# Ideas to stop 13 month reservation loopholes



## chemteach (Nov 27, 2018)

I'm hoping to have a thread that sticks to just this topic:

Ways to halt people from ensuring they obtain a reservation for dates beyond 13 months

 - no discussion of whether megarenters are a problem - no discussion of what is good or bad about Worldmark - just ideas for rules that could end workarounds to the 13 month reservation rule.  People can post their ideas - others can point out the flaws to the idea, and/or come up with new ideas.  

Moderator - would you be allowed to delete posts that go off topic?  (I'm not always clear about what moderators can/cannot do...)


----------



## chemteach (Nov 27, 2018)

Some ideas already pointed out in other threads:

1) Move the waitlist to 12 or fewer months - must be combined with an additional rule such as - cancelled reservation go into a black hole, or reservations can only be made for 7 day intervals between 13 and 12 months out

2) Limit the number of cancelled reservations an account is allowed per week or per month

3) Create a rule that any reservation obtained by manipulating the system will have such reservation cancelled (this one has been pointed out to be too vague - but perhaps there is a way to make it work?)

4) Have a modifying statement for number 1 above if the 7 day rule were to go into effect:  If anyone wants to reserve more than 7 days at the 13 month mark, they can, but a cancellation of that reservation within 1.5 months of the reservation being made will forfeit the credits used for the reservation.  This will allow people to make longer reservations at the 13 month mark, but will keep such reservations from being used for manipulations of the system.  If people cancel the reservation at 11.5 months, they wouldn't be able to ensure getting the reservation back because the waitlist would grab the time from the cancelled unit, so the reservation couldn't be used to get around the 13 month rule.  If they cancelled within 1.5 months in order to get 2 or more reservations, they would have to spend double the credits to get the reservation.  That would halt making longer reservations for rental purposes - it would no longer be lucrative.  Owners who wanted longer than 7 day stays would be allowed to reserve them.  Owners would still be able to cancel their reservations without penalty - just not in a way that allows for system manipulation.

5) If they don't get ride of waitlists at 13 months, change the dates for waitlisting:  make them only available up to the day 13 months out.  i.e., If I place a waitlist request on 11/27, it must include check-in dates 12/21-12/27, not the dates 12/27-1/2. This would probably have to also include cancellations going into a black hole, and randomizing the waitlist - all waitlist requests placed on a specific day would get randomized.

Any other ideas out there?


----------



## ecwinch (Nov 27, 2018)

End the waitlist. If presented with this problem set and myriad solutions, that will be the solution that Wyndham chooses. So watch what you wish for.


----------



## bizaro86 (Nov 27, 2018)

ecwinch said:


> End the waitlist. If presented with this problem set and myriad solutions, that will be the solution that Wyndham chooses. So watch what you wish for.



This is a good point. From Wyndham's perspective this will have Occams razor behind it, and will also save them money.

Of course, that wouldn't fix the problem, as long reservations could be cancelled and re-booked manually...


----------



## chemteach (Nov 27, 2018)

Ending the waitlist won't fix the problem...  Also - there is no reason to completely end the waitlist - owners pay for it via maintenance fees.  But something does need to change so that the waitlist can't be used for manipulating the system.


----------



## ecwinch (Nov 27, 2018)

chemteach said:


> *Ending the waitlist won't fix the problem... * Also - there is no reason to completely end the waitlist - owners pay for it via maintenance fees.  But something does need to change so that the waitlist can't be used for manipulating the system.



That does not seem to be well-reasoned. Waitlist is the mechanism that enables the manipulation of the 13 month booking rule.

And the waitlist is entirely a developer offering. They can end it at their discretion. From the Policies page that covers Waitlists:

_The following policies were created by the developer, are separate from the WorldMark, The Club Guidelines and TravelShare Program Rules, and are subject to change at any time._


----------



## Tacoma (Nov 27, 2018)

Since the waitlist is being used to manipulate reservations make it available at 12 months not 13. Reservations made at 13 months out no name changes allowed. Choose the relative/friend that is most reliable and I believe you will be able to have your multiple rooms. Any changes and the reservation hits the waitlist. I want the waitlist to stay but not so that it can be manipulated.


----------



## grab (Nov 27, 2018)

Tacoma said:


> Reservations made at 13 months out no name changes allowed. Choose the relative/friend that is most reliable and I believe you will be able to have your multiple rooms.


 NOT THIS


----------



## Marathoner (Nov 27, 2018)

So ironic that people are brainstorming more restrictions to their ownership of WM.  Why not just leave well enough alone?  We have the most flexible and cost efficient timeshare system on the market.  Rather than rejoicing in our current system, we are actively looking for more ways to restrict it and make it the same as other timeshare systems on the market.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!


----------



## geist1223 (Nov 27, 2018)

Marathoner said:


> So ironic that people are brainstorming more restrictions to their ownership of WM.  Why not just leave well enough alone?  We have the most flexible and cost efficient timeshare system on the market.  Rather than rejoicing in our current system, we are actively looking for more ways to restrict it and make it the same as other timeshare systems on the market.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!



Tried to insert smiling clapping.


----------



## chemteach (Nov 27, 2018)

Marathoner said:


> So ironic that people are brainstorming more restrictions to their ownership of WM.  Why not just leave well enough alone?  We have the most flexible and cost efficient timeshare system on the market.  Rather than rejoicing in our current system, we are actively looking for more ways to restrict it and make it the same as other timeshare systems on the market.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!


I'm just looking for ways to stop the manipulation of the current system.  I watched about 7 different unit types disappear between 6:20 am and 6:05 pm today for 12/28 and 12/29.  That shouldn't happen if the 13 month rule is working.  The focus is to get ideas to keep people from abusing the reservation system.  In order to get rid of 13 month loopholes, there would need to be some changes made to the way the system is currently working.  For people who don't mind the loopholes existing, new rules would definitely be irritating.  But not all owners know how to use the loopholes, and not all owners have enough credits to use the loopholes, so the system doesn't have equity as it currently exists.

Does anyone have any additional ideas?  It would be nice to identify the least restrictive concept that creates equity for all owners.


----------



## chemteach (Nov 27, 2018)

Tacoma said:


> Reservations made at 13 months out no name changes allowed. Choose the relative/friend that is most reliable and I believe you will be able to have your multiple rooms.



The no name changes probably wouldn't work - it is really restrictive.  The name change may create equity if people believe only owners should be allowed to stay at the Worldmark units, but the system then wouldn't work well for family/friend gatherings.


----------



## CO skier (Nov 28, 2018)

ecwinch said:


> End the waitlist. If presented with this problem set and myriad solutions, that will be the solution that Wyndham chooses. So watch what you wish for.


Ending the waitlist would mean the end of the 7-day minimum at 13 months (not that it means much as it is, but some owners think it does).

With no waitlist, any owner could reserve 7 days in a 3 bedroom at West Yellowstone .  4 days later, cancel the 7-day reservation, book a new 7-day reservation using a second account, and use a third account to rebook the desired 4-days from the first reservation as a stand alone reservation.  4 days later, cancel the new 7-day reservation, book a new 7-day reservation using the first account, because it is beyond the 48-hour restriction modifying the reservation in the first account, and rebook the desired 4-days as a stand alone reservation using the second account.

Book all the 3 bedroom units at West Yellowstone for rolling 7-day reservations beginning mid-May when there is no demand at 13 months, and you are a megarenter in business for the entire summer.  Owners will have no chance to reserve a 3 bedroom at West Yellowstone all summer, or Coachella music festival, or Kihei 2 and 3 bedroom units for Christmas and New Years.

Get rid of the waitlist and might as well just hand the WorldMark system keys to the megarenters.  It will be over for owners who use the waitlist to get something resembling a fair chance.

If the megarenter had to put all these 3-4 days reservations in the name of the guest who would be checking-in 13 months later, they could not make these reservations, because they would not know the names to attach to the reservation.  A no name change on 12-13 month reservations would mostly end the megarenter problem.  The owner or guest listed when the reservation is booked at 13 months uses the reservation, or it is cancelled and goes to the waitlist.  If there is no waitlist, then we are back to where megarenters own WorldMark.

btw - there are many excellent WorldMark vacations available for family reunions within a 12-months booking window.  Also, many family reunions in WorldMark Hawaii and other difficult to reserve resorts have been put together using the waitlist, but if there is no waitlist ...


----------



## am1 (Nov 28, 2018)

If you cant beat them join them.  

Not allowing name changes is going to hurt everyone.

My solution is that really high demand weeks should require more points.  Let those weeks subsidize the dog weeks.


----------



## CO skier (Nov 28, 2018)

am1 said:


> Not allowing name changes is going to hurt everyone.


It would hurt only those owners and guests who cannot commit to the reservation.  Most owners do not make any guest reservations; it would be a non-event to them.

Owners who can commit to 12-13 month reservations will benefit from the reduced competition for these reservations.

A no name change rule would increase the number of cancellations.  This would benefit owners on the waitlist.


----------



## ecwinch (Nov 28, 2018)

CO skier - you are just describing what we have now. Just done differently.


am1 said:


> Not allowing name changes is going to hurt everyone.
> 
> My solution is that really high demand weeks should require more points.  Let those weeks subsidize the dog weeks.



And making high demand weeks cost more points has less of an impact?

The FB group would melt down if XMas at Leavenworth went to 15k for a week.

And the name change rule would have minimal impact on owners who book prime reservations for their usage. Which is what most people do.


----------



## am1 (Nov 28, 2018)

ecwinch said:


> CO skier - you are just describing what we have now. Just done differently.
> 
> 
> And making high demand weeks cost more points has less of an impact?
> ...



If high demand weeks are in such demand at 13 months then the point costs is not high enough.  Better to raise the point cost for the tippy top weeks and lower the cost for the rest of the weeks. Points programs already do this to an extent compared to fixed weeks but not enough.  

Bonnet creek as an example always had thanksgiving as a value week and about half of Easter weeks.  Very easy to make a prif it. 

Maybe the most in demand weeks should be bid on.  The people willing to spend the most credits/points gets it.  Other weeks are adjusted depending on how much is bid.  Logistics aside there is no other way that is more equitable.


----------



## chemteach (Nov 28, 2018)

The black hole for cancelled reservations along with having a randomized waitlist that starts at 12 months seems like it could solve the problem.  

Has anyone ever proposed a maximum of 3 (or 4, or 5, or 2) total units for any specific prime week at a specific resort?  (Meaning a person could only reserve x units at Kihei for week 51, x units for week 52, x units for week 5, etc.)  I have read that no one can reserve more than 10% of the units at a resort - but if someone owned 10 accounts, they could get all the units at a resort.  10% seems really high.


----------



## chemteach (Nov 28, 2018)

am1 said:


> If high demand weeks are in such demand at 13 months then the point costs is not high enough.  Better to raise the point cost for the tippy top weeks and lower the cost for the rest of the weeks. Points programs already do this to an extent compared to fixed weeks but not enough.



Would this even be allowed?  Owners purchased with units having specific point amounts.  Are the point amounts per unit changeable by the board, or does that need a vote by the membership?


----------



## ronparise (Nov 28, 2018)

am1 said:


> If high demand weeks are in such demand at 13 months then the point costs is not high enough.  Better to raise the point cost for the tippy top weeks and lower the cost for the rest of the weeks. Points programs already do this to an extent compared to fixed weeks but not enough.
> 
> Bonnet creek as an example always had thanksgiving as a value week and about half of Easter weeks.  Very easy to make a prif it.
> 
> Maybe the most in demand weeks should be bid on.  The people willing to spend the most credits/points gets it.  Other weeks are adjusted depending on how much is bid.  Logistics aside there is no other way that is more equitable.



Ive said this for some time...The reason worldmark works for the megarenters is that maintenance fees are so low, especially for the high demand weeks. I mean when I could reserve a week in New Orleans for Mardi Gras for 9000 credits (less than $600) and rent it for $1500, that was too good to pass up..  Call weeks like that "super red" weeks and charge 20000 credits and they would be available for everyone


----------



## ronparise (Nov 28, 2018)

chemteach said:


> Would this even be allowed?  Owners purchased with units having specific point amounts.  Are the point amounts per unit changeable by the board, or does that need a vote by the membership?



no, owners bought resorts with a fixed number of points... those points can be allocated as management sees fit, as long as the total remains constant


----------



## chemteach (Nov 28, 2018)

ronparise said:


> Ive said this for some time...The reason worldmark works for the megarenters is that maintenance fees are so low, especially for the high demand weeks. I mean when I could reserve a week in New Orleans for Mardi Gras for 9000 credits (less than $600) and rent it for $1500, that was too good to pass up..  Call weeks like that "super red" weeks and charge 20000 credits and they would be available for everyone



But people purchase Worldmark with the expectation that their ownership allows them to stay at places below market rental rates.  If Worldmark makes the points costs equivalent to the rental cost, then there is no reason to purchase Worldmark.


----------



## am1 (Nov 28, 2018)

chemteach said:


> But people purchase Worldmark with the expectation that their ownership allows them to stay at places below market rental rates.  If Worldmark makes the points costs equivalent to the rental cost, then there is no reason to purchase Worldmark.



If the amount of points required for certain weeks increased rental rates would increase as well.  

Even better advice then that is megarenters are always going to get the better weeks.  Owners may not like it but it is the way it is.   I spent 9 years renting Wyndham rentals and every time they changed the rules I made sure to benefit from it.  $99 guest fee meant renting high value/large units.  Owners not being able to transfer points I just paid owners for use with less risk and free guest confirmations.  Maybe now it would be tougher but then I am out so does not matter.


----------



## chemteach (Nov 28, 2018)

Applying only to reservations that currently show manipulation:

If there were 7 day reservation limits with Friday, Saturday, Sunday only checkins, cancellations going to a black hole, and waitlists not beginning until 12 months out (and randomized), would there be a workaround?  It doesn't seem possible.  Someone could tie up all units for Friday to Friday at a specific resort a month before they wanted their reservation (or Sunday to Sunday), but they wouldn't be able to march any reservations forward if there was a 7 day limitation.  They could only be marched from Friday to Sunday.  And owners wouldn't be able to make a 10 day reservation that they split into a 7 and 3 day reservation, that allows them to create a new 10 day reservation.


To appease owners who want longer reservations - there could be a side rule that if a reservation longer than 7 days is made between 12 and 13 months, all points are lost if the reservation is cancelled.


----------



## am1 (Nov 28, 2018)

chemteach said:


> Applying only to reservations that currently show manipulation:
> 
> If there were 7 day reservation limits with Friday, Saturday, Sunday only checkins, cancellations going to a black hole, and waitlists not beginning until 12 months out (and randomized), would there be a workaround?  It doesn't seem possible.  Someone could tie up all units for Friday to Friday at a specific resort a month before they wanted their reservation (or Sunday to Sunday), but they wouldn't be able to march any reservations forward if there was a 7 day limitation.  They could only be marched from Friday to Sunday.  And owners wouldn't be able to make a 10 day reservation that they split into a 7 and 3 day reservation, that allows them to create a new 10 day reservation.
> 
> ...



The membership would not accept all points being lost.  That is reality.


----------



## chemteach (Nov 28, 2018)

am1 said:


> The membership would not accept all points being lost.  That is reality.



Would maximum reservations of 7 days at the high demand resort/weeks at 13 months be out of the question to most of the owners?  Worldmark TC could check to see what percent of reservations made at 13 months are for greater than 7 days and are not cancelled.  I think the BoD would find that almost all the manipulation comes from people making initial reservations for greater than 7 days.  If they analyze reservations, and find that 99% of reservations made at 13 months for greater than 7 days get cancelled, it would be clear evidence that reservations for >7 days at exactly 13 months out are mainly being used for manipulation.  This would suggest that limiting reservation lengths to 7 days at 13 months out would inhibit a large portion of the current manipulation.


----------



## am1 (Nov 28, 2018)

That could help but mega renters would just book full weeks.  With Wyndham I was always amazed with how many units I could book at 13 and 10 months.


----------



## ecwinch (Nov 28, 2018)

So in this latest iteration, I can make a month long reservation 12 months and 29 days out? If so, I think you are just going to alter the behaviour but not change it. 

There are three components of what they are doing in the situation that has you the most upset - holiday/xmas reservations. To do so, they are:

1. Securing/controlling inventory with a long reservation.
2. Ensuring their waitlist request is at the top of the list.
2. Releasing their inventory to parse that long reservation into the reservation they want.

But keep in mind that they control when the inventory is released. They can easily sit on that long reservation until it is well inside any rule you come up with, and then trigger the waitlist match.


----------



## ecwinch (Nov 28, 2018)

Add to your list the rule that reservations can only be booked when the entire reservation period is within the 13 month booking window. Someone over on WMO mentioned that one of the other systems has that rule ... I think it is Hyatt.

Since your concern is people reaching inside the 13th month booking window, that would prevent that. The window for securing Christmas day would not open up until the 26 Nov or so.


----------



## am1 (Nov 28, 2018)

ecwinch said:


> Add to your list the rule that reservations can only be booked when the entire reservation period is within the 13 month booking window. Someone over on WMO mentioned that one of the other systems has that rule ... I think it is Hyatt.
> 
> Since your concern is people reaching inside the 13th month booking window, that would prevent that. The window for securing Christmas day would not open up until the 26 Nov or so.



More check ins and check outs.  Not ideal for anyone.


----------



## CO skier (Nov 28, 2018)

ecwinch said:


> CO skier - you are just describing what we have now. Just done differently.


In case anyone missed it, that was my point -- eliminating the waitlist will not eliminate the effect of the current manipulation.  The manipulation will just take a different form.

Eliminating the waitlist will simply terminate a very beneficial program for no gain.


----------



## chemteach (Nov 28, 2018)

I think I'm missing something.  If the following existed:

1) 7 day maximum reservations from 13 to 12 months
2) cancellations go into a black hole
3) waitlist doesn't begin until 12 months 

How could someone get around it?  Owners would be online reserving as many units as possible at exactly 13 months, and most prime units would be taken within the first few minutes of availability coming online.


----------



## ecwinch (Nov 28, 2018)

Do all cancellations go into a black hole?


----------



## chemteach (Nov 28, 2018)

ecwinch said:


> Do all cancellations go into a black hole?


A really BIG black hole if megarenters figure out how to game the system.  LOL

People say that is how Wyndham makes it more difficult for megarenters.  The cancellations randomly appear back online.  (It would have to be random, or else people would figure out the pattern, and then abuse the system.)


----------



## ronparise (Nov 28, 2018)

chemteach said:


> But people purchase Worldmark with the expectation that their ownership allows them to stay at places below market rental rates.  If Worldmark makes the points costs equivalent to the rental cost, then there is no reason to purchase Worldmark.



we are only talking about the really high demand weeks


----------



## ecwinch (Nov 28, 2018)

I think all it does is move the goal posts.

They will book Dec 18th, for a week - checking out Christmas Day. Then another reservation starting Dec 25th. Not many people want to be travelling either of those two days. Nor do most want to use throw-away days.


----------



## CO skier (Nov 29, 2018)

chemteach said:


> I think I'm missing something.  If the following existed:
> 
> 1) 7 day maximum reservations from 13 to 12 months
> 2) cancellations go into a black hole
> ...


One thing you are missing is grouped reservations in Hawaii, for example.  Right now, waitlist offers rain down in Hawaii near 13 months thanks to owners who want to group more than one island.  Under your suggestion, what will happen to all those 2,3,4 days dropped by owners combining their 7-day reservations into less than 7-day segments?  Do those days go into a black hole, too?  And owners will now have to spend hours and hours over days and days to find what now the WorldMark computer finds for them and delivers to their email inbox?

Seems like another "cure" that is worse than the disease.


----------



## uscav8r (Nov 29, 2018)

chemteach said:


> The black hole for cancelled reservations along with having a randomized waitlist that starts at 12 months seems like it could solve the problem.
> 
> Has anyone ever proposed a maximum of 3 (or 4, or 5, or 2) total units for any specific prime week at a specific resort?  (Meaning a person could only reserve x units at Kihei for week 51, x units for week 52, x units for week 5, etc.)  I have read that no one can reserve more than 10% of the units at a resort - but if someone owned 10 accounts, they could get all the units at a resort.  10% seems really high.



I don’t understand this “black hole” for cancelled reservations. You cannot waitlist match anything you have cancelled within a given account already. The manipulators use multiple accounts to juggle waitlists and cancellations. This suggestion only delays the inevitable. 

The waitlist should absolutely, positively be a first-come, first-served proposition as it currently is. 

It seems as though your biggest beef here is simply not being able to book right when you want to book something. With the waitlist in place, that is a nonsensical position. 

I can tell you I have blocked at least two suspected “Reservation Walkers” by entering in my own waitlists for holiday weeks right at 13 months and matching within only 2-4 days!

I’ve gotten additional waitlist matches for those same weeks at around the 9/10-month mark.

My suggestion to you is to make actual use of the waitlist, and spend less time coming up with off-the-wall suggestions. Otherwise, as Eric says, Wyndham is likely to take the easiest and crudest way out: by killing the waitlist altogether. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chemteach (Nov 29, 2018)

uscav8r said:


> It seems as though your biggest beef here is simply not being able to book right when you want to book something. With the waitlist in place, that is a nonsensical position.



I have been able to get the weeks I needed.   My biggest beef isn't not getting the weeks I want.  My biggest beef is that the system is being manipulated, many people know it, some people have found workarounds to the manipulation, and most owners have no idea what is going on.  I think the BoD has the responsibility to fix the problem in a way that impacts the smallest number of owners (owners who are not currently manipulating the system.)




uscav8r said:


> I don’t understand this “black hole” for cancelled reservations.



The idea is that cancelled reservations don't come back online right away.  This would only be useful if there were no waitlist at 13 months.  People wouldn't be able to "walk" their reservations using two or more accounts.


----------

