2009)

Other possible problems with Fredm's "theory".  I can call Starwood and reserve any available week in my float period as long as it is 12 months or less.  But as soon as I want to do any kind of search with II (request or deposit first) I need to call Starwood, they take back my reserved week and put it in their pot and assign a generic seasonal marker.  If I don't see anything I want I would have to call up Starwood a third time (or a second time if I didn't bother to reserve anything in the first place) and again take whatever is available at my resort at that time.

Second problem is even if the generic seasonal markers have good trading power there will be less Prime non mandatory Starwood properties in II because they won't choose to deposit holiday weeks and other prime weeks.


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 13, 2009)

Fred -- One of us is misunderstanding the new policy.  It's my understanding that I must *give up the reserved week when I make the request first*.  Yes, I can cancel the request first at any time, but so can any other II member -- that's always been permitted -- it's not a new benefit.  And, if I do cancel the request first, *I have to go back to Starwood and make a new reservation*.  Chances are good that my original prime week reservation will no longer be available.

Gmarine -- Can you clarify?  Do I have it right? 

If yes, Fred -- do you still think it's fair?

Oops --edited to add, I was typing at the same time as tchwa2.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 13, 2009)

Fredm said:


> I do not currently own at any Starwood resort.
> For that matter, I  no longer own any timeshares.
> Sold the last of them about 18 months ago. That was a 2 bedroom Presidential at Pono Kai. Bought it way back when Glen Ivy was in business. 1983, I think. 26 years ago. Whew! time flies.
> Have owned a bunch in between, including WMH.
> ...



Non-SVN members CANNOT use request first. You must give up your reservation BEFORE you can make a request. 

For example, I have a reservation at SBP next July. Using request first I should be able to put in a request for another destination for dates before those of my home resort reservation, while still retaining my reservation if I dont get the exchange. However, under this new system you can do that. Starwood requires your home resort reservation to be canceled at the time you enter an ongoing request.

Before this new system, Starwood gave non-SVN owners a hard time when depositing reserved weeks. It shouldnt have been that way. This system is just a back door way around for Starwood to take control of deposits. I have the ability to make a reservation for a platinum week. Why would I want to deposit platinum week to get Gold plus trading power? 

And forgetting for a minute about any trade power issues, I dont like the idea of Starwood controlling my deposit. Its my reservation, I own it. I never put up with it before, I certainly wont accept it now. 

I cant understand why any Starwood owner would put up with it or why you think its OK for Starwood to attempt to control owner deposits.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 13, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?



Yes, I would absolutely have the same complaint.  Under the scenario you describe, my "request first" using a specific week would not really be offered with integrity to II.  That would be ethically wrong and I would NOT engage in such a trading practice with II without their prior consent and knowledge.  For example, I would never rent a 'specific week' reservation to a 3rd party and allow them to be subject to the whims of Starwood canceling that reservation.  That would be dishonest if I didn't disclose it.  And, if I did disclose that Starwood could do this, then I never really would be renting or exchanging that specific week after all, now would I?  To claim otherwise or fail to properly disclose would be FRAUD.  Since II assigns trade value on a week by week by location by property basis according to greatest demand, the scenario above could never provide that value promised in offering a specific week reservation unless II was the decision maker able to keep or seek to reschedule the week reserved.  Same goes for a 3rd party I might rent to.  If Starwood could initiate a change to the reservation, that renter would be less inclined to rent it from me, thus making the transaction less valuable.  If that 3rd party had the choice to modify my reservation or keep it as-is after renting it from me, that might possibly add transactional value.

Honesty and Integrity are the key here.  I am not a cheater gaming the system.  If that were the case, I would be quick to apologize and make amends.  I am simply following rules that are well established by my real estate deeds, signed contracts and past precedents.  These well established rules are the same for all owners in my ownership class.  I believe they should continue to be so.  I read all these documents again over the weekend.  I have verbally requested legal justification from Starwood and await their response.  I am not trying to hide anything about how I choose to exercise my ownership rights.  In fact, I openly share all my trading strategies with anyone who will listen.  We are not the ones trying to hide any facts about our true intents here.  Just take the time to read the board and you can plainly see that.  Let's remember that it is Starwood that rolled out these changes in secret.

I am a law abiding and honest real estate owner who does not want to opt-in to this 'new program and new rules'.  I assert that if these rule changes are being done on behalf of Starwood, as II agents repeatedly claim to me, then my lawful property rights as a non-SVN and non-seasonal owner are being infringed upon.  Yes, it may be true that these new rules benefit some classes of SVN owners.  However, it is wrong to implement these changes in a manner that subsequently disenfranchises the rights of the class of non-SVN, 1-52 red, SDO real estate owners that I belong to.  Likewise, it would be wrong for both companies to enter into an agreement which would accomplish the same thing against my class of owners.

Excuse me, BUT I MUST DIGRESS TO SAY, I'd rather be posting about my favorite resorts and travel tips.  Up until a month ago, when I think Starwood, I remember the Westin Kierland's front desk manager who arranged a spontaneous mid-summer week Marshmallow roasting for my kids and a couple of other families who missed the regularly scheduled event night.  I remember the pride in my dad's voice as he recounted all about the wonderful trip to Westin Ka'anapali I gave him.  I remember how Marriott welcomed me on an exchange, fully knowing that I was a Sheraton Desert Oasis owner on an II exchange with no intent or need to buy Marriott.  Marriott welcomed me anyways as an equal part of their family, giving my wife and I an incredible ocean view during summer break and surprising us with a champagne gift on our anniversary.  Which gets me back on topic...  Marriott's action here kept me from feeling like a 2nd-class II exchanger.  I want my home resort, Sheraton Desert Oasis, to exceed expectations for all our guests, whether we arrive as owners, SVN members, renters, exchangers, etc...  Starwood must be willing to allow all owners the right to relinquish some of their very best week reservations to II in order to get some of the very best out of network weeks and the best guest resort ratings in return.  Already, I am looking to buy additional weeks from other timeshare companies and/or join RCI, to cover for the weeks you deny me from exchanging properly.  I'm considering renting out my platinum holiday week reservations to the general public, which otherwise were destined for II request-first transactions.

STARWOOD, PLEASE READ ALL OUR COMPLAINTS ON THESE THREADS.  We want to be loyal to your brand and remain happy customers.  If you take the time to listen, you will see we are very active in the timeshare community and well informed consumers.  We probably spend much more time and money on leisure travel than most people.  If you treat us fairly, we will be one of your greatest assets.  Forcing everyone into this new SVN program is not fair and we are unhappy about it.  Please take the time to understand all our feedback and take corrective action.  Please allow ALL NON-SVN owners to OPT-OUT of your new programs and seasons.


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 13, 2009)

l2trade --

Very well stated.  I think it's wonderful that you've asked nicely -- I'm much more inclined to ask the Attorney General to ask for me.

-- Jerseygirl


----------



## LisaH (Sep 13, 2009)

I thought fredm knew something that we don't know and was proposing something differently to the newly implemented "request first" policy. If the request is filled, then I don't care what week *wood deposit into II. If in the event that the request is not filled, I should still retain the right to my reserved week, not any other week that's left over at that time. 

With any other system traded with II, "request first" is only a condition, not a commitment. Why request first if, by simply submitting a request, you lose the week you reserve?


----------



## l2trade (Sep 13, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> l2trade --
> 
> Very well stated.  I think it's wonderful that you've asked nicely -- I'm much more inclined to ask the Attorney General to ask for me.
> 
> -- Jerseygirl



Thank you!  I have yet to personally escalate my complaint above the Starwood Resolution Services management level.  I will not give up as long as mine and other owner's legal property rights are being infringed.  I'm willing to stand 100% alongside gcmarine and all others who join him.  

Despite my frustrations, I'm willing to give Starwood a chance to reverse course and correct this mistake.  No corporation or employee is perfect.  Everyone makes mistakes.  What separates a great company from a failed company is how they respond.  Here is one legendary example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

We are just beginning to bring this matter to Starwood's attention.  It is still the weekend.  I'm just getting warmed up.  If Starwood continues to deny our ownership rights, this matter will soon have my full attention.  If Starwood gives us back our ownership rights, I will try to be one of the first on this board to compliment them for doing so.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 13, 2009)

l2trade said:


> Thank you!  I have yet to personally escalate my complaint above the Starwood Resolution Services management level.  I will not give up as long as mine and other owner's legal property rights are being infringed.  I'm willing to stand 100% alongside gcmarine and all others who join him.
> 
> Despite my frustrations, I'm willing to give Starwood a chance to reverse course and correct this mistake.  No corporation or employee is perfect.  Everyone makes mistakes.  What separates a great company from a failed company is how they respond.  Here is one legendary example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
> 
> We are just beginning to bring this matter to Starwood's attention.  It is still the weekend.  I'm just getting warmed up.  If Starwood continues to deny our ownership rights, this matter will soon have my full attention.  If Starwood gives us back our ownership rights, I will try to be one of the first on this board to compliment them for doing so.



We spoke regarding this approach on the phone and I agree 100%. I too hope Starwood changes course on this.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 13, 2009)

LisaH said:


> I thought fredm knew something that we don't know and was proposing something differently to the newly implemented "request first" policy. If the request is filled, then I don't care what week *wood deposit into II. If in the event that the request is not filled, I should still retain the right to my reserved week, not any other week that's left over at that time.
> 
> With any other system traded with II, "request first" is only a condition, not a commitment. Why request first if, by simply submitting a request, you lose the week you reserve?



Sorry, my previous response was so lengthy.  In summary, you should care.  It is not about whether every request is ultimately filled or not.  It's about keeping your personal property rights.  It is about taking control over the trade value of what you own and where you stand in line when you make that request.  

I reject the likelihood of fredm's proposal.  Calling something Christmas, does not make it so when II knows that it will really end up getting an off season travel week during 100+ degree heat in AZ.  In fact, calling something like that Christmas without our informed consent would be FRAUD, whether or not we actually end up with what we ask for in the first place.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 13, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> Fred -- One of us is misunderstanding the new policy.  It's my understanding that I must *give up the reserved week when I make the request first*.  Yes, I can cancel the request first at any time, but so can any other II member -- that's always been permitted -- it's not a new benefit.  And, if I do cancel the request first, *I have to go back to Starwood and make a new reservation*.  Chances are good that my original prime week reservation will no longer be available.
> 
> Gmarine -- Can you clarify?  Do I have it right?
> 
> ...



Jerseygirl.

Yes, one of us is misunderstanding.
This question is one I raised.  Reason being that I could not find any practical way it could be administered and enforced if other than a normal request-first.

Yes, it is how it would usually be handled.That's my point. If canceled, the week remains for the owners use. The reservation is not canceled. It is canceled if the trade is successful, and substituted with another week. But, at that point what does the owner care? It's between Starwood and I.I.

For it to be otherwise is a violation of the owners rights. Starwood can choose to substitute the week if I.I. has agreed to that protocol in its affiliation agreement. But, Starwood cannot confiscate the week if the owner terminates the request.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 13, 2009)

gmarine said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am just guessing, but  would be OK with you (meaning you would not object as a strict matter of principal) if your ownership was defined as platinum for exchange purposes?


----------



## Fredm (Sep 13, 2009)

Twinkstarr said:


> I personally think Starwood has gotten themselves into this whole situation with the SVN, non-SVN,voluntary, mandatory resorts. Didn't you once say Fred, they should just end the madness and open SVN up to whoever wants to join.



I agree with you there. Starwood has created a mess for itself.
I have said many things about Starwood's scheme.

Yes, I predicted that Starwood would eventually open SVN to all owners. I stated that they would do so for a couple of self serving reasons. Primarily money related. It will be hard for them to ignore the SVN member dues, and the enrollment fee they could impose on every resale buyer. Time will tell.


----------



## LisaH (Sep 13, 2009)

deleted...


----------



## gmarine (Sep 13, 2009)

Fredm said:


> I am just guessing, but  would be OK with you (meaning you would not object as a strict matter of principal) if your ownership was defined as platinum for exchange purposes?



You cannot enter any ongoing/pending request and still keep your home resort reservation. As soon as you make a request, any request, your home resort reservation is canceled.


The floating 1-52 units at SDO which were sold prior to Starwood managing the resort were originally designated as platinum. 
I'm not so worried about what it is called as long as trade power reflects the week deposited and I can do what I want with my reservation. 

I'm a non-SVN member. I cant trade my unit for Staroptions. If Starwood would like to treat me as an SVN member then I expect the benefits that SVN members receive. 

FYI, you also have fixed week owners being told they cannot deposit the FIXED week that they own. How does that sound?


----------



## Captron (Sep 14, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Captron.
> 
> I admire your forceful presentation. It would be compelling if based in fact. However, there is a huge difference between your understanding of the system, and the system itself.
> You proceed from the assumption that you have educated yourself on how to maximize the system. I would not be so certain in your righteous indignation. Just because you have digested the consensus opinion does not make the consensus correct.
> ...




Fred, 

First of all , I am glad that our preferences happen to be the same.

Furthermore, I never claimed to be an expert in this area. I claimed I have learned how to use the system "well". I have been doing so for in excess of 15 years and was involved with several of these properties well before Starwood. However, my definition of well and yours may differ. Perhaps you are more of a perfectionist than I am. 

You seem to proceed with the assumption that my only source of information is from consensus opinion on this site. I did not represent what my information or knowledge was in my post so I am wondering how you claim to know that it, in it's entirety, is inaccurate? In fact, the source of my information comes from many places, including here, other sites, personal experience and conversation with RCI, II and Starwood representatives including Starwood management and their in house council.

In any scientific exploration consensus opinion must be tested repeatedly to establish whether it is valid or not. That it is consensus opinion does not make it invalid. Many of the things stated here, you describe as consensus opinion have stood up to that test.

You are entirely accurate, "written", may not have been the most precise word to use, because some, not all of these things are written where I (and possibly any Starwood owner) have access to them. Even in a court of law real estate deeds, signed contracts and past precedents hold some weight. I would have difficulty believing that you are intimately familiar with all of these things for all Starwood resorts. I am guilty of making some assumptions here. This is all my opinion.  As I have pointed out, you have made several assumptions, including ones about my knowledge base and source of that information without any knowledge of either one. Your conclusions based on these assumptions are thus meaningless. To use your own terminology they would be illegitimate. 

Your lashing out with what I perceive as a personal attack based on assumptions is beneath the behavior I have come to expect from a member on what I believe to be a quality site that provides a valuable resource. I appreciate your primer and the time and effort it took to create it. I look forward to reviewing the revised edition. For this I thank you. I appreciate all who come here and constructively contribute, certainly some more than others.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 14, 2009)

Captron - Fred is a TUG member, not a moderator.  If someone is a moderator, it states it under their user name.  To be quite honest with you, I see Fred disagreeing with some of your points, but not lashing out.


----------



## Captron (Sep 14, 2009)

Thank you for the correction. edited.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 14, 2009)

Rules, what rules?.......There may not be rules, but there are rights.

The way that I'm looking at this is that Starwood is unilaterally taking away the rights of owners without any proceedings, or due process. What gives them the right to do so?

I woke up one day to find the Platinum week that I purchased was no longer Platinum. Instead, it was arbitrarily given the bogus status of Gold Plus. I was also made aware that I no longer had the right to reserve my week, and deposit it into II. If I wanted to use II, I now had to give up my Platinum week, and allow Starwood to deposit a generic week for my exchange. In addition, I could no longer use my deeded week to place a request first in II.

I am a non-SVN owner that owns a summer week at SBP. According to my deed, I have the right to reserve my deeded week 24 months in advance. It is called the "Fixed Week Preference Period."

If I were to reserve my deeded week, and deposit that week into II, I strongly believe that II would give my holiday, summer week, stronger trading power, or "Platinum" status, opposed to "Gold Plus."

Every non-SVN owner should be very concerned that Starwood feels they have the right to ignore the deeded rights of owners. I do not believe that Starwood has any such right.

Starwood has remodeled the seasons for StarOptions, and that's their right. But they do not have the right to disregard non-SVN owners rights in the process, and force us all into abiding by the StarOptions chart, and rules.

We should not be setting a president allowing Starwood to disregard the legitimate rights of owners. If we allow them to do so, where does it stop? If this current change in the system does not hurt you personally, perhaps the next one will. We should all be reserving our deeded rights.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 14, 2009)

Captron said:


> Fred,
> 
> First of all , I am glad that our preferences happen to be the same.
> 
> ...



Captron,

I apologize for having offended you. It was not my intention to do so.

I did want to dispute the rather pointed basis for the position you are taking.
Starwood is not acting contrary to their own written rules.
There are no written rules except those they reserve for their own benefit. Oftentimes at the direct expense of owners.   
The implementation is determined by the affiliation agreement with I.I. 

My only point regarding Starwood's latest exchange implementation is that it is legitimate. Not as I would like to see it, but valid and consistent with what is owned.

There is much to complain about within the Starwood system.
If  owner "rights" are the measure, then someone please explain away why a non-SVN owner must subordinate the ability to make a reservation at their home resort to SVN exchangers within 8 months of occupancy.  Yet, that's the system. 
Not many here are screaming that they own the resort, and  have a deeded right which should supersede the requests of a non-owner. 
Talk about stepping on an owners rights! THAT is a travesty in my book.
Meanwhile, some are up in arms over the deposit of a specific week in a floating ownership. The week on the deed is purely academic (except for fixed week owners). The deeded week itself provides no priority, preference, or any other distinction except that it correspond to the season purchased.  Implementation regarding use is "floating".
So, although I wish it were otherwise, the deposit of a week which corresponds to the season owned is legitimate. Not ideal for some, but not a trampling of an owners rights.

Assigning a standard demand/quality/exchange value which corresponds to what is owned is an accepted method within many timeshare systems. All point based systems do it. 
There is no real difference in a floating use system. The deed itself only represents a slice of the whole. 

You are correct in stating that there are generally accepted conventions for how this could be handled, if Starwood wished to. 
But, they don't wish to.
They are stuck in a box they painted for themselves when they created their goofy mandatory/voluntary resort designations.  

Finally, there are options for an owner who cannot live with the current scheme. Perhaps the option of last resort. Vote with your feet. This implementation is not enforceable outside of I.I. 
It may not be a better option, but if I felt the way you do I would take my business elsewhere.
Personally, I would resent having to make that choice.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 14, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Starwood is not acting contrary to their own written rules.
> There are no written rules except those they reserve for their own benefit. Oftentimes at the direct expense of owners.
> The implementation is determined by the affiliation agreement with I.I.



You state what may turn out to be Starwood's argument.  We will see.  I have yet to see an official position statement from both companies.  Just because Starwood and II modify their affiliation agreement does not mean that the new agreement is legally enforceable.  They have SVN and non-SVN classes of owners to consider.  Also, they have many additional sub classes of owners who are affected differently based on a multitude of grandfathered seasonal and non-seasonal contracts.  I would argue that these two companies cannot modify the affiliation agreement to benefit one class of owners at the negative expense of another.  As a non-SVN owner, my contracts between Sheraton Desert Oasis (now Starwood, but formerly Vistana) are separate from my agreements with Interval International.

We have real estate deeds, written contracts and past precedence to base our claims on.  There are also real estate laws in each affected state, anti-trust laws, contract laws, etc.  There is also the court of 'public opinion'.  I am hopeful that Starwood will recognize how this change infringes on the rights of non-SVN, 1-52 red, Arizona Sheraton Desert Oasis owners and change course.  I hope they will also do the same for other non-SVN properties where owner rights are being trampled by these changes.  If not, each of these affected groups will need to determine what next steps to take both separately and collectively.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 14, 2009)

gmarine said:


> You cannot enter any ongoing/pending request and still keep your home resort reservation. As soon as you make a request, any request, your home resort reservation is canceled.
> 
> 
> The floating 1-52 units at SDO which were sold prior to Starwood managing the resort were originally designated as platinum.
> ...



gmarine, 

Now we really are confusing the issue.
Let me try to be precise. Specifically about the implications of request first. We appear to understand it differently. Please forgive the pedantic approach. I am not attempting to lecture. Just trying to insure clarity of what is being said. OK?

First, let us use the standard I.I. terms to describe what we are saying to avoid misinterpreting each other. 

Exchange request methods are either Request First, or, Deposit First.

Deposit First implies a pending / ongoing search using an actual deposit into the system. Once deposited, its utility to the owner ends, except as the vehicle for the exchange. The reservation dates no longer hold any relevance to the owner. The use has been surrendered. The new Starwood implementation would deposit a week representing a standardized value from the home resort in the season owned.

Request First as a methodology only has significance because of what it implies for the owner. Specifically, the reservation date represents the owners use-week for occupancy should the desired trade not materialize on the owners terms or timetable. There is no deposit being made, unless and until the request is filled. The rest is up to I.I.

As I understand it, we interpret what Starwood does next, differently. Please correct me if I do not represent your statements accurately.

You have stated that in the event that the owners Request First trade is not successful for any reason (either the owner retracts it or I.I. cannot fill it), the owner loses the utility of the reserved week. They must go back to Starwood with a new reservation request.

I have stated that in the same circumstance, the owner keeps the reservation represented in the original request.
I have also stated that if the request is successful, Starwood would give I.I. a standardized week as the actual deposit.

We have both stated that if the owner terminates the Request First, and wishes to place a Deposit First exchange request using the same use-year, Starwood would revert to depositing its standardized value, which represents the home resort in the season owned.
This is exactly what it would have done if the original request was Deposit First.

If I have described our statements correctly thus far, one question remains. It also requires a convoluted answer, void of defensible logic, if your interpretation is correct:

If the owner loses the reservation if the Request First is not successfully consummated, why allow the specific reservation to represent it in the first place? 
I can completely understand I.I. viewing the request as a standardized value, and Starwood substituting same when it succeeds, but there is otherwise no basis for the request if the owner does not keep the reservation if the request fails.

When the issue is posed in this way, both Starwood and I.I. are at a loss to respond with a defensible answer.

So, as Yogi Berra said, "its deja vu all over again".
That is not a "system" comprised of rational rules which are self implementing. To otherwise administer it would still require management by exception. THAT is what was happening with Starwood's reluctance to deposit other than a bulk bank week for a non-SVN owner. If anything motivates these latest changes, it is to eliminate the many problems associated with exception driven inventory management. 

The issue of representing a fixed week deposit is another matter. I will be happy to discuss it separately. Suffice to say, rights should be different for fixed week ownership, depending on the definition of "fixed" within the system.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 14, 2009)

l2trade said:


> You state what may turn out to be Starwood's argument.  We will see.  I have yet to see an official position statement from both companies.  Just because Starwood and II modify their affiliation agreement does not mean that the new agreement is legally enforceable.  They have SVN and non-SVN classes of owners to consider.  Also, they have many additional sub classes of owners who are affected differently based on a multitude of grandfathered seasonal and non-seasonal contracts.  I would argue that these two companies cannot modify the affiliation agreement to benefit one class of owners at the negative expense of another.  As a non-SVN owner, my contracts between Sheraton Desert Oasis (now Starwood, but formerly Vistana) are separate from my agreements with Interval International.
> 
> We have real estate deeds, written contracts and past precedence to base our claims on.  There are also real estate laws in each affected state, anti-trust laws, contract laws, etc.  There is also the court of 'public opinion'.  I am hopeful that Starwood will recognize how this change infringes on the rights of non-SVN, 1-52 red, Arizona Sheraton Desert Oasis owners and change course.  I hope they will also do the same for other non-SVN properties where owner rights are being trampled by these changes.  If not, each of these affected groups will need to determine what next steps to take both separately and collectively.



Right you are!  We shall see.

Regarding your deed to a floating use, you are legally entitled to occupy in the season owned, and do all other things that are granted in the bundle of rights attached to the real estate, as subordinated   to the governing documents of the resort. 

Have at it.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 14, 2009)

> Fredm
> 
> Meanwhile, some are up in arms over the deposit of a specific week in a floating ownership. The week on the deed is purely academic (except for fixed week owners). The deeded week itself provides no priority, preference, or any other distinction *except that it correspond to the season purchased*. Implementation regarding use is "floating".



So, if a person has purchased a floating week within the Platinum season, according to their deed, does Starwood have the right to arbitrarily change their season from Platinum to a season of their choosing? 

Maybe next year Starwood will decide to start distinguishing seasons even further, and start designating certain weeks Platinum Plus Bonus, and others Gold minus......What's to stop them?


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 14, 2009)

Fredm said:


> There is much to complain about within the Starwood system.
> If  owner "rights" are the measure, then someone please explain away why a non-SVN owner must subordinate the ability to make a reservation at their home resort to SVN exchangers within 8 months of occupancy.  Yet, that's the system.
> Not many here are screaming that they own the resort, and  have a deeded right which should supersede the requests of a non-owner.
> 
> ...



Exactly, Fred. I think this whole new II system  is a way to keep our prime weeks in the system for SVN.  And that's what makes me   .  

I'll take my tin foil hat off now. :rofl:


----------



## Bill4728 (Sep 14, 2009)

> Request First as a methodology only has significance because of what it implies for the owner. Specifically, the reservation date represents the owners use-week for occupancy should the desired trade not materialize on the owners terms or timetable. There is no deposit being made, unless and until the request is filled. The rest is up to I.I.
> 
> As I understand it, we interpret what Starwood does next, differently. Please correct me if I do not represent your statements accurately.
> 
> ...



The problem with this is that every other TS system which trades with II does this in a different way.
-II has a generic week listed as unit owned. Then the owner puts in the details of a reservation when they want to do searches with that week. 
-This is all done without an input from the resort & in no way means that they have to give up their pending home reservation. In fact, they can do this without even having a reservation by using fake data.

With the new SVN system none of this is possible. 

This new SVN system is just like the RCI system.  You must deposit a  week before you can search with it. 

Isn't this the biggest difference between the big two TS exchange companies?? And IMHO II biggest advantage?


----------



## RoshiGuy (Sep 14, 2009)

Fredm said:


> If the owner loses the reservation if the Request First is not successfully consummated, why allow the specific reservation to represent it in the first place?
> I can completely understand I.I. viewing the request as a standardized value, and Starwood substituting same when it succeeds, but there is otherwise no basis for the request if the owner does not keep the reservation if the request fails.
> 
> When the issue is posed in this way, both Starwood and I.I. are at a loss to respond with a defensible answer.



Good point - the whole idea of "request first" falls flat on its head if you cannot keep the week reserved, should the trade not come through.

The depleted trading power of a floating 1-52 week (and I own one of these at SDO) is what it is. While I don't like it, I agree with your POV that there is nothing illegitimate about Starwood fixing an obvious loophole in the system which allowed us to buy a cheap deeded week; book prime-time and use that for a great exchange through II.

Sligthly off-topic, I just saw a TUG ad for a SDO 1-52 week (2 bedroom) being offered at $600 and this includes closing costs!


----------



## Fredm (Sep 14, 2009)

Bill4728 said:


> The problem with this is that every other TS system which trades with II does this in a different way.
> -II has a generic week listed as unit owned. Then the owner puts in the details of a reservation when they want to do searches with that week.
> -This is all done without an input from the resort & in no way means that they have to give up their pending home reservation. In fact, they can do this without even having a reservation by using fake data.
> 
> ...



Bill,

As I understand it Starwood and I.I. have agreed as to a standardized exchange value for the resort and season being deposited. A specific week will be deposited., if an exchange is requested. Likewise, an owner will be able to search using the  exchange value assigned to their resort/season, without  surrendering the reservation. They do surrender the reservation to execute the trade.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 14, 2009)

> RoshiGuy
> 
> I agree with your POV that there is nothing illegitimate about Starwood fixing an obvious loophole in the system which allowed us to buy a cheap deeded week;



When I read this comment, for some reason, the Seinfeld episode where Jerry is in the car dealership, and they have his reservation, but not the car he reserved, came to mind. He asked the girl at the desk what the point is in taking reservations, if they're not going to honor them? He tries to explain to the girl behind the desk that holding the reservation is the most important part of taking the reservation.  :rofl: 


I know that it really isn't the same scenario, but I guess this came to mind because to me the significance of having a deed is to insure that you will always be entitled to what you purchased. What is the purpose of deeding  property if it can simply be disregarded?


----------



## Fredm (Sep 14, 2009)

ArtsieAng said:


> So, if a person has purchased a floating week within the Platinum season, according to their deed, does Starwood have the right to arbitrarily change their season from Platinum to a season of their choosing?
> 
> Maybe next year Starwood will decide to start distinguishing seasons even further, and start designating certain weeks Platinum Plus Bonus, and others Gold minus......What's to stop them?



ArtsieAng,

With all due respect, you are conveniently mixing terms.
And this is the nub of the matter. 
I.I. does not, and never has, assign trade clout to the season as specified on a deed, at defined by the resort, by the developer, or anyone but themselves.
In point of fact. a Platinum Season defined as weeks 1-52 is absolutely meaningless to everyone.

It is the demand for the deposited week that matters to I.I.
SDO's definition of a 52 week Platinum season is a ruse on its owners.

Do you really believe that if you deposited SDO week 32 it carries the the same weight with I.I. as week 7?

Now, you may argue that you would reserve week 7 because you know the difference. Well, that makes my point does it not?
The name of the season is meaningless. Truly meaningless.

This implementation is an honest and accurate attempt to represent what you own for exchange purposes. Exchange is what this is all about. Not what your deed says.


----------



## RoshiGuy (Sep 14, 2009)

ArtsieAng said:


> I know that it really isn't the same scenario, but I guess this came to mind because to me the significance of having a deed is to insure that you will always be entitled to what you purchased. What the purpose of deeding  property if it can simply be disregarded?



My deed says floating 1-52 ... I have the right to reserve and use any week in the year. There is nothing that says II must give my prime Easter Week reservation at SDO must greater "trading power" because I was smart enought to learn about this through TUG.

Of course, if my "request first" trade does not come through, I'd expect to be able to use my Easter Week or maybe even rent that out. We need someone to test this through II to determine if requesting first cancels the original booking. I've used my 2010 SDO week so cannot try it out; hopefully someone else can try and post empirical evidence. 

I see no deeding property issues with this, do you?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 14, 2009)

ArtsieAng said:


> When I read this comment, for some reason, the Seinfeld episode where Jerry is in the car dealership, and they have his reservation, but not the car he reserved, came to mind. He asked the girl at the desk what the point is in taking reservations, if they're not going to honor them? He tries to explain to the girl behind the desk that holding the reservation is the most important part of taking the reservation.  :rofl:
> 
> 
> I know that it really isn't the same scenario, but I guess this came to mind because to me the significance of having a deed is to insure that you will always be entitled to what you purchased. What is the purpose of deeding  property if it can simply be disregarded?



I just bought any old week, in the season of 9-43 at SBP (own week weeks 14 and 19, week 41 is still in the process, all EOY).  I bought 1-52 SDO EOY, deeded week 24, too, so not platinum season. 

My weeks aren't in prime season, but your week(s) are (is), so your week has now been downgraded to the same level as mine.  That's not fair to you, I agree.  

I purposely bought just to trade and have no intention of attending any sales meetings to get Staroptions.  I just wanted to trade--that's it, so I didn't care.  The platinum season weeks at SDO were going for MUCH more than we paid.  Now your value has gone down, with one decision.  I would be angry.  

I am concerned at the apparent lack of a Starwood preference period in II.  I assume my Blue Ridge Village in North Carolina is going to work better for getting us an exchange at the Westins than my SBP and SDO.  Sad.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 14, 2009)

Fredm said:


> ArtsieAng,
> 
> With all due respect, you are conveniently mixing terms.
> And this is the nub of the matter.
> ...




Also with due respect, I completely disagree with your attempt to legitimize what Starwood is currently doing as honest, and, or accurate.

Those weeks were sold as Platinum weeks, rightly, or wrongly. There is no question that the individual weeks are not all equal in trading power. Nobody is disputing that fact. The question is does Starwood have the right to take it upon themselves to prevent the owners of those weeks their right to obtain a week during the peak season, and do with that week, what they choose?

Their deed says that they do, correct? So, is Starwood not in fact ignoring their deeded rights? 

BTW, you keep using SDO as your example when there are more blatant abuses from Starwood with SBP owners.

According to my deed, I have the right to reserve my deeded summer week, 24 months in advance, yet Starwood is refusing me that right


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 14, 2009)

Fred --

I usually agree with your posts but I have to disagree with you here.  I'm quite certain that ArtiesAng understands how trading power works at II better than 99% of its members.  While the semantics may be off, I agree with her position completely.  Those of us who own non-SVN float weeks bought the right to reserve and use any week within our season.  You might call it "closing a loophole," but it really boils down to Starwood changing the rules as spelled out in the CCRs.  

All owners of a particular season have a specific right to book any available week within the season and do with it whatever they wish (use it, rent it, give it to a friend, deposit it to an exchange company, or let it sit empty).  We deserve more trading power from II by reserving and depositing a prime week.  It's not a loophole -- it's how the game is played and is 100% permissable per the CCRs.

As an owner of other point-based systems, I fully understand the concept of blended trading power.  Those other systems (Hyatt comes to mind), however, were set up in such a way that the owenrs were informed of, and agreed to, the blended trading power issue upon purchase.  Non-SVN members have never agreed to such a system and Starwood and II have no legal right to foist it upon us.  

You've made a lot of lenghty posts lately and although you are always articulate, I'm still unclear on whether or not you understand the following changes:

-- They have redefined "request first" by cancelling your reservation upon making a request.  I had the right to hold a certain week and use it if my trade never came through.  I no longer have that right.  

-- A week 11 at SDO, or week 27 at SBP, is the same whether the inventory comes from the original Starwood deeds (week 1-52 at SDO, weeks 9-43, 47 at SBP) or the new SVN deeds which more narrowly define platinum.  The trading power for that week 11/week 27 should be the same regardless, but II has agreed to allow Starwood to designate one as "platinum" and one as "gold plus."  Completely unacceptable.

-- They are no longer permitting us to deposit our *FIXED* weeks.  This one is so far off base I have nothing further to say.

I couldn't care less about the reasons for these changes.  They are in no way beneficial to me and violate the rights as stated in my CCRs.

I love you Fred, but I can't for the life of me understand your position on this one.

-- Jerseygirl

PS I do agree with you as it relates to the deeded week on a floating ownership.  That has always been meaningless except as it related to the ability to reserve one's deeded week 2 years in advance, as opposed to one year in advance for all other weeks in the season.  It has no bearing on the trading power issue with II.


----------



## RoshiGuy (Sep 14, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I just bought any old week, in the season of 9-43 at SBP (own week weeks 14 and 19, week 41 is still in the process, all EOY).  I bought 1-52 SDO EOY, deeded week 24, too, so not platinum season.
> 
> My weeks aren't in prime season, but your week(s) are (is), so your week has now been downgraded to the same level as mine.  That's not fair to you, I agree.
> 
> ...



As an owner of a floating 1-52 SDO unit, I share everyone's dismay regarding the decline in trading power. However, we cannot really get steamed up about this. Bottom line is that there was no deeded right to enhance trading power by booking a Prime week. Fixed week owners are different - they should have the trade power of their fixed week.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 14, 2009)

RoshiGuy said:


> My deed says floating 1-52 ... I have the right to reserve and use any week in the year. There is nothing that says II must give my prime Easter Week reservation at SDO must greater "trading power" because I was smart enought to learn about this through TUG.
> 
> You are exactly correct.....There is nothing in your deed at all regarding II. No one is questioning that......What I am question is Starwood dictating trading power of those weeks.
> 
> ...



I do not believe that Starwood is going to allow you to use an Easter week to place a "Request First." Good luck tho, I hope that they do.


----------



## K2Quick (Sep 14, 2009)

RoshiGuy said:


> Sligthly off-topic, I just saw a TUG ad for a SDO 1-52 week (2 bedroom) being offered at $600 and this includes closing costs!



Wish that one would have been around when I was looking.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 14, 2009)

RoshiGuy said:


> As an owner of a floating 1-52 SDO unit, I share everyone's dismay regarding the decline in trading power. However, we cannot really get steamed up about this. Bottom line is that there was no deeded right to enhance trading power by booking a Prime week. Fixed week owners are different - they should have the trade power of their fixed week.



There is no deeded right to trade power. You are correct. However you have a deeded right to make a reservation at your home resort and then do as you wish with that reservation. Starwood is telling you that you cant give that week to II. 

You cannot do a request first and retain your reservation. As soon as you put in a request, your home resort reservation is canceled.  But dont get steamed up about this.  
Read through this thread and check out the details and you will understand the issue is much more than trade power.

Even fixed week trading power can and will change. But whether fixed or floating, an owner still has the right to use the unit any way they see fit.


----------



## K2Quick (Sep 14, 2009)

gmarine said:


> There is no deeded right to trade power. You are correct. However you have a deeded right to make a reservation at your home resort and then do as you wish with that reservation. Starwood is telling you that you cant give that week to II.



Below is an excerpt from the Rules and Regulations for SDO.  It clearly indicates that I can request a reservation (not some newly defined code) for use or EXCHANGE PURPOSES.

2. RESERVATIONS. An Owner who has the right to utilize an Interval Week may reserve a Unit for seven (7) nights in accordance with the following:
A. A reservation for an Interval Week may not be made more than one year (three hundred sixty five days) or less than thirty days before the first day of intended use. If an Owner owns more than one (1) Interval Week, the Owner can request consecutive use (one Unit for two weeks in a row) or concurrent use (two Units for one week) for up to 20% of the total Units available in Sheraton Desert Oasis at that time and subject to the below:
a) An Owner of a Two Bedroom Interval may:
(i) Request a reservation for a Two Bedroom Unit for use or exchange purposes; or
(ii) Request a reservation for a One Bedroom Deluxe and the other half of a Two Bedroom Unit (the “Lockoff Suite”) for two different Use Weeks. The reservations for these Units may be made on the same or different Reservation Dates. These reservations may be made for consecutive weeks; however, the Owner will have to move from one Unit Type to the other. The Owner may choose to have either or both Assigned Units participate in the exchange program.
b) An Owner of a Deluxe One Bedroom Interval or a Standard One Bedroom Interval may only request a reservation for the Unit Type they own. A Lockoff Suite will not be used to fill a reservation request of a Standard One Bedroom Interval Owner (unless that Owner agrees thereto), and a Standard One Bedroom Unit will not be used to fill a reservation request of a Two Bedroom Interval Owner for a Lockoff Suite, unless the Managing Agent otherwise determines in its sole discretion.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 14, 2009)

RoshiGuy said:


> As an owner of a floating 1-52 SDO unit, I share everyone's dismay regarding the decline in trading power. However, we cannot really get steamed up about this. Bottom line is that there was no deeded right to enhance trading power by booking a Prime week. Fixed week owners are different - they should have the trade power of their fixed week.



Yes, we have every right to get 'steamed up' about this:

1. What gives Starwood the right to take back a legitimate reservation?  It is mine.  I have the right to stay, rent or exchange that specific reservation.  I always have had that right.  I never opted-in to SVN.  I own my real estate deeded week.  

2. Floating weeks 1-52 provide first come equal access to the full range of weeks from 1-52, not the Gold Plus season (22-27 & 36-49) that is being assigned.  

3. Two of my floating 1-52 weeks are platinum weeks on the actual deed.

4. Planning in advance is not a loophole.  This is what all SDO 1-52 owners agreed to when they bought from Vistana.  If we allow Starwood to get away with changing these rules to make things 'average' or 'fair', what is next?  Will Starwood decide what weeks we can rent or not?  Plus, how do these changes benefit the SVN network at the expense of non-SVN owners?

5. Sure we can argue about endless ways to design a newer or better or fairer timeshare trading system, but that isn't what our complaints are about.  We own what we own, what we agreed to and what we signed up for.  This is about legitimate property rights, contracts and the rule of law.

These weeks were sold without any seasonal constraints placed upon them.  It is what it is.  Starwood is not giving us choices about joining into their seasonal SVN system or not.  No, they are forcing all non-SVN owners into these new rules.  The II exchange process and the details of how it works for owners played a HUGE part in the original sales presentations.  Many original owners were local AZ residents.  They directly marketed to us for the ownership rights, trading value, freedoms and choices the system allowed up until now.  What does Starwood have to say about this?  What does II have to say?  What would the AZ Dept of Real Estate or Attorney General have to say about Starwood colluding with II to devalue the originally sold units?  What would consumer advocates have to say?  What would a judge have to say?

Yes, I am giving Starwood some time to respond to our complaints and change course.  I won't wait too long.  Right now, past precedents are on our side, so these unilateral actions by Starwood will not go unchallenged.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 14, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> Fred --
> 
> QUOTE]You've made a lot of lenghty posts lately and although you are always articulate, I'm still unclear on whether or not you understand the following changes:
> 
> ...



Jerseygirl.

As always, your posts are well stated.

My posts on this thread began with the general proposition that a deposit made from ones home resort in the season owned is a legitimate method. Not one that I prefer, nor endorse.
I personally believe that an owner should be able to do what they wish with a reserved week. 
Starwood's interference with that occurs because they believe they can. My comments attempt to differentiate between what I believe they can enforce, and what they cannot.
My purpose is intended to be constructive, not contrary.

As for Starwood, well,  none of this would be topic for discussion if they would stop trying to tweak it all for their maximum advantage.
To partially quote fellow TUGGER Alan Cole " .. this reminds me of the oft-reported situation with WestGate -- nice timeshare resorts, not-so-nice timeshare company. "

Moving from the general, to the specifics you have mentioned:

Request First. I have commented at length about this. If it is implemented as you have stated, then their position is not defensible. It will have to change. They have no basis to enforce it. It defies everything about its purpose. Indeed, it is contradictory on its face. It cannot stand. Period.

Fixed weeks: I have also qualified every comment I have made stating that a home resort season deposit is excepting fixed weeks. 
This for exactly the same reason. Fixed weeks have a specific value not enjoyed by a floating season.

The biggie, however, is what is , and is not,  protected in the resort governing documents.
Obviously, I am not able to know them all individually, chapter and verse.  But, to the best of my knowledge they do not supersede a current  affiliation agreement between the exchange company and the resort manager. Indeed, all I do know of make reference to the agreement as may be amended from time to time, or some such language.
Nor does such an agreement prevent the use of the week with another exchange not covered by such an agreement. So, the owner is not limited to using the affiliated exchange. 
Now this may understandably suck eggs for many. But, if so, and I think it is, then its the wrong bone to pick.

I am all for a fight on some issues. But, not on this last issue. 
That Starwood has gone there is another nail in their coffin as far as I am concerned. But, its their coffin. Nice timeshares, not so nice timeshare company.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 14, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I just bought any old week, in the season of 9-43 at SBP (own week weeks 14 and 19, week 41 is still in the process, all EOY).  I bought 1-52 SDO EOY, deeded week 24, too, so not platinum season.
> 
> My weeks aren't in prime season, but your week(s) are (is), so your week has now been downgraded to the same level as mine.  That's not fair to you, I agree.
> 
> ...



From what I have seen, the preference period on Starwood is still in place. There have been a number of flexchange weeks showing up with no preference, but that always been the case. 

Have you seen weeks outside of flexchange showing up that were not under preference?


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 14, 2009)

> Jerseygirl
> 
> I'm quite certain that ArtiesAng understands how trading power works at II better than 99% of its members.



I'm not sure that is true, but thanks for the vote of confidence!  

In the past, Starwood's seasons were of no interest to II. It was the actual week deposited that determined your trading power. However, I believe that has now changed. I have been told by both II, and Starwood that it is now all about "seasonality." The season that your week has been designated correlates with it's trading power.


----------



## RoshiGuy (Sep 14, 2009)

gmarine said:


> You cannot do a request first and retain your reservation. As soon as you put in a request, your home resort reservation is canceled.  But dont get steamed up about this.
> Read through this thread and check out the details and you will understand the issue is much more than trade power.



Is this based on what Starwood reps have said or is this based on actual experience? Canceling a request first home resort reservation negates the whole purpose of having a request first option.

From my POV - as a SDO 1-52 owner - it is about trade power since I can:
1. Stay at SDO any week I can reserve
2. Reserve any week available and rent that out or gift it

So this leaves only the issue of what I can get in exchange for my week. And even that is being restricted with II; not other exchange companies. It appears to me (again from my POV) that the issue is trade power through II, to be specific.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 14, 2009)

> Fredm
> 
> Request First. I have commented at length about this. If it is implemented as you have stated, then their position is not defensible. It will have to change. They have no basis to enforce it. It defies everything about its purpose. Indeed, it is contradictory on its face. It cannot stand. Period.



Finally something we agree on.  .....My understanding of the new Request First is exactly what jerseygirl has stated.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 14, 2009)

RoshiGuy said:


> Is this based on what Starwood reps have said or is this based on actual experience? Canceling a request first home resort reservation negates the whole purpose of having a request first option.
> 
> From my POV - as a SDO 1-52 owner - it is about trade power since I can:
> 1. Stay at SDO any week I can reserve
> ...



It is based on both. I have spoken at length about this with a Starwood Director and Starwood specialists. You cannot place a request, any request, without canceling your home resort reservation. I then called Starwood to place a request and was told I cant keep my home resort reservation if I place a request. Yes, it defeats the whole purpose of request first.

Your apparently ok with Starwood controlling what you can do with your week. I'm not.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 14, 2009)

RoshiGuy said:


> *Is this based on what Starwood reps have said or is this based on actual experience? Canceling a request first home resort reservation negates the whole purpose of having a request first option.*From my POV - as a SDO 1-52 owner - it is about trade power since I can:
> 1. Stay at SDO any week I can reserve
> 2. Reserve any week available and rent that out or gift it
> 
> So this leaves only the issue of what I can get in exchange for my week. And even that is being restricted with II; not other exchange companies. It appears to me (again from my POV) that the issue is trade power through II, to be specific.




That is how the Starwood management has represented the new Request First.


----------



## RoshiGuy (Sep 14, 2009)

gmarine said:


> It is based on both. I have spoken at length about this with a Starwood Director and Starwood specialists. You cannot place a request, any request, without canceling your home resort reservation. I then called Starwood to place a request and was told I cant keep my home resort reservation if I place a request. Yes, it defeats the whole purpose of request first.
> 
> Your apparently ok with Starwood controlling what you can do with your week. I'm not.



OK - now I'm steamed up that my request first home reservation will be canceled.  This defies any logical explanation by Starwood.
My next usage year at SDO is 2011 so I need to make a reservation in March - hopefully by then they'll realize that this new policy makes no sense.

OTOH, I cannot get steamed up about losing some trading power through II. It was a gift for the short time I had it. Based on what others have reported here, my SDO unit should still be a decent trader.


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 14, 2009)

ArtsieAng said:


> In the past, Starwood's seasons were of no interest to II. It was the actual week deposited that determined your trading power. However, I believe that has now changed. I have been told by both II, and Starwood that it is now all about "seasonality." The season that your week has been designated correlates with it's trading power.



I believe this is accurate and represents the "blending trading power" approach.  I know Hyatt does it this way -- I simply search with or deposit a specific number of points, and those points are worth X to II.  I've been told that Hyatt periodically "balances the books" with II ... which I believe is evident based on the occasional bulk bankings that appear in II's inventory.  I believe Disney deposits worked this way as well when they were affiliated with II.  

I have no problem with this approach for my Hyatt ownership as it was designed this way and made very clear from the start.  Starwood, on the other hand, purchased an existing system and has since attempted to bastardize it to its every advantage.  They had the right to develop the SVN and it's been very profitable for them, but they don't have the right to disregard deeded rights for non-members.  Starwood is once again trying to "have their cake and eat it too" by forcing points-related SVN policies on non-points based, non-SVN members.  They can't have it both ways.  We can say that they should "stop the madness" and allow everyone into the network, but anecdotal evidence on TUG suggests that there are many who would not opt in.  It's my belief that those who do not agree to the terms and provisions of SVN membership cannot be forced to comply with this new policy so they're going to be stuck with running two systems whether they like it or not.  

Fred's comments above suggest that these policies may be governed by the exchange company affiliation agreement.  I don't believe that to be the case for non-SVN members.  Yes, II could refuse to accept membership from non-SVN members, but I don't believe the affiliation agreement can change the terms of the CCRs, which give us specific rights to specific weeks.  As long as II is willing to accept non-SVN owners as members, they must also be willing to play by the original rules.  

Does anyone still have the link to the Broadway Plantation CCRs?  I'd like to find the relevant language and contact both Susan Worth and the GC for II.  Has anyone attempted to obtain a written legal justification from either party?


----------



## LisaH (Sep 14, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> They can't have it both ways. We can say that they should "stop the madness" and allow everyone into the network, but anecdotal evidence on TUG suggests that there are many who would not opt in.



You are so right. I, for one, did not buy SDO so I may get into SVN. Won't consider even it's allowed to...


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 14, 2009)

ArtsieAng said:


> From what I have seen, the preference period on Starwood is still in place. There have been a number of flexchange weeks showing up with no preference, but that always been the case.
> 
> Have you seen weeks outside of flexchange showing up that were not under preference?



http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106239

There was no preference period for this one........just a few days ago.  I am very concerned about it.  

My Blue Ridge Village has a higher quality rating with II than SBP.  I am wondering if I can get a Westin resort with an ongoing search.


----------



## LisaH (Sep 15, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106239
> 
> There was no preference period for this one........just a few days ago.  I am very concerned about it.
> 
> My Blue Ridge Village has a higher quality rating with II than SBP.  I am wondering if I can get a Westin resort with an ongoing search.



That's still within 60 days flexchange period, which is always the case from what I understand...


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 15, 2009)

That's right, flexchange is 60 days and not 45.  But I noticed that Marriott still had priority even at 14 days out, when Bill posted that a Newport Coast for this month was only available with a Marriott.  

It seems to me that Marriott has a better "deal" than Starwood.  Could be orchestrated entirely by Starwood to stop the great exchanges with resale weeks.


----------



## m61376 (Sep 15, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> That's right, flexchange is 60 days and not 45.  But I noticed that Marriott still had priority even at 14 days out, when Bill posted that a Newport Coast for this month was only available with a Marriott.
> 
> It seems to me that Marriott has a better "deal" than Starwood.  Could be orchestrated entirely by Starwood to stop the great exchanges with resale weeks.



Marriott always has an internal preference in II, ranging from 24 days to as few as 3 days later in Flexchange.

As a Marriott owner, I find this thread very interesting- and upsetting. There has been a similar discussion as to what Marriott can (and cannot) legally do wrt developing a potential points based internal trading system and it appears, to me at least, that Starwood has taken a giant step outside the legal boundaries of owner's deeded rights.

While I understand that Starwood has the right to change its contractual arrangements with II, it does not have the right to change the purchased rights of its owners. Thus, while the previously enjoyed ability to retain one's reservation with a request first may unfortunately be within Starwood and II's purview to alter, the ability to retain one's usage rights, which includes the ability to exchange the week reserved, seems to violate the terms of the purchase agreement with Starwood (owner's deeded rights). 

It makes one wonder if Starwood considered whether a legal challenge would hold up, or if they just assumed either owners wouldn't really notice or be disgruntled enough to pursue it.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 15, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106239
> 
> There was no preference period for this one........just a few days ago.  I am very concerned about it.
> 
> My Blue Ridge Village has a higher quality rating with II than SBP.  I am wondering if I can get a Westin resort with an ongoing search.



 There are a few that I posted today with no preference in WPV & KAN, that are outside of the flexchange period. 

In the past, Starwood's preference period was only 3 days. More recently it had gone to anywhere from 2-3 weeks. They are not being consistent with their preference period, at this point. Going back to II to see what else is around.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 15, 2009)

> m61376
> 
> Marriott always has an internal preference in II, ranging from 24 days to as few as 3 days later in Flexchange.



Yup, Marriott's preference period has always been consistent, and is a great perk for all Marriott owners.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 15, 2009)

> RoshiGuy
> 
> OTOH, I cannot get steamed up about losing some trading power through II. It was a gift for the short time I had it. *Based on what others have reported here, my SDO unit should still be a decent trader. *



I think it's too soon to have any real feel for how decent a trader your weeks will be......Most of the reports are currently being based on what is being seen doing an on-line search. Realize, the weeks that we see when doing on-line searches are weeks that II does not have any existing requests to fill.  It takes much less trading power to see those weeks, then it will to get higher demand weeks, and weeks with ongoing/request first, requests in place. 

Once we start to get feedback from people with on-going searches or request first searches,  we'll have a better idea of what the trading power is going to be for these weeks.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 15, 2009)

ArtsieAng said:


> Finally something we agree on.  .....My understanding of the new Request First is exactly what jerseygirl has stated.



It would be truly mind boggling if this is how Starwood intends it to work. So much so, I just can't believe it. Why retain the option at all if this is true? The outcome would be identical in every way to a deposit first request under the new system. 
In fact, it would be an outright insult to try this. It is calling owners stupid.

Neither Starwood nor I.I. have a defensible leg to stand on, if true.
Also, I.I. has to know this. It would place such a blemish on the exchange process as to invite its members to cancel. 

For these reasons I can't believe it. If I am wrong I will cancel my I.I. membership in a New York minute.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 15, 2009)

> K2Quick said:
> 
> 
> > Below is an excerpt from the Rules and Regulations for SDO.  It clearly indicates that I can request a reservation (not some newly defined code) *for use or EXCHANGE PURPOSES.*
> ...


----------



## gmarine (Sep 15, 2009)

Fredm said:


> It would be truly mind boggling if this is how Starwood intends it to work. So much so, I just can't believe it. Why retain the option at all if this is true? The outcome would be identical in every way to a deposit first request under the new system.
> In fact, it would be an outright insult to try this. It is calling owners stupid.
> 
> Neither Starwood nor I.I. have a defensible leg to stand on, if true.
> ...




You cannot retain a home resort reservation while having a pending request. Any request. There really is no request first anymore. You have to give up your reservation at the time the request is made. 

Are you on the phone with II canceling yet?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 15, 2009)

I just emailed II, telling them that our Sheratons are going to other exchange companies.  We own enough to make someone wince a little, perhaps.  Otherwise, there will be no effect.  

I would say that 50 such emails would make a difference, so I am wondering if any of the rest of you are thinking of sending something simple, just a statement of fact: your weeks are going elsewhere, and you know your options. My email:

My understanding is that I can no longer deposit my Sheraton Broadway Plantation and Sheraton Desert Oasis weeks (all three are 2 bedrooms in high season) that I have reserved with Starwood.  This will prevent me from exchanging these weeks through II from now on.  I will use RCI, Trading Places Maui or Hawaiian Timeshare Exchange for all of them.

I also noticed the lack of a preference period on the Westin Hawaii weeks that are currently in your system.  Unfortunately for us, we no longer have a preference over anyone with a white week, even after 60 days, for the paltry few studios in the system today.  There is no reason to stay with Interval International, as far as I can see.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 15, 2009)

gmarine said:


> You cannot retain a home resort reservation while having a pending request. Any request. There really is no request first anymore. You have to give up your reservation at the time the request is made.
> 
> Are you on the phone with II canceling yet?



Yes, I was on the phone with I.I. to cancel, if they confirmed.
I was transferred to the  I.I. Starwood desk. 
I was told 3 times that request first remains, and I can keep my reservation if the request is not completed.  

Now, I know I.I. does not have any say in what happens to a reservation made with Starwood once it is no longer in play with I. I., but, they were unequivocal about the request first, and stated convincingly that the entire purpose of Request First is the retention of the reservation. So, I.I. is not prepared to violate its procedures. 

It seems to me that this is not as cut and dry as is being portrayed. At the least it is not yet settled.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 15, 2009)

Wouldn't it be nice if Starwood and II could get there stories straight?  This is ridiculous!


----------



## tschwa2 (Sep 15, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Yes, I was on the phone with I.I. to cancel, if they confirmed.
> I was transferred to the  I.I. Starwood desk.
> I was told 3 times that request first remains, and I can keep my reservation if the request is not completed.



I don't have an II account (was going to set up one before this mess began now I'm waiting to see) but I do have a 9-43 SBP EOY and have been keeping close tabs.  

The way I understand it the Request First isn't identical to the Deposit First because if you don't find anything you still have the ability to make a week's reservation at your home resort during your float season. Deposit First- its gone.  But in order to initiate a Request First Search you have to call Starwood for them to set up the generic resort seasonal marker in your II account.  My understanding is that in order to do that they would cancel your current reservation which could be made again later if the search is canceled.  

II and II Starwood agents seem to be saying many things that don't all agree.  Who knows who is being given correct information and nothing is in writing.  I wish someone would just initiate a New Request First search so we would all know rather than speculating, but since inventory and priority seem screwey right now I don't blame anyone for not.  But even that wouldn't prove anything because Starwood could later say that it was a fluke or an exception. 
 

Tracey


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 15, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if Starwood and II could get there stories straight?  This is ridiculous!



I don't think they've actually have a straight story yet. It's like they are sending up trial balloons. First one to get shot down was the ongoing search for only 12 months out.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 15, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if Starwood and II could get there stories straight?  This is ridiculous!



Yes, it is ridiculous.
But, I am reading the words being used by gmarine, and others.
gmarine continues to say, for example, "You cannot retain a home resort reservation while having a _*pending request.  *_"

Then goes on to say there is no more request first.

Look, "Request First", and "pending request" cannot be used together. 

I agree that an owner surrenders the reservation when placing a pending request. " Pending Request"  is a condition associated with Deposit First only. 

I have tried to be precise in my use of terms during this communication, but it is not working.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 15, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Yes, I was on the phone with I.I. to cancel, if they confirmed.
> I was transferred to the  I.I. Starwood desk.
> I was told 3 times that request first remains, and I can keep my reservation if the request is not completed.
> 
> ...



It isnt II that controls the reservation. It is Starwood. When you enter an ongoing request, II is going to contact Starwood to confirm that your unit is available to exchange. If you have a current home resort reservation, you must cancel it to retain your request. 

This was confirmed by a Starwood Director and two different Starwood specialists, as well as the regular Starwood owner services reps. The II reps you spoke to are assuming it works the way it should.

I wish it wasnt this way. But this is the way it currently works. I will gladly provide you with contact to a Starwood director or specialist if you would like to call yourself.

BTW, since you previously stated you no longer own any timeshares, why do you care what the exchange procedure is relating to Starwood? And since you say you still belong to II, why would you cancel your II membership based on exchanging when you dont even own a timeshare?


----------



## gmarine (Sep 15, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Yes, it is ridiculous.
> But, I am reading the words being used by gmarine, and others.
> gmarine continues to say, for example, "You cannot retain a home resort reservation while having a _*pending request.  *_"
> 
> ...



Of course they can be used together. If I place an exchange request, whether using "Request First" or "Deposit First", I have a pending request. Using either type of exchange request, it is shown in an II account as a "pending request".  

I dont know how I can be more clear. YOU CANT RETAIN A HOME RESORT RESERVATION WHILE HAVING ANY EXCHANGE REQUEST ACTIVE. AGAIN, I WILL GLADLY GIVE YOU THE STARWOOD CONTACT FOR YOU TO CALL YOURSELF.

I'm really getting curious as to your motives in defending Starwood since you dont own a Starwood resort or any timeshare, for that matter.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 15, 2009)

Fred works in the TS industry - I think he is just trying to follow TUG Rules by being discrete about it.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 15, 2009)

> gmarine said:
> 
> 
> > It isnt II that controls the reservation. It is Starwood. When you enter an *ongoing request*, II is going to contact Starwood to confirm that your unit is available to exchange. If you have a current home resort reservation, you must cancel it to retain your request.
> ...



A couple of questions there. 
First, I care about Starwood exchange procedures because I am an information junkie when it pertains to my business. I am resale broker that specializes in Starwood and Marriott VO.
Although I don't know everything, and am occasionally dated on information I do know, my goal is perfect product knowledge.

I do not currently own any timeshares. I have already told you why.
However, timeshares go in and out of my company name from time to time.
I also take advantage of other I.I. member benefits, most often Getaways.
Despite the obvious advantages to me personally of maintaining a membership, I do take actions and voice opinions  that are not always in my best interest. I'm funny that way. Makes me feel like a better human being for acting on principal.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 15, 2009)

Fred,

If I have a home resort reservation for July 2010 and I then put in a "request first" for a different resort for June 2010, I have a "pending request"/"ongoing request". If you feel that those terms only apply to "deposit first", well thats up to you. However, II feels differently and calls every request "pending" until confirmed or canceled. The point here is getting lost on arguing over terminology.

Back to my "request first". I have a home resort reservation for July 2010. I want to put in a "request first" using that reservation, intending to use that reservation if I dont get confirmed. That would be the logical way "request first" would work. I place the request and if it doesnt come through, I retain my home resort usage.

Well Starwood has thrown a wrinkle into the process. In order to make this request I have to agree to cancel my home resort reservation .

This effectively makes "request first " useless, right? Not according to Starwood. According to them, you still retain your usage of that week and then are free to make a home resort reservation. So if you dont get your request confirmed you are left to make a home resort reservation for whatever is left.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 15, 2009)

Although this has been discussed at length, I figured that I too might as well spell out what I was told by Starwood, regarding the "Request First" procedure.

If I want to place a "Request First" request with II, I need to call Starwood, and they will use a generic week to place the request for me. 

If I had reserved a week, let's just say week 25 at SBP for my own use, and then decided that I wanted to place a "Request First" in II, I must give my week 25 back to Starwood in exchange for a generic week that will be used to place the request.

If I do not receive my request from II, and/or decide that I no longer want to keep my request in place, I need to cancel my request, call back Starwood, and request another week. In other words, I am back to square one. There is simply no point in using the "Request First" option......Now, time has passed, and it is unlikely that week 25 will still be available. I will be forced to pick a week from whatever is then available from Starwood.

I know this sounds crazy........Because it truly is! However, that is what I was told, on more than one occasion, by Starwood.

PS....If anyone who has actually spoken to a Starwood rep has been given different info on this, please tell us what you have been told. Thanks!


----------



## Fredm (Sep 15, 2009)

> I'm really getting curious as to your motives in defending Starwood since you dont own a Starwood resort or any timeshare, for that matter.



gmarine, does this sound like I am defending Starwood?

*"That Starwood has gone there is another nail in their coffin as far as I am concerned. But, its their coffin. Nice timeshares, not so nice timeshare company."*


----------



## RoshiGuy (Sep 15, 2009)

gmarine said:


> This effectively makes "request first " useless, right? Not according to Starwood. According to them, you still retain your usage of that week and then are free to make a home resort reservation. So if you dont get your request confirmed you are left to make a home resort reservation for whatever is left.



This new Starwood policy will definitely get a lot of people steamed up since they have apparently eliminated the request first trade option. I think I'll head over to HGVC which has a simpler points system where resale owners are treated much better.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 15, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Well Starwood has thrown a wrinkle into the process. In order to make this request I have to agree to cancel my home resort reservation .


And, now another problem I see in my II account, this time with 'Search First'...

It appears that I cannot really do that since I own multiple lockoff units.  Right now, II shows many placeholders for 2009 weeks.  They ALL look exactly the same.  I cannot tell which is which.  In actuality, I've used all my 2009 weeks and only have some 2010 weeks left.  In future years, this can get even more confusing to manage, especially if I start staying at, renting or exchanging with other companies too.  Starwood and II both said I must use the 2009 placeholders to do search first for my 2010 week.  2009 for 2010, really? 

I've already said plenty about trading power issues between weeks.  Hey, what about trading power issue between YEARS?  How does II know I'm not offering to give them a 2009 flexchange or something that is just 3 months from now?  Is II reducing my results, just in case?  I certainly see fewer instant exchange results for my full 2 bedroom search, than I do for my 2010 week that I deposited right before all these changes.

How does II know that I am really searching to give up a 2010 use year?  

How will Starwood know which ownership year I was intending when II asks them for it?

How will Starwood & II know which ownership contract week I was intending to give up?  Will they just decide for me?  What if they take from the wrong contract (for example, a unit I might be in the process of selling?)?

What if they cancel the wrong reservation because I didn't get an opportunity to tell them which one to use?  

At this point, there is no shortage of legitimate questions I have.  The continued lack of written, detailed explanations from Starwood is outrageous.  Starwood is denying me fair usage of my 2010 weeks, while the clock keeps ticking and the value of planning early (more choices) is lost.  This new program is not what I signed up, agreed to and am paying for!


----------



## Fredm (Sep 15, 2009)

gmarine said:


> > Well Starwood has thrown a wrinkle into the process. In order to make this request I have to agree to cancel my home resort reservation .
> >
> > This effectively makes "request first " useless, right? Not according to Starwood. According to them, you still retain your usage of that week and then are free to make a home resort reservation. So if you dont get your request confirmed you are left to make a home resort reservation for whatever is left.



That makes "request first" a joke. And Starwood may well be trying to shove it down its owners throat. 

I have stated elsewhere in this thread:
"Request First. I have commented at length about this. If it is implemented as you have stated, then their position is not defensible. It will have to change. They have no basis to enforce it. It defies everything about its purpose. Indeed, it is contradictory on its face. It cannot stand. Period."

Further, as it relates to this issue, I have said:
"For it to be otherwise is a violation of the owners rights. Starwood can choose to substitute the week if I.I. has agreed to that protocol in its affiliation agreement. But, Starwood cannot confiscate the week if the owner terminates the request."

I have also reported my conversation with the I.I. Starwood desk.
They do not recognize what Starwood is doing as a valid representation of its request first process. I.I. can only finesse that subject so far, without being called on it. I.I insists that a Starwood owner can "Deposit First" and all that implies in their system.

So, as previously stated, if Starwood persists it cannot stand.
I believe that it will not stand. It may take a few turns of the screw before it is made right, but it must be made right.

Starwood VO may not care about what its owners think. Owners are a captive audience, so to speak. Indeed, their system structure demonstrates a certain disregard for its owners. But, that is an organizational problem. VO management is too disconnected from the hospitality company. 
Corporate management cares. They must. The synergy otherwise disappears. That  hurts the bottom line of their hotels, and soils the brand.

I.I. also has a stake in the outcome. If for no other reason than they cannot afford to be perceived as another RCI.
Never mind the loss of thousands of members who will walk if not remedied. Believe me, I.I. gets it.

Put it all together, and they will cave on this issue.
If they do not , its ripe for a class action. They likely know that as well.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 15, 2009)

Calling II and/or Starwood each time I want to do a search is not a good answer.  I login to II at least once per day.  Does II really want me to call them daily just to 'look around'?  No, I don't think so.  I also do many different types of searches and criteria when I am logged in.  That takes time.  That is why online exchanges are cheaper.  They don't need to pay a call center representative for every minute I am just window shopping or browsing around.  The less I need to call someone, the better for everyone.

Prior to this, I call Starwood only once each time I make a reservation.  Then, I do EVERYTHING ELSE online.  

Starwood / II - Look at how much time all of us are spending writing on this TUG board about this.  We have the time.  Some of us are perpetually on vacation.  Do you really want us calling you all the time?  I hope not.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 15, 2009)

> Fredm
> 
> Starwood can choose to substitute the week if I.I. has agreed to that protocol in its affiliation agreement. *But, Starwood cannot confiscate the week if the owner terminates the request*."



OK, now* I think *I see where the misunderstanding is here.......I do not believe that Starwood will automatically confiscate the generic week that was used to place the request. In all likelihood, you can keep that week, if you so choose.

The problem is that the generic week is not the week that I had reserved for use, and I don't really want that week.

I reserved week 25, but Starwood took back my week 25 and replaced it with a generic week. Even if they will allow me to keep *the actual week used for the request*, who cares? It's not really the week that I wanted to reserve.

I'm not sure if you were thinking that we could not keep the generic week if we choose to do so, or not.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 15, 2009)

ArtsieAng said:


> OK, now* I think *I see where the misunderstanding is here.......I do not believe that Starwood will automatically confiscate the generic week that was used to place the request. In all likelihood, you can keep that week, if you so choose.
> 
> The problem is that the generic week is not the week that I had reserved for use, and I don't really want that week.
> 
> ...



I was saying just the opposite. They should not be able to cancel the reserved week.


----------



## pacman (Sep 15, 2009)

RoshiGuy said:


> I think I'll head over to HGVC which has a simpler points system where resale owners are treated much better.



From someone closely following this whole Starwood mess and who just purchased at SDO, for trading only, and from a current HGVC owner, yes, HGVC is much simpler and I have had zero problems getting into Hawaii.  The only problem with HGVC is the limited locations. I purchased Starwood to specifically trade into Maui and Kauai (through II). Now I wonder if I've mad e a mistake.

pacman


----------



## ArtsieAng (Sep 15, 2009)

Fredm said:


> I was saying just the opposite. They should not be able to cancel the reserved week.



Oh, OK, just checking.


----------



## Robert D (Sep 16, 2009)

*Deposits within 45 Days of Check-In / Late in Year*

I scanned this thread and didn't see this subject addressed but talked to a Starwood specialist at II today about any restrictions and trading power impact of depositing a week close to check in date or since there really isn't a specific check in date under the new system, late in the year. In other words, I asked if there would be any restrictions in depositing a 2009 week in November or December (previously such deposits would have flexchange restrictions and its trading power would be diminished) and he said that under the new system as long as you deposited your week before it expired at the close of business 12/31/09 that you would have the same trading power as if you deposited the week on January 1, 2009 and you would not be restricted to reserving a week during flexchange period (i.e. within 60 days of check in). He said that the trading power would be the average trading power of a week within your floating season.  This applies to a floating week and not fixed weeks.

Has anyone heard this? If this is in fact the case, seems like this would be a big benefit of the new system, especially if you bought a TS late in the year where that year's week had not been used or if your plans changed on using your week late in the year and you couldn't use it. Under the old system the week you deposited would have greatly diminished trading power and the week you got in return would be restricted to flexchange period.


----------



## gregb (Sep 16, 2009)

*Interval World Mag.*

I just received the latest Internal World magazine today.  It has several *wood specific pages in it.  Seems to me it would have been a great place for *wood and II to explain the new deposit process/rules.  But no, there is nothing I can find about them in the latest issue.  So when do you suppose they plan to tell their customers/users what the new exchange process/rules are?  Not until they publish the annual resort guide?

Greg


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 16, 2009)

I want to clarify my earlier comments regarding Hyatt Vacation club and II.  Although Hyatt owners are assigned a "blended trading power" by virtue of the points system, we can hold on to our home resort reservation while a true "Request First" is pending.  I found the following language in the "Rules and Regulations" document:

(7) A Club Member who requests an external exchange pursuant to the
External Exchange Program is not required to enter the Club Use Period (Float) and relinquish the Member’s Home Resort Preference Period (Float) rights unless and until the requested external exchange is confirmed.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 16, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> I want to clarify my earlier comments regarding Hyatt Vacation club and II.  Although Hyatt owners are assigned a "blended trading power" by virtue of the points system, we can hold on to our home resort reservation while a true "Request First" is pending.  I found the following language in the "Rules and Regulations" document:
> 
> (7) A Club Member who requests an external exchange pursuant to the
> External Exchange Program is not required to enter the Club Use Period (Float) and relinquish the Member’s Home Resort Preference Period (Float) rights unless and until the requested external exchange is confirmed.



How it should be.


----------



## Politico (Sep 16, 2009)

*No Official Communication from Starwood Re: Changes to Exchange Deposit Procedure*

I have been in correspondence with Starwood regarding their deplorable lack of communication regarding the recent and significant changes to the II deposit procedure.  Please see Starwood's most recent message to me confirming that they will not be officially communicating the change to owners. How terrible is that?!?!!?  


Thank you for contacting Sheraton Vacation Ownership. 

We sincerely apologize for any continued inconvenience or confusion this may be causing you. The new Interval International (II) methodology works the same as the Request First option that has always been offered by II. When you contact Owner Services to request your assignment, your ownership account is "flagged" for this use method. At the time your assignment is created you will be provided with your Resort Assignment Code as well as the expiration date for your ownership week. We are pleased to inform you that your Request First Assignment can be canceled anytime before the end of the use year that was assigned so you can still use your week through Starwood Vacation Ownership (SVO). In the past, deposit first requests were final transactions. 

Your Resort Assignment Code was created by II and will ensure that you receive the true trading power for your ownership week. This is beneficial to you since you will receive your true trading power for your ownership week regardless of when you request your assignment. With the old deposit first method, chances were high that you would receive a lesser season when you requested your deposit late in the year. You will also receive a confirmation from SVO that your week has been placed in a Request First Assignment with II. This confirmation was not provided by SVO with the old deposit first method. 

Your expiration date for your ownership week will always be on June 30 two years later, regardless of when you request your assignment. For example, if you elect to place your 2010 ownership week in an II Request First Assignment, you will have until June 30, 2012 to use this week through II. 

Once your assignment has been created and you have your Resort Assignment Code, you will be able to contact II immediately to submit your search criteria. This is also beneficial to you since you had to wait 24-48 hours with the old deposit first method before you could contact II with your reservation request. Please note that you will not see an actual week posted to your II account when you submit your request and you will be required to prepay your transaction fee to II to initiate your search. 

After your search criteria has been submitted to II, this will change your assignment status from "Request First Assignment" to "Request First Pending" in our systems. Your Request First Pending may still be canceled prior to the end of the assigned use year after verifying with II that your search has not been confirmed. This is done while you are speaking with an Owner Services agent through email, Live Chat on StarCentral, or over the telephone. 

When II confirms your request this will change the status of your week from Request First Pending to Request First Confirmed. Your II assignment cannot be canceled at this time. You will be required to use your week through II from this point forward should you elect to cancel your existing II reservation. 

*At this time we will not be sending an official communication to our owners outlining the new process since we anticipate a seamless transition for our owners, although you will be reaping the benefits of the new methodology. We encourage you to contact Owner Services toll free at the telephone number listed below if you have additional inquiries about this new process.*


----------



## RoshiGuy (Sep 16, 2009)

Politico said:


> The new Interval International (II) methodology works the same as the Request First option that has always been offered by II.



According to this we should still "keep" the home resort reservation ... we don't lose it? But that is different from what others here have been told.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Sep 16, 2009)

Politico said:


> I have been in correspondence with Starwood regarding their deplorable lack of communication regarding the recent and significant changes to the II deposit procedure.  Please see Starwood's most recent message to me confirming that they will not be officially communicating the change to owners. How terrible is that?!?!!?
> 
> 
> Thank you for contacting Sheraton Vacation Ownership.
> ...



It's not going to show up in our online account? We have to call II to intiate a search and pay the extra for doing it by phone? Errrr


----------



## alexadeparis (Sep 16, 2009)

gregb said:


> I just received the latest Internal World magazine today.  It has several *wood specific pages in it.  Seems to me it would have been a great place for *wood and II to explain the new deposit process/rules.  But no, there is nothing I can find about them in the latest issue.  So when do you suppose they plan to tell their customers/users what the new exchange process/rules are?  Not until they publish the annual resort guide?
> 
> Greg



I got the same mag and the funny part to me was that they have removed my Starwoods from my II account, and all that's left on my II account is a non Starwood - so am I the only one having this problem, that the Starwoods have disappeared from the II list of units? Right now I hate both Starwood and II! Grr!


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Sep 16, 2009)

alexadeparis said:


> I got the same mag and the funny part to me was that they have removed my Starwoods from my II account, and all that's left on my II account is a non Starwood - so am I the only one having this problem, that the Starwoods have disappeared from the II list of units? Right now I hate both Starwood and II! Grr!



You need to call II and ask them to put the week back in your account.  During this change, they took our weeks out completely.  

I haven't done that yet, and we have three supposed weeks in their system.  Now it just shows my two deposited weeks and nothing for the future use.  

The preference period for Starwood appears to be completely gone.  We have lost all benefits related to our weeks.  My Starwood weeks have the same trading power as any of my generic weeks.  It's very disconcerting.


----------



## Denise L (Sep 16, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> You need to call II and ask them to put the week back in your account.  During this change, they took our weeks out completely.
> 
> I haven't done that yet, and we have three supposed weeks in their system.  Now it just shows my two deposited weeks and nothing for the future use.
> 
> The preference period for Starwood appears to be completely gone.  We have lost all benefits related to our weeks.  My Starwood weeks have the same trading power as any of my generic weeks.  It's very disconcerting.



I did call II a few weeks back, since I have the same problem with only my previously deposited weeks showing up. After almost two weeks, nothing has changed and my undeposited weeks/list of resorts I paid to have in II are still missing  .


----------



## RLG (Sep 17, 2009)

Robert D said:


> In other words, I asked if there would be any restrictions in depositing a 2009 week in November or December and he said that under the new system as long as you deposited your week before it expired at the close of business 12/31/09 that you would have the same trading power as if you deposited the week on January 1, 2009 and you would not be restricted to reserving a week during flexchange period (i.e. within 60 days of check in).



It always has worked that way.  I don't know why so many people don't know about this.  I learned about it on TUG.  In the past, I have made several deposits in December and gotten full credit for them.

I have never bothered to try to pick my own week to deposit since I have found that the flexibility to wait to the last minute is more valuable.  I hope they aren't changing that.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 17, 2009)

RLG said:


> It always has worked that way.  I don't know why so many people don't know about this.  I learned about it on TUG.  In the past, I have made several deposits in December and gotten full credit for them.
> 
> I have never bothered to try to pick my own week to deposit since I have found that the flexibility to wait to the last minute is more valuable.  I hope they aren't changing that.



Actually there are two broad types of owners, SVN and non-SVN.  So far, many complaints come from non-SVN regarding loss of ownership rights.  Many of us have contracts which pre-date the creation of seasons and StarOption values for those seasons.  We were sold on a program that told us to plan ahead, plan early  and plan for anytime that is still available.  We make our desired reservation.  We feel we should have the right to retain control over our choice to stay at, gift/rent out or exchange that specific reservation as we see fit.  This is what we've always been required to do under our contract.  We are being forced into new rules without being given the choice to opt-in or not.  The new rules benefit SVN owners at the expense of non-SVN.  Plus, we are not entitled to any of the other numerous trading benefits that the SVN program has to offer.  We don't agree with the lower StarOptions valuation for the older platinum 1-52 red weeks being setup as gold plus across the board when the actual reservation week in a given year or the actual deeded week may in fact be platinum.


----------



## RLG (Sep 17, 2009)

l2trade:

I thought it was clear that my comment "it has always worked that way" applied ONLY to the text I quoted about making last minute deposits.  In other words, the ability to get full credit for a last minute deposit isn't new.

I didn't express any opinion about the many things that are changing, so I'm not sure why your comments were addressed to me.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 17, 2009)

RLG said:


> l2trade:
> I thought it was clear that my comment "it has always worked that way" applied ONLY to the text I quoted about making last minute deposits.  In other words, the ability to get full credit for a last minute deposit isn't new.
> 
> I didn't express any opinion about the many things that are changing, so I'm not sure why your comments were addressed to me.



I apologize if I misread or misunderstood your comment.  If late deposit benefit has always been available for non-SVN too, you can count me in as one of those folks who did not know Starwood always allowed that.  I plan so early that I never have anything left for last minute, nor do I care to.  I do not want to sacrifice control of my non-SVN reservation for the benefit of space banked weeks in SVN.  If previous Starwood rules allowed a loophole for non-SVN owners to do this, again I did not know about it.  I am a newbie to TUG and message boards in general.  I've always gone by what I read on my deeds, contracts and II book.  

My unhappiness about this program is really directed towards II & Starwood.  I'm sorry if my quoted reply style made it sound otherwise.  So, directed at them, not you:  I believe all owners, both SVN and non-SVN, should have the right to agree or disagree with any of my opinions.  However, Starwood should not be able to force these new rules on non-SVN owners.  Non-SVN owners should be given a choice whether they want to opt-in to the new rules or continue to follow the reservation rights of their home resort.  I choose the latter.


----------



## Politico (Sep 17, 2009)

*How does the story end?*

I'm having a hard time figuring out how this all ends.  We have been waiting to see how all of these changes shake out on the assumption that Starwood and II would lay out the grand plan to us.  Based on the communication I received above, it looks like this will never happen.  Although Starwood will give us some very generic platitudes about this great new system with "exciting" benefits, we will not be told how it actually works and, specifically, how specific weeks will be valued in this system versus the old.  (That's really the only way each owner can determine whether the new system is an enhancement for them personally).  So, how does this all end?


----------



## Fredm (Sep 17, 2009)

*An Open Letter to Starwood VO*

Thank you for committing Starwood's new I.I. deposit methodology to writing. 

For reference, my comments refer to your written explanation, as copied verbatim, below. As any written communication can inadvertently be misinterpreted, please correct any failing on my part to understand your intended meaning. 

I am sure you will agree that clarity is the objective of any communication. Unfortunately, I am confused by what appear to be contradictions. Perhaps the terms employed are the culprit. I hope so. For it to be otherwise, raises double-talk to a higher art form.

I was initially encouraged by the opening remark, "The new Interval International (II) methodology works the same as the Request First option _*that has always been offered by II.*_ "

Of course, every timeshare owner with an I.I. account understands how I.I. implements its Request First policy. Indeed, the I.I. Starwood desk concurs that the single purpose of Request First is to enable an owner to retain their home resort reservation in the event the requested trade is not consummated for any reason.

However, Starwood's written explanation of its new implementation
ascribes an entirely different definition to "Request First". 
What is particularly disturbing, is the casual comparison to its advantages over the "old "Deposit First" methodology, without making any reference to altering the meaning of "Request First".

Indeed, Starwood has taken the unilateral liberty of substituting the heretofore classic definition of Deposit First, with its own definition of "Request First". 

The described potential benefits of the new implementation may indeed be an improvement over the old Deposit First for some. But, that is what can be said. What it remains to be is a  Deposit First in its procedure and process modified to the Starwood system, irrespective of what name is applied. In point of function, the entire purpose of Request First has been subverted. Simply, if the written explanation is to be taken literally, one cannot retain an initially made home resort reservation if the request is not successful for any reason. 

To offer an explanation that describes the advantages of a newly defined request first over a defunct Deposit First, without mention of  the fact that the commonly understood functionality of RF has been eliminated, appears to be intentionally misleading.
Further, one cannot help but conclude that by taking the unprecedented step of usurping a term in common use for 25 years by millions of timeshare owners, it is an intentional play on words 
crafted with care. That is the common definition of double-talk.

Please advise if my understanding is incorrect. As already stated, I hope so. In that event, I respectfully suggest that a clearer communication be released to describe the new I.I. exchange request methodology.

Sincerely,
Fredm.

"Thank you for contacting Sheraton Vacation Ownership.

We sincerely apologize for any continued inconvenience or confusion this may be causing you. The new Interval International (II) methodology works the same as the Request First option that has always been offered by II. When you contact Owner Services to request your assignment, your ownership account is "flagged" for this use method. At the time your assignment is created you will be provided with your Resort Assignment Code as well as the expiration date for your ownership week. We are pleased to inform you that your Request First Assignment can be canceled anytime before the end of the use year that was assigned so you can still use your week through Starwood Vacation Ownership (SVO). In the past, deposit first requests were final transactions.

Your Resort Assignment Code was created by II and will ensure that you receive the true trading power for your ownership week. This is beneficial to you since you will receive your true trading power for your ownership week regardless of when you request your assignment. With the old deposit first method, chances were high that you would receive a lesser season when you requested your deposit late in the year. You will also receive a confirmation from SVO that your week has been placed in a Request First Assignment with II. This confirmation was not provided by SVO with the old deposit first method.

Your expiration date for your ownership week will always be on June 30 two years later, regardless of when you request your assignment. For example, if you elect to place your 2010 ownership week in an II Request First Assignment, you will have until June 30, 2012 to use this week through II.

Once your assignment has been created and you have your Resort Assignment Code, you will be able to contact II immediately to submit your search criteria. This is also beneficial to you since you had to wait 24-48 hours with the old deposit first method before you could contact II with your reservation request. Please note that you will not see an actual week posted to your II account when you submit your request and you will be required to prepay your transaction fee to II to initiate your search.

After your search criteria has been submitted to II, this will change your assignment status from "Request First Assignment" to "Request First Pending" in our systems. Your Request First Pending may still be canceled prior to the end of the assigned use year after verifying with II that your search has not been confirmed. This is done while you are speaking with an Owner Services agent through email, Live Chat on StarCentral, or over the telephone.

When II confirms your request this will change the status of your week from Request First Pending to Request First Confirmed. Your II assignment cannot be canceled at this time. You will be required to use your week through II from this point forward should you elect to cancel your existing II reservation.

At this time we will not be sending an official communication to our owners outlining the new process since we anticipate a seamless transition for our owners, although you will be reaping the benefits of the new methodology. We encourage you to contact Owner Services toll free at the telephone number listed below if you have additional inquiries about this new process."


----------



## gmarine (Sep 17, 2009)

Same exact generic response as post #182.


----------



## RoshiGuy (Sep 17, 2009)

I didn't see anything in the written communication that says the reserved home resort week will be canceled upon initiation of the request first option.

This is a simple question that ought to get a clear written response from Starwood.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 17, 2009)

RoshiGuy said:


> I didn't see anything in the written communication that says the reserved home resort week will be canceled upon initiation of the request first option.
> 
> This is a simple question that ought to get a clear written response from Starwood.



It is a simple question. It should get a simple answer. 
Instead, the answer is shrouded in double-talk, anchored in an entirely fabricated definition of "Request First", which mirrors the procedure of Deposit First. Just called something else.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 17, 2009)

Fredm said:


> It is a simple question. It should get a simple answer.
> Instead, the answer is shrouded in double-talk, anchored in an entirely fabricated definition of "Request First", which mirrors the procedure of Deposit First. Just called something else.


I agree.  This is all double-talk.  We can't get straight, reliable answers to simple questions.

We deserve the legal 'fine print' of how exactly this works.  Shame on Starwood for not providing it, in detail, in writing.  What other company would do something like?  So many companies I do business with mail full consumer disclosure anytime they make even minor modifications to anything.  I shouldn't have to do this much research or think about hiring an attorney just to get the 'fine print' of what rules Starwood is or is not going to follow.

Another day goes by where I still cannot 'request first' with my confirmed 2010 week reservations...


----------



## jw0 (Sep 17, 2009)

*what's on mystarcentral.*

I thought I'd throw this fact into the mix.

When I look on mystarcentral on "how to use your ownership" for external exchange for my HRA week (which is in SVN), I find the following explanation -

Quote:

The Starwood Vacation NetworkSM program is affiliated with Interval International® as your External Exchange provider. Interval International adds an astounding number of additional domestic and international destinations–more than 2,200—to your already impressive collection of options available through the Starwood Vacation Network program. Your annual Starwood Vacation Network membership dues automatically include your membership in Interval International.

You can relinquish your week and receive a resort assignment to request an exchange for a vacation ownership resort affiliated with Interval International. Your resort assignment will provide you the trading power of your Home Resort, Villa type, and season your purchased.  For a complete Interval International affiliate resort listing, please refer to your Interval International Resort Directory. 

Starwood Vacation Network members receive an added benefit of the Request First method of exchange with Interval International. That means if you have assigned your week to Interval International and have not confirmed an exchange, you can cancel your pending Request First exchange with Interval International and contact Owner Services to use Starwood Vacation Ownership to arrange your travel plans.  If you receive a confirmed vacation from Interval International and later cancel it, you may not be able to request reinstatement of your Use Rights with Starwood Vacation Ownership. For a complete explanation of your re-booking benefits, contact Owner Services.

Re-booking with Starwood Vacation Ownership is based on availability. You must reinstate your Use Rights at your Home Resort or through the Starwood Vacation Network program during the Use Year being reinstated. Fixed, Ultra Premium or Event Use Rights are reinstated as a Floating Week and not for the specific Fixed, Ultra Premium, or Event Week purchased.

End quote.

I find the last paragraph most telling.  Even the fixed week owners, when using a "request first", lose their week.  I'm not sure how that's "request"ing first - more like "relinquish first"!

I know this is just re-iterating what others have discovered in their communications with Starwood.  I just wanted to point out it's now on mystarcentral.

Even more interestingly, if I look on the "how to use my ownership" for my SBP unit, I get a different explanation of how "request first" works.

-John.


----------



## K2Quick (Sep 17, 2009)

johnwoo00 said:


> Even more interestingly, if I look on the "how to use my ownership" for my SBP unit, I get a different explanation of how "request first" works.



That is weird, my SDO week for Request First reads as below:

Begin Quote:
Use the Request First method when you want to retain your week until you receive exchange confirmation.

This method is recommended when:

    * You specifically want to travel back to your Home Resort.

    * You are a Fixed, Event Week or Ultra Premium owner and you want the assurance of your Home Resort week if your exchange request is not confirmed.

How to use Request First

Step 1. Contact Owner Services.

Step 2. Request a "Request First" Exchange
Owner Services places your initial external exchange request.

You must request a like or smaller villa than what you are surrendering, and a minimum of 1 resort choice with 3 sets of dates, or 2 resort choices with 2 sets of dates, or 3 resort choices with 1 set of dates. You can request a combination of up to 64 resorts or check-in dates.

    * You may request an II exchange without relinquishing use rights at your Home Resort.

    * Fixed, Event, and Ultra-Premium Owners maintain access to their week until a match is confirmed.

    * You may travel up to 1 year in advance of the Season owned.

To change or cancel an existing "Request First" request, please contact II directly.

End Quote


----------



## Iwant2gonow (Sep 18, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> Fred --
> 
> Those of us who own non-SVN float weeks bought the right to reserve and use any week within our season.  You might call it "closing a loophole," but it really boils down to Starwood changing the rules as spelled out in the CCRs.
> 
> ...


I am a non-SVN SVR owner that purchased back in the days when Vistana owned the resort. I own a floating week and always enjoyed great trades through RCI. When Sheraton purchased Vistana, RCI started giving me a hard time about depositing the week I reserved. They wanted Sheraton to assign a generic week. After several years of a long fight on the phone and winning I decided I was tired of fighting since my reserved weeks (although it was always Easter or Christmas) were not returning great trades. I decided to try II this past year and even though I am not an SVN member II would not let me deposit the week I had reserved. After a long conversation/battle II deposited a week that had already passed and 6 months later I got the trade I wanted to The Westin Lagunamar (although I really wanted the Royals).
To make a long story/question short...it doesn't seem like anything is changing for non-SVN owners. It seems like the same short end of the stick.:annoyed: 
I would like to fight them if anyone comes up with a good way please count me in.  BTW what are CCR's?


----------



## Fredm (Sep 18, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Same exact generic response as post #182.



My post was an open letter response to the Starwood communication.


----------



## calgarygary (Sep 18, 2009)

Iwant2gonow said:


> jerseygirl said:
> 
> 
> > ....I would like to fight them if anyone comes up with a good way please count me in.  *BTW what are CCR's?*
> ...


----------



## Iwant2gonow (Sep 18, 2009)

Fredm said:


> My post was an open letter response to the Starwood communication.



Sorry Fred...I did not mean to leave your name in that quote I was replying to.




calgarygary said:


> Iwant2gonow said:
> 
> 
> > CCR's = Codes, Covenants & Restrictions.  In layman's terms, the rules of the timeshare.
> ...


----------



## Piscesqueen (Sep 19, 2009)

*Highlands*



barndweller said:


> I currently have nothing deposited as I got my pending request for exchange into Highlands Inn filled this morning! Yay for that.



Did you get this exchange with SDO?


----------



## l2trade (Sep 19, 2009)

*Another story about SDO seasons in II*

I just got off the phone with Starwood again this morning.  Now, I am being told that Sheraton Desert Oasis has four different season codes in their new affiliation with II, which represent:

Platinum = 1-21 & 50-52
Gold Plus = 1-52 red
Gold = 22-27 & 36-49
Silver = 28-35

Now this week range is more accurate to the original float period than what II has quoted me up until now for red 1-52 owners.  Why are II & Starwood telling me different stories about the week range (trading powers) that Gold Plus season represents?

I want to see everything in writing.  This would reduce wasted phone call time for everyone involved at both companies and individually just to ask some basic questions.  What do Starwood & II really accomplish by hiding the details of the new program?  I do not see how hiding the details is beneficial to anyone involved.  Rather than just focus on addressing specific consumer concerns, everyone involved must spend enormous phone time just trying to figure out what the facts really are.  

The implementation of these new rules is a mess between both companies computer systems.  I've heard that from II reps who were complaining about it.  I see it myself every time I log into II and see 9 different ways to enter 2009 units.  In reality, I have no 2009 left available and only a couple 2010.  I can't tell whether side A or side B is the bigger half.  I'm told that don't worry, every trade I make will be pending at first until Starwood and II work it out on the back end.  Really?  How do you know which ownership unit I intended to trade?  How do you know which lock-off side I intended to give up?  How do you know which usage year?

Even if I were a consumer that loved the new rules (which I don't), I would be very frustrated with the confusion and ambiguity with how they are being rolled out.


----------



## chalucky (Sep 23, 2009)

Worth a bump to keep this thread front and center.

As others have mentioned....not only have bulk deposits dissapeared, but also any vestige of Starwood priority. The change in availability is breathtaking.

I wonder what the rationale would be behind that...except to stick it to anyone using II to trade their ownership week. I am wondering if any of the callers to Starwood have asked about the priority being removed?


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 23, 2009)

Since the change a few weeks ago, there have been some deposits with Starwood priority - there have also been some without Starwood priority.


----------



## barndweller (Sep 23, 2009)

Piscesqueen said:


> Did you get this exchange with SDO?



No. I got it with Sedona Springs.


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 23, 2009)

If the new system works like Hyatt, and if I understand Hyatt's agreement with II (admittedly, two big "ifs"), Starwood will balance the books with II on a periodic "after-the-fact'" basis (maybe 3 or 4 times a year).

Example:  

--In the past, Starwood used historical data to "bulk bank," in advance, weeks to correspond with the projected numbers of requested exchanges.  These were the :early" deposits most likely to have access to the 3-day priority.

-- Now, Starwood is not depositing inventory (with the possible exception of undesirable studio units during non-prime weeks) UNTIL a Starwood owner does a "deposit first" (which means Starwood owes II a unit) or UNTIL a Starwood owner actually consummates a bastardized "request first" unit.

-- My non-scientific "read" on the attitudes of Tuggers is that most of us are doing NOTHING until we see if Starwood reverses track on this obviously unfair new system.  Yes, I know we're a small minority of actual owners, but if we're confused, what do you think is the confusion level on all the uneducated members?  Of, if you're like me, ALL of your Starwood units have disappeared from your account --- and you'd rather get a root canal then try to get Starwood and/or II on the phone.

So -- I predict that the number of Starwood deposits will remain small until such time as the customer bases gets comfortable with the new process (assuming some do) and some "true" activity begins to occur.

With any luck, this will in fact come to pass and put some pressure on II.  They won't be happy if Starwood's new plan results in significant deposits moving to RCI, other dependents, used for direct exchanges, rentals -- or, god forbid, the users actually use the units themselves and leave the exchange industry out of the picture altogether.

Here's hoping that this is one of those "becareful what you wish for" moments with both Starwood and II.


----------



## sunray (Sep 24, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> If the new system works like Hyatt, and if I understand Hyatt's agreement with II (admittedly, two big "ifs"), Starwood will balance the books with II on a periodic "after-the-fact'" basis (maybe 3 or 4 times a year).
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...




Will Starwood need to "bulk bank" all the deposit unit the year after the use year when you cannot cancel the "deposit first" unit.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2009)

sunray said:


> Will Starwood need to "bulk bank" all the deposit unit the year after the use year when you cannot cancel the "deposit first" unit.



I'm not sure I understand the question, but they would have to deposit a week, during the use year - not the next year.


----------



## sunray (Sep 24, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> I'm not sure I understand the question, but they would have to deposit a week, during the use year - not the next year.



When you request Starwood to deposit a week into II, Starwood will not actually deposit a week to II unless you find a trade in II.  The reason is "request first" can be cancel anytime in the use year.  The deposit become final after the use year.  That why you do not see too many "bulk bank" this year.  You will see more "bulk bank" beginning next year when the "request first" become final.  This way, Starwood will not rely on historical data to "bulk bank" to II.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2009)

sunray said:


> When you request Starwood to deposit a week into II, Starwood will not actually deposit a week to II unless you find a trade in II.



That's not correct:  Asking Starwood to deposit a week, and putting in a request first, are 2 completely different things.  If I call up Starwood and ask them to deposit a week, they will actually deposit the week, and it will no longer be available to me for my own use.  Many people know they are going to exchange their week, and they have no intention of using it themselves, so they go ahead and do a full deposit from the start.  Starwood does not wait for you to make an exchange before depositing your week.


----------



## l2trade (Sep 24, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> That's not correct:  Asking Starwood to deposit a week, and putting in a request first, are 2 completely different things.  If I call up Starwood and ask them to deposit a week, they will actually deposit the week, and it will no longer be available to me for my own use.  Many people know they are going to exchange their week, and they have no intention of using it themselves, so they go ahead and do a full deposit from the start.  Starwood does not wait for you to make an exchange before depositing your week.



Has anyone here had problems doing a deposit first for a 2010 week since the new system took over?  I'm curious how that process went.  

I've heard Starwood agents do assignment by default when you ask to deposit.  I was told by II that you must be very specific with Starwood to insist that you actually wanted to deposit / bank your week, not just assign it.  Starwood told me everything is an assignment now, until an exchange is confirmed or the assignment automatically turns into a deposit after your usage year is up.


----------



## Fredm (Sep 24, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> That's not correct:  Asking Starwood to deposit a week, and putting in a request first, are 2 completely different things.  If I call up Starwood and ask them to deposit a week, they will actually deposit the week, and it will no longer be available to me for my own use.  Many people know they are going to exchange their week, and they have no intention of using it themselves, so they go ahead and do a full deposit from the start.  Starwood does not wait for you to make an exchange before depositing your week.



Denise, this is no longer true.
ALL deposits are Starwood's newly defined version of Request First.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Denise, this is no longer true.
> ALL deposits are Starwood's newly defined version of Request First.



Fred - I must have missed that.  Can you point me to that info.?

*OK - I just went back through this thread and reviewed the "deposit first" thing and boy do I feel dumb!     

I thought the "Unit assignment" was just a _shell week_ for searching or putting in an exchange request, and you could still do a regular deposit first (with SW choosing the week.)

But... I know a Tugger who deposited a fixed week last week and thinks she did an actual deposit first AND she thinks they deposited her fixed week 52!  I have a fixed SVR week too, so I am going to see what I can find out and report back.

Sorry to be so dense!  
*Duh-nise  *


----------



## sunray (Sep 24, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> That's not correct:  Asking Starwood to deposit a week, and putting in a request first, are 2 completely different things.  If I call up Starwood and ask them to deposit a week, they will actually deposit the week, and it will no longer be available to me for my own use.  Many people know they are going to exchange their week, and they have no intention of using it themselves, so they go ahead and do a full deposit from the start.  Starwood does not wait for you to make an exchange before depositing your week.



With the new Starwood II methodology, you cannot reserved a unit and deposit it to II, you "request your assignment" to trade.   "Request your assignment" is not same as deposit a week.  I believe Starwood does not need to give(deposit) a week to II until you actual make a trade in II during your use year.  Because Starwood did not give a week to II, Starwood allows you to cancel your "request for assignment" anytime during your use year.  You can use your own unit if it is still available.

With this methodology, Starwood know exactly how many unit to give (bulk bank) to II and not based on estimation on historical data.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> But... I know a Tugger who deposited a fixed week last week and thinks she did an actual deposit first AND she thinks they deposited her fixed week 52!  I have a fixed SVR week too, so I am going to see what I can find out and report back.



Update - I double checked and SW did deposit her fixed week 52!


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 24, 2009)

So they're NOT messing with fixed weeks?  This is GREAT news.  Maybe I'll try to deposit one of mine tomorrow ... haven't wanted to prepay maintenance fees as I've been oh sooooooooo tempted to dump all of them!


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> So they're NOT messing with fixed weeks?  This is GREAT news.  Maybe I'll try to deposit one of mine tomorrow ... haven't wanted to prepay maintenance fees as I've been oh sooooooooo tempted to dump all of them!



The week was deposited online, and it shows in her Acct. as a week 52 deposit.


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 24, 2009)

Wonderful!  (Of course, I'm still really $%^&*#$ about the float week situation.)


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2009)

Me too - but I own a fixed SVR week, too, so I am glad to have at least one fixed week!


----------



## Fredm (Sep 25, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Fred - I must have missed that.  Can you point me to that info.?
> 
> *OK - I just went back through this thread and reviewed the "deposit first" thing and boy do I feel dumb!
> 
> ...



You are not dense. You are den(i)se.   This is all new. And, not obvious.

Glad to know that fixed weeks are not being thrown into this.

My only remaining problem with this new methodology is the subversion of Request First. If Starwood would only permit the retention of the original home resort reservation they would have a legitimate leg to stand on.


----------



## K2Quick (Sep 30, 2009)

There's a deposit of about six weeks of WPORV on the Sightings board.  This one might be a good test of *wood priority and/or trade power of any weeks deposited under the "enhanced" system.


----------



## Politico (Sep 30, 2009)

I tested with my already deposited 1 BR SDO and I see it.  But, I also noticed that when I map search in II, I cannot search an entire region anymore.  I am now limited to searching 3 destinations at a time. (ie ?I can't search the entire Carribbean). That is a very stupid change. Is everyone else experiencing the same?


----------



## jerseygirl (Sep 30, 2009)

Politico said:


> I am now limited to searching 3 destinations at a time. (ie ?I can't search the entire Carribbean). That is a very stupid change. Is everyone else experiencing the same?



Yes.  I'm hoping that it's related to server overload due to the $1 getaway promotion and that the restriction will be removed when the promotion is over.  It's really annoying -- stops me from searching, hence no purchases.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 30, 2009)

Politico said:


> I tested with my already deposited 1 BR SDO and I see it.  But, I also noticed that when I map search in II, I cannot search an entire region anymore.  I am now limited to searching 3 destinations at a time. (ie ?I can't search the entire Carribbean). That is a very stupid change. Is everyone else experiencing the same?



It's not a glitch, it was reported over on the Exchanging Board a few days ago.  It appears to be a new "feature."


----------



## Politico (Sep 30, 2009)

Can't wait to find out about all of the other "new features." 

I mean honestly, these guys know how to ruin a good product.


----------



## Joshadelic (Sep 30, 2009)

Politico said:


> I tested with my already deposited 1 BR SDO and I see it.  But, I also noticed that when I map search in II, I cannot search an entire region anymore.  I am now limited to searching 3 destinations at a time. (ie ?I can't search the entire Carribbean). That is a very stupid change. Is everyone else experiencing the same?



I've emailed them a few times about that.  It's absolutely stupid.  The only function it serves, as far as I can tell, is to cost their customers more time to do a broad search.  The first time I emailed them, they fixed it within a couple of days.  It stayed fixed for a couple weeks and now it's back to the 3 destination limit.  I-holes!


----------



## Politico (Sep 30, 2009)

Joshadelic said:


> I-holes!



Lol :hysterical:


----------



## sml2181 (Sep 30, 2009)

*Can't deposit fixed*



DeniseM said:


> Update - I double checked and SW did deposit her fixed week 52!



Our friends had to cancel due to an an operation after which he will not be allowed to fly for a few months. 
So I called II to ask about depositing my fixed event week - not in the system.

They "can't" do it. (Depositing my fixed week.)
They don't know WHAT would happen with it, because according to them, it will not go in the system, they will not rent it...it would just stay empty...? 
Otoh, if I were to do a request first, I would not be able to get this specific week back if I would reconsider, because it's an event week.... 

I am not depositing this week - will look for other friends to join us.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 30, 2009)

Did you notice that the other Tugger deposited their fixed week 52 online - Right now they seem to be totally lost at II, as demonstrated by the ridiculous answer they gave you.  

When & where is your fixed week?  If it is an event week/holiday week at a popular resort, you may still be able to rent it.

If you don't think it's a strong rental, then depositing it may still be possible.

Is it already registered (not deposited, but registered) with your II Acct.?  

If your fixed week is in the next 60 days you would get a flex-change deposit that can only be used for reservations at 60 days out.  However, within 60 days, it will still be a good exchanger.  I got a 2 bdm. WPORV exchange for my Bro & SIL with a fixed SVR week that I deposited during flex-change.

Can you see your fixed week in your Acct. on the II website?  If it's registered, you should be able to see it as an undeposited week.  If you prefer/need to to deposit it, you could go online right now, and try to deposit it online.  The worst that can happen is that they won't let you deposit it.  If they do let you deposit it, you will know immediately.

As long as you get a deposit you can exchange with, you shouldn't worry about what happens to the week after you deposit it.  At that point, it's II's problem.


----------



## Robert D (Oct 1, 2009)

*Late Deposits under New System*

I thought I understood that you are not penalized for depositing a floating week close to year end but was told by and II rep today that if Starwood deposits a week with a check in date within the next 60 days that you are restricted to doing a flexchange and your trading power is dimished. This is just the opposite of what another II rep told me a few weeks ago, i.e. that you can deposit your 2009 week right up till year end and you have no restrictions on use and your trading power would be the same as if it was deposited on Jan 1.  Which is correct?


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 1, 2009)

II is as confused as we are - supposedly, under the new rules, Starwood isn't depositing weeks at all - they just assign your week a trading value and nothing is deposited until you actually make an exchange.


----------



## Bucky (Oct 1, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> II is as confused as we are - supposedly, under the new rules, Starwood isn't depositing weeks at all - they just assign your week a trading value and nothing is deposited until you actually make an exchange.



This is what I received back from Starwood yesterday when I questioned them about the new system:

"Thank you for contacting Sheraton Vacation Ownership. We welcome the opportunity to assist you.

Starwood Vacation Ownership (SVO) consistently monitors the benefits provided by our third party affiliate partners to ensure you obtain the best possible value when taking advantage of this alternate use option. Upon review of the services provided by Interval International (II), we see that many owners were not getting the true trading power for their ownership weeks, as well as other discrepancies that led us to believe that a change was necessary.

The changes made to our exchange procedure will ensure that you will always receive the true trading power for your ownership week, as well as the flexibility to cancel your external exchange request as long as the use year that was assigned for exchange with II has not passed. This flexibility was not present in our old exchange method as it was a final transaction. Additional changes to the II exchange procedure include a set expiration date of June 30 two years after the use year that was assigned for exchange.

Please note that the changes made to our II external exchange methods have not been posted in writing since SVO does not anticipate these changes to affect the use of your exchange week. The changes apply to all owners that use II as an external exchange company; this includes owners that are not enrolled in the Starwood Vacation Network (SVN).

** Our records indicate that your 2009 and 2010 weeks were deposited before the changes to the exchange method went into effect; therefore your 2009 and 2010 weeks reflect as an actual deposit as did your previous weeks. As a result the expiration dates issued at the time of deposit still apply. Your 2009 week expires July 4, 2011 and your 2010 week expires July 3, 2012. **

We hope this information was helpful. Should you need further assistance, please contact Owner Services at:

Sheraton 888-SV-OWNER (786-9637)
407- 903-4649

The hours of operation for Owner Services are Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time. Have a pleasant day.

Sincerely,
Lisa Bythwood
E-Communications Specialist
Owner Services


----------



## Transit (Oct 1, 2009)

I confused with the new system. If you depost a week(whatever week they pick for your season). It's placed in you II account as a deposit. Can you then make an instant online exchange?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 1, 2009)

Upon review of the services provided by Interval International (II), we see that many owners were not getting the true trading power for their ownership weeks, as well as other discrepancies that led us to believe that a change was necessary.

In other words, some people were getting better exchanges than they should have been getting.  

Please note that the changes made to our II external exchange methods have not been posted in writing since SVO does not anticipate these changes to affect the use of your exchange week.

In other words, you will have no idea HOW these changes will affect your week because you won't know what you're missing, since you won't be able to see anything, anyway.


----------



## sml2181 (Oct 1, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Did you notice that the other Tugger deposited their fixed week 52 online - Right now they seem to be totally lost at II, as demonstrated by the ridiculous answer they gave you.
> 
> When & where is your fixed week?  If it is an event week/holiday week at a popular resort, you may still be able to rent it.
> 
> ...




They told me that I could deposit it online, but I can't since it doesn't show in my account. (It did, but it was removed when they were working on the changes.) I can only see the 2008 deposit. 

I did notice a year ago though, that they changed the fixed week number in "float" - that was after I deposited the same week last year. (My 2008 week shows week number, 2009/2010 were changed in "float".) It took me a full week and a lot of headache last year to get the right week in II and the person who arranged the deposit told me the change into "float" was "standard" and it shouldn't have been a fixed week in my II account in the first place - although I own that fixed week. 

It's not a big deal right now as we are taking other people with us, it's just the whole process which bothers me.

And I wanted to give an update regarding depositing fixed week - obviously it doesn't work all the time. The person who managed to get it done should consider his/herself lucky and I think that week was still as a fixed week 52 in II.

I purchased this week for our own use so we will be ok. However, bottom line - don't purchase fixed weeks for higher amounts unless you want to use it. 

Last: the rep was indeed very confused: he had to search for information all the time, and I heard huge sighs after almost every sentence. He didn't ask me to answer the service questions afterwards though.


----------



## Transit (Oct 1, 2009)

Transit said:


> I confused with the new system. If you depost a week(whatever week they pick for your season). It's placed in you II account as a deposit. Can you then make an instant online exchange?



bump..........................


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 1, 2009)

Transit said:


> I confused with the new system. If you depost a week(whatever week they pick for your season). It's placed in you II account as a deposit. Can you then make an instant online exchange?



Yes - you can.  

But you don't really get an actual week deposited until the exchange goes through - instead, your week is assigned an Avg. trading value, based on the season, and that is what you trade with.


----------



## Bucky (Oct 2, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Upon review of the services provided by Interval International (II), we see that many owners were not getting the true trading power for their ownership weeks, as well as other discrepancies that led us to believe that a change was necessary.
> 
> In other words, some people were getting better exchanges than they should have been getting.
> 
> ...



Since I am of the understanding that my Platinum weeks is to be given an average trading value, based on the season I don't see what's wrong with that.  As long as it applies to everyone I can live with it.

As far as some people getting better exchanges than they should have been getting maybe if they had kept their mouths shut and not come on the internet and bragged about how they had manipulated the system, things wouldn't have been changed!!!  I have said for years, "loose lips sink ships".  If you are naive enough to think that exchange companies don't get complaints from members who don't manipulate the system, I've got some property for sale.


----------



## Transit (Oct 2, 2009)

Bucky said:


> Since I am of the understanding that my Platinum weeks is to be given an average trading value, based on the season I don't see what's wrong with that.  As long as it applies to everyone I can live with it.
> 
> As far as some people getting better exchanges than they should have been getting maybe if they had kept their mouths shut and not come on the internet and bragged about how they had manipulated the system, things wouldn't have been changed!!!  I have said for years, "loose lips sink ships".  If you are naive enough to think that exchange companies don't get complaints from members who don't manipulate the system, I've got some property for sale.



I don't think they care a bit about what exchanges people are getting .The changes were made so they can make more money by controlling the best weeks and renting them out.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 2, 2009)

Bucky said:


> As far as some people getting better exchanges than they should have been getting maybe if they had kept their mouths shut and not come on the internet and bragged about how they had manipulated the system, things wouldn't have been changed!!!  I have said for years, "loose lips sink ships".  If you are naive enough to think that exchange companies don't get complaints from members who don't manipulate the system, I've got some property for sale.



Wow - that was kind of harsh!

_Manipulating -  to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner._

No one was "manipulating the system" - we were follow the rules that Starwood and II had mandated.  There is nothing manipulative or unfair about that.  Is it unfair that some owners educate themselves about how to get the most out of their TS ownership, and others don't bother?  I don't think so.

As far as keeping our mouths shut, how do you share info. with other TS owners if you keep all the best info. to yourself?  That's not what TUG is all about.....


----------



## James1975NY (Oct 2, 2009)

Transit said:


> I don't think they care a bit about what exchanges people are getting .The changes were made so they can make more money by controlling the best weeks and renting them out.



Starwood is not able to "rent" them out unless the un-reserved inventory is 60-days out or less. Inventory that has any demand at all will be reserved in advance by owners for their use so it is not likely Starwood will be able to get any high demand "60-day" inventory.


----------



## Transit (Oct 2, 2009)

James1975NY said:


> Starwood is not able to "rent" them out unless the un-reserved inventory is 60-days out or less. Inventory that has any demand at all will be reserved in advance by owners for their use so it is not likely Starwood will be able to get any high demand "60-day" inventory.



It would be nice to know that Starwood is holding the best weeks for owners because what I see in II is dismal.


----------



## Bucky (Oct 2, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Wow - that was kind of harsh!
> 
> _Manipulating -  to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner._
> 
> ...



First of all I don't think my post was harsh at all.  Truthful yes, harsh no.  Has anyone here actually experienced a trade using the new system?  Probably not.  Just a whole lot of whining going on.  Get over it.

Oh come on now.  "We were following......................." Read the post on TUG.  There are several and I mean several individuals who try to figure out any way around what the intent of the trading companies policies are.  As far as keeping your mouths shut, I really don't care.  But people need to get off their high horses when they are left hanging by a change in trading companies policies.  Just like all the people that bailed out of II when Disney took their business to RCI.  They all started depositing their weeks into RCI and bragging how they were able to get easy trades into all the Disney resorts.  Guess what?  All of a sudden their trade power was adjusted and they were caught hanging and now complaining about how bad RCI is treating them.  You don't think Disney owners complained about this?? They are some of the most demanding owners out there, and for good reason. Give it a break. JMHO.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 2, 2009)

Bucky said:


> First of all I don't think my post was harsh at all.  Truthful yes, harsh no.  Has anyone here actually experienced a trade using the new system?  Probably not.  Just a whole lot of whining going on.  Get over it.
> 
> Oh come on now.  "We were following......................." Read the post on TUG.  There are several and I mean several individuals who try to figure out any way around what the intent of the trading companies policies are.  As far as keeping your mouths shut, I really don't care.  But people need to get off their high horses when they are left hanging by a change in trading companies policies.  Just like all the people that bailed out of II when Disney took their business to RCI.  They all started depositing their weeks into RCI and bragging how they were able to get easy trades into all the Disney resorts.  Guess what?  All of a sudden their trade power was adjusted and they were caught hanging and now complaining about how bad RCI is treating them.  You don't think Disney owners complained about this?? They are some of the most demanding owners out there, and for good reason. Give it a break. JMHO.



This quite possibly could be the most uninformed opinion I've ever seen on TUG.


----------



## Bucky (Oct 2, 2009)

gmarine said:


> This quite possibly could be the most uninformed opinion I've ever seen on TUG.



You're probably right.  Then again, I don't have enough time to devote over 3000 post to this forum.  Unlike some, I've got a life.  I'm outta here.


----------



## pacman (Oct 2, 2009)

Bucky said:


> You're probably right.  Then again, I don't have enough time to devote over 3000 post to this forum.  Unlike some, I've got a life.  I'm outta here.



Yes, I think most of us here also have a life, since we are the ones interested in traveling. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Its sad to see how some people go through life with such a chip on their shoulder.

pacman


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 3, 2009)

Bucky said:


> Since I am of the understanding that my Platinum weeks is to be given an average trading value, based on the season I don't see what's wrong with that.  As long as it applies to everyone I can live with it.



Do you realize that now, when you put in a "request first" request with II, you will lose your reservation for your "platinum week," and if you don't get the exchange you want, you can't get your platinum week back, and they can give you any old off-season week? - you're OK with that?


----------



## Stefa (Oct 3, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Do you realize that now, when you put in a "request first" request with II, you will lose your reservation for your "platinum week," and if you don't get the exchange you want, you can't get your platinum week back, and they can give you any old off-season week? - you're OK with that?



To be fair, Denise, there is a difference between Starwood assigning a set trading power to all weeks based on resort/season (which Bucky said he didn't have a problem with) and the other aspects of the new systems (such as no request first, not being able to search more than one year out) which I don't believe he was defending.   I can live with the generic trade power, although I'm not crazy about it.  The real issues I have are with the other aspects of the system which are needlessly confusing and seem to be put in place to make owners unhappy.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 3, 2009)

Bucky makes a valid point.  Loose lips may indeed sink ships. 

ABOUT RCI, since Bucky brought RCI's change power issues into this thread (though I have no idea why???), I want to clarify what happened to RCI, although it is off topic here.  

Bucky makes way too many assumptions, however.  *RCI didn't downgrade trading power over DVC availability.*  Brian Noble determined that the new system RCI put into place in November was a simpler system, with only a few trading levels, and now they have partitioned trading power into more levels, with more intracacies, just as it was before November.  This was a sort of transition time, and it made a lot of sense.  When RCI tried to add the extra trading power levels, and they re-evaluated 200K weeks for supply/ demand, they ran into big problems that they tried to avoid back in November by having fewer levels.  I wish they would just have left it alone, but they didn't.  

Now we are taking our weeks elsewhere, and it's not because we don't see Disney anymore.  I don't know of anyone who is saying that, because I know the answer to that dilemma: lease RCI Points and get DVC.  It's simple, no long-term commitments, and cheaper than owning DVC.  

It's the general lack of 2 bedrooms in areas we travel the most, even at the Orlando Orange Lakes resorts, which were always easy exchanges for us, even into the 3 bedrooms.  I am not talking about post-November, I am talking always, always easy for us.  

I can get any week I want at the Marriotts in II. It's RCI's general lack of prime inventory that is the biggest problem, when we could get anything before.  I can rent weeks in Orlando for September from RCI for $249, so why am I paying MF's of $500 to get an exchange?  I won't do it anymore.  If I am going to exchange my weeks, I am going to get prime inventory through alternate exchange companies with my prime summer weeks!!!!! I can get the Hawaii resorts through several other companies.  The only thing I cannot get is Shearwater, which I can get with RCI Points.  

I have been bashed so many times on the Foxrun group, specifically by one person who kept saying, "Loose lips sink ships," ironically.  Now the criticism is here on TUG, with my post.  Coincidence?


----------



## Pit (Oct 3, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Sure, it is not perfect from a non-SVN owners perspective. But, nonetheless, fair on balance. It does not place total control in the hands of the owner. But, it also assigns an average value that has representative clout with I.I.
> As I have stated here before, making one call to request an I.I. deposit which is from your home resort  in the season owned is a legitimate approach to the matter. It may not be optimal for some owners, but it is both legitimate , and how many timeshare owners exercise their exchange requests elsewhere.
> For every negative someone can point to, an offsetting benefit can be cited to the owner base at large.
> 
> I am not a proponent of Starwood's management of this issue, and others. But, I am saying that the new implementation is something hard to argue with, if substance and fairness is the measure, IMO.



Fredm

I have to disagree with you here. Primarliy because "fairness" is a subjective term. The basic problem with the current implementation is legality. From where does Starwood derive the legal right to substitute a generic week for a reserved week on behalf of the (non-SVN) owner? This is simply not supported by the relevant legal documents. The concept of a floating week, as defined in the CCRs, applies only to reservations, not to usage rights. 

As a hypthetical example, consider two SDO owners, one with floating weeks 1-52 and a second owner with fixed week 10. Now, suppose the floating week owner goes through the exercise of reserving week 10. Both of these owners have the same legal rights to deposit their week 10 reservations. However, Starwood and II have conspired to assign a lower trade value to the float week owner deposit than the fixed week owner (Gold Plus vs. Platinum). The float week owner has been harmed, in the legal sense, by this agreement between II and Starwood. 

Assigning a generic trade value (even if its called "Platinum") that reduces an owner's exchange opportunities is clearly harmful to the owner. This may indeed benefit other owners, but that is no justification for infringing property rights.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 3, 2009)

Well said Pit.  Developers take full advantage of the float week concept to sell a bunch of crappy weeks.  To then attempt to dilute what was sold is unconscionable.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 3, 2009)

pacman said:


> Yes, I think most of us here also have a life, since we are the ones interested in traveling. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
> 
> Its sad to see how some people go through life with such a chip on their shoulder.
> 
> pacman



Well said. Ditto. On the plus side, he knows his opinion is uninformed.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 3, 2009)

Stefa said:


> To be fair, Denise, there is a difference between Starwood assigning a set trading power to all weeks based on resort/season (which Bucky said he didn't have a problem with) and the other aspects of the new systems



There is a difference, and that is why I was asking him if was aware that there were other changes involved that would have a very negative effect on the owner of a platinum week.  He didn't comment on those changes, so I'm wondering if he is even aware of them!


----------



## Fredm (Oct 3, 2009)

Pit said:


> Fredm
> 
> I have to disagree with you here. Primarliy because "fairness" is a subjective term. The basic problem with the current implementation is legality. From where does Starwood derive the legal right to substitute a generic week for a reserved week on behalf of the (non-SVN) owner? This is simply not supported by the relevant legal documents. The concept of a floating week, as defined in the CCRs, applies only to reservations, not to usage rights.
> 
> ...



Pit,

I agree that "fairness" is a subjective term. 
I also agree that non-SVN owners are not ahead by the implementation of this methodology. I personally do not like it.

Where we disagree is in what is defensible. But, that is just my opinion. 

Your disagreement with me is respectful. I appreciate it. Reasonable disagreement is what civil discussion is about. It is also what allows thoughtful comment to be absorbed.
Too often around here any opinion that goes against the hue and cry of discontent is viewed as being a spin merchant for Starwood. 

I have been critical of Starwood's policies on a number of occasions.
Most disturbing to me is their insincerity. It can be insulting.
Having said this, I do not believe that property rights are violated because of the deposit value which represents an owner exchange request. Nor do I believe they violate the resort governing documents.  
The reason for my saying so is to give pause to those who wish to make an argument of it.  There is enough to do battle over without fighting a losing cause.

Want to test my opinion? It really is not too hard. A class action is not necessary. Take Starwood to Small Claims Court as an individual civil action. Claim that your property rights have been violated. Claim that Starwood has violated the terms of the resort CC & R's.  As a consequence you have suffered monetary loss in the quality of your exchange experience. Ask that you be compensated for the devaluation caused by the violation.
What you are really asking the judge to do is rule on the question of violating the CC&R's.  Either they have or they have not. Proving monetary damages may be more complicated, but that's not the point. You could be awarded zero on that count. Just get a court to agree with you that your property rights have been violated.
If you can, a great service will have been performed for all non-SVN owners. Respectfully, I don't think you will win.

Now, an example of Starwood's insincerity is their claim that the new implementation has no material effect on its owner exchange experience. That's plain bs. It is also insulting to those that know better. Usurping the definition of  "request first", and not permitting an owner to retain a home resort reservation, is the really objectionable, and indefensible, portion of the new methodology. But, that is also just my opinion.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Oct 3, 2009)

I have been watching this thread as an SPG member who does not own at a Starwood Property. If I understand correctly, a person who buys resale at Sheraton Broadway Plantation at the worst possible season has the same II trading power as someone who purchases WKORV platinum directly from Starwood.  If I understand correctly, one must purchase direct from Starwood to have both SVN membership and the ability to convert StarOptions to SPG points. 

If I had purchased WKORV directly from Starwood I would be furious. If I had purchased WKORV resale, I would still be furious but only half as much. If I had purchased resale at Sheraton Broadway Plantation during the winter season, I would be very pleased. 

Therefore, I wonder how Starwood benefits from this. This seems to be a very heavy handed way to encourage SVN members to trade internally using their StarOptions. Perhaps Starwood saves money by having more internal trades than having to go through II.  It is also becoming quite apparent that purchasing resale at SDO (an option that I have considered) has been a very good financial deal. The new II trading regulations seem to make SDO less valuable as a trader. This not only punishes those who purchase resale but those who purchased direct from Starwood and have SVN membership.  However, the SVN owners at SDO would then be much more likely to trade internally. 

This is what has kept me from purchasing SDO or SBP resale at this time.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 3, 2009)

Hey Piano, there is still a season at SDO and SBP.  Buying winter at SBP is not going to trade as well as the Gold, similar to the old system.  If you buy winter at SBP, you cannot see much.  I played around with my SBP week before I deposited last time, entering various dates to see what my trading power would be, and believe me, winter isn't going to do well at all, as it should not.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 3, 2009)

IMO, Starwood knows this new system is not good for owners. If they thought it was a plus for owners and owners would be happy about it, wouldnt they come out right away and advertise it to owners? 

No, instead they are hiding the new system, and almost two months after implementing it still have not notified owners other than those who found out on their own.


----------



## l2trade (Oct 3, 2009)

pianodinosaur said:


> ...  It is also becoming quite apparent that purchasing resale at SDO (an option that I have considered) has been a very good financial deal. The new II trading regulations seem to make SDO less valuable as a trader. This not only punishes those who purchase resale but those who purchased direct from Starwood and have SVN membership.  However, the SVN owners at SDO would then be much more likely to trade internally.
> 
> This is what has kept me from purchasing SDO or SBP resale at this time.



Good points pianodinosaur.  I agree.

I live in AZ and SDO is my one and only home resort, so I admit I may be biased, but...

SDO is an excellent property in a perfect Scottsdale location.  It is a Premier Resort in II and deserves this level of distinction.  I still feel the warm, cozy yet luxurious, at home ambience every time I visit.  The huge pool at SDO is one of my very favorites of any resort we've visited.  IMHO, the pools at FSA & NCV are a joke in comparison.  

There are a couple of beautiful mega resorts (WKV & MCV) nearby to SDO with sister resort hotels.  I've stayed at both.  They are very nice also, but too spread out and lack the personal touch.  Think about less shade and more walking (both negatives during hot AZ months).  For example, if you want to use the lazy river, be prepared for the shuttle drive or hike.  

Purchasing resale at SDO has been a very good financial deal.  With the reduced II trading power and bad economy, resale prices are the lowest I've ever seen.  Yes, Starwood's new policy made SDO red 1-52 weeks less valuable for how I've been using them with II.  But, II is not the sole arbiter of full real estate deeded ownership value here.  As a non-SVN owner, neither are the arbitrary StarOption values of legacy weeks.  There are other valuable ways to use your ownership: staying, renting, 3rd party exchange, etc...

So, I think the law of unintended consequences for Starwood has yet to play out here.  As a resale buyer, I have less at stake to lose, which allows me to appreciate the irony of the situation.  The newer SVN properties have resale right-of-first refusal deed restrictions.  This is intended to protect resale values (i.e. - discourage buyers from buying resale vs. new).  SDO re-sales have no such deed restriction in place.  Starwood has yet to solicit an offer to trade-in, upgrade, consign or repurchase any of my contracts.  Instead, they find shaky methods to devalue them.  They risk bad press and litigation.  Now, the gap between new versus resale prices has never been greater.  Starwood is hurting their own brand name and price/value proposition.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 3, 2009)

I do think SDO will continue to be a decent trader.  Last year I let Starwood deposit a week for me and they gave me a fall week that traded quite well.   To me the issue isn't about trading power, it is the other annoying aspects of the system that would make me less likely to purchase SVO in the future.


----------



## Pit (Oct 4, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Having said this, I do not believe that property rights are violated because of the deposit value which represents an owner exchange request.



I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. If Starwood and II have colluded to limit my exchange options vs. another owner (who has reserved the exact same unit/week), they have clearly reduced my deposit value relative to the other owner. How can that be justified?



Fredm said:


> Nor do I believe they violate the resort governing documents.



Owners have the right to exchange their reserved week. There is no language in the CCRs giving Starwood (or any managment company) the right to alter the owners reservation. From where does Starwood derive the authority to unilaterally cancel owner reservations?


----------



## Fredm (Oct 4, 2009)

gmarine said:


> IMO, Starwood knows this new system is not good for owners. If they thought it was a plus for owners and owners would be happy about it, wouldnt they come out right away and advertise it to owners?
> 
> No, instead they are hiding the new system, and almost two months after implementing it still have not notified owners other than those who found out on their own.



It occurred to me while mowing my lawn yesterday,that what they did was remove the valid objection non-SVN owners had.

Heretofore, non-SVN owners could raise a valid objection to the deposit of a bulk-bank week. The rules were such that they specifically applied only to SVN members. And, bulk banking subjected an owner to an arbitrary assignment of exchange value.

Absent a formally declared set of rules for non-members, Starwood had a dilemma. The legal staff may have told them they could not be arbitrary. So, when pushed they relented.

 They then revamped the whole thing to make it uniform in a way that retained their control over the inventory for their benefit.

In the process, request first as we know it, died.
In my view, this is the real travesty of the new methodology.

I know many here contend that this is all a violation of their CC&R's.
Sad to say, I don't think so. I hope I'm wrong. Because that is the only recourse remaining as I see it.

By not making an announcement Starwood does not have to admit there ever was an arbitrary problem with the prior implementation of exchange rules. That is why no fanfare. They spin it only to those that object.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 4, 2009)

Pit said:


> I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. If Starwood and II have colluded to limit my exchange options vs. another owner (who has reserved the exact same unit/week), they have clearly reduced my deposit value relative to the other owner. How can that be justified?
> 
> Owners have the right to exchange their reserved week. There is no language in the CCRs giving Starwood (or any managment company) the right to alter the owners reservation. From where does Starwood derive the authority to unilaterally cancel owner reservations?



These are two separate issues.

First, they have not clearly reduced exchange value. It may be reduced for some, and increased for others. That is how they justify it. It sucks, but you asked.

Second, yes, owners have a right to exchange. 
Nothing I know of gives a floating week owner the "right" to retain a reservation when exchanging it.  Indeed, with the "Deposit First" method the reservation is gone. Always has been.

The real problem is the usurping of "Request First". This has always meant preserving the home resort reservation until the request was either filled or canceled.  The deposit was revocable. 
Well, Starwood is calling all deposits RF. They remain revocable. But, because they have concocted a new scheme, the revocable deposit is generic, hence no reservation date attends the request. So, no retention. 
This sucks big time.

Do they have a right to change the rules of exchange? I think so. *If implemented uniformly. *

The CC&R's grant a right to exchange. They do not define the rules of exchange, except to guarantee that it represents the value of what is owned. For it to be otherwise would raise a like issue. What is really "owned" is the deeded week. No floating week owner  seriously claims that they have a right to deposit the deeded week.  No, owners were very happy to reserve a season week for deposit, because the *rules of exchange* permitted it.  Not the CC&R's.
Well, the rules have changed.

As already suggested in a prior post, if you think deeded property rights have been violated, challenge it in court. Either they have or they have not. Damages need not be proved. Just the ruling on property rights. Small Claims Court can get it done, if so inclined.

If there is a kink in the deal, it rests with fixed week owners. They have a right to the week they bought.

I am not supporting the new rules. They are a travesty. They have been concocted to eliminate the very real objection non-SVN owners had to an arbitrary assignment of exchange value. Perversely, this new methodology eliminates the problem for Starwood, while retaining their control of the inventory. Owners are doubly screwed. 

Rather than permitting owners to control the owned inventory, the new rules lock it down.

 Request First is dead. Forget what they call it. Its an entirely new exchange methodology using its own definitions.

I hope I am wrong about the CC&R's. It remains the only recourse available as I see it.


----------



## stevens397 (Oct 4, 2009)

So more to the point - has anyone had any experiences with San Francisco Exchange?  I own WMH resale and just got a promotional card from them with all kinds of benefits to deposit my week (currently reserved for early April).  Are they the real thing?  Will I be impressed with what they have to offer?

Thanks for any feedback.  I support those fighting the fight with Starwood, but we also should be prepared to move on, realizing the incredible advantage that Starwood has.


----------



## Pit (Oct 4, 2009)

Fredm said:


> These are two separate issues.
> 
> First, they have not clearly reduced exchange value. It may be reduced for some, and increased for others. That is how they justify it. It sucks, but you asked.



They clearly have reduced exchange value for float week owners at SDO who make the effort to reserve a high demand week. I gave an example earlier of two owners with identical reservations. These two owners would receive two different trade values under the new system. This is a direct result of Starwood substituting a generic week for the reserved week in the case of the float owner, and Starwood has no authority to make such substitutions absent an agreement with the owner.



Fredm said:


> Second, yes, owners have a right to exchange.
> Nothing I know of gives a floating week owner the "right" to retain a reservation when exchanging it.  Indeed, with the "Deposit First" method the reservation is gone. Always has been.



Float owners not only have a right to exchange, they have an exclusive right to control the week they have reserved. This statement, from the CCRs, seems pretty clear to me. I can rent, gift, or exchange a reserved week with anyone I choose. 



> Any owner may permit a Unit which he is entitled to occupy to be occupied by other persons...



Interval may agree to accept a different (lower value) week from Starwood as a substitue for my deposit, however, they cannot punish me in the process by ascribing a lower value to my deposit. This is exactly what they have done by assigning trade value based on ownership, rather than based on reservations. 



Fredm said:


> Do they have a right to change the rules of exchange? I think so. *If implemented uniformly. *
> 
> The CC&R's grant a right to exchange. They do not define the rules of exchange, except to guarantee that it represents the value of what is owned. For it to be otherwise would raise a like issue. What is really "owned" is the deeded week. No floating week owner  seriously claims that they have a right to deposit the deeded week.  No, owners were very happy to reserve a season week for deposit, because the *rules of exchange* permitted it.  Not the CC&R's.
> Well, the rules have changed.



You are correct that Starwood has the authority to negotiate exchange agreements. However, those agreements cannot be used to alter the CCRs or usurp the rights of owners.

Fixed week owners have a right to the week they own, and float week owners have exactly the same rights to the week they reserve.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 4, 2009)

Pit said:


> You are correct that Starwood has the authority to negotiate exchange agreements. However, those agreements cannot be used to alter the CCRs or usurp the rights of owners.



If you agree that Starwood has the authority to negotiate exchange agreements, they are not usurping owner rights (so long as it is uniformly implemented).

You see, I think this is a BIG problem. Precisely because they have the right to do it.

Your position is they do not have the right. If that's true, there is no problem. They can't get away with it.


----------



## Pit (Oct 4, 2009)

Fredm said:


> If you agree that Starwood has the authority to negotiate exchange agreements, they are not usurping owner rights (so long as it is uniformly implemented).



I think you'll agree that it is not implemented uniformly when two owners with the exact same unit reservations are assigned different trade value for their deposits. That's why I do not think it can stand, as is.


----------



## irish (Oct 4, 2009)

i totally agree with FREDM. starwood had a problem. i am sure there were many complaints as to why SVN members were in a sense being "penalized"
by having a 'GENERIC" week deposited while non-svn members were allowed(if they fought hard enough with starwood) to be able to deposit a week of choice. so they,in effect, took care of the problem by changing the rules. i can"t speak to whether this is legal or not but left unchallenged the "new system" will stand. 

TO DENISE- i THINK that non svn  owners posting on these boards about how they were able to get EXACTLY the week they wanted contributed to the complaints starwood received in regards to the former policy and that is why BUCKY made the comment LOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS. let me add, however, i ABSOLUTELY agree with YOU that information is to be shared on these boards. that is the reason i am a member.. to read and learn.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 4, 2009)

Fredm said:


> It occurred to me while mowing my lawn yesterday,that what they did was remove the valid objection non-SVN owners had.
> 
> Heretofore, non-SVN owners could raise a valid objection to the deposit of a bulk-bank week. The rules were such that they specifically applied only to SVN members. And, bulk banking subjected an owner to an arbitrary assignment of exchange value.
> 
> ...



Fred -- I still don't see the legal ground for your argument, sensible as it is.  Starwood chooses to maintain two programs, SVN and non-SVN.  As such, they have chosen to create two sets of rules.  What's objectionable is the argument that they can make some of the rules the same for all, but not all of the rules -- that seems like the definition of arbitrary to me.


----------



## Troopers (Oct 4, 2009)




----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 4, 2009)

... LOL .....

You're right .... it's entirely too much drama.  I need to remember that we're talking about timeshares, not world peace!  Sometimes, though, it's the principle of the thing.  Starwood's management disgusts me.  Oops ... did I say that out loud?  :ignore:


----------



## Robert D (Oct 5, 2009)

One benefit of the new system that no one is talking about is that you don't get penalized for late deposits.  If you're trying to rent your unit and it doesn't rent, or your plans change, you can deposit your week right up to the last day of your usage period and still get the same trading power as if you deposited it a year earlier and aren't restricted to doing flexchanges.  At least I think this is the case under the new system.


----------



## tlpnet (Oct 5, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm thinking II is a mess of "what do we do now?" because the 3 destination search limitation is gone again. You can now search like you used to be able to. Maybe II does pay attention to TUG.

-tim


----------



## Twinkstarr (Oct 5, 2009)

tlpnet said:


> I'm thinking II is a mess of "what do we do now?" because the 3 destination search limitation is gone again. You can now search like you used to be able to. Maybe II does pay attention to TUG.
> 
> -tim



I think they had the limit of the 3 destinations up during the $1 Getaway promotion.  

Now that it's over we  are back to normal.


----------



## l2trade (Oct 5, 2009)

Robert D said:


> One benefit of the new system that no one is talking about is that you don't get penalized for late deposits.  If you're trying to rent your unit and it doesn't rent, or your plans change, you can deposit your week right up to the last day of your usage period and still get the same trading power as if you deposited it a year earlier and aren't restricted to doing flexchanges.  At least I think this is the case under the new system.



Yes, that appears to be the case with flexchange restrictions removed.  I'm not sure how one will be able to tell if it is the same trading power.  Due to my other complaints about the new system, I'm certainly not going to test this one out.

On a side note: Another benefit of the new system is that some resale prices at SDO just got a whole lot cheaper.


----------



## Pit (Oct 5, 2009)

Another new benefit for renters is that owner rentals will become more plentiful. Non-SVN owners will continue to reserve good weeks, but instead of depositing with II they will use redweek, myresortnetwork, and the like, to rent their units. That way they can keep their reserved week intact.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 5, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> Fred -- I still don't see the legal ground for your argument, sensible as it is.  Starwood chooses to maintain two programs, SVN and non-SVN.  As such, they have chosen to create two sets of rules.  What's objectionable is the argument that they can make some of the rules the same for all, but not all of the rules -- that seems like the definition of arbitrary to me.



jerseygirl, 

Not arbitrary as it relates to external exchange. They just 'cleaned" that up.

Sure, there are SVN owners and non. But, that is "Club" membership.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 5, 2009)

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Fred.  How can you say that the decision to make some resorts mandatory and others voluntary isn't arbitrary....


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 5, 2009)

I agree with you, Jerseygirl.  If they want to assign everyone Staroptions, that are now transferable with resale, then I would be just fine with that.  Otherwise, I bought with a totally different set of rules than SVN owners did.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 5, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> ... I bought with a totally different set of rules than SVN owners did.



Me too cindy -- and I fully understood what I was buying and made the best choices for me.  I think that's what ticks me off the most -- I've said it before (sorry for sounding like a broken record), but it boils down to "Starwood wants their cake and they want to eat it too!"  I'm of the firm belief that they can't enforce SVN rules (like the new exchange process) without owner consent.  But, we'll have to wait and see.  Far too many of us have demanded written explanations -- they can't dodge those requests forever and not expect us to get state regulators involved.   I'm holding off for an official, written response ...


----------



## Fredm (Oct 5, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Fred.  How can you say that the decision to make some resorts mandatory and others voluntary isn't arbitrary....



I never said it was not.

I am talking about external exchange.


----------



## mqlet (Oct 5, 2009)

Well, I just deposited my 2009 small 1bd 1-52 floater at SDO with II.  I reserved a Christmas week with Starwood, but was given a Gold Plus floater for my deposit with II.  It's currently trading the same as my 2011 Foxrun week #33, except for the fact that I can see the Westins in Hawaii with SDO.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 5, 2009)

mqlet said:


> Well, I just deposited my 2009 small 1bd 1-52 floater at SDO with II.  I reserved a Christmas week with Starwood, but was given a Gold Plus floater for my deposit with II.  It's currently trading the same as my 2011 Foxrun week #33, except for the fact that I can see the Westins in Hawaii with SDO.



This is very good news!  Foxrun is a very good trader, and if you can see the Westins, you will probably be able to see the Four Seasons that only higher quality resorts will see (Foxrun will not see FS).


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 5, 2009)

Fredm said:


> I never said it was not.
> 
> I am talking about external exchange.



So were we talking about external exchange.  If we own at a resort that is voluntary, we understand that we can deposit the week of our choosing into II.  As part of SVN, you cannot.  If Starwood wants us to play by the same rules as SVN with the exchange game, at least we should get the Staroptions.  But of course that isn't going to happen.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 5, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> So were we talking about external exchange.  If we own at a resort that is voluntary, we understand that we can deposit the week of our choosing into II.  As part of SVN, you cannot.  If Starwood wants us to play by the same rules as SVN with the exchange game, at least we should get the Staroptions.  But of course that isn't going to happen.



Look, all I am doing is stating what I believe is true. That its legit to change the rules of exchange.
I don't like it, I don't support it, and have no problem understanding why anyone affected would not like it. 

Why do so many take a "you are either with us , or against us" view of it all?

If you do not think what has happened is legal, do something about it  besides repeating the same thing to those who think you don't have a case.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 5, 2009)

Fredm said:


> If you do not think what has happened is legal, do something about it  besides repeating the same thing to those who think you don't have a case.




Fred -- I know your above comment was not addressed to me, but I can't help but reply.  We are doing something about it -- official requests for information have been sent and we're awaiting official response.  Please don't think we're sitting here doing nothing.  You should know us better than that!   

It's clear that we don't all agree on the legality aspect of this situation.  You seem to think what they're doing is legal.  That's your opinion ... just like it's my opinion that you're dead wrong!     The important point is that we're all dealing with *opinions only* at this point.


----------



## Fredm (Oct 5, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> Fred -- I know your above comment was not addressed to me, but I can't help but reply.  We are doing something about it -- official requests for information have been sent and we're awaiting official response.  Please don't think we're sitting here doing nothing.  You should know us better than that!
> 
> It's clear that we don't all agree on the legality aspect of this situation.  You seem to think what they're doing is legal.  That's your opinion ... just like it's my opinion that you're dead wrong!     The important point is that we're all dealing with *opinions only* at this point.



jerseygirl.

Absolutely. We are dealing with opinions. And, I hope mine is wrong.

You are right; My comment was not addressed to you. 
I do know better than to think you would not walk the talk.

Starwood has made their position clear (or as clear as they choose to). They do not feel it necessary to elaborate further. As usual, they are being assumptive. I wish you luck with an official reply that goes beyond that.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 5, 2009)

In case anyone else is interested in joining our letter writing campaign, please send a PM to gmarine (George) who is organizing it.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 5, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Why do so many take a "you are either with us , or against us" view of it all?
> 
> If you do not think what has happened is legal, do something about it  besides repeating the same thing to those who think you don't have a case.



I definitely don't feel that way.  There are many opinions here, and all of the disagreements are civil; I don't see anyone pounding the keys overbearingly here.   

First, we have to get organized and write letters.  Then we will look to the next step, which is unknown at this time.


----------



## nodge (Oct 8, 2009)

WINSLOW said:


> Talked to a SVN representative today, a contact that I got from gmarine (by the way, Thank You).  She was very nice and patient with all of my list of questions.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Also asked about bulk banking and was told not going to be done anymore.  But that should make more availability within the SVN if they are not going to II.



Shhh.  Don't look now, but it appears SVO just deposited a bulk of Westin Mission Hills units into II.

-nodge


----------



## grgs (Oct 9, 2009)

Apologies if this has been discussed already, and I missed it.  I know some of you have been able to deposit your fixed weeks in the some of the sections of SVR.  Have any of you been able to deposit your deeded week in the Cascades section?  

When I bought mine, I thought Cascades units were 1-52 float.  However, the unit shows up in SVN as "Annual Fixed."  When I checked with Starwood about this last year, they said the unit is fixed with an option to float.  So, I would think I should be able to deposit my deeded week (which is 13).  

Glorian


----------



## gregb (Oct 9, 2009)

It seems that many who post to TUG use their units for trading.  But there are those among us that mostly want to use the units they bought, not trade them.  For us, there is a benefit to the changes made by *wood and II.

If you often trade your unit, the changes in the program may cause a loss in trading value, and they do certainly make a significant change to the "Request First" option because you cannot keep your reserved week.  I would really like to see the old request first rules restored.

But look at if from the perspective of an owner who wants to use his/her unit.  Because high demand weeks will not be going into II for trading, owners will now have more opportunity to use their unit during high demand weeks.   And somehow it seems better to me that owners get to use the resort at high demand time, rather than people trading in.

Just wanting to add a different point of view to the discussion.

Greg


----------



## Pit (Oct 9, 2009)

gregb said:


> But look at if from the perspective of an owner who wants to use his/her unit.  Because high demand weeks will not be going into II for trading, owners will now have more opportunity to use their unit during high demand weeks.   And somehow it seems better to me that owners get to use the resort at high demand time, rather than people trading in.



I just have to comment on this logic, because it seems to be prevalent around here -- that is, the idea that an owner who occupies a unit should have priority over an owner who wants to trade out. There is simply no justification for this argument; the same reservation rules apply equally to all owners.

All owners have the same rights to squeeze the greatest value from their ownership, whether through exchange, rental, or occupancy. If trade values were unaffected, then its a moot point. However, because trade value is impacted negatively for some owners, the new system is unjust.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 9, 2009)

When we closed on our SDO in JULY, there were still weeks available for Easter week, in 2 bedroom units!  People are sleeping at the wheel, if they haven't reserved their desired week more than 9 months ahead of their dates.  I was so sure I wouldn't get Easter week, but I was offered different check-in days and different unit #'s.  We deposited the two halves of the lockout into II before the rule changes.

There are many unhappy SDO owners, definitely, otherwise there wouldn't be eBay listings.  But apparently there is no "race" to get the prime weeks.  I cannot think of a more prime week than Easter.  Maybe SDO should send a newsletter to owners, explaining the one year window to get reservations in their own resorts.  That would take care of the issues that people have with exchangers.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 9, 2009)

I called in September 2007 to make a StarOptions reservation for spring break 2008 and was told that SDO had availability.   Since spring break was in March and overlapped with baseball spring training I find it hard to believe owners who want to occupy at SDO are having a hard time getting reservations.  

I also feel that owners who wish to occupy should have priority over exchangers (although I don't want to get into a debate about it), but based on my personal experience and what I have read here at TUG, that has not been an issue at the non-SVN Starwood resorts.


----------



## Pit (Oct 9, 2009)

Stefa said:


> ... owners should have priority over exchangers ...



Exchangers ARE owners.


----------



## K2Quick (Oct 9, 2009)

gregb said:


> But look at if from the perspective of an owner who wants to use his/her unit.  Because high demand weeks will not be going into II for trading, owners will now have more opportunity to use their unit during high demand weeks.   And somehow it seems better to me that owners get to use the resort at high demand time, rather than people trading in.



I can't see where this is doing much of anything for owners at SDO.  I closed on my unit in July and had my pick of pretty much any week I wanted to reserve (ended up with weeks 12 and 13).  That's a lot better than a lot of owners in other systems have it as it pertains to competition to make prime reservations.  I've not seen any reports on here of SDO owners not being able to reserve prime weeks for their own use with adequate advance notice.

Pure speculation on my part, but I think the change is driven more by *wood wanting to open up more prime inventory to SVN members using *options.    If they're doing this to increase unit availability for SVN members, that stinks for us non-SVN members as we're giving up prime weeks to non-owners without the option to join the network ourselves.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 9, 2009)

Pit said:


> Exchangers ARE owners.



Haha.  That will teach me not to proofread...


----------



## Twinkstarr (Oct 9, 2009)

K2Quick said:


> I can't see where this is doing much of anything for owners at SDO.  I closed on my unit in July and had my pick of pretty much any week I wanted to reserve (ended up with weeks 12 and 13).  That's a lot better than a lot of owners in other systems have it as it pertains to competition to make prime reservations.  I've not seen any reports on here of SDO owners not being able to reserve prime weeks for their own use with adequate advance notice.
> 
> Pure speculation on my part, but I think the change is driven more by *wood wanting to open up more prime inventory to SVN members using *options.    If they're doing this to increase unit availability for SVN members, that stinks for us non-SVN members as we're giving up prime weeks to non-owners without the option to join the network ourselves.



I have Lakeside Terrace and I've never not gotten the week that I have wanted(either for use or trade). It's so easy I usually just email Starwood my request and get my week. And this is ski season! Now I'm on it at the 12 month mark. 

My take on this whole thing meshes with yours, using our inventory(non-svn) to bolster units for the SVN network.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 18, 2009)

I just wrote my letters to Starwood and II - I wanted to wait until I had the *trade test* information to include in both letters.

If you'd like to see my letters for references or a model, please click on my name and send me an *email* (I can't  attach a letter to a pm, so I need your email addy.)

_*Even if you only own SVN weeks, you have still lost the valuable right to do a "Request First" (hold a current reservation at your home resort, while requesting an exchange) so all owners have a stake in this - both SVN and non-SVN owners._

*It's really important that all Starwood Owners send letters to II and SW, so please speak up if you need some help with your letters.

THANK YOU!*


----------



## zcrider (Nov 24, 2009)

*starwood/II compaint*

 Starwood is screwing the owners here.  We can't search first, we don't get the extra II voucher week included for deposit we used to get and we have to call starwood and give them our good reservation week for them to rent for profit and if we don't find a suitable II exchange we can pull out the look and pick from the left over week nobody wanted at our home resort that we pay good money to own at!!!!!  Starwood must think we are totally stupid to say that this is better for us b/c we can wait until Dec. 31st. to deposit our week in II and still have the same trading power as the old way.  Who cares about that in comparison to what you took away! 
  Starwood why don't you try doing something good that makes people want to own more starwood properites instead of trashing your reputation and the product and making your owners hate you and turn on you like you are doing to us!  Count me in to fight back!!!!!!!!  We want what we bought and our ability to travel to other destinations easily without penility.  
  I am so disappointed with my starwood timeshare now.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 24, 2009)

Thanks for posting, zcrider, but just to clarify, as far as I know, Starwood's timeshares have never received AC's, although I've never heard an explanation of why that is.  It certainly seems like they should!


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 24, 2009)

I did get my response letter from Starwood and it was disappointing.  The first paragraph appeared to be directed to me, but the rest of it was boiler plate.  They actually did not  respond to any of my questions.  I was disappointed to get a canned response that just promoted the party line.  

To give II credit - at least they sent me a personal response that addressed the questions in my letter AND revealed that true fixed weeks do not fall under the new rules.


----------



## l2trade (Nov 24, 2009)

zcrider said:


> Starwood is screwing the owners here.  We can't search first, we don't get the extra II voucher week included for deposit we used to get and we have to call starwood and give them our good reservation week for them to rent for profit and if we don't find a suitable II exchange we can pull out the look and pick from the left over week nobody wanted at our home resort that we pay good money to own at!!!!!  Starwood must think we are totally stupid to say that this is better for us b/c we can wait until Dec. 31st. to deposit our week in II and still have the same trading power as the old way.  Who cares about that in comparison to what you took away!
> Starwood why don't you try doing something good that makes people want to own more starwood properites instead of trashing your reputation and the product and making your owners hate you and turn on you like you are doing to us!  Count me in to fight back!!!!!!!!  We want what we bought and our ability to travel to other destinations easily without penility.
> I am so disappointed with my starwood timeshare now.



I agree with you, but you lost me on the last part.  I don't think we are worried about that, are we?  I'm not very good with urban slang, so I had to go look that one up:  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Penility


----------



## James1975NY (Nov 25, 2009)

DeniseM said:


> Thanks for posting, zcrider, but just to clarify, as far as I know, Starwood's timeshares have never received AC's, although I've never heard an explanation of why that is.  It certainly seems like they should!



This is because they want to promote the use of the SVN program. If owners were incented to deposit their weeks with II, then there would be less inventory available for owners to reserve through SVN. 

I could be wrong on this next bit, but I also recall that AC weeks would apply to owners that deposited NEW inventory and these certificates would not apply to bulk deposits. Make sense?


----------



## levatino (Nov 29, 2009)

*My letter to Starwood Management*

After my last post about my recent purchase and regrets I sought the address of someone to put my comments in writing.  Below is a copy of a letter sent to Sergio Rivera and Frits....  I hope other owners will take the time to express thier opinion in writing.


Mr. Frits van Paasschen 
Chief Exec. Officer, Pres
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc.
1111 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604

Dear Mr. van Paasschen;

I am writing this letter under the hopes that you will do something to correct the decline of Starwood vacation ownership value in my purchase at Vistana Villages, Orlando, Florida.  I was introduced to Starwood through an RCI exchange when I stayed at the Vistana Resort with my family in January 2009.  During this stay I considered vacation ownership with Starwood after being a 2-property Wyndham owner.

Several months later I decided to pursue purchase at Starwood.  I enlisted the help of several resale real estate individuals who helped me navigate the popular timeshare programs and properties.  When I expressed interest in Starwood I was repeatedly told how mismanaged they believed Starwood was and advised against this purchase.  More than one real estate professional mentioned the implementation of the recent special assessment fee at Vistana Resort as an example of the seeming disregard and lack of consideration that Starwood has when making decisions that impact their owners.  This bombastic one-year implementation of a special assessment was contrasted with a recent refurbishment conducted by Hilton in Las Vegas and that fee being spread across a longer period of time to make the burden more manageable on families. Regardless of the advice I was offered, I decided to trust Starwood and buy at Vistana Villages.

Now we are in November of 2009 and after purchase my initial greeting to Starwood maintenance fees: Upon receipt of the 2010 bill I was greeted with a 29% increase over the previous year.  In light of the fact that my two Wyndham properties have increased by 5-8% in 2010, the increase implemented by Starwood seems particularly excessive and, unfortunately, in line with the lack of company foresight and attention to owner satisfaction that the timeshare professionals I consulted with referred to.  I understand that inflation increases and that there is a need for a business to stay solvent in the face of delinquencies.  However Starwood can do a better job of navigating business decisions with that of owner satisfaction. The erratic nature of these fees appears to be a barometer of management’s skill, stability and lack thereof. 

Unfortunately, my ownership beginning with Starwood has been tarnished.  Like strong families in a harsh economy, strong business management must creatively adapt and organize their organizations to thrive. As a parent, I have had to make decisions that balance the needs of my family, while providing for my children’s long-term well-being.  My observation is that if Starwood management were running my family they would tell my children to drop out of school to go and work down the street at the neighborhood mill to make some temporary cash, blind to the impact this decision would have on their future. I hope, upon review, that you will agree that Starwood can manage better to match the wonderful qualities of its resorts and program and not lurch precariously on the lynchpin of exorbitant and insensitive implementation of fees that ultimately undermine Starwood’s value and limit owners’ trust in Starwood.  

I look forward to better times for Starwood management and its owners.


								Sincerely,



								Paul Levatino

My fear with this being moved to a 307 reply post is it is going to get lost and as a result immobilize no one to write to Starwood...


----------



## Joshadelic (Nov 29, 2009)

If you're holding your breath for something other than a canned letter written by Starwood's legal department, or even worse, one that was written by an owner services rep who doesn't know how to use spell-check or proper grammar, then I hope blue is your color!


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 29, 2009)

levatino said:


> My fear with this being moved to a 307 reply post is it is going to get lost and as a result immobilize no one to write to Starwood...



Paul - even thought there are 307 posts in this thread, adding your post to the thread brings it to the top of the forum, and people who are interested in this topic will definitely see it and read your new post.  It just isn't practical to start a new thread with every new post, and for the sake of continuity, it's better to keep posts on the same topic together.

Tugger gmarine, among others, has organized a letter writing campaign that has been going on for a couple of months now, and many of us have written to Starwood and II - I am glad to see that you have written to Starwood, too.  Unfortunately, Starwood has chosen to respond with "canned" letters that don't even address the questions asked.  (See my post above.)  Even though that's pathetic on their part, it's still important for owners to write those letters, and I'm sure it is making an impact.

Thanks for writing!


----------

