# [2013] Unit Placement Discussion [orig "Homeless In Paradise ..."]



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 14, 2013)

I just realized that my Trust Points have made me homeless.......

What do you mean homeless; I'm a Premier Plus Owner? Right?

*I'm homeless in the Trust since no MVCI property recognizes me as an owner!*

This is year 3 for the DC and I now have made over 20 reservations using my DC points.  Not bad you might say  But you see the problem is that the system always treats me as a lost soul from the backstreets of exchanger city.:annoyed:

How can I tell of this injustice?  Easy just look at your reservation on Marriott.com under the Summary of Room Charges under the dates or under the Rate Rules and what do I always see *"MVC EXCHANGE"*.

Wait could that be a coincidence?  NO not at all!  I have proof..  Yea, what proof?

Stayed in February at the Ritz Carlton Vail.  Now I know for sure that puppy is only in the Trust.  So what type of reservation do you think I got?  Yep, you guessed it. *"MVC EXCHANGE"*.

I'm told real owners have priority; I'm just another guest looking for something for free.  Since we don't really know the source of inventory, what if that unit I reserved was actually from the Trust?  Would I be a legit owner then?  Would Marriott recognize my existence then?  Would they give me that sought after discount privilege card at check-in so I can eat on property at a reasonable price?

Would I really be an exchanger if the unit was from the Trust?  Can the property be challenged to show me that it was not from the trust?  Could they even be able to tell the difference in the source of that inventory?

Being homeless in the trust stinks!  How can that be though?  Wait a minute, I'm paying Marriott top dollar for those Trust Points.

My salesman said if I bought those points I would have DIRECT access to all those wonderful properties in the Trust.  Oh wait a minute, I think his lips were moving.....

Journey to be continued......

FT


----------



## amanda14 (Jun 15, 2013)

Great Post


----------



## chunkygal (Jun 15, 2013)

Very interesting observation


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 15, 2013)

So has any points owner ever seen their rate rules ever say anything other than "MVC EXCHANGE"? I would expect that if something was booked directly out of the trust, then it should say something different, but perhaps it doesn't. Though one would suspect that whenever using a mix of trust and legacy points, the reservation would always be going through the MVC Exchange Company.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 15, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> So has any points owner ever seen their rate rules ever say anything other than "MVC EXCHANGE"? I would expect that if something was booked directly out of the trust, then it should say something different, but perhaps it doesn't.



Good question.  Out of my 20 DC reservations some have been at properties where there is a high concentration of Trust units (i.e. Crystal Shores, Timber Lodge, Newport Coast, RC Vail)

*Not a one of them said anything different than "MVC EXCHANGE".*

I suspect they will keep this a secret as it allows them ample room to manipulate the pools of inventory to maximize their revenue/profit models.

The outcome of all this is a homeless Trust Points Owner.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jun 15, 2013)

good morning...

Fractional...

just my hypothesis here...

were your reservations with PURE Trust or a combination of Trust and Legacy.  If any Legacy points were involved, by definition the inventoryt has to ocme from exchange inventory and Exchange Company.  The true test is to see if there are any PURE trust point reservations out there!!!


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 15, 2013)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning...
> 
> Fractional...
> 
> ...



Puck, Good hypothesis but I tested that one already as well.

Since the website allows me to allocate my points from either converted points or pure trust points.  I have done this several times reserving on pure trust points from my portfolio.  Same end result. "MVC Exchange".

Did this for memorial day at Crystal Shores and now at Ocean Point for Fathers day weekend.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 15, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Puck, Good hypothesis but I tested that one already as well.
> 
> Since the website allows me to allocate my points from either converted points or pure trust points.  I have done this several times reserving on pure trust points from my portfolio.  Same end result. "MVC Exchange".
> 
> Did this for memorial day at Crystal Shores and now at Ocean Point for Fathers day weekend.



How far in advance were the reservations made. I wonder if a pure trust points reservation 13 months out would be different from one say 7 months out. Perhaps if your reservations were closer to checkin, MVCI had already moved the inventory to the Exchange Company even though you did use pure Trust Points?


----------



## Superchief (Jun 15, 2013)

FT,
This is a very interesting point. I also own some trust points and have had a few DC point stays, but I didn't notice this on my reservation. My major concern when staying on points is what is my location assignment priority. It appears that each resort has their own policy regarding where DC point redeemers (trust or legacy) stand in the priority line. Some have told me that DC points are equal in priority to single week owners staying on owned week. Others give a slightly lower priority. In my experience, my villa assignments on DC points have been similar to my owned weeks: some good, some ok.
Have you noticed any difference in your villa assignment? 

The other benefit of home resort is that we get to vote for board members. I still don't know how this workds for DC trust. This is my third year of point ownership and I have never received any information regarding the board. Do you have any information regarding this?


----------



## hawk5 (Jun 15, 2013)

This is a great question. I have wondered about this a few times.  I do not own DC points but have thought about what may happen to the boards when Marriott buys back weeks to put in the trust. I would think the pool of people who own weeks who want to be on the board could eventually  shrink if they can buy back enough weeks.  Also, I'd their a board for resorts that are almost purely trust?


----------



## cp73 (Jun 15, 2013)

Superchief said:


> F
> 
> The other benefit of home resort is that we get to vote for board members. I still don't know how this workds for DC trust. This is my third year of point ownership and I have never received any information regarding the board. Do you have any information regarding this?



Somewhere buried in the documents there is probably a trustee (Marriott don't you think) who does the voting for the trust for board members and any other actions requested at the resorts. Dont worry though the trustee has your best interest !!


----------



## ilene13 (Jun 15, 2013)

This thread is very interesting.  Last July 4th week we were at Surfwatch where we own a platinum 3 bedroom unit.  I went to the owners meeting.  There was a couple at the meeting making some comments about tha Marketplace and why did the management make it so small.  The resort manager explained the reasons and that it was based on comments from owners.  This couple said that they owned trust points only and they considered themselves owners of all the MVCI resorts and they were not informed of changes etc at any resorts.  They were a bit put out.  As a Surfwatch owner I do not feel that someone who purely owns trust points has a say in the operations of the resorts.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 15, 2013)

cp73 said:


> Somewhere buried in the documents there is probably a trustee (Marriott don't you think) who does the voting for the trust for board members and any other actions requested at the resorts. Dont worry though the trustee has your best interest !!



The Trustee is First American Trust, FSB. There is a MVC Trust Owners Association that is comprised of all trust owners and a board of directors for the Association.

The MVC Destinations Multisite POS document does provide information related to voting by the beneficiaries (owners).

The section I got this from begins on page 103 of the POS.



> ARTICLE II
> MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING PROVISIONS
> 
> Section 1. Membership: Membership in the Association shall be limited to owners of Interests. Permitted transfers of ownership of an Interest, either voluntary or by operation of law, shall terminate transferor's membership in the Association with respect to such Interest, and said membership shall become vested in the transferee. If ownership of an Interest is vested in more than one person, then the vote of all of the persons so owning said Interest shall be cast by the Voting Member (as defined in Section 5 of this Article). If ownership of an Interest is vested in a corporation, partnership, trust, or other legal entity, said entity shall designate an individual as its Voting Member, which may be an officer, partner, member, employee, or other individual thereof designated.
> ...



So it seems that owners should be able to vote, but for what? The BOD. That would be my guess. Beneficiaries would elect the BOD who would then decide how to vote the trusts proxies for each resort every year.


----------



## GregT (Jun 15, 2013)

FT,

That is a very interesting observation.   I would be curious to see what your experience was in terms of getting desirable rooms?  

I've got a post going in the HGVC forum, where I note that, even though I don't own in Hawaii, I have gotten terrific rooms each time I've visited HHV.

I do note that they reserve the Diamond Head side primarily for owners, but I've always gotten a high floor on Ewa side, which still has a terrific view.

I hope you are getting excellent rooms for your reservations, because Trust Point purchasers are keeping the ship afloat.

Your observation is quite interesting, as I said though, and I would be curious if you could document your room request experience over time.

Best,

Greg


----------



## Superchief (Jun 15, 2013)

Dioxide, Thanks for posting this information. I assume we should be contacted when there is something to vote for. I have not received any such communication. Have any other trust owners had an opportunity to vote on any issues?


----------



## Superchief (Jun 15, 2013)

hawk5 said:


> This is a great question. I have wondered about this a few times.  I do not own DC points but have thought about what may happen to the boards when Marriott buys back weeks to put in the trust. I would think the pool of people who own weeks who want to be on the board could eventually  shrink if they can buy back enough weeks.  Also, I'd their a board for resorts that are almost purely trust?



I am an owner at Oceana Palms, which is primarily owned by the trust. Our board is dominated by MVC people, and Maintenance fees have increased faster than my other MVC resorts. Our property taxes are also much higher than my Ocean Pointe week, and seem to fluctuate greatly from year to year.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 15, 2013)

Isn't this one of the suppositions that we've have had all along about the Destination Club, that DC Trust Members don't have a home resort advantage despite almost all of the resorts having had at least a few units conveyed to the DC Trust?  And that even though Trust Members have direct access to Trust intervals that Exchange Members don't have, the way the inventory is being managed is through the DC Exchange Company?  That's what I've thought, anyway, that inventory controls appear to be seamless because the system is designed to make instant deposits (from all sources) to the Exchange Company when DC Trust and Exchange Members make requests, regardless of the origin of the intervals and regardless of the technical availability controls for all DC Members.

This wording (bolding is mine) from the Exchange Procedures doc is what the supposition is based on:

(page 2)





> III. B. Distribution.
> *1. Trust Members. For administrative convenience in the operation of the Program and for determination of the respective rights of Members to enjoy the benefits of the Program, each Member will be assigned a Distribution each Use Year. The Distribution represents the reservation rights of the Member’s Interests during a particular Use Year in relation to other Interests participating in the Program during that Use Year. A Member will be permitted to use his or her Affiliate Program points each Use Year to make a reservation for Accommodations that are part of the Member’s Affiliate Program or the Member may voluntarily participate in the Program by converting all or a portion of his or her Affiliate Program points into Exchange Points for the purpose of making a reservation through the Program.* Unless otherwise provided by Exchange Company, Members may not convert his or her Affiliate Program points into Exchange Points except in connection with making a reservation through the Program. Currently, the conversion of Affiliate Program points into Exchange Points is one-to-one; however, Exchange Company reserves the right to vary the conversion ratio in Exchange Company’s sole discretion, including, but not limited to, on an Affiliate Program-by-Affiliate Program basis.
> 
> *2. Exchange Members. Each calendar year, an Exchange Member may Deposit Use Periods associated with the Exchange Member’s Interest with the Exchange Company during the applicable Deposit Window.* Exchange Members are required to Deposit Use Periods in 7-consecutive evening increments (in accordance with the usage calendar associated with the Exchange Member’s Component). Lock-off portions of an Accommodation are not eligible to be deposited. Deposits may only be made during the Deposit Window for the Use Period that the Exchange Member desires to Deposit. With respect to an Exchange Member who owns an alternate year Interest, unless the Exchange Member banks or borrows Exchange Points as may be permitted by these Exchange Procedures, such Exchange Member will be entitled to Deposit Use Periods associated with his or her Interest for usage of Exchange Points only during the calendar year in which such Exchange Member’s use rights occur, and will be required to use their Exchange Points during the same calendar year; provided, however, such Exchange Member will be assessed Exchange Company Dues on an annual basis.
> ...



This is why I've argued that DC Members should be incorporated into the Priority Placement lists such that they're considered to be Owners rather than exchangers, because they're not using an external product to reserve intervals.  The DC Exchange Company "bucket" set-up appears to somewhat align with II's and other exchange companies' pool systems, but the similarity ends there in that the only people using DC Points are actual Marriott owners/members!  I don't think Marriott will ever share their secrets related to the machination of inventory controls, but I sure do wish that they'd publish a statement confirming for Owners, Members *and the Resort Personnel* just exactly where DC Members fit on the Priority Placement Lists.  IMO they're certainly more comparable to Weeks Owners than to any external exchange company users.

Voting matters at the individual resorts are a different story than unit placement, IMO, because the ownership of record for the individual intervals conveyed to the Trust is the Trustee, not the Trust Members.  The Trust Members' deeds show that they own interests in the Trust, not in the individual resorts.

Finally, aside from the "MVC EXCHANGE" designation on DC reservations, the only other designation I've seen for DC intervals is the "MVC POINTS BULK" that folks have reported on II exchange confirmations.  I don't remember anything resembling, "MVC TRUST."


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 15, 2013)

Superchief said:


> Dioxide, Thanks for posting this information. I assume we should be contacted when there is something to vote for. I have not received any such communication. Have any other trust owners had an opportunity to vote on any issues?



I agree, great find by Dioxide, and I agree with him that Trust Members voting rights are probably limited to BOD elections and maybe other matters related to the Trust/Affiliation issues.  Their deeds do not extend to voting rights at the individual resorts.

Is there also something in the docs that specifies term limits for BOD members?  Perhaps DC Trust Members haven't yet received voting proxies because the term limits of the original BOD haven't yet come up against expiration?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 15, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> This is why I've argued that DC Members should be incorporated into the Priority Placement lists such that they're considered to be Owners rather than exchangers, because they're not using an external product to reserve intervals.  The DC Exchange Company "bucket" set-up appears to somewhat align with II's and other exchange companies' pool systems, but the similarity ends there in that the only people using DC Points are actual Marriott owners/members!  I don't think Marriott will ever share their secrets related to the machination of inventory controls, but I sure do wish that they'd publish a statement confirming for Owners, Members *and the Resort Personnel* just exactly where DC Members fit on the Priority Placement Lists.  IMO they're certainly more comparable to Weeks Owners than to any external exchange company users.
> 
> Voting matters at the individual resorts are a different story than unit placement, IMO, because the ownership of record for the individual intervals conveyed to the Trust is the Trustee, not the Trust Members.  The Trust Members' deeds show that they own interests in the Trust, not in the individual resorts.
> 
> Finally, aside from the "MVC EXCHANGE" designation on DC reservations, the only other designation I've seen for DC intervals is the "MVC POINTS BULK" that folks have reported on II exchange confirmations.  I don't remember anything resembling, "MVC TRUST."



Susan, I do agree that the resorts should be incorporating DC based reservations in to the placement priority system. Though I think we will have to agree to disagree as to where that placement should lie.

While from the customers point of view, their DC reservation is a reservation with MVCI, they believe it should be the same as any reservation made with owner services. However, legally it is different, it is still an exchange. If we are going to separate the trust bucket and exchange bucket, then we should still be separating a home resort reservation from an exchange reservation with points.

Now that doesn't speak to direct trust reservations, those should be treated the same as owners at the resort. I think the problem is that the room assignment peeps at the resort really can't tell the difference between points reservation and the another. They probably all look the same. Though they can tell the difference between a home resort reservation, a points reservation and an II exchange.

The real problem comes in when a trust owner reserves something through the exchange company that was likely trust inventory to start out with. Where does that get placed?

The problem when you start adding points exchanges to the same level as weeks owners staying on their home resort week, is you get increased competition for priority placement. More unhappy owners, and resentment toward each other. I think the resorts will continue to keep priority placement pecking order somewhat  vague as to make their job easier in explaining poor placements to owners.

In the end the whole priority placement system is just a way to give people a warm and fuzzy. It really doesn't mean much in the end once you are in your unit. There is so much leeway and so many variables, that they really shouldn't bother publishing such a policy as in the end, people further down the pecking order will end up getting better placements than those higher up. Far too many variables...


----------



## SunandFun83 (Jun 15, 2013)

*Trust point owners need same priorit for room choice*

I stayed at Ocean Pointe for two weeks in March, 2013.  This property is notorious for giving really terrible room locations to everyone except the people who stay 4-8 weeks.  Those week owners lock-off and camp out in the best rooms and they never leave.  

The Interval Exchange I got was assigned first floor parking lot and it was so bad, that it was offensive.  See my review on TUG.  I ran into two trust point owners who made reservations with points.  They were essentially paying twice as much as I was and twice as much as most week owners for these reservations.  The trust owners also got lousy room locations because the best rooms were all taken by "Owners'.  Well, the one lady I talked to went nuts on the front desk about the room priority for trust owners and she got moved to the third floor (out of 6).

I think representatives of the trust point owners need to make a fuss about room assignment priority.  and Marriott better listen.  Why buy points if the "old week owners" get the best rooms.

I think room assignment downgrades for exchangers is a visible and explicit strategy of Marriott to push people away from Interval International exchanges into buying points, then they better get great rooms with those points.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 15, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> How far in advance were the reservations made. I wonder if a pure trust points reservation 13 months out would be different from one say 7 months out. Perhaps if your reservations were closer to checkin, MVCI had already moved the inventory to the Exchange Company even though you did use pure Trust Points?



I don’t quite remember but it was nothing specific. Anywhere between 13 months to 2 weeks is probably a fair estimate.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 15, 2013)

SunandFun83 said:


> I stayed at Ocean Pointe for two weeks in March, 2013.  This property is notorious for giving really terrible room locations to everyone except the people who stay 4-8 weeks.  Those week owners lock-off and camp out in the best rooms and they never leave.
> 
> The Interval Exchange I got was assigned first floor parking lot and it was so bad, that it was offensive.  See my review on TUG.  I ran into two trust point owners who made reservations with points.  They were essentially paying twice as much as I was and twice as much as most week owners for these reservations.  The trust owners also got lousy room locations because the best rooms were all taken by "Owners'.  Well, the one lady I talked to went nuts on the front desk about the room priority for trust owners and she got moved to the third floor (out of 6).
> 
> ...



I think the problem at Ocean Pointe is how their policy is setup. Unlike the SC resorts that use a rotation system for assignments, Ocean Pionte does not. This keeps the same owners that own lots of weeks getting the same great units year after year. It is all about how many weeks you own at Ocean Pointe. So the two week owner will always be below the 4 week owner.

I have heard about owners moving after their first week to a better view and once they get in a primo unit, that is where they stay until their stay ends. I think a rotation system like the SC resorts use also has its benefits. Though this may or may not help exchangers (MVC or II).


----------



## cp73 (Jun 15, 2013)

How about this. I think the point trust owners should be a lower priority than the deeded owners. Why? Because they own a smaller percent interest in that resort than do the deeded owners. Consider your typical points owner who purchased the equivelant of one week has his/her ownership that is spread out over all the resorts that have trust ownership. A lot smaller percent than a one week deeded owner.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jun 16, 2013)

My current DC pt reservation at my home resort also says "MVC exchange"  so maybe all dc pt reservations say that?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 16, 2013)

Bill4728 said:


> My current DC pt reservation at my home resort also says "MVC exchange"  so maybe all dc pt reservations say that?



I think that is what FT is saying. All DC reservations seem to be going through the MVC Exchange Company. The concern is that even pure trust point reservations are also.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 16, 2013)

Superchief said:


> FT,
> This is a very interesting point. I also own some trust points and have had a few DC point stays, but I didn't notice this on my reservation. My major concern when staying on points is what is my location assignment priority. It appears that each resort has their own policy regarding where DC point redeemers (trust or legacy) stand in the priority line. Some have told me that DC points are equal in priority to single week owners staying on owned week. Others give a slightly lower priority. In my experience, my villa assignments on DC points have been similar to my owned weeks: some good, some ok.
> Have you noticed any difference in your villa assignment?
> 
> The other benefit of home resort is that we get to vote for board members. I still don't know how this workds for DC trust. This is my third year of point ownership and I have never received any information regarding the board. Do you have any information regarding this?



Superchief, my impression is that the properties know who is an owner and who is not.

Trust owners and legacy owners staying on DC point reservations are not currently viewed as owners IMHO based upon my experience in the program to date.  Others may be having better luck than me but this is just my experience.

I have NOT received the same level of priority for villa assignments using my Trust points or DC point reservations (about 20 so far).

As an example, I just wrapped up my Father’s day weekend stay at Ocean Point using DC points.  I was assigned Pompano building 4th floor.  Not what I was expecting.  When I asked at check-in, they simply stated that better units in upper floors were available but reserved for owners and that I was exchanging so that was the best they could do for me.  I had reserved at 3-BR Oceanfront.  I also think that my length of stay 2 nights had something to do with it as well.  I would not expect them to give a worse unit preference to an owner for a 7-night stay just to accomodate my 2-night request.

Lesson learned: Basically if you don't pay MF at the property then you are an exchanger.  Whether or not that puts me ahead of other guests (II, renters, etc.) is debatable at this point.

So much for Premier Plus.  At this point the only benefit I can see is the 13 month reservation window and the 20% points discount availability 14 days before check-in.  The RC benefit is for a limited time and Premier also has access anyways so no big deal.

Can't really argue with folks going after cheap resale units for the cost savings and villa preference priority over Trust Points purchases.

Spoke to two GM's on the subject over the weekend and both sang the same song.  Owners occupying their owners week(s) have the highest priority period.

FT


----------



## rpgriego (Jun 16, 2013)

cp73 said:


> How about this. I think the point trust owners should be a lower priority than the deeded owners. Why? Because they own a smaller percent interest in that resort than do the deeded owners. Consider your typical points owner who purchased the equivelant of one week has his/her ownership that is spread out over all the resorts that have trust ownership. A lot smaller percent than a one week deeded owner.



While I agree, DClub exchanges into the resort should fall behind deeded owners during room placement, they should be given equal placement status if they have a consecutive week reservation.

I consider it, rewarding a loyal guest.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 16, 2013)

We really will have to agree to disagree - I think it's completely unfair that DC Trust Members are not considered on par with Weeks Owners.  If there isn't a way for the resort personnel to differentiate between DC Trust and Exchange Members, which it appears there isn't, then all DC Members should be considered equal to Weeks Owners.

I really hope that as the program develops more of the resorts will adopt a fairer Priority Placement system, the one that also uses a rotational system so that the same "special" owners aren't practically guaranteed to be placed into the best units for every stay.  I've always said it's unfair that at certain resorts single Weeks owners don't ever get a chance to be placed into the "best" units because multi-Week owners are always placed ahead of them.  Well, now I think that unfairness is being extended to DC Members, especially Trust Members.  There has to be a better way so that certain owners/members aren't made to feel like they're not as important at the resorts.  Quite honestly, I'm not in favor of the resort personnel encouraging the "entitlement behavior" that it seems too many owners/members have already adopted.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 16, 2013)

People reserving with legacy points are still exchanging in to a resort that they do not own. I don't see how they should be on par with weeks based owners by default. MVCI needs to find a better way to handle this. Though I think outside of TUG, there probably is very little issue. We seem to blow this issue up far more than it really needs to be.


----------



## rpgriego (Jun 16, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> People reserving with legacy points are still exchanging in to a resort that they do not own. I don't see how they should be on par with weeks based owners by default. MVCI needs to find a better way to handle this. Though I think outside of TUG, there probably is very little issue. We seem to blow this issue up far more than it really needs to be.



This site blows-up EVERY issue, but by doing so we all share, learn and come up with some great guidance. Not to mention some great system work arounds. Unfortunately, we are not HOA board members to truly effect change.

That said, does anyone know the answer to the following...

DClub point owners pay a maintenance fee based on each point. Then use those points to book room nights at participating resorts. Do the resorts then get paid a nightly maintenance fee by the DClub?


----------



## fluke (Jun 16, 2013)

rpgriego said:


> Do the resorts then get paid a nightly maintenance fee by the DClub?



Every week placed into the trust has it's mfs paid for by the trust since the trust "owns" the week. This of course is really paid for by the trust owners via the trust point mfs.   Those weeks placed into the exchange inventory of the DC by legacy owners has already had the mfs paid.


----------



## rpgriego (Jun 16, 2013)

fluke said:


> Every week placed into the trust has it's mfs paid for by the trust since the trust "owns" the week. This of course is really paid for by the trust owners via the trust point mfs.   Those weeks placed into the exchange inventory of the DC by legacy owners has already had the mfs paid.



Let me try this question...
How do the MVC resorts share in DClub point MFs?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2013)

rpgriego said:


> Let me try this question...
> How do the MVC resorts share in DClub point MFs?



The way that TUGger fluke explained - think of the Trust as the Owner of the Weeks conveyed to it.  The annual MF's for those conveyed Weeks are paid by the Trust, with the funds collected through the Trust Members' MF's.

Obviously that's a simplification and we don't know if the Trust actually receives invoices from the individual resorts or if MVW accounts for all the transactions on paper or if some other set-up is at play.  But definitely, the MF's for the Weeks conveyed to the DC Trust are the responsibility of the Trustee and indirectly, the Trust Members.


----------



## Kepeli (Jun 17, 2013)

I have been investigating this whole issue myself over the past week as I prepare to make Ko Olina reservations for next summer.  Being Premier member and multiple week owner at Ko Olina, I am getting ready to make 13 month reservations for a 2 week stay.  I'll be using 2 rooms for 2 weeks consecutively.  

The first room will be consecutive legacy weeks. For the second room, I have been debating using a 7-10 night window of points, acquired by converting 2 ski weeks at Timber lodge, followed by a regular "week" stay.  The thought being that I could have some flexibility up front with a 7-10 night points stay, in order to have better flight flexibility since I'll be trying to use some frequent flier miles for some of our tickets. I could then cancel 1-3 of the nights without having them placed in penalty box, if I need to fly out on Tuesday or Wednesday instead of Friday.

I spoke with one of the ladies, who does the room assignments at Ko Olina.  She stated that Destination points reservations are placed at the same room priority level at Ko Olina as single week owners, but below multiple week owners such as me.  She also stated that if I had a reservation combining a week and points, that she would know I was an owner, and therefore would be placed at multiple week owner priority.

However, I believe that she stated that if my reservation was entirely points, I would be placed at priority level of other points reservations/single week owners, and therefore lower priority level than normal for me.  ( I do need to double check this last statement, as now I am questioning myself).

She also stated that each resort does set its own policy for how points owners are prioritized for room assignments. 

I'll try to update this if I call her back.


----------



## rpgriego (Jun 17, 2013)

Kepeli said:


> I have been investigating this whole issue myself over the past week as I prepare to make Ko Olina reservations for next summer.  Being Premier member and multiple week owner at Ko Olina, I am getting ready to make 13 month reservations for a 2 week stay.  I'll be using 2 rooms for 2 weeks consecutively.
> 
> The first room will be consecutive legacy weeks. For the second room, I have been debating using a 7-10 night window of points, acquired by converting 2 ski weeks at Timber lodge, followed by a regular "week" stay.  The thought being that I could have some flexibility up front with a 7-10 night points stay, in order to have better flight flexibility since I'll be trying to use some frequent flier miles for some of our tickets. I could then cancel 1-3 of the nights without having them placed in penalty box, if I need to fly out on Tuesday or Wednesday instead of Friday.
> 
> ...



Since your being flexible and using both owned and DClub points wouldn't it save points to get duplicate reservations as follows:

Check-In on Sunday using owned KO week
Add five additional nights at the Sunday through Thursday rate

12 nights total for each room

And don't forget to try the: Last Minute Reservations Points Discount benefit.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 17, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> People reserving with legacy points are still exchanging in to a resort that they do not own. I don't see how they should be on par with weeks based owners by default. MVCI needs to find a better way to handle this. Though I think outside of TUG, there probably is very little issue. We seem to blow this issue up far more than it really needs to be.



I agree with your comments regarding legacy point exchangers but I still think that pure Trust point owners/reservations should be on par with weeks based owners when it comes to villa room assignment priority.

I also agree this issue is currently only impacting a small number of system super users who have taken extensive advanage of the system over the last 3 years but just wait another 3-5 years when the Trust ownership swells even higher.

The bigger issue I wanted to communicate was geared towards new owners who will be 100% trust points owners and folks who post on this board considering to add trust points to their ownership.  I wanted to relay this through my experiences to date.

I am sure salespersons are trying to sell the points hard by saying they have full access to the trust units with priority and how legacy owners will not have access to new construction or units in the Trust. etc, etc, etc......

Of course these comments are not accurate and present misleading statements to potential new and existing customers.

Flexibility in usage YES.  Priority in villa assignments, not so much really.

Another expeience I would like to communicate is my status with MVCI "Premier Plus".  Just like my MR status PLAT Premier, I was expecting that properties recognize my status and use it to prioritize my requests.

Truth is, that hasn't amounted to anything much other than a note on my reservations (I guess to make me feel good about how much money I have spent with Marriott).  I'm not even sure MVCI properties see that status or get it confusted with my MR status.  I can see how all this can be confusing to many guests and employees alike.

I hope some of this information has been helpful to those who visit this site.  Its only year 3 of DC and certainly the only constant going forward is change.

FT


----------



## MALC9990 (Jun 17, 2013)

So now I'll be really controversial. Perhaps the best way forward and fairest would be to do away with all priority for unit allocation all together. No special priority for multi week owners staying at their home resort and no priority for anyone.

Allocations would then be made the day before check in based on what units would come free (this is probably what they do anyway since in peak season that would be the only available units) and taking into consideration the preference requests submitted by those who would be checking in the next day.

All my home resorts work this way. At Son Antem we are asked to give three preferences of where we would like to be located and if we have a 2 bed unit which of the 2 types we would prefer. All the villas are located around one of the golf courses and numbered in 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 series numbers - we are permitted 3 choices of which number series we would like but not a number within a series - so I might select 700, 500 and 800 as my three preferences in that order. I might also ask for a 2 bed unit with a master suite downstairs - especially if we have guests since that gives the guest the upper floor as a more private accommodation. What we actually get depends on what is freed up on the day we check in. If no units in the 700 number series vacate on the day I check in then my request for a priority for a 700 series unit is not going to be met.

Every year I hear owners moaning that they did not get their favourite villa or location but every year I hear the GM stress in his reports and presentations that asking for a specific unit really cannot work since they cannot and will not keep a unit empty just so someone can check in to their specific requested unit.

Considering how difficult it must be with a weeks only system with 3 or perhaps 4 days for check-in, now consider how difficult it will become as weeks get more broken up with DC point reservations starting on any day of the week for as little as 1 night and up-wards from there.

In October we have 6 nights booked at Crystal Shores using DC points and we check in on a Wednesday. I guess the resort will send me an email asking for my preferences but what I get will depend wholly on what is available within my reservation. Since I reserved a 2 bed unit with Gulf Coast View - I would expect to get that but how high or low in the building I will be, will really depend on what is free on the day I check in.

The same situation with the follow on reservation in Frenchman's Cove - we check in on a Tuesday on DC points for 13 nights - again where we will be located will be dependant very much on what units are free on the day we check in.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2013)

MALC9990 said:


> So now I'll be really controversial. Perhaps the best way forward and fairest would be to do away with all priority for unit allocation all together. No special priority for multi week owners staying at their home resort and no priority for anyone. ...



I'm all for it if they can't get their acts together to develop a network-wide Priority Placement system that meets somewhere in the middle - not treating multi-Week Owners as if they deserve The Best Of The Best for every stay but at the other extreme not giving any priority to any Owners/Members.  The simplest way to do that is to streamline the Priority Placement hierarchy to include DC Members as owners of a sort and take into consideration multi-Week and Premier/Plus status, while also implementing a rotational system.

We just got back from two weeks at SurfWatch in our owned OceanVista and OceanSide units.  The first week we were placed on the top floor of the OV building, the second on the second floor of an OS building.  That follows the statement that's published in the GM's newsletter, that Owners will be rotated among the "best" and "worst" units on each successive stay (and it follows our historical usage.)  Obviously we had to change units because we own different views but from what I understand they also don't guarantee that if you own multi-Weeks with the same view, you'll be allowed to stay in the same unit for consecutive weeks.

That works for me as the most fair way to implement placement IF their intent is to "reward" ownership status but also not restrict the "best" units to only owners with status.  It will be even more fair if DC Members are integrated to be Owners of a sort.  But I get the feeling that like you say, adopting the system across the network would be too "controversial" and there are many owners/members who wouldn't be happy with it at all.

For what it's worth, this TUG conversation is practically useless.  (But that's never stopped me!  )  I've talked with my resorts' GM's and several MVC execs about all this over the years, and I'm left with the distinct impression that at the executive level they don't care enough about it to issue directives to each resort (despite the fact that the execs have insisted that the rotational system enforced at my resorts is supposed to be implemented network-wide.)


----------



## MALC9990 (Jun 17, 2013)

In all my 10 years as an owner with MVCI, I have never been asked to move units in the middle of a multi week stay anywhere even when on an II exchange for a multi-week stay. We have changed units when there has been a problem that forced us to move as earlier this year in Phuket Beach Club but that was a whole different story.

Even when we share weeks with friends who also own at Phuket Beach Club where we reserve 2 weeks and they then reserve the next two weeks - we always stay in the same unit for the four weeks - we just swap bedrooms at the halfway point.

This may change in Sept when we are at Harbour Point for 2 weeks on an II exchange and I believe these are fixed week units so we may have to relocate at the halfway point. The logistics will be a pain especially for the refrigerator contents.


----------



## bazzap (Jun 17, 2013)

MALC9990 said:


> In all my 10 years as an owner with MVCI, I have never been asked to move units in the middle of a multi week stay anywhere even when on an II exchange for a multi-week stay. We have changed units when there has been a problem that forced us to move as earlier this year in Phuket Beach Club but that was a whole different story.
> 
> Even when we share weeks with friends who also own at Phuket Beach Club where we reserve 2 weeks and they then reserve the next two weeks - we always stay in the same unit for the four weeks - we just swap bedrooms at the halfway point.
> 
> This may change in Sept when we are at Harbour Point for 2 weeks on an II exchange and I believe these are fixed week units so we may have to relocate at the halfway point. The logistics will be a pain especially for the refrigerator contents.


Similarly, we have never been asked to change units mid way through a multi week stay.
Many years ago, it had been suggested that during our first 5 week home resort stay at St Kitts we might have to check out at 10am every week and check back in to a different unit at 4pm every week - thank goodness this never happened!!!    
Hopefully, you will not have to change or if you really do they will allow you to stay in the first villa until the second one becomes available. If not, I do hope they have a good solution for fridge content transfer...etc.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2013)

MALC9990 said:


> In all my 10 years as an owner with MVCI, I have never been asked to move units in the middle of a multi week stay anywhere even when on an II exchange for a multi-week stay. We have changed units when there has been a problem that forced us to move as earlier this year in Phuket Beach Club but that was a whole different story.
> 
> Even when we share weeks with friends who also own at Phuket Beach Club where we reserve 2 weeks and they then reserve the next two weeks - we always stay in the same unit for the four weeks - we just swap bedrooms at the halfway point.
> 
> This may change in Sept when we are at Harbour Point for 2 weeks on an II exchange and I believe these are fixed week units so we may have to relocate at the halfway point. The logistics will be a pain especially for the refrigerator contents.



All the resorts on Hilton Head use this system where if you're moving from one unit/resort to another, they let you stay in the first unit beyond the usual check-out time until the second is ready, at which time they call you to let you know it's time to go.  It really makes it easier all around but especially for the food transfer - no worries about Bell Services or cold food storage.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 17, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> That follows the statement that's published in the GM's newsletter, that Owners will be rotated among the "best" and "worst" units on each successive stay (and it follows our historical usage.)



So who gets the more average middle of the road units. If one year you get the best, the next one of the worst where does that leave the average stuff?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 17, 2013)

MALC9990 said:


> In all my 10 years as an owner with MVCI, I have never been asked to move units in the middle of a multi week stay anywhere even when on an II exchange for a multi-week stay. We have changed units when there has been a problem that forced us to move as earlier this year in Phuket Beach Club but that was a whole different story.
> 
> Even when we share weeks with friends who also own at Phuket Beach Club where we reserve 2 weeks and they then reserve the next two weeks - we always stay in the same unit for the four weeks - we just swap bedrooms at the halfway point.
> 
> This may change in Sept when we are at Harbour Point for 2 weeks on an II exchange and I believe these are fixed week units so we may have to relocate at the halfway point. The logistics will be a pain especially for the refrigerator contents.



I think a lot depends on what views you own and if there are different views at the resort. I can understand the situation Susan was in. She was staying on their owned week. If the resort kept them in the Ocean Vista view the second week, then another owner would have to be downgraded from the view that they own. It becomes a lot more troublesome if owner occupancy is high.

With II exchanges there is a lot more flexibility, if there are other II exchanges staying the same week, they can move them back and forth between confirmed units. I can understand the resort keeping you in the view you purchased. If people caught on that they would not make you move units, people would buy an ocean front and a garden view and then book two consecutive weeks the first in ocean front hoping to stay in the ocean front unit for both weeks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 17, 2013)

Wouldn't they be better to just use ownership status in DC to prioritize priority placement. Do as follows.

Put Premier Plus Owners on par with Multi Week owners staying on their owned week.
Put Premier Owners on par with single week owners staying on their owned week.
Put Standard Owners on par with MVCI owners exchanging in.
Seems an equitable way to do it?


----------



## Aviator621 (Jun 17, 2013)

I personally think it is unreasonable to have owners priority at ALL Marriott resorts solely because the Trust has a fractional ownership in each. I still see the Trust Points as an overlay on an existing system that had made promises and expectations that should be honored, including priority of room assignment for those that bought there.  While I would be ok with trust priority over exchangers, I can't see the fairness in placing them on par or above people who own in whole at the resort. If I found out that I do not get my request in favor of someone who used trust points for three days of stay, I would be less than happy.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> So who gets the more average middle of the road units. If one year you get the best, the next one of the worst where does that leave the average stuff?



You'd think with as many words as I use it would be easier for me to get my points across, right?  Sorry about that ...

I think the intent with the rotational system is that no owners are ever guaranteed to be placed in the "best" units for every single one of their stays.  The intent of the wording they use is to prepare all owners for the possibility that they could be placed in any unit (within their view category, of course,) that their status will count for some stays but not others.  Eventually, it should shake out that every owner gets placed in any of the units that are within their owned unit type/view - best, worst and everything in-between.

Next year if I stay another two owned Weeks at SurfWatch, based on the pattern that's developed for my usage I'll expect a second or third floor unit in the OV building and a fifth (highest) floor unit in one of the OS buildings.

SurfWatch is a relatively small resort; maybe that's why it's easy enough for them to implement this system.  Whenever we get into this discussion I always think of NCV, a large resort with only a few buildings having the best view of the ocean, a too-long Plat season, and a policy of multi-Weeks Owners always being placed into those "best" units during the high-demand periods.  I'd be complaining all over creation if I was one of those single-Week Owners, but folks just seem resigned to that being the way it is.  It happens at other resorts, too, not just NCV.  It's unfair IMO, the same way it's unfair that DC Members aren't being integrated at all of the resorts.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> Wouldn't they be better to just use ownership status in DC to prioritize priority placement. Do as follows.
> 
> Put Premier Plus Owners on par with Multi Week owners staying on their owned week.
> Put Premier Owners on par with single week owners staying on their owned week.
> ...



Works for me, but along with the rotational system.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 17, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Works for me, but along with the rotational system.



There is no need for the rotational system. The Premier Plus owners along with multi week owners staying on their week always get the premium units. As soon as they rotate them down and put a standard owner in the premium unit, then my hierarchy goes out the window.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> There is no need for the rotational system. The Premier Plus owners along with multi week owners staying on their week always get the premium units. As soon as they rotate them down and put a standard owner in the premium unit, then my hierarchy goes out the window.



[deleted]  What a mess!  Let me think on this ...

[eta] Okay.  I like the way you integrated DC Members, simply - Premier Plat DC = Multi-Week Owners, Premier DC = Single Week Owners, Standard DC = MVC Owners exchanging in.  That works for me to settle the question of what a Priority list that integrates DC Members could look like if published.

I understand what you're saying about the rotational system negating any Priority Placement but I still think that to be fair to all Owners/Members it has to be employed during the highest-demand periods, which is when lower-tier Owners/Members won't stand a chance at good unit placements if Multi-Week Owners/DC Members are always given priority.  For example, the rotational system can be implemented for the eight-ten highest Owner/Member usage periods at NCV, to give those lower-tier Owners/Members a fighting chance at least every other year.  But for all the other time periods when Owners/Members aren't nearly as much an overwhelming majority of guests onsite, rotation isn't as necessary because Owners/Members can be placed ahead of the non-Owners/Members.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 17, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> I think a lot depends on what views you own and if there are different views at the resort. I can understand the situation Susan was in. She was staying on their owned week. If the resort kept them in the Ocean Vista view the second week, then another owner would have to be downgraded from the view that they own. It becomes a lot more troublesome if owner occupancy is high.
> 
> With II exchanges there is a lot more flexibility, if there are other II exchanges staying the same week, they can move them back and forth between confirmed units. I can understand the resort keeping you in the view you purchased. If people caught on that they would not make you move units, people would buy an ocean front and a garden view and then book two consecutive weeks the first in ocean front hoping to stay in the ocean front unit for both weeks.



Missed this earlier - I'd never advocate Owners/DC Members using their ownerships being placed into anything except what they own (Weeks) or have reserved (Points.)  All of this presupposes that we're talking about the best, worst and in-between within view categories.

I'm guessing that MALC and bazzap were surprised by my comment that multi-Week Owners using their own (same unit/view category) Weeks aren't guaranteed to be able to stay in the same unit during a multi-week stay.  Based on TUG reports it seems most resorts will practically guarantee it whenever possible - SurfWatch doesn't, as far as I've been told, again because of the rotational policy.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 17, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Works for me, but along with the rotational system.



What about Ritz Carlton DC owners who now have access to the MVCI portfolio.  How should they be integrated into the mix?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 17, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> What about Ritz Carlton DC owners who now have access to the MVCI portfolio.  How should they be integrated into the mix?



They are Premier Plus owners, right? So they would be at the top of the heap along with multi week owners staying on their owned weeks.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 17, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> They are Premier Plus owners, right? So they would be at the top of the heap along with multi week owners staying on their owned weeks.



Guess you are correct outstanding some higher tier we are not aware of.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 18, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> [_OP in post #21 of this thread_]
> Oh thank goodness, one less reason to storm the castle.  I mean, it's good that specific rooms aren't pre-assigned for PP status prior to check-in - not so good that DC status doesn't appear to be integrated into the resort's placement system at all favorably.  There just has to be a middle ground, I'm convinced.
> 
> With the way you gush over the resort I'm sure your friend will manage to make the best of things and have a grand time.  Were you able to warn him in advance that maybe the rep was speaking out of turn, prepare him for the worst?  I hope so.



It definitely seems that we have heard enough reports of poor unit placements with DC point based (or hybrid) type stays to have some concern here. I agree that there needs to be a middle ground. Especially with a pure trust points owner.


----------



## suzannesimon (Jun 18, 2013)

Has anyone considered that check-in date might impact room placement? I  am a Premier DC member and own 2 fixed weeks.  We always check in on Sat or Sun during holiday weeks and have had lousy room placement at my home resort as well as when using DC points at other resorts since the beginning of the Destination Club.  I'm wondering if I check in for a Thurs to Thurs week,  a day before the weeks owners can check in (assuming a resort with Fri, Sat or Sun check-in's), if the unit placement would be better.  Of course, that would require converting my weeks to points at my home resort.  With the skim, I wouldn't have enough points to reserve my own 2 weeks.

I can only imagine the nightmare managing daily check-in's, short stays and weeks owners is.  Every owner staying 2 days is removing  a unit that a 7-day reservation could have.  Not too much of a problem during low season, but during Platinum has got to be a mess.


----------



## kjd (Jun 19, 2013)

This discussion is a little confusing.  Weeks owners bought with the understanding that they also purchased a view, (Garden, Ocean, Ocean side, etc.).  Additionally, Marriott has stated that the unit preferences go first to home resort owners followed by a listing of other situations, (Traders, non-Marriott owners, cash payers, renters, etc.)  In other words, Marriott has always had the right to assign units according to a protocol of their choosing.  It was widely known among all weeks owners.  

Under the old weeks system when you traded into another resort you could expect to be placed anywhere.  Now that we have two buckets of points there seems to be a feeling that there are two classes of Marriott owners.  It could be just sales hype as the sales staff tries to "shear the sheep" one more time to purchase points.  If not, it's unfortunate that the rules have changed.  As an enrolled weeks owner I expect to get first consideration at my home resort within my view purchase.  When I trade, I expect the luck of the draw.  Nothing more.

If there is a change in the protocol of assigning units Marriott ought to announce it rather than have a whispering campaign conducted by the sales staff.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 19, 2013)

kjd said:


> This discussion is a little confusing.  Weeks owners bought with the understanding that they also purchased a view, (Garden, Ocean, Ocean side, etc.).  Additionally, Marriott has stated that the unit preferences go first to home resort owners followed by a listing of other situations, (Traders, non-Marriott owners, cash payers, renters, etc.)  In other words, Marriott has always had the right to assign units according to a protocol of their choosing.  It was widely known among all weeks owners.
> 
> Under the old weeks system when you traded into another resort you could expect to be placed anywhere.  Now that we have two buckets of points there seems to be a feeling that there are two classes of Marriott owners.  It could be just sales hype as the sales staff tries to "shear the sheep" one more time to purchase points.  If not, it's unfortunate that the rules have changed.  As an enrolled weeks owner I expect to get first consideration at my home resort within my view purchase.  When I trade, I expect the luck of the draw.  Nothing more.
> 
> If there is a change in the protocol of assigning units Marriott ought to announce it rather than have a whispering campaign conducted by the sales staff.



What about when you stay at your own resort using your enrolled DC Points and not your original owner week?  What do you expect then?

What if your owner week is at a property where there are a large amount of Trust units and you were up against a trust reservation owner?  What do you expect then?

What if you own only own 1 week in the system and are a standard owner?  Would you still think you would get priority over a new Premier Plus Trust owner?

What if your reservation is for 1 week and the Trust owner is staying for 3 weeks?  Who should get the better unit?

Not a simple task that the properties have to deal with.....


----------



## kjd (Jun 19, 2013)

I'd like to know the answers to those questions too.  However, since there is little or no transparency in the process we won't find out.  Only speculation unless Marriott is more forthcoming.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 19, 2013)

kjd said:


> I'd like to know the answers to those questions too.  However, since there is little or no transparency in the process we won't find out.  Only speculation unless Marriott is more forthcoming.



I agree with the transparency but I think we will find out if we continue to highlight these question and have owners post their experiences on this site.

FT


----------



## wvacations (Jun 19, 2013)

This whole discussion reminds me if my stay at Aruba Surf Club using DC points for a Ocean Side Studio.   When they assigned the room at check in and I saw the room number I questioned the agent to make sure the room was Ocean Side as reserved. The agent said "yes, technically it is." That wording made me suspicious, and sure enough when I got to the room there was no view of the ocean. Not even a slight glimpse of a sliver of ocean. It was on the other side of the building and could not see the ocean.  I had already stayed 10 days in a ocean view 2br unit and was just staying 5 nights 
In the studio. Not a big deal but the OS is more points and that is what I had reserved. I went to the front desk and told them that someone could come to my room and show me any glimpse of the ocean or they could refund the difference in points. I got the typical story about high occupancy by owners, and my exchange was low on the list for views. I told them I was fine with the room, but I wanted the points refunded and the expiration date of those points extended for a year. Manager came out and said he could not refund the points. His explanation was that the studio I was assigned was the lock-off of a 3BR unit and the other part of that unit had beautiful ocean views and therefore my studio was classified as OS. I told him I would take the matter up with MVC but to note that I was disputing the points deducted from my accoutered. Left the desk back to the pool. Got a call on my cell phone about 10 minutes later form the manager letting me know I wads assigned to a different room and asked if I need help with my luggage. I found the whole matter kind of funny to have a Ocean room that they admit has no Ocean view!


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 19, 2013)

wvacations said:


> This whole discussion reminds me if my stay at Aruba Surf Club using DC points for a Ocean Side Studio.   When they assigned the room at check in and I saw the room number I questioned the agent to make sure the room was Ocean Side as reserved. The agent said "yes, technically it is." That wording made me suspicious, and sure enough when I got to the room there was no view of the ocean. Not even a slight glimpse of a sliver of ocean. It was on the other side of the building and could not see the ocean.  I had already stayed 10 days in a ocean view 2br unit and was just staying 5 nights
> In the studio. Not a big deal but the OS is more points and that is what I had reserved. I went to the front desk and told them that someone could come to my room and show me any glimpse of the ocean or they could refund the difference in points. I got the typical story about high occupancy by owners, and my exchange was low on the list for views. I told them I was fine with the room, but I wanted the points refunded and the expiration date of those points extended for a year. Manager came out and said he could not refund the points. His explanation was that the studio I was assigned was the lock-off of a 3BR unit and the other part of that unit had beautiful ocean views and therefore my studio was classified as OS. I told him I would take the matter up with MVC but to note that I was disputing the points deducted from my accoutered. Left the desk back to the pool. Got a call on my cell phone about 10 minutes later form the manager letting me know I wads assigned to a different room and asked if I need help with my luggage. I found the whole matter kind of funny to have a Ocean room that they admit has no Ocean view!



Thanks for sharing!


----------



## csalter2 (Jun 19, 2013)

*An Owner is an Owner is an Owner*



SueDonJ said:


> We really will have to agree to disagree - I think it's completely unfair that DC Trust Members are not considered on par with Weeks Owners.  If there isn't a way for the resort personnel to differentiate between DC Trust and Exchange Members, which it appears there isn't, then all DC Members should be considered equal to Weeks Owners.
> 
> I really hope that as the program develops more of the resorts will adopt a fairer Priority Placement system, the one that also uses a rotational system so that the same "special" owners aren't practically guaranteed to be placed into the best units for every stay.  I've always said it's unfair that at certain resorts single Weeks owners don't ever get a chance to be placed into the "best" units because multi-Week owners are always placed ahead of them.  Well, now I think that unfairness is being extended to DC Members, especially Trust Members.  There has to be a better way so that certain owners/members aren't made to feel like they're not as important at the resorts.  Quite honestly, I'm not in favor of the resort personnel encouraging the "entitlement behavior" that it seems too many owners/members have already adopted.



Sue, I posted on GregT's other thread on this topic so I am not sure if you want to place it over here or not. 

Folks, if your reservation says MVC, you are obviously an owner. It doesn't make a difference if you are a trust owner, legacy owner, etc. You can only be an MVC exchange if you own in some way. When maintenance fees need to be paid by points/trust owners, their money goes to all of the resorts. They are just like legacy owners, but their maintenance fees are being spread across all of the properties that are a part of the trust.  Everyone is paying into the same big poit so there is no need to separate.


----------



## csalter2 (Jun 19, 2013)

*It is not making a difference now*

I am at DSVI now. I am using DC points to stay here for 5 nights. When I checked in, no one asked me if I was a legacy or points owner.  They knew that I was an enrolled owner because they called me before arrival to give me an "update".  My units here face the beautiful golf course and they are both newly refurbished.  I don't believe there is any distinction that is being made nor should there be for owners at any level.  Now if you were coming from II, that may be different, but those of us who are Marriott owners, well we should be special.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jun 19, 2013)

good evening....

The whole point of this is...

an owner isn't an owner....  Greg's buddy or Fractional will  never see above the trees at MOC or Grande Ocean during prime time.  AT DSV1 you are now off season..  You are member of the club exchanging not a MF paying owner to this resort.. You have a great view because it is off season, and I am sure there aren't a ton of direct ownership weeks used...

When I bought my GV week...  I was told that I could only exchange into MOC and if I did would be at bottom of gene pool for placement.  I had the option of forking out the extra coin (like GregT did) and purchase 6206.  I chose to enter the system for less $$$ and take my chances.

Greg's buddy was told that he owns everywhere!!!  he was not offered a MOC week... or any other week...


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 19, 2013)

csalter2 said:


> I am at DSVI now. I am using DC points to stay here for 5 nights. When I checked in, no one asked me if I was a legacy or points owner.  They knew that I was an enrolled owner because they called me before arrival to give me an "update".  My units here face the beautiful golf course and they are both newly refurbished.  I don't believe there is any distinction that is being made nor should there be for owners at any level.  Now if you were coming from II, that may be different, but those of us who are Marriott owners, well we should be special.



DSV is low season in the heat (its 100F today) of summer.  II TDI is 100 this week which is average.

They call everyone except their mother to get them to a meeting.  They get paid to haul you into the sales gallery.

A lot of the units face the golf course in one shape or form at DSV.  Heck its either a golf course or the dessert in that part of the west.

I bet the 25 year old person checking you in doesn't know if you are an owner or not.  They probably can only see the sales channel that was used as the source of the reservation.

FT


----------



## Aviator621 (Jun 19, 2013)

So answer me this:
Scenario 1: An exchanger deposits his week via II and trades into another resort
Scenario 2: the exchanger takes the same week, converts to points, and trades for the same week.
In the first scenario the exchanger is treated as an exchanger. In the second scenario, many here are suggesting that he now be given the same priority as an owner. Why should his priority change just because he decided to use points instead of II?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 19, 2013)

Aviator621 said:


> So answer me this:
> Scenario 1: An exchanger deposits his week via II and trades into another resort
> Scenario 2: the exchanger takes the same week, converts to points, and trades for the same week.
> In the first scenario the exchanger is treated as an exchanger. In the second scenario, many here are suggesting that he now be given the same priority as an owner. Why should his priority change just because he decided to use points instead of II?



I would agree, though owners exchanging back in to their home resort are given some priority over people exchanging in from outside. At least at some resorts. 

The problem is that from a customers points of view, when they are calling Marriott and using their points, they don't think of it as an exchange, even though it is. They look at it as a straight up reservation.

Should they educate the customers that they are exchanging when making the reservation, or should they accommodate them as people making reservations in priority placement. There is no right or wrong answer. Marriott doesn't want people to think they are exchanging in when using points, but they seem to still want to treat them as exchangers in priority placement.


----------



## WINSLOW (Jun 20, 2013)

Maybe they could do like Starwood and just put a date & time stamp on DC point reservations ( or all resvs). The earlier resv gets their requested placement choices first, within category.  

Week Owners get to reserve 1st anyway( I think),  so if they book when 1st available they'll have an earlier time stamp than a points resv. 

Also, within Starwood, if you make any changes to a resv you lose your time stamp.  So if using Puck tricks (nothing wrong with them, I love em), but you'd have to weigh your priorities before making any reservation.  Again all within category booked.


----------



## Superchief (Jun 20, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Superchief, my impression is that the properties know who is an owner and who is not.
> 
> Trust owners and legacy owners staying on DC point reservations are not currently viewed as owners IMHO based upon my experience in the program to date.  Others may be having better luck than me but this is just my experience.
> 
> ...



FT,
My villa assignment experiences at Ocean Pointe (where I own 1 wk) have been very inconsistent, more so than any other MVC resort. I haven't tried to stay there yet with DC points, but I've received poor villa assignment for my owned week (shoulder season), and excellent villa assignment on an II exchange during spring break. During one visit, I watched a non-Marriott exchanger complain loudly and then being given the first Oceanside unit on the fifth floor. I think they were given mine  because I ended up in a back villa on the third floor. At Oceana Palms, I was told that DC points users have the same priority as owners, but management is trying to hold rooms in the Sunrise tower for owners at least for the next few years.

I agree with Dioxide's proposed hierarchy. Premiere Plus owners are similar to multiple weeks owners. They have invested a lot in MVC and deserve to be given villa assignment priority whether they are enrolled owners or trust owners. 

I believe the biggest issue causing villa location problems is the increase in shorter stays. There are significantly fewer rooms becoming available on the most common check-in days and this is compounded by the variation in length of stays. This problem becomes even more challenging in lockoff resorts.


----------



## m61376 (Jun 20, 2013)

wvacations said:


> This whole discussion reminds me if my stay at Aruba Surf Club using DC points for a Ocean Side Studio.   When they assigned the room at check in and I saw the room number I questioned the agent to make sure the room was Ocean Side as reserved. The agent said "yes, technically it is." That wording made me suspicious, and sure enough when I got to the room there was no view of the ocean. Not even a slight glimpse of a sliver of ocean. It was on the other side of the building and could not see the ocean.  I had already stayed 10 days in a ocean view 2br unit and was just staying 5 nights
> In the studio. Not a big deal but the OS is more points and that is what I had reserved. I went to the front desk and told them that someone could come to my room and show me any glimpse of the ocean or they could refund the difference in points. I got the typical story about high occupancy by owners, and my exchange was low on the list for views. I told them I was fine with the room, but I wanted the points refunded and the expiration date of those points extended for a year. Manager came out and said he could not refund the points. His explanation was that the studio I was assigned was the lock-off of a 3BR unit and the other part of that unit had beautiful ocean views and therefore my studio was classified as OS. I told him I would take the matter up with MVC but to note that I was disputing the points deducted from my accoutered. Left the desk back to the pool. Got a call on my cell phone about 10 minutes later form the manager letting me know I wads assigned to a different room and asked if I need help with my luggage. I found the whole matter kind of funny to have a Ocean room that they admit has no Ocean view!



This just seems like a total mistake, since the 3BR master unit is OV and not OS, being located in the Compass building, while OS units are in the Lighthouse tower. It is true that the studio side of the 3BR, while at least one and a half times the size of a regular lock-off, really has an island view. In fact, Marriott itself rents the 3BR u it's as "partial ocean view" since the studio part is not an OV, although the master part has great ocean views, since it juts out from the side of the building.


----------



## CashEddie (Jun 23, 2013)

We just left Crystal Shores on a DC points stay.  I booked at the 10 month mark for a 5 night, Sun - Thursday stay.  I booked Gulf Side and was placed in unit 607.  Beautiful unobstructed view of the Gulf.  For what I learned, the 07 and 09 units on the north side of the build facing the Hilton are considered Gulf Side, with the 07 units being the closest to the water (corner unit).  I called during the preference request period and asked to be placed in the best unit in the view category.  They advised my of the 07 units (they didn't reference it by unit number but said they would try to get me in one of the corner units.  They delivered.  

In 3 weeks we will be at OceanWatch on another DC points stay.  We booked ocean front (was the only thing available.  This resssie was made at 10 months out as well)  and I have already called to requested to be placed in either of the two buildings that are closest to the ocean.  I will report back once we arrive and get checked to see how we are placed.

I know for Crystal Shores, its now "off season" and maybe thats why we were placed in a very nice unit.  But boy the resort was filled with many families.  Maybe most of the owners that purchased there didn''t buy the summer weeks and purchased the winter weeks.  

OceanWatch will be the test because this is prime season and I know its a heavily owner occupied resort during this time of year.  

In terms of my points, I just have a lowly enrolled Grand Vista Gold week in the DC program.  I only get 2175 points.  I rented the difference in points to make both reservations.  The points were legacy points for 2013 from a owner off GregT's site.  

My belief is that what we get is purely based on availability when we are using DC/Trust points AFTER owners of the home resorts are placed based on their owner preferences.  When we enrolled our week and were educated about the points system, we were always told that the reservations would be based on availability, just like a hotel room.  I never got the notion or was it communicated in any way by the sales person that we would trump legacy owners or be on par with them at their home resorts.  It was always stressed it would be based on availability.  Yes, they said we would "own everywhere that the trust owns" if we were to purchase trust points (we didn't, we just enrolled our only legacy week that was eligible) but I would never take that statement to mean I own an oceanfront, high floor, center unit at OceanWatch during 4th of July week.


----------



## rpgriego (Jun 23, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> So much for Premier Plus.  At this point the only benefit I can see is the 13 month reservation window and the 20% points discount availability 14 days before check-in.  The RC benefit is for a limited time and Premier also has access anyways so no big deal.



Not to mention the ability to easily book one or more nights at 13 months out with no point premium. And that time difference and flexibility makes it all worth while to me!


----------



## jeepie (Jun 23, 2013)

*RC benefit for a limited time?*



FractionalTraveler said:


> ...The RC benefit is for a limited time...


I understand nothing is permanent in life; however, I thought (perhaps incorrectly) the MVC trust is acquiring more of the RC properties. Therefore, wouldn't trust points owners (P & PP) expect *increased* access to RC properties? Thanks for any insights you may be able to provide.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jun 23, 2013)

jeepie said:


> I understand nothing is permanent in life; however, I thought (perhaps incorrectly) the MVC trust is acquiring more of the RC properties. Therefore, wouldn't trust points owners (P & PP) expect *increased* access to RC properties? Thanks for any insights you may be able to provide.



You are correct.  According to MVCI they are trying to place the remaining RC DC properties in the Trust.  At that point we would have access to reserve.

Trust Point owners have nothing to do with your status.  The status is based upon how many combined points a member has.  As an example, a legacy owner can have a Premier Plus status based upon the point values assigned by Marriott at enrollment in the DC.

If you look at all the RC Destination club properties, it clearly states that access is for a limited time.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jun 23, 2013)

good afternoon...


This whole thing is getting kind of twisted....

There are only 2 types of owners...

#1 Legacy owners using their own week in season.

#2 Trust owners using trust points only to book Trust inventory..

Everyone else...

Legacy owners  trading back into their home resort via II or DC
Trust owners using Exchange (Legacy inventory)
Legacy owners using DC points
Legacy using II...

all of these are exchangers

the point of this thread is that Greg's buddy and Fractional are owner category 2 and always fall behind owner category one, however were told "they don't need a home resort" They are owners everywhere .  If I was a Trust only owner I owuld be hot under the collar about this!!!


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 23, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> You are correct.  According to MVCI they are trying to place the remaining RC DC properties in the Trust.  At that point we would have access to reserve.
> 
> Trust Point owners have nothing to do with your status.  The status is based upon how many combined points a member has.  As an example, a legacy owner can have a Premier Plus status based upon the point values assigned by Marriott at enrollment in the DC.
> 
> If you look at all the RC Destination club properties, it clearly states that access is for a limited time.



Though I think if they place the RC inventory in to the trust, they can no longer restrict it to Premier and Premier Plus. It would be open to all, well all trust owners anyway. I think anyone can book Vail. It is the RC properties available through the Explorer Collection that are restricted to Premier and Premier Plus.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jul 6, 2013)

Checked in to MFC 3-BR earlier today around 5PM. DC points stay for 8 days.

Assigned one of the worst rooms in the property.  Crown Bldg. 3rd floor right under check-in.  Manager said Owners have higher level priority than DC points reservations.

With only 9 3-BR units at MFC and 3 of them in the Crown Bldg. there is a 33% chance to land here.  Not good odds.

FT


----------



## suzannesimon (Jul 6, 2013)

I feel your pain.  We had the same unit and the 2BR next door at FC for our DEEDED fixed weeks last December.  The 2BR was in poor condition and you know the location  is the worst one in the resort.  I don't think that resort gives any kind of priority.  I saw people checking out after 2 days in Tortola Bldg,  going to the hotel and checking back after the weekend was over.  The points reservations can start any day of the week.  Weeks owners are limited to Fri, Sat, Sun check-ins.  By the time we checked in on Sun, nothing else was left.  We always had great locations prior to DC.  We'll try 
 Sat check-in next time and see if there is any improvement.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jul 7, 2013)

I suspect this will happen more and more as the average 2500 Trust Points owners try to book at these popular resorts in the system.

MFC has very little in the trust at the moment so its understandable.  Maybe the situation will improve somewhat when and if the new construction is ever completed.

Right now, my recommendation at MFC would be to book two 2-BR units instead of one 3-BR unit if you can afford the extra points.  This strategy will give you a better chance at preferential unit view location since the 3-BR are limited at this property.

I will continue to say it, the Marriott Properties have not fully comprehended how to deal with pure Trust owners.  At the moment they just see and treat them as any other exchanger.

FT


----------



## m61376 (Jul 7, 2013)

I think it would be a logistical nightmare to try to differentiate between pure trust point owners and hybrid owners on a resort level for unit placement. Imagine trying to give preferential unit placement to DC trust point owners versus DC point reservations made with some trust and some legacy points, versus reservations made with only legacy points. The reservation system has had enough of a job dealing with that. Imagine making the individual resorts make a distinction wrt unit placement as well. I think it makes for an untenable situation.

With only 9 3BR units, are 3 BR week owners having any difficulty reserving their deeded weeks, with the DC competition? I think that is an interesting question, and would be a good reflection of how fairly Marriott is keeping the reservation pools. Because of their relatively low point allocation, MFC is also a relatively good deal for making reservations using points.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 7, 2013)

good morning....

This is interesting!!!  Usually 3 bedrooms are in the best locations and mostly OF...Exceptions include MV at Koolina and 1st floor "OF" at ocean Pointe.  Imagine being a fixed week winter owner of a 3 bedroom and having a 1/3 chance of lousy location...

I had a 3 bedroom at FC last June and had top floor St John, guess I wad my lucky charms out.

Jim, as resident guru of this property, please chime in here...


----------



## csalter2 (Jul 7, 2013)

*Interesting...*

I may have to agree with your assessment. One of the things I noticed when making my Ko Olina reservation with points was that I was not given any choices other than size of unit and view for my two bedroom unit. When I make my reservations using weeks, I get the choice of a lockoff unit or not. There was no choice given with points. I had to call a VOA and have her do it. She cancelled the reservation I booked and then created a new one so that I couuld have a lockoff.  

Although Ko Olina is my home resort, I am going to make sure that since I am using the DC points that they will know that I am an owner there. I don't want the worse units in the place.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 7, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> I agree with your comments regarding legacy point exchangers but I still think that pure Trust point owners/reservations should be on par with weeks based owners when it comes to villa room assignment priority.
> FT



I've come to this discussion late (after 4 pages).   I've read through the first page and then came to this on the 2nd.   Skipped ahead to the 4th page.   Since everyone's giving their opinions, here's mine. . .

1) Weeks' owners still get room location priority

2) DC members get what they were promised:  program flexibility and, in some cases, reservation priority.   Welcoming hugs and kisses at the check-in desk were not part of the selling points.   The biggest selling point was to do away with the II system of waiting and gambling for an exchange.   Other uses for DC points, such as tour packages, was another selling point.     

3) II exchangers go with the flow and sometimes get lucky

The reality is every property has rooms in less desirable locations and these even vary with individual preferences.    If you want to visit South Florida, Aruba, St. Thomas, Marco Island, Hilton Head, Hawaii, etc. and have purchased into a Club you need to understand the benefits and the LIMITATIONS of the Club.   Spending big bucks in a Club still only gives you benefits as noted by the documents of the Club.     

Otherwise, purchase your rooms directly through travel venues and specify what room location you want.   You will then find that the most desirable room locations will be possible but they will come with a price.

p.s.   I'm Platinum Plus or whatever that high priority is.   It has benefits and I understand it's limitations.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 7, 2013)

Quilter...

I know I am reopening the barn door here... but we aren't talking about Legacy enrolees in DC (such as myself) that are clearly Exchangers and come before weeks owners at home resort...

This was started by FT lamenting that he is a trust OWNER at his home resort (anything in trust) and he isn't treated like an owner!!!  I am assuming that FT is a "he".

p.s FT Congrats on Heat win... close shave though...


----------



## Quilter (Jul 7, 2013)

suzannesimon said:


> I feel your pain.  We had the same unit and the 2BR next door at FC for our DEEDED fixed weeks last December.  The 2BR was in poor condition and you know the location  is the worst one in the resort.  I don't think that resort gives any kind of priority.  I saw people checking out after 2 days in Tortola Bldg,  going to the hotel and checking back after the weekend was over.  The points reservations can start any day of the week.  Weeks owners are limited to Fri, Sat, Sun check-ins.  By the time we checked in on Sun, nothing else was left.  We always had great locations prior to DC.  We'll try
> Sat check-in next time and see if there is any improvement.



My opinion on this property is there is no great location.   I don't like the property and I don't like the island.   Please don't make me go there again.  It doesn't meet my personal vacation desires and expectations.

  Wow, that's rough to say in such a volatile forum isn't it?   Before you start throwing stones I'd like to say more.

Some people would be grateful for any room at Frenchman's Cove.   It would be their Paradise.   The lack of water view would be more than compensated by the size of the room, the well-equipped kitchen, the pool and beach.   And even the clutter of the island would bring a quick pace to their heartbeat and thrill of adventure.    Their expectations would have been met.

Expectations is the key to travel enjoyment.   Figure out what your expectations are and plan accordingly.   You'll be sorely disappointed if you expect a property to fill in expectations that weren't specified at booking.


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 7, 2013)

Quilter said:


> My opinion on this property is there is no great location.   I don't like the property and I don't like the island.   Please don't make me go there again.  It doesn't meet my personal vacation desires and expectations.
> 
> Wow, that's rough to say in such a volatile forum isn't it?   Before you start throwing stones I'd like to say more.
> 
> ...



Your opinion counts as much as any other opinion on this site. And after our recent stay at FC we TOTALLY AGREE with you. FYI: we were an II trade with a GREAT location/view.

And always remember... An opinion is just that, an opinion. Now if someone can establish a trend line based on published and validated facts that would not be an opinion, but I don't see that much. That said, the posts on here can be informative.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 7, 2013)

puckmanfl said:


> Quilter...
> 
> I know I am reopening the barn door here... but we aren't talking about Legacy enrolees in DC (such as myself) that are clearly Exchangers and come before weeks owners at home resort...
> 
> ...



I understand that puck.  I've gone back to the original post and lifted the following:   

"I'm told real owners have priority; I'm just another guest looking for something for free. Since we don't really know the source of inventory, what if that unit I reserved was actually from the Trust? Would I be a legit owner then? Would Marriott recognize my existence then? Would they give me that sought after discount privilege card at check-in so I can eat on property at a reasonable price?

Would I really be an exchanger if the unit was from the Trust? Can the property be challenged to show me that it was not from the trust? Could they even be able to tell the difference in the source of that inventory?

Being homeless in the trust stinks! How can that be though? Wait a minute, I'm paying Marriott top dollar for those Trust Points.

My salesman said if I bought those points I would have DIRECT access to all those wonderful properties in the Trust. Oh wait a minute, I think his lips were moving....."

My answer to most of his questions:   You own Points.   Points give you direct access to exchange.   You're paying top dollar for Trust points because of the timing of the purchase.. .not the superiority of your ownership.   You exchanged points for the room.   Therefore, it is a MVC Exchange.   

As far as getting those special owner recognitions (such as a dining discount), those are items of an old system.   If they're not in the documents they cannot be claimed as a benefit of the new system.   Of course, Marriott can provide them as a customer service, but they cannot be expected.   

Others have chimed in that at properties with both legacy and trust inventory room allocation priority should be equal.   I contend an exchanger is always an exchanger.   MVC exchangers have priority over II exchangers.   

As such, I know it will come up when I use points at my home property.   I'll have to work with the front desk on each reservation because of this.   But hey, that's no different than every stay within the Marriott system.   I don't think there is any solution to room location allocation that will satisfy all the guests. 

It seems to me, and I say this with the utmost appreciation for FT's presence on TUG, is what he's looking for as a Trust Owner is a "DYKWIA Clause".   Sorry, FT it doesn't exist.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 7, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Checked in to MFC 3-BR earlier today around 5PM. DC points stay for 8 days.
> 
> Assigned one of the worst rooms in the property.  Crown Bldg. 3rd floor right under check-in.  Manager said Owners have higher level priority than DC points reservations.
> 
> ...



Are you calling or e-mail in advance of your stay to make a villa request? If not, is it possible that those that are calling in advance are getting priority over you whom is not?


----------



## suzannesimon (Jul 7, 2013)

I don't think it matters what you request or what kind of owner you are there - legacy, points or weeks - you get what you get. There are no dumpster views at FC and I'm unaware of any weeks that don't have at least some ocean view.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 7, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Checked in to MFC 3-BR earlier today around 5PM. DC points stay for 8 days.
> 
> Assigned one of the worst rooms in the property.  Crown Bldg. 3rd floor right under check-in.  Manager said Owners have higher level priority than DC points reservations.
> 
> ...



Before the DC those 9 3 BR's might have been broken up to (3) Friday check-in, (3) Saturday check-in and (3) Sunday check-in.  You guys are the math experts, not me, but I would think this would worsen the odds of getting a preferred location.   Now that the DC has entered into the equation with 7 more days of possible check-in, preferred location is even more elusive.

Am I right?


----------



## suzannesimon (Jul 7, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Before the DC those 9 3 BR's might have been broken up to (3) Friday check-in, (3) Saturday check-in and (3) Sunday check-in.  You guys are the math experts, not me, but I would think this would worsen the odds of getting a preferred location.   Now that the DC has entered into the equation with 7 more days of possible check-in, preferred location is even more elusive.
> 
> Am I right?



Absolutely you are right.  I don't care what kind of ownership you have, I think a 7 day reservation should trump a 2-day.  Put those short-timers in the Crown Bldg.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jul 7, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> Are you calling or e-mail in advance of your stay to make a villa request? If not, is it possible that those that are calling in advance are getting priority over you whom is not?



Spoke to the Member Relations Manager on phone 2 times and traded e-mails several times one month before reservation.

FT


----------



## suzannesimon (Jul 7, 2013)

My first choices were high floor Tortola and Jost VanDyke.  Got low floor Crown - go figure.  I requested  this when I reserved plus the email prior to check in. Not until I checked in did I know that Crown had 3 3-bedroom units.  My first trip there in 2009, I asked the mgr where the 3 BR's were.  He told me Crown had one but they never put owners there inCrown - only exchangers and people  attending a timeshare presentation so I was very surprised to be assigned there .  Crown has only one 2 and 1 3BR on each floor.  Since I needed a 2 and a 3 BR, they tried to sell it to me that we would a full floor all to ourselves.  Honestly, it didn't bother anyone but me because my expectations were that an owner wouldn't be there.  It is all about expectations.


----------



## jimf41 (Jul 7, 2013)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning....
> 
> This is interesting!!!  Usually 3 bedrooms are in the best locations and mostly OF...Exceptions include MV at Koolina and 1st floor "OF" at ocean Pointe.  Imagine being a fixed week winter owner of a 3 bedroom and having a 1/3 chance of lousy location...
> 
> ...



I like this resident guru idea. Does that position come with a stipend? I'm on a fixed income now and I could use a little extra cash to cover the ever increasing MFs.

Actually my Guru status is in question. Until *suzannesimon* reported that she was placed in the Crown bldg I would have sworn up and down that 3bdrms in MFC are all on the top floors and that an owner would never be placed in the Crown bldg. Lost twice on that one.

At the two resorts that I own and frequent, Ocean Pointe and Frenchmans Cove. I stay at least 3-4 weeks at a time. I've always had good room locations at both resorts but at both I know they give preference to multiple week owners. What worries me is that FT  and *suzannesimon* are multiple week owners also yet they were given a low priority room. The only thing that explains it is the very low number of 3bdrms at MFC and the fact that 33% are less than desirable views. Perhaps this situation will improve upon completion of the resort but thats years in the future IMO.

The bigger issue for me is the pecking order for weeks owners, legacy points and trust points. IMO weeks owners and trust owners should be treated equally. Weeks owners and trust owners that decide to deposit into the exchange pool should be next. All others can fall in behind somewhere. If MVCI doesn't straighten this out it's going to make for some interesting conversations at the owners meetings and sales presentations.


----------



## jimf41 (Jul 7, 2013)

Quilter said:


> My opinion on this property is there is no great location.   I don't like the property and I don't like the island.   Please don't make me go there again.  It doesn't meet my personal vacation desires and expectations.
> 
> Wow, that's rough to say in such a volatile forum isn't it?   Before you start throwing stones I'd like to say more.



Too late. I have called a couple of old pals in the Michigan Army National Guard. Two Blackhawk helicopters have been dispatched to spray weed killer on your garden.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

suzannesimon said:


> Absolutely you are right.  I don't care what kind of ownership you have, I think a 7 day reservation should trump a 2-day.  Put those short-timers in the Crown Bldg.



I wasn't saying a 7 day reservation should trump a 1-6 day stay.   I was trying to point out that most resorts spread the Fri./Sat./Sun. check-ins evenly amongst the villas.   Then the front desk has to fit in there the renters and DC members who have shorter stays.   

What about the owner/MVC Exchanger who adds 3 days to their owned week?   Would you insist they move units?   If not, that leaves 4 nights open in what you would consider a prime location.   How would you fill it. . .renter, MVC Exchange?  Also, don't forget the rooms that get taken out of rotation for days when there is a major repair.   

At Ocean Pointe the Management has a weekly session on the Activities for room location sudoku.   They do this as a friendly way to introduce the complexities of room assignments.   I've never gone to one of these.   I'm glad it's not my job.   

Just think of the different levels of guests there are at any given property:

owners
DC Trust points exchangers
DC Legacy points exchangers
II exchangers
renters
MR point users
Tour packages
DYKWIA's


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

jimf41 said:


> I like this resident guru idea. Does that position come with a stipend?  resort but thats years in the future IMO.
> 
> If MVCI doesn't straighten this out it's going to make for some interesting conversations at the owners meetings and sales presentations.



No stipend, but if you ask real nice they may find a dining discount card.   But wait..........if you get a discount then you won't get 10 points per dollar for the full price of the meal.   Or do you want the 10 points per dollar credited to your bill before the discount?

The interesting conversations at the owners meetings and sales presentations will have to get fit into the allowed time frame as all the other interesting conversations at these meetings.   What's new about 2 hours of whining?



jimf41 said:


> Too late. I have called a couple of old pals in the Michigan Army National Guard. Two Blackhawk helicopters have been dispatched to spray weed killer on your garden.



Sorry Jim, that won't work.   You're not the only one with friends in the Michigan Army National Guard.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> Spoke to the Member Relations Manager on phone 2 times and traded e-mails several times one month before reservation.
> 
> FT



The next step is to write Owner Services.   Forward all the email correspondence as proof that you were robbed of a more superior location.   Demand to know why this Manager did not follow your instructions.   

Please report back.   

FT, the reality I've had with the Marriott system is like I've mentioned in a previous post. . .it's a Club.   As such, it has the failings of a Club.   We still enjoy the benefits and, at times, we also pull out the multi-week owner,  Platinum and Premium Plus DYKWIA cards.   

For the most part the system works for us.   

"A point is a point."   Isn't that what's been demanded on these Boards since the outing of the DC?   Trust points, as I understand them, will supersede legacy points for reservations at those elusive Trust properties if there is a demand overload of exchangers.

Trust points had/have a high purchase point and m/f but that is only as a result of the timing they came on the market.   It is the new market price to buy into the MVCI and the new product (flexibility).   With it came the new flexibility (and limitations) documents.   It has nothing to do with their superiority.   Would you say a week's owner who bought pre-construction was equal to an owner who paid triple because of market inflation over time?  Would you say a Trust owner who buys at tomorrow's price supersedes an original Trust owner?

As far as room location. . .it's always a gamble that whoever is working the reservation locations at the time of our stay will put us in what we would consider an o.k. spot.    I've wondered just how much the stay (not room location) is worth to me.   If I found out it was a crummy room location would I rather just stay home?   Sometimes I've thought I would.   That's one of the challenges with the ownership in this Club.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 8, 2013)

good morning...

no skin in the game, but I am going to have to disagree... Trust owners aren't members in a club.  They are owners in a Trust.  That is the sales pitch  "you own everywhere!!!"   If they are booking Trust inventory they are owners and entitled to same priviliges as weeks owners at home resort.  If I book Trust inventory with Legacy points I am an exchanger, If FT books Exchange inventory with Trust points he is an exchanger..

The issue is 2 fold..

#1  no transparency, the poor room assignment person has no idea if inventory is Trust or Exchange..

#2  Not much traction for this issue on TUG as only a few pure Trust Owners live here..

same problem for the poor unknowing soul that purchases OF on Marriott.com  , there is no disclaimer saying owners come first!!!!


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning...
> 
> no skin in the game, but I am going to have to disagree... Trust owners aren't members in a club.  They are owners in a Trust.  That is the sales pitch  "you own everywhere!!!"   If they are booking Trust inventory they are owners and entitled to same priviliges as weeks owners at home resort.  If I book Trust inventory with Legacy points I am an exchanger, If FT books Exchange inventory with Trust points he is an exchanger..
> 
> ...



Let's leave the useless sales pitch out of this.  And while we're at it, let's forego perceived entitlement.

This is from the Marriott Vacation CLUB website:

"Learn About Ownership
Explore the world with the leader in vacation ownership.
For more than 25 years, Marriott Vacation Club® has remained the leader in the *vacation ownership* industry, delivering unforgettable *vacations* to more than 400,000 Owner families around the globe.

Today, that tradition continues with our newest innovation, Marriott Vacation *Club* Destinations™ ownership program—an easy-to-use, points-based approach to *vacation ownership* that offers you the *flexibility, convenience and affordability* to take dream *vacations* year after year.

Most Vacation Flexibility in the Industry
*Vacation* where you want, when you want and for as long as you want2.
Visit one or all of the *53 Marriott Vacation Club resorts* with spacious 1-, 2- or 3-bedroom accommodations for families and friends6.
Enjoy access to thousands of* Marriott® hotels and resorts* worldwide and hundreds of affiliate resorts3.
Experience exotic safaris, magnificent cruises and more through the *Explorer Collection4*.
Simple and Convenient Planning
Receive an *annual allotment of Vacation Club Points to book thousands of vacation options*.
Experience the ease of online booking, plus the assistance of a dedicated Vacation Planning Advisor for all your vacation needs.
Bank, borrow or add more Vacation Club Points for longer vacations or to expand your vacation options.
Affordable Family Vacations
*Own your vacations*—don’t just take them.
Secure a *deeded real-estate timeshare interest* with a one-time purchase.
*Avoid rising hotel room or rental apartment costs*."

The first 2 paragraphs specify that Marriott Vacation Club is marketing vacations in it's newest innovation that is an easy-to-use points based approach  allowing the purchaser vacation ownership with flexibility, convenience and affordability.   Those are the marketing key words put out at the forefront of the description to this program.   Vacation ownership, not property ownership.   Flexibility, convenience and affordability.   Not preferential room location.

 If you work from the bottom up you will see that the purchaser avoids rising hotel or rental costs by purchasing a deeded real-estate timeshare interest in order to own a vacation (not necessarily specified as owning a certain view category or preferential ownership acknowledgement at any property).   Thousands of vacation options can be booked with an annual allotment of Vacation Club Points.   Vacation options can be redeemed for the Explorer Collection, Marriott hotels and resorts and the 53 Marriott Vacation Club resorts.  

The next section "How Vacation Club Points Work" clarifies that a it is ownership of a vacation, not a property.   

"Vacation Club Points
When you become a Marriott Vacation Club DestinationsTM Owner, you purchase a deeded real-estate interest and own your vacations. This innovative, points-based approach to vacation ownership is as 
easy as 1-2-3.


Purchase Vacation Club Points
Purchase the number of Vacation Club Points based on your family's vacation plans.
There is a one-time purchase price starting around $17,800 or a low monthly payment.
Receive an annual allotment of Vacation Club Points to use however you choose.
There are yearly maintenance fees equal to approximately 4% of your total purchase price.


Plan Your Vacations
Vacation Club Points are flexible currency that you can use for stays at any of the thousands of destinations worldwide as well as once-in-a-lifetime vacation experiences.
Choose when and how long you vacation, size of accommodations and choice of room view1.
A personal Vacation Planning Advisor and easy-to-use online tool are available to help you plan and book all your vacations.
Flexibility to use Vacation Club Points from past or future allotments, or purchase additional points to grow your vacation options.


Go on Vacation
Stay at one or all of the 53 Marriott Vacation Club resorts.
Expand your travels to thousands of destinations including Marriott® hotels and
affiliate resorts2.
Experience unique travel adventures, from Tuscany to the Great Wall of China—even cruises."

*FT is right.   He is homeless in Paradise.   But he's on vacation and that is what he bought.*


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jul 8, 2013)

My take on this is that you can put all the marketing wording aside.

What is happening on the ground is more important to me as a consumer of the vacation experience.

I perceive a disconnect between Corporate and the properties (operational) execution of the vacation experience.

*Bottom line, Trust owners are not being treated as owners of anything at the properties.  That is why I am homeless in the trust.*

IMHO, corporate will look at it from the forest perspective and say that this is a tiny problem with super users of their product.  Recall that Premier Plus is 5% or less of customer base according to them.

How many in that 5% will be pure trust owners with 13K points or more?  Probably very little.  I think most of that 5% are folks like myself as Hybrid owners who purchased trust points to top off portfolio.

I don't think they will solve this issue anytime soon.  Operationally it presents the properties many challenges.

FT


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

Here's more evidence that the ownership is not specified as "property ownership" but more directly as "vacation ownership".   Note:   I am not saying the Trust does not own properties, I'm saying the MVC uses the owned properties to fulfill vacation obligations.

I've added the bolding to point out that while the purchaser owns vacations they do not have ownership guarantees for any specific dates, properties or room types.   The other bolding is to emphasize the Trust owns timeshare interests that are available for usage through the MVCD plan.   Usage = vacation ownership when available through the plan.   

This is part of the State and Legal Disclosures:

"State and Legal Disclosures

2Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program's ability to confirm a specific exchange request is dependant upon the timeshare interests and use periods available or as provided by the provider of accommodations or services. *Therefore, Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program cannot guarantee specific resort choices, dates of travel, or types or sizes of accommodations.* The earlier an exchange is requested, the better the possibility that a specific request may be confirmed.

6The Marriott Vacation Club Collection is comprised of timeshare interests owned by the MVC Trust and available for *usage* through the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations timeshare plan and timeshare interests that are available for *usage* through the MVC Exchange Company; please see the applicable Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program documents for more information. Resorts with property that comprise the MVC Trust are described in the documents provided at the time of sale, and more particularly on the exhibit entitled Component Site Chart, which may be revised from time to time. Request for occupancy at resorts with small amounts of property in the MVC Trust, as set forth in the Component Site Chart, will be fulfilled primarily through the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program. As of February 26, 2013 2/26/13, there are currently timeshare interests located at 43 resorts owned by the MVC Trust (as of October 17, 2013 this will increase to 46 resorts).and those resorts are designated with the symbol  ]. As of February 26, 2013, there are currently 57 resorts, including the aforementioned 43 resorts, with timeshare interests available for exchange through the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program, or through the World Traveler Collection (as for the resorts located in Thailand only and those resorts are designated with the symbol  . Please see the applicable Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program documents for more information.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> *Bottom line, Trust owners are not being treated as owners of anything at the properties.  That is why I am homeless in the trust.*
> FT




You own points to reserve a vacation based on availability in the plan.   You got a vacation.   It came with flexibility, convenience and affordability.   If you own lots of these points you can take lots of advantage for this flexibility, convenience and affordability.  

Marriott could say they delivered with a warm greeting and a smile, a nice room, a building convenient to the Marketplace.   Fine amenities on the property.

Were the elevators working?   If so, you were very lucky.


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 8, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Here's more evidence that the ownership is not specified as "property ownership" but more directly as "vacation ownership".   Note:   I am not saying the Trust does not own properties, I'm saying the MVC uses the owned properties to fulfill vacation obligations.
> 
> I've added the bolding to point out that while the purchaser owns vacations they do not have ownership guarantees for any specific dates, properties or room types.   The other bolding is to emphasize the Trust owns timeshare interests that are available for usage through the MVCD plan.   Usage = vacation ownership when available through the plan.
> 
> ...



WOW... You have to respect posters opinions, but damn you know how to use facts! 

Interesting post on the marketing language, as well.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

Quilter said:


> You own points to reserve a vacation based on availability in the plan.   You got a vacation.   It came with flexibility, convenience and affordability.   If you own lots of these points you can take lots of advantage for this flexibility, convenience and affordability.
> 
> Marriott could say they delivered with a warm greeting and a smile, a nice room, a building convenient to the Marketplace.   Fine amenities on the property.
> 
> Were the elevators working?   If so, you were very lucky.



So you're saying that all these sections you're quoting are proof that DC Trust Members have no claim to a higher place in the established Priority Placement Systems already in effect at the resorts, right?

Well, using that logic Weeks Owners have no claim to any certain placements either because the governing docs for Weeks do not guarantee anything more than a Week in the season/unit type you purchased (provided, of course, that you follow the rules.)  At least, I haven't come across any such language in the Weeks docs that supports the placement system they've been implementing for years.  Maybe you have, and if so you'll be happy to post that, too?

Marriott created this situation by integrating their new DC Points product with their existing Weeks system.  IMO Marriott should now complete the integration by incorporating DC Members into the established, published - but not legally, contractually-supported - Priority Placement System.


----------



## csalter2 (Jul 8, 2013)

*Quilter is spot on!*

I totally agree with Quilter beacause he is accurate! When push comes to shove the bottom line is that you have points for a vacation, no more and no less. You points guarantee usage.  If you had any sort of priority, believe me the marketing would be pointing that out in bold. Remember, you can request but there are no guarantees.  People get upset because they want a specific room or location at a resort and get outright UGLY. However, a resort may attempt a probably will but they cannot guarantee.  This is what upset owners and they start ranting on boards like this. 

There will come a time when availability, particularly at high demand seasons at prime resorts, when it will be extremely difficult to get into those resorts. Being a premier plus or premier member will mean something then but the reservation will still be moot. 

I say this from my experience with DRI. Marriott's DC is very similar in so many ways. DRI has platinum, gold and silver members. I am a gold member but I do not have priority in getting a particular room. My points are for the view category and room size. However, when I walk through the door the front desk recognizes that I am a gold owner. As a gold owner, platinum, or silver level owner you do get certain privileges. I can upgrade for less points when I make reservations. I get higher discounts for the cruises, air miles, and tours, etc. These are all outside of the real reason why I am in the Club as DRI refers to it. The key difference with DRI is the home resort collection. Marriott does not have that so I don't feel homeless in paradise. I get a 13 month advantage in booking over other DRI owner outside of my collection (resorts in the trust). Those outside of the collection can reserve at 10 months out and if you are deeded you can reserve 12 months out. That distincton is what Marriott lacks. That's what makes you feel homeless. As a points owner you are a *glorified exchanger.*

*By the way  this is a vacation club. Isn't it called the Destinations Club?*


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

csalter2 said:


> I totally agree with Quilter beacause he is accurate! When push comes to shove the bottom line is that you have points for a vacation, no more and no less. You points guarantee usage.  If you had any sort of priority, believe me the marketing would be pointing that out in bold. Remember, you can request but there are no guarantees.  People get upset because they want a specific room or location at a resort and get outright UGLY. However, a resort may attempt a probably will but they cannot guarantee.  This is what upset owners and they start ranting on boards like this.
> 
> There will come a time when availability, particularly at high demand seasons at prime resorts, when it will be extremely difficult to get into those resorts. Being a premier plus or premier member will mean something then but the reservation will still be moot.
> 
> ...



Your Weeks ownership doesn't guarantee anything more, either, than usage on a first-come-first-served, availability basis.  No specific hierarchy or unit placements are guaranteed by the contracts.

Plus, wasn't the Weeks system sold as MVCI, *Marriott Vacation Club, Int'l*?


----------



## csalter2 (Jul 8, 2013)

*SueDonJ, that's correct!*



SueDonJ said:


> So you're saying that all these sections you're quoting are proof that DC Trust Members have no claim to a higher place in the established Priority Placement Systems already in effect at the resorts, right?
> 
> Well, using that logic Weeks Owners have no claim to any certain placements either because the governing docs for Weeks do not guarantee anything more than a Week in the season/unit type you purchased (provided, of course, that you follow the rules.)  At least, I haven't come across any such language in the Weeks docs that supports the placement system they've been implementing for years.  Maybe you have, and if so you'll be happy to post that, too?
> 
> Marriott created this situation by integrating their new DC Points product with their existing Weeks system.  IMO Marriott should now complete the integration by incorporating DC Members into the established, published - but not legally, contractually-supported - Priority Placement System.



SueDonJ, that's right. Weeks owners do not have a contractual guarantee either for a specific location unless they have a fixed week and there is only one of the rooms of that type.  Our contracts only guarantee usage too. We can occupy, rent or exchange our ownership in the timeshare. It is sold like so much more, but the bottom line is what you signed  for on the line.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

csalter2 said:


> SueDonJ, that's right. Weeks owners do not have a contractual guarantee either for a specific location unless they have a fixed week and there is only one of the rooms of that type.  Our contracts only guarantee usage too. We can occupy, rent or exchange our ownership in the timeshare. It is sold like so much more, but the bottom line is what you signed  for on the line.



Good point, that fixed unit ownerships are not included in this discussion.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> So you're saying that all these sections you're quoting are proof that DC Trust Members have no claim to a higher place in the established Priority Placement Systems already in effect at the resorts, right?
> 
> Well, using that logic Weeks Owners have no claim to any certain placements either because the governing docs for Weeks do not guarantee anything more than a Week in the season/unit type you purchased (provided, of course, that you follow the rules.)  At least, I haven't come across any such language in the Weeks docs that supports the placement system they've been implementing for years.  Maybe you have, and if so you'll be happy to post that, too?
> 
> Marriott created this situation by integrating their new DC Points product with their existing Weeks system.  IMO Marriott should now complete the integration by incorporating DC Members into the established, published - but not legally, contractually-supported - Priority Placement System.



Sue, I'll start with your last paragraph.   What you and others (but not me) are fighting for is an integration of DC members into priority placement system according to your agenda and your agenda seems to have them equal with owners.   

I'm not sure how the current priority placement system came into effect but somehow as a customer service one was devised and Marriott HAS integrated the DC members somewhere below owners.   They are not owners at a property.   They have vacation usage ownership.   

As I've mentioned in several previous posts, it is ultimately in the hands of the rooms location people at each resort.   The variables are owners, DC users, renters, MR users, II exchangers and tour guests then you add in check-in days and duration of stay.    You are right, there are no guarantees for any of them except for week season/unit type you mentioned above.   Waiting in the check-in line has always been a dreaded time of anxiety.   Even when you are finally called up to the counter you hold your breath for the moment they reveal your room number.   And they have been trained or conditioned to do that with a sense there will, most likely, be automatic push back as the customer assesses the suitability of such room.   

Is there legal footing for owners to keep their priority?   I contend there is.   It always helps to find something in writing and to find a precedence.   I have both.   On the my-vacationclub.com website:

"Introducing an Exciting New Usage Option for Our Owners

Marriott Vacation Club is pleased to introduce a new usage option to enhance the value of your
ownership—the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations™ Exchange Program. This new usage option is a
flexible, easy-to-use, points-based enhancement that you can choose to add to your ownership.
Highlights of the program:
Inspired by feedback from owners like you seeking even more flexibility in their
vacation planning options.
Once enrolled, each year you can elect to use Vacation Club Points to explore new
vacation options or *use your week just as you have in the past*.
Benefits of the program include:
Unparalleled flexibility and simplicity
Simplified fee structure
Ever expanding array of vacation choices
As always with Marriott Vacation Club, the choice is yours—*your ownership will not change* and will only be
enhanced with the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program if you decide to enroll."

Whether by written internal memo or whatever I have had preferential room location treatment at my home resorts as a result of ownership.  (That goes to precedence).   The above states in two places that my ownership will not change.   I've added the bolding, but if you go to the my-vacationclub website you will also see Marriott has added it's own bolding.   

Making the DC Trust members equal to me for room location priority would, in turn, have an effect on my existing ownership because I would have more "owners" to compete with for room location.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Sue, I'll start with your last paragraph.   What you and others (but not me) are fighting for is an integration of DC members into priority placement system according to your agenda and your agenda seems to have them equal with owners. ...



I think I conceded earlier that DC Exchange (enrolled) Members are perhaps more equal with Weeks Owners exchanging into other non-owned Marriott resorts, not on par with Weeks Owners using their owned Weeks but above II exchangers and the rest.

But yes, I still believe that DC Trust Members ARE equal to Weeks Owners.   



Quilter said:


> I'm not sure how the current priority placement system came into effect but somehow as a customer service one was devised and Marriott HAS integrated the DC members somewhere below owners.   They are not owners at a property.   They have vacation usage ownership.
> 
> As I've mentioned in several previous posts, it is ultimately in the hands of the rooms location people at each resort.   The variables are owners, DC users, renters, MR users, II exchangers and tour guests then you add in check-in days and duration of stay.    You are right, there are no guarantees for any of them except for week season/unit type you mentioned above.   Waiting in the check-in line has always been a dreaded time of anxiety.   Even when you are finally called up to the counter you hold your breath for the moment they reveal your room number.   And they have been trained or conditioned to do that with a sense there will, most likely, be automatic push back as the customer assesses the suitability of such room.
> 
> ...



I still am not seeing any contractual language that supports a placement hierarchy of any type.

With my Weeks ownership I haven't always been placed in the "best" of available units because my resorts use a rotational placement system that allows every owner to be placed in the "best," "worst" and every unit in-between.  Owner Services reps AND execs have asserted to me that the rotational system is supposed to be followed at every resort, but obviously we know that's not what happens.  In fact, based on TUG reports the whole Priority Placement thing seems to be a crapshoot.

If as you say Marriott is legally required, based on precedence, to follow the established Priority Placement System, which one are you saying should be followed?  The one that exists now, where every resort makes up its own rules?  The one at your resort(s) where you always get a priority for the "best" units?  The one my resorts say they're following based on exec-level direction, which IME has been supported by statements from exec-level employees?  Or what about the free-for-all that takes place at some resorts where it seems like guests are simply placed according to arrival order, but the folks who think they're better than everyone else complain loudly until the resort personnel cave in and give them the better placements?



Quilter said:


> Making the DC Trust members equal to me for room location priority would, in turn, have an effect on my existing ownership because I would have more "owners" to compete with for room location.



Exactly.  The DC Trust OWNS Weeks.  Why shouldn't the usage rights - both contractually-granted and set by precedent, if those count - follow the conveyance of those Weeks?  You, we all!, SHOULD be competing with DC Trust Members using their DC Points to reserve those Weeks.  (Not certain if "competing" is the best word use here but I'm pretty sure we understand each other.)

IMO Marriott SHOULD be doing whatever it can to clarify the placement system for Owners, Members and resort personnel, incorporating usage of their new product.  Of course it's always been a pipe dream that Marriott will ever have a consistent placement system across all resorts, and probably even more now that the DC exists, but I still like the idea of TUG being used to have the discussion.  Maybe Marriott's watching.


----------



## suzannesimon (Jul 8, 2013)

Quilter said:


> I wasn't saying a 7 day reservation should trump a 1-6 day stay.   I was trying to point out that most resorts spread the Fri./Sat./Sun. check-ins evenly amongst the villas.   Then the front desk has to fit in there the renters and DC members who have shorter stays.
> 
> What about the owner/MVC Exchanger who adds 3 days to their owned week?   Would you insist they move units?   If not, that leaves 4 nights open in what you would consider a prime location.   How would you fill it. . .renter, MVC Exchange?  Also, don't forget the rooms that get taken out of rotation for days when there is a major repair.
> 
> ...



My personal opinion (maybe not opinion, maybe wish is the right term) would be that 2-4 days during prime holiday weeks with full occupancy would not get as high of priority on location as someone staying 7 or MORE days.  Without the skim, I would be converting my units to points, starting my reservations on Thursday and hopefully getting a prime location before all the weeks people check in on Fri, Sat, Sun.  It seems like a waste to break up a top location unit for a short stay - that is all I'm saying. I have fixed weeks so my pecking order would be:

Fixed Week Owners in their purchased week & Multi-Week Owners
Home Resort Owners & Trust Owners
Legacy Points Owners Trading In
Renters (that's a good question - do they get the owner's priority?)
Resort Reservations
II Exchangers
Sales-Presentation Reservations


----------



## csalter2 (Jul 8, 2013)

*Let's Be Realistic...*

i believe we all need to be a little more realistic.  We need to only expect that we get the room size and view we requested. Anything else is truly gravy. 

You have people who come to the resort with varying room sizes, varying views, and more importantly, varying number of days that they are going to stay. I don't care if you are trust, legacy, weeks, points, whatever owner you have. Your room assignment will depend on what's available that day. You can call and speak to the almighty but if you want to be in building A on the top floor and those units are currently occupied, you will be in building B with your view and size unit you requested. There is no crystal ball until the morning checkouts. That's just a fact.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 8, 2013)

good evening....

I am a glorified exchanger as a Legacy enrolled owner.  The Trust owner is an owner at a resort called the "Trust".  He/ she is "not an exchanger"  I am just guessing that a Koolina (or any other weeks owner) occupying his/her own week, would be enraged if an exchanger or Trust owner snagged a better room in a particular category...

We can talk all we want about how we just purchased a vactation and room assignment is moot.  However, every single resort has a written document regarding priority for room placement!!! I am not a "view " guy having purchased IV and MV at my Hawaii properties, but to some it is crucial!!!!


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

csalter2 said:


> i believe we all need to be a little more realistic.  We need to only expect that we get the room size and view we requested. Anything else is truly gravy.
> 
> You have people who come to the resort with varying room sizes, varying views, and more importantly, varying number of days that they are going to stay. I don't care if you are trust, legacy, weeks, points, whatever owner you have. Your room assignment will depend on what's available that day. You can call and speak to the almighty but if you want to be in building A on the top floor and those units are currently occupied, you will be in building B with your view and size unit you requested. There is no crystal ball until the morning checkouts. That's just a fact.



We don't even have to call anymore - Owner Services sends out emails in advance of every stay asking for our placement requests and directs the replies to the resort personnel.  Why do they ask if they don't intend to use the information for some purpose!?

I agree with you that we're _legally_ entitled to only what's stipulated in the contracts, "the room size and view" that we purchased.  But we all know that over the years Marriott has encouraged, if not stipulated, that the resorts should implement a hierarchy for unit placement based on ownership status.  It's not the owners' fault that they feel a sense of entitlement (although many take it to the extreme, no doubt.)  That's why some owners in this thread are saying that their historical usage patterns should not be impacted by DC Points users - because Marriott set the precedent of them having a priority.  

Now Marriott has come along and changed the landscape to include a new type of owner.  Why shouldn't DC Trust and Exchange Members expect that their place in the hierarchy be established and published the same as every other owner's place, according to the same parameters that Marriott used to set the original hierarchy?  That is, ownership status?

I don't see that the only choices are EITHER no Priority Placement System at all OR the status quo, which appears to be a system that doesn't take into account at all that DC Members are Marriott owners.  There has to be a middle, reasonable ground which incorporates all owners and IMO Marriott has been remiss in not addressing this issue.


----------



## m61376 (Jul 8, 2013)

*If a point is truly a point...*

Then it's a catch 22- IF legacy points = Trust points, then Trust points can't lay claim to an ownership entitlement for priority placement. I can't foresee that at resort level they will be able to assign units based on what type of points were used for the reservation, in which case all DC reservations would need to be treated as exchanges to some degree. Imagine the difficulty in distinguishing whether the reservation was made with Trust points, Legacy points, or some combo thereof, and then categorizing assignments based on which type of points were used. 

While I do think that DC reservations should be given priority over II exchangers, I don't think that even pure trust reservations are on equal footing with a legacy week owner using his/her owned week at the resort he/she specifically owns and supports with his/her maintenance fees. I do think ownership at a specific resort should carry some advantages at that property.

But you're right, Sue- there should be some consistency and owners and DC "exchangers" should know what to expect.


----------



## Fasttr (Jul 8, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> So has any points owner ever seen their rate rules ever say anything other than "MVC EXCHANGE"? I would expect that if something was booked directly out of the trust, then it should say something different, but perhaps it doesn't. Though one would suspect that whenever using a mix of trust and legacy points, the reservation would always be going through the MVC Exchange Company.




Sorry if this has already been asked and answered, but I read page 1, then skimmed a few posts, then read the last page of posts.  Anyhow, I have seen "MVC Trust" on a reservation I made back in January 2012 for a week in March of 2013 at MGV.  Here is the info...

Summary of Room Charges	Cost per night per room (USD)
Saturday, March 2, 2013 - Saturday, March 9, 2013 ( 7 nights ) 	  
MVC TRUST 	 
Estimated government taxes and fees	Included 
•	Complimentary on-site parking
•	Changes in taxes or fees implemented after booking will affect the total room price.

And this was one that I attempted to use both Legacy AND Trust points to book, only to have it not work, and when I called and spoke to a rep, was told that the week was only available in the Trust and therefore I could only use trust points to reserve it.  I guess this leads me to think that what they were saying was correct...at least at that point in time.  Every reservation I have made since then has said MVC Exchange on it and those were at (Aruba OC, MGV again, and Newport Coast).


----------



## bobpark56 (Jul 8, 2013)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning....
> 
> This is interesting!!!  Usually 3 bedrooms are in the best locations and mostly OF...Exceptions include MV at Koolina and 1st floor "OF" at ocean Pointe.  ....



I have only 3 data points here, but our experience at Marriott Marbella is that views from the 2BR units are noticeably better than they were from our 3BR unit.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

m61376 said:


> Then it's a catch 22- IF legacy points = Trust points, then Trust points can't lay claim to an ownership entitlement for priority placement. I can't foresee that at resort level they will be able to assign units based on what type of points were used for the reservation, in which case all DC reservations would need to be treated as exchanges to some degree. Imagine the difficulty in distinguishing whether the reservation was made with Trust points, Legacy points, or some combo thereof, and then categorizing assignments based on which type of points were used.
> 
> While I do think that DC reservations should be given priority over II exchangers, I don't think that even pure trust reservations are on equal footing with a legacy week owner using his/her owned week at the resort he/she specifically owns and supports with his/her maintenance fees. I do think ownership at a specific resort should carry some advantages at that property.
> 
> But you're right, Sue- there should be some consistency and owners and DC "exchangers" should know what to expect.



About the new item you've brought into the discussion, Maintenance Fees -

If paying MF's is a critical point which "verifies" ownership, certainly DC Trust Members must be seen as equal to Weeks Owners because their per-point MF's incorporate the resorts' MF's for the Weeks conveyed to the Trust.

I don't know if that's what you're saying or not?


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 8, 2013)

puckmanfl said:


> ...every single resort has a written document regarding priority for room placement!!! I am not a "view " guy having purchased IV and MV at my Hawaii properties, but to some it is crucial!!!!



Does Marriott require each resort to publish their "priority for room placement" document?



SueDonJ said:


> But we all know that over the years Marriott has encouraged, if not stipulated, that the resorts should implement a hierarchy for unit placement based on ownership status.



Is there proof of MVCI/MVW encouraged, if not stipulated? This timeline seems to counter direct instructions from MVW.



SueDonJ said:


> Now Marriott has come along and changed the landscape to include a new type of owner.  Why shouldn't DC Trust and Exchange Members expect that their place in the hierarchy be established and published the same as every other owner's place, according to the same parameters that Marriott used to set the original hierarchy?  That is, ownership status?



What are "the same parameters that Marriott used to set the original hierarchy? That is, ownership status?"?



SueDonJ said:


> There has to be a middle, reasonable ground which incorporates all owners and IMO Marriott has been remiss in not addressing this issue.



Isn't the question...  How does Marriott address hierarchy to a 1,000; 1,500; 2,000; 2,500; etc. vs the various other ownership types? And is it MVW's responsibility or the elected HOAs?



SueDonJ said:


> If paying MF's is a critical point which "verifies" ownership, certainly DC Trust Members must be seen as equal to Weeks Owners because their per-point MF's incorporate the resorts' MF's for the Weeks conveyed to the Trust.



If MFs become a ownership verification, the question then becomes... I pay under $1,750 annually for my Ko Olina week. How much does a DClub points owner pay towards Ko Olina when they stay Friday and Saturday nights vs the Sunday through Thursday deal vs a full week vs two weeks, etc.


----------



## jeepie (Jul 8, 2013)

*Yes, but...*



m61376 said:


> ...I don't think that even pure trust reservations are on equal footing with a legacy week owner using his/her owned week at the resort he/she specifically owns and supports with his/her maintenance fees...QUOTE]
> Points owners also support ALL the resorts with MFs (and at a substantial $.43 per point, it can be argued they deserve equitable treatment). Having points, as well as both unenrolled and enrolled weeks, helps assure my objectivity, imho. Cheers.


----------



## NightSkyTraveler (Jul 8, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> *Bottom line, Trust owners are not being treated as owners of anything at the properties.  That is why I am homeless in the trust.*
> 
> 
> FT



As only a trust points owner, I have to disagree with this (to a point).  Over Easter, checking into Harbour Lakes, we were asked if we were owners.  I replied that we were points only.  She promptly replied, "welcome home."  We were treated as owners.  

I really don't expect that kind of treatment, but it is nice.  I do not really know which rooms at places are the "best" views for their category (is there something on TUG that tells/shows which rooms are "better" at each resort  based on categories???), but I am also not overly concerned.  We have been placed into most of our requests per the pre-vacation request forms, but again, I don't ever get my hopes up.

As far as priority, I feel that people in their home resort should have preference.  That may change later, but for now, I am on vacation and enjoying my time wherever I may go.


----------



## suzannesimon (Jul 8, 2013)

bobpark56 said:


> I have only 3 data points here, but our experience at Marriott Marbella is that views from the 2BR units are noticeably better than they were from our 3BR unit.



I haven't stayed in an Aruba Surf Club 3 BR but rented one for next April.  That tier is far back from the beach in the check-in building.  My guess is f you need a 3BR and they are relatively rare, you're less likely to complain about location.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 8, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Is there legal footing for owners to keep their priority?   I contend there is.   It always helps to find something in writing and to find a precedence.   I have both.   On the my-vacationclub.com website:
> 
> "Introducing an Exciting New Usage Option for Our Owners
> 
> ...


No. You are completely mis-reading this language. It is describing that if you *do not elect *to turn your legacy week in for DC points you can use your week as you always have:


> Once enrolled, each year you can elect to use Vacation Club Points to explore new vacation options or *use your week just as you have in the past*.


It does not say, "If you turn your week in for points, those points will have the same priority (and can be used exactly) as you had with your legacy week reservation."

I'm not commenting on how it _should_ work, but just that the language you quoted does not support that proposition.


----------



## jeepie (Jul 8, 2013)

rpgriego said:


> ...How much does a DClub points owner pay towards Ko Olina when they stay Friday and Saturday nights vs the Sunday through Thursday deal vs a full week vs two weeks, etc...


Easy calculation...multiply the points requirements by $.43.


----------



## Superchief (Jul 8, 2013)

I believe the biggest issue making it difficult to get a 'preferred' villa location (regardless of whether a weeks or trust owner) is the dramatic increase in short stays. I sympathize with the resort villa assignment team who have to deal with the short stays, multiple check-in dates, long-term stays, back-to-back lockoff reservations, and other challenges created by the 'flexibility' in the program. I have had good and bad experiences as a weeks owner and premiere plus trust/legacy points member. Most resorts have tried to accommodate my requests, but often don't have much inventory to work with.

What happens when a multiple weeks (all resale) owner goes up against a premiere plus DC reservation? Corporate would support the DC redeemer while the resort needs to please their owners.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

davidvel said:


> No. You are completely mis-reading this language. It is describing that if you *do not elect *to turn your legacy week in for DC points you can use your week as you always have:
> 
> It does not say, "If you turn your week in for points, those points will have the same priority (and can be used exactly) as you had with your legacy week reservation."
> 
> I'm not commenting on how it _should_ work, but just that the language you quoted does not support that proposition.



But I think the contention is that "using your Week as you always have," means being given the priority in the hierarchy that you've always been given.  That's how I interpreted what Quilter said, anyway.  Not that I agree, but that's how I read it.


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 8, 2013)

rpgriego said:


> How much does a DClub points owner pay towards Ko Olina when they stay Friday and Saturday nights vs the Sunday through Thursday deal vs a full week vs two weeks, etc.





jeepie said:


> Easy calculation...multiply the points requirements by $.43.



GREAT answer but where is it officially stated by the DClub program?


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

I'll use color to show my responses as it's easiest.



SueDonJ said:


> I think I conceded earlier that DC Exchange (enrolled) Members are perhaps more equal with Weeks Owners exchanging into other non-owned Marriott resorts, not on par with Weeks Owners using their owned Weeks but above II exchangers and the rest.
> 
> But yes, I still believe that DC Trust Members ARE equal to Weeks Owners.
> 
> ...



If Marriott is watching I want to declare that Trust members should never be equal to owners when it comes to room location preference.   They were sold a vacation.  The current system wide Priority Placement System is just fine.


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 8, 2013)

Quilter said:


> The current system wide Priority Placement System is just fine.



Where has MVW published the Priority Placement System?


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

davidvel said:


> No. You are completely mis-reading this language. It is describing that if you *do not elect *to turn your legacy week in for DC points you can use your week as you always have:
> 
> It does not say, "If you turn your week in for points, those points will have the same priority (and can be used exactly) as you had with your legacy week reservation."
> 
> I'm not commenting on how it _should_ work, but just that the language you quoted does not support that proposition.



Yes it does.

When I have used my week as I always have I get treated like an owner for room preference.  I am put in a group with other deeded owners of that property.   

The next part I bolded was "your ownership will not change".   It will change if Trust owners are included as part of the above group.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 8, 2013)

good evening...

Weeks owners (such as myself), were also just sold a vacation. Why should we be ahead of Trust owners (for room placement)??? 

For that matter, Why should an II exchanger go to bottom of pool??? That unit was sold to an owner and deposited by an owner.  The rights and priviliges should stay with the unit!!!!


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

rpgriego said:


> Where has MVW published the Priority Placement System?



Here's a quote from Barony's GM, taken from one of the annual updates sent to owners:


> *How Villa Requests are Honored*
> Our Owners have a tremendous sense of pride in Marriott’s Barony Beach Club. As a result, we enjoy a high Owner occupancy rate. However, because of the very high number of Owners we welcome each week, we are often challenged by specific villa location requests. While it is sometimes difficult to satisfy every request, we do strive to accommodate as many as possible. With a high number of requests falling into the same two categories—building and/or floor preferences—the history of the prior years' villa assignments is crucial. A rotational system helps provide a fair service to each of our Owners and guests. Please note that if you have requested, and received, a high floor during your previous stay, we may not be able to accommodate that request on your next visit.
> 
> *Key Facts Regarding Villa Buildings*
> ...



I don't know if it's in writing anywhere that Marriott execs stipulate or support this policy but I have questioned a couple execs about the policy and they've said the same thing, that the policy being implemented by Barony is communicated to all of the resort GM's by Customer Advocacy execs.  (For the record, I'm okay with my resorts' systems even knowing that on a regular basis my requests will not be honored despite being in the group that supposedly has highest priority.  The reason I've asked for more detail related to placement is because TUG reports about what happens at other resorts obviously contradict what's quoted here.)


----------



## davidvel (Jul 8, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> When I have used my week as I always have I get treated like an owner for room preference.  I am put in a group with other deeded owners of that property.
> 
> The next part I bolded was "your ownership will not change".   It will change if Trust owners are included as part of the above group.



My bad. I now see you were stating that by giving DC points users the same priority it will affect your legacy rights.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

davidvel said:


> My bad. I now see you were stating that by giving DC points users the same priority it will affect your legacy rights.



  But is it a "right," specifically a contractual right, for owners to be placed in units according to a hierarchy?  There isn't any language that supports such a thing.  In fact the docs are chockfull of language that stipulates floating usage rights do not equate to any certain unit placements or certain methods of placement.

But, if it's a right based on the precedence that's supposedly been set by Marriott (which is questionable because not all resorts follow the same system,) then don't DC Trust Members have some claim to the right based on their ownership interests in the Trust that's comprised of Weeks to which those "rights" are granted?


----------



## suzannesimon (Jul 8, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Here's a quote from Barony's GM, taken from one of the annual updates sent to owners:
> 
> 
> I don't know if it's in writing anywhere that Marriott execs stipulate or support this policy but I have questioned a couple execs about the policy and they've said the same thing, that the policy being implemented by Barony is communicated to all of the resort GM's by Customer Advocacy execs.  (For the record, I'm okay with my resorts' systems even knowing that on a regular basis my requests will not be honored despite being in the group that supposedly has highest priority.  The reason I've asked for more detail related to placement is because TUG reports about what happens at other resorts obviously contradict what's quoted here.)



I actually like this - at least you know the policy and can operate accordingly.  Since we only go to FC every other year, if this were the stated policy, I would stop requesting high floor for my tenants.  It's all about managing expectations.  I think publishing the policy would stop a lot of disappointment.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2013)

Quilter said:


> I'll use color to show my responses as it's easiest.
> 
> Sorry Sue, it doesn't matter what you concede or believe.   Show me wording in a Marriott document that makes them equal.   Give me facts, not conjecture.
> 
> ...



Whoa.  I didn't say anywhere that Marriott is supposed to be or is somehow contractually obligated to enforce any certain Placement System, the one I like or the one you like or any of the ones offered by anyone else participating in this thread.  In fact I've said that the Weeks docs don't appear to support a priority/hierarchy system at all, but _I think_ that now that Marriott has introduced a new product which is incorporated into their old system, then they should also incorporate the owners of the product into whatever hierarchy or placement system already exists.  _I think they should._  And for what it's worth, my opinion has changed somewhat based on what others have contributed to this thread.  But my thinking is no different than anyone else thinking that Marriott should or shouldn't do something, and counts for no more or less than anyone else's opinion.

As far as parsing each and every point, obviously you and I and the others in this thread all don't agree completely and we're not all looking at just the legal points.  But if ever the time comes that I believe Marriott should be challenged legally over something, that's the day I'll sell my ownership.  It could be that the owners will be correct to challenge but they can do it without me.  Even if Marriott were to lose, I'm sure that in the process their expansive legal team will make it a very frustrating and expensive proposition for all involved.  I'd want no part of any of it.



Quilter said:


> Here's where you should have started with your post.   You want Marriott to be watching and you want them to adopt your placement agenda.   The problem is your system seems just as confusing as you claim theirs is.
> 
> If Marriott is watching I want to declare that Trust members should never be equal to owners when it comes to room location preference.   They were sold a vacation.  The current system wide Priority Placement System is just fine.



Yep, I want Marriott to be watching.  Always.  TUG is a good way for them to keep their finger on the pulse of their ownership.  ALL their owners.  I don't think, actually, that they give any of us credit for what we think.  But I hope anyway that they consider what all of us have to say, equally, and I'm glad you shared your opinion with the rest of us.  Quite honestly, I'd be happy if they'd just address the issue of where DC Points users fit in any hierarchy one way or another instead of ignoring it as they've been doing for the last three-plus years.


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 8, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Here's a quote from Barony's GM, taken from one of the annual updates sent to owners:
> 
> 
> I don't know if it's in writing anywhere that Marriott execs stipulate or support this policy but I have questioned a couple execs about the policy and they've said the same thing, that the policy being implemented by Barony is communicated to all of the resort GM's by Customer Advocacy execs.  (For the record, I'm okay with my resorts' systems even knowing that on a regular basis my requests will not be honored despite being in the group that supposedly has highest priority.  The reason I've asked for more detail related to placement is because TUG reports about what happens at other resorts obviously contradict what's quoted here.)



So... their is no 'official policy'? As such, a fair and equitable policy for room placement does not exist. Thus, their is a strong possibility that owners working it, consistently get great room locations.


----------



## csalter2 (Jul 8, 2013)

*Are we embarking on a civil war?*

This has been an interesting conversation.  Having been in the situation before, it makes me wonder.  Both groups are owners and have the same rights in different categories. Enrolled owners are a combination of both. In any case, a points owner contributes towards maintenance fees just like a weeks owner. Regardless of how many days the points owner stays at resort(s), he has the same right to units as a weeks owner. Their status of premier or premier plus is irrelevant as it pertains to units. 

I believe it's important that we do have a system that is documented so that we don't pit owner vs owner.  We all have a stake in this.


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 8, 2013)

csalter2 said:


> I believe it's important that we do have a system that is documented so that we don't pit owner vs owner.  We all have a stake in this.



documented= fact

don't pit owner vs owner= WISHFUL THINKING! lol... Based on NO official MVW Priority Placement System, every father will be out to secure the best villa for his family. You actually think someone's going to say... no really, you-- a stranger, should have the better villa?


----------



## Quilter (Jul 8, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> . . ._I think_ that now that Marriott has introduced a new product which is incorporated into their old system, then they should also incorporate the owners of the product into whatever hierarchy or placement system already exists.



The way I understand room allocation priorities is that the Trust owners ARE incorporated in the placement system.   They are somewhere after owners and somewhere before II exchangers.   

Even if ownership was considered they can't claim property ownership at the same level as weeks owners.   You would have to take their share of the Trust and divide it amongst all the different properties (since, as is claimed, they own all the properties).   That would give each Trust owner such a minimal percent of ownership they would surely fall below multi-week owners and then even below 1 week owners.   For example, if a Trust owner has 4500 Trust points and they visit Ocean Pointe,   their percentage of ownership could be calculated 53/4500 = .0117 (or is that 4500/53, I can't remember and my keyboard doesn't have a divide sign).   

I've been told my home resort ownership is first considered and then my total ownership is considered.   These are just a couple pieces of the puzzle to weigh my request for the rooms available.   I'm sure Trust ownership is being considered to some degree.     

The below memo only goes to clarify why owners can't repeatedly expect the same favorite room year after year.   It is not the list of criteria I have had front desks refer to when explaining room location priorities.   While it says "Owners and guests" it appears to be directed specifically to Owners.

"How Villa Requests are Honored
Our Owners have a tremendous sense of pride in Marriott’s Barony Beach Club. As a result, we enjoy a high Owner occupancy rate. However, because of the very high number of Owners we welcome each week, we are often challenged by specific villa location requests. While it is sometimes difficult to satisfy every request, we do strive to accommodate as many as possible. With a high number of requests falling into the same two categories—building and/or floor preferences—the history of the prior years' villa assignments is crucial. A rotational system helps provide a fair service to each of our Owners and guests. Please note that if you have requested, and received, a high floor during your previous stay, we may not be able to accommodate that request on your next visit.

Key Facts Regarding Villa Buildings
- The resort’s yearly occupancy averages 95% or higher
- The most requested building is Morning Glory
- Floors 3-5 are considered “high” floors. A “high” floor is one of the most frequent requests received.
- Oceanfront Villas are located in the Morning Glory and Sea Oat Buildings. An Oceanfront Owner may be assigned to either one of these buildings
- Oceanside Villas are located in the Bayberry, Live Oak, Morning Glory and Sea Oat Buildings. An Oceanside Owner may be assigned to one of these four buildings"


----------



## CashEddie (Jul 8, 2013)

When legacy owners purchased a week from Marriott, we were sold a deeded interest to a 7 night period of time during a particular season and room type at a specific resort.  That is the foundation of Marriott's system.

When they added the trust and started to sell points based on the weeks they transferred to the trust, they told people that purchased that "you own everywhere..."  Yes, that's technicallly true but those points represents fractional pieces to those weeks in the trust.  No matter how many trust points you purchase, you will never own a full 7 night stay at a specific resort like the legacy owners.  So trust owner do not own weeks, they own points that map back to a collection of weeks in a trust. So by this very nature, all reservations would have to be considered exchanges vs. "direct access to trust inventory" because which owner owns a full week in the trust at a specific resort? None of them. 

I think Marriott made the mistake early on in the process in telling owners "when you purchase trust points, you have direct access to book XYZ..." and that played out in a few instances with reservations when folks were told that "you can only book with trust points..."  I don't believe this is the case anymore and they will fill a reservation with "points" no matter where they come from because ultimately it will be worked through the exchange company.  That is the only way they honestly can say that a "point is a point" now because all point reservations are handled as internal exchanges. 

So I would say no to the idea that trust owners are on equal footing as legacy weeks owners. There is no way that could be possible because we own two different products all together.  

As far as placement priority, my thought is that it should be legacy week owners given priority at their home resorts over points users and II exchangers.


----------



## csalter2 (Jul 9, 2013)

*There will come a time...*

There will come a time and it won't be soon when points owners will outnumber weeks owners and will have control over the HOA as the trust will dominate the association through Marriott. For newer resorts like Crystal Shores, there could be a discussion about priority rights and who should have that priority. Time will tell.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

good morning....

MVCD sells ownership at a new resort now.  The resort is called "Trust".  This resort is a hybrid and comprises different deeded weeks at different places.  However, it is a distinct legal real estate entity.  A Trust owner owns a deeded interest in this new hybrid resort.  If the inventory comes from this new resort, the Trust owner is an owner just as a weeks owner at his/her resort.

Ths issue is largely not significant at this time because the majority of Trust owners are hybrids and most intervals are too pricey to be booked with only Trust points.  However, as Greg's buddy (15K Trust) points becomes more outraged as he plays second fiddle on roomplacements, MVCD will have to address this issue.

Last thing mother company needs to have happen is have those Trust owners start yapping in the hot tub...about how they are not truly "owners"


----------



## pipet (Jul 9, 2013)

As for whether Trust owners pay MFs... yes, they do... for the Trust. At resorts that were sold out or mostly sold out, it is weeks owners who pay the MFs. Trust members can stay in those resorts when the weeks owners trade for points/exchange, but it is the weeks owners who actually paid the MFs.  

Because of that, I personally see weeks owners as having higher priority at their home resorts than DC point owners. 

Resorts with large trust ownership are a different case, but since those resorts have less weeks owners, there will be less weeks owners to fit into the priority system, so it's probably less of an issue anyway.

I definitely think DC points should be on par with any other Marriott week owner exchanging in - certainly higher than a non-Marriott owner II exchange.

Do we even know if/how much resorts are being compensated for the additional costs involved with shorts stays?  I am skeptical that resorts are compensated enough to account for the extra costs... and if that's the case, it means weeks owners pay higher MFs whether they participate in the DC or not and actually subsidize the DC.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 9, 2013)

Another view would be that all timeshare weeks (after determination of deeded view rights and fixed weeks) should be treated equally as required by the deeded interest (hoa), whether an owner chooses to occupy their unit, trade it, sell the time, or let grandpa stay there. Anything less diminishes the value of that interest based on who occupys it. 

In the end every person staying is using the week of an owner, whether it be one of us, Marriott, or the trust. Not a popular view I am sure, just food for thought.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

good morning

David raises a good point.. It is another "skim"  I get an OF unit from II deposited by an OF owner.  MVCD or the resort makes  it MV or IV when I arrive.  Why??? This unit is being skimmed as it works thru system!!!!!


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

rpgriego said:


> documented= fact
> 
> don't pit owner vs owner= WISHFUL THINKING! lol... Based on NO official MVW Priority Placement System, every father will be out to secure the best villa for his family. You actually think someone's going to say... no really, you-- a stranger, should have the better villa?



If my family left our vacation planning up to Don it'd be a disaster - he has no interest in delving into the finer points of ownership and even less in talking to the front desk personnel at check-in.  TUG has quite a few female participants who gladly take on the responsibility, and do it well.

I do actually think that many people are willing to say that others "should have the better villa."  (Except, I'd word it more like, "have an equal entitlement to unit placement ...")  Several Weeks Owners are right here in this thread opining that DC Trust Members should be on par with us; certainly we understand if it comes to fruition, those DC Trust Members will be our competition.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Quilter said:


> The way I understand room allocation priorities is that the Trust owners ARE incorporated in the placement system.   They are somewhere after owners and somewhere before II exchangers.
> 
> Even if ownership was considered they can't claim property ownership at the same level as weeks owners.   You would have to take their share of the Trust and divide it amongst all the different properties (since, as is claimed, they own all the properties).   That would give each Trust owner such a minimal percent of ownership they would surely fall below multi-week owners and then even below 1 week owners.   For example, if a Trust owner has 4500 Trust points and they visit Ocean Pointe,   their percentage of ownership could be calculated 53/4500 = .0117 (or is that 4500/53, I can't remember and my keyboard doesn't have a divide sign).
> 
> ...



How can you be "sure" that DC Membership is considered when this thread was started by the OP because he's certain, based on his own usage over the last few years, that his membership isn't considered at all?  He's not alone if you go by other reports to TUG.

I've seen the list I think you're talking about, looks something like this:
Multi-Weeks Owners using their owned Weeks;
Single-Week Owners using their owned Week;
Multi-Weeks Owners exchanging into another Marriott;
Single-Week Owners exchanging into another Marriott;
Non-Marriott II exchangers;
etc.

The GM's at my resorts used to include that list in the newsletter sections about unit placement/requests, but not since they started using the section quoted about rotations.  I would love to see a published, updated list that includes DC Membership if one exists.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

Ocean Pointe still lists online and follows the original priority list that was put in place just prior to the sell-out. This priority list predates anything related to the DC. Since the only terms used in the list are "single-week" and "multiple-week" owners it is anyone's guess as to how a DC only member is placed on that list. It is however extremely doubtful that they are considered a weeks owner at any resort and the reports of poor unit placement confirms this. If I had to guess I would say they are placed next to last in the list. It might be more fair to classify them as "Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International resort" but I do not believe this is happening.



> • Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners occupying their ownership weeks ("in
> season")
> • Ocean Pointe single-week Owners occupying their ownership week ("in season")
> • Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners exchanging through Interval International
> ...


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning
> 
> David raises a good point.. It is another "skim"  I get an OF unit from II deposited by an OF owner.  MVCD or the resort makes  it MV or IV when I arrive.  Why??? This unit is being skimmed as it works thru system!!!!!



The view cannot be changed at the whim of MVC. It is based on the individual resort policy. It is specified at the resort level. Ocean Pointe for example has a blanket policy that prohibits upgrading or downgrading an II exchange. Barony on the other hand routinely downgrades exchanges and upgrades owners, although I was the recent recipient of an exchange upgrade at Barony.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

good morning....

This thread is not about enrolled DC members such as myself...  We are clearly exchangers...

The OP started this to represent the views of the TRUST owners...  Despite the protestations of the majority on this thread (Legacy weeks owners).  They are owners too!!!


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> The view cannot be changed at the whim of MVC. It is based on the individual resort policy. It is specified at the resort level. Ocean Pointe for example has a blanket policy that prohibits upgrading or downgrading an II exchange. Barony on the other hand routinely downgrades exchanges and upgrades owners, although I was the recent recipient of an exchange upgrade at Barony.



To be clear, Barony does not "upgrade owners" when they're staying at the resort on their owned Weeks.  Owners using their own Weeks are always placed into the unit/view type that they purchased.  (As well, DC Points users are always placed into what they reserved.)

Any downgrades/upgrades at Barony happen with only non-ownership/membership stays.  I'm sure this is what you meant but am commenting just in case someone reads it as Owners/Members getting placed into something different than their usage rights warrant.  I know the thought of it happening at any of the resorts makes me blow a gasket.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 9, 2013)

I've gone back through the thread to find out what was the first point FT was making and how the thread got turned towards room assignment priority.   FT's first points were made directly towards the notation on all his reservations as being a MVC Exchange.   Then Superchief and GregT asked about room assignments.   Superchief said "In my experience, my villa assignments on DC points have been similar to my owned weeks: some good, some ok." 

So what's broken???   This has been a 7 page thread trying to fix something that's not broken.    

Who cares what the reservation says?   The turn that this thread took has pointed towards is an importance of room location.   The supposition is that if I get my preferred room I am being recognized as a valued customer.   FT has not made a case that his room assignments are a severe hardship because of his DC usage.




FractionalTraveler said:


> I have NOT received the same level of priority for villa assignments using my Trust points or DC point reservations (about 20 so far).
> 
> As an example, I just wrapped up my Father’s day weekend stay at Ocean Point using DC points.  I was assigned Pompano building 4th floor.  Not what I was expecting.  When I asked at check-in, they simply stated that better units in upper floors were available but reserved for owners and that I was exchanging so that was the best they could do for me.  I had reserved at 3-BR Oceanfront.  I also think that my length of stay 2 nights had something to do with it as well.  I would not expect them to give a worse unit preference to an owner for a 7-night stay just to accomodate my 2-night request.
> Spoke to two GM's on the subject over the weekend and both sang the same song.  Owners occupying their owners week(s) have the highest priority period.
> ...



I own 4 weeks at OP and the 4th floor oceanfront is one of my preferred locations because that's the limit I give myself for using the stairs to come and go.   The stairs door is conveniently located right by the pool area.   I'm winded after 3 flights but pushing the extra floor gives me just a bit more mandatory exercise for my stay.  The view is decent. 

The view from the 4th floor isn't the same as the 7th but it sure isn't a hardship.   Try the 1st floor and then tell me the 4th floor is a hardship.   




CashEddie said:


> We just left Crystal Shores on a DC points stay.  I booked at the 10 month mark for a 5 night, Sun - Thursday stay.  I booked Gulf Side and was placed in unit 607.  Beautiful unobstructed view of the Gulf.  For what I learned, the 07 and 09 units on the north side of the build facing the Hilton are considered Gulf Side, with the 07 units being the closest to the water (corner unit).  I called during the preference request period and asked to be placed in the best unit in the view category.  They advised my of the 07 units (they didn't reference it by unit number but said they would try to get me in one of the corner units.  They delivered.  . . .
> 
> I know for Crystal Shores, its now "off season" and maybe thats why we were placed in a very nice unit.  But boy the resort was filled with many families.  Maybe most of the owners that purchased there didn''t buy the summer weeks and purchased the winter weeks.



Prime time is an individual perception.   My Prime Time on HHI is Spring.   For others it's Summer (oh gag!).   I don't know if FT's 20 reservations are all made in what the demand charts deem as "Prime Time".   It's hard for everyone, even owners, during Prime Time.   Sue's rotation memo will attest to that.

Facts, I want facts.   Dates, room locations, welcome at check-in, time the reservation was made.  The front desk begins their room allocations about 2 weeks before check-ins.   If you make a last minute DC reservation because of the discounted rate on points do you really expect them to rearrange the whole process to suit your expectations?   Really? 



puckmanfl said:


> good afternoon...
> 
> 
> This whole thing is getting kind of twisted....



Yes, too many missing facts.   Too many "I thinks".   Too many "reports here on TUG".



FractionalTraveler said:


> Checked in to MFC 3-BR earlier today around 5PM. DC points stay for 8 days.
> 
> Assigned one of the worst rooms in the property.  Crown Bldg. 3rd floor right under check-in.  Manager said Owners have higher level priority than DC points reservations.
> 
> ...



As noted in the last sentence, the chance of receiving your perceived "good room" is very limited.   Maybe the front desk did the best they could.



Saintsfanfl said:


> Ocean Pointe still lists online and follows the original priority list that was put in place just prior to the sell-out. This priority list predates anything related to the DC. Since the only terms used in the list are "single-week" and "multiple-week" owners it is anyone's guess as to how a DC only member is placed on that list. It is however extremely doubtful that they are considered a weeks owner at any resort and the reports of poor unit placement confirms this. If I had to guess I would say they are placed next to last in the list. It might be more fair to classify them as "Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International resort" but I do not believe this is happening.
> 
> • Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners occupying their ownership weeks ("in
> season")
> ...



Oh thank you, thank you Saintsfanfl.   Something in writing.   Something to cling to.   Now that's what I want. . .facts.   

It's a fact that my complete ownership has been considered when we've checked in.   What I can't control is the fact that someone with equal or even less status has already gotten the corner room on the 5th floor.   My stay just didn't fit conveniently in the rotation of the reservations for that room.   So I get another room.   Sometimes they're in a super location (my perception).   Sometimes they're not.    That's some of the limitation with a flotation system.  I noted early on that this Club has it's limitations.


----------



## RBERR1 (Jul 9, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> To be clear, Barony does not "upgrade owners" when they're staying at the resort on their owned Weeks.  Owners using their own Weeks are always placed into the unit/view type that they purchased.  (As well, DC Points users are always placed into what they reserved.)
> 
> Any downgrades/upgrades at Barony happen with only non-ownership/membership stays.  I'm sure this is what you meant but am commenting just in case someone reads it as Owners/Members getting placed into something different than their usage rights warrant.  I know the thought of it happening at any of the resorts makes me blow a gasket.



That is not exactly true though Sue. I was at Barony on a week where there happened to be a lot of II exchanges and I was upgraded view to OF when using my week.  Doubt it happens during Platinum season but it did happen the week before it switched from Gold to Platinum.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

RBERR1 said:


> That is not exactly true though Sue. I was at Barony on a week where there happened to be a lot of II exchanges and I was upgraded view to OF when using my week.  Doubt it happens during Platinum season but it did happen the week before it switched from Gold to Platinum.



GRRRRRR!!!  I hate that.  Really, hate it.

Sure, it'd be nice to be upgraded when using an owned Week, but it goes against every usage rule in the governing documents.  If Marriott takes it upon themselves to counter one facet of the docs, what's to stop them from doing it with any facets?  How accepting will we be when they do something counter to the docs that negatively impacts our ownership instead of improves it?


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> GRRRRRR!!!  I hate that.  Really, hate it.
> 
> Sure, it'd be nice to be upgraded when using an owned Week, but it goes against every usage rule in the governing documents.  If Marriott takes it upon themselves to counter one facet of the docs, what's to stop them from doing it with any facets?  How accepting will we be when they do something counter to the docs that negatively impacts our ownership instead of improves it?



That doesn't make sense unless I am missing something. Barony has an open policy of placing all exchangers into the Garden View buildings even if II shows as Courtyard or Ocean View. If all (or almost all) exchangers are downgraded, wouldn't others have to be upgraded? Are you saying marriott.com "takes" the upgraded views? I doubt that.

I am not a Barony owner so I expected to be downgraded from the exchange Courtyard View to the Garden View. Sure enough it was changed immediately on Marriott.com. The funny thing is that when they assigned units shortly before check-in they gave me an Ocean Front unit instead. If they upgraded me then I am sure they would upgrade an owner.


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 9, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> GRRRRRR!!! I hate that. Really, hate it.
> 
> Sure, it'd be nice to be upgraded when using an owned Week, but it goes against every usage rule in the governing documents. If Marriott takes it upon themselves to counter one facet of the docs, what's to stop them from doing it with any facets? How accepting will we be when they do something counter to the docs that negatively impacts our ownership instead of improves it?


Would they do it when all owners have been taken care of and are satisfied?  Why let an oceanfront condo stand empty?  

We stayed at an expensive hotel chain (Starwood) and didn't book ocean view because of the high price and were only staying there two nights en route to another destination resort.  When we were checking in, we asked if there was a possibility to upgrade us and he did.  We got a high floor ocean view and appreciated it very much.  This was also a few days before high season kicked in.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Quilter said:


> I've gone back through the thread to find out what was the first point FT was making and how the thread got turned towards room assignment priority.   FT's first points were made directly towards the notation on all his reservations as being a MVC Exchange.   Then Superchief and GregT asked about room assignments.   Superchief said "In my experience, my villa assignments on DC points have been similar to my owned weeks: some good, some ok."
> 
> So what's broken???   This has been a 7 page thread trying to fix something that's not broken.
> 
> ...



Honestly, it's like we're reading two different threads!

FT's very first post in this thread, the title of the thread even!, refers to him being, "*homeless in the Trust since no MVCI property recognizes me as an owner!*"  He even bolded it so as to make his point more clear than he'd already done in a number of posts that he's made to TUG since the DC inception!  Maybe you didn't see all of his prior posts about the subject but for many of us participating here, this thread has been a natural progression of all his others to that one point, that as a DC Trust Member when it comes to unit placement he hasn't been considered to be a Marriott owner!

All the stuff about how DC reservations are notated, and which resorts have which placement systems, and how each owner/member has a different idea of what constitutes the "best" unit within a resort, and why certain units may not be available on any certain check-in day, and which placements other DC Members have had, and and and ... all that was offered to try to figure out if FT's placement woes could be explained by something other than his main point.

I can't say if there's enough info here to prove anything; not sure how you or anyone else can.  But one thing I do know is that no one here has introduced definitive proof that DC Members have been integrated into any of the existing placement systems.    Only FT can say after all that's been posted if he still believes, _as he's been told which is why he feels it's important enough to discuss_, that his DC Membership puts him at a very low level in whatever priority systems exist.

Not for nothing, Quilter, but I don't understand the objections to, "reports to TUG" and "I think" opinions offered by those of us participating here.  That's how a discussion works, folks offer related info and their thoughts to help flesh out a discussion.  We're not trying to take over the world here by legally parsing every single comment that's introduced.  We're just trying to help FT validate, or not, the frustration he's been made to feel.



Quilter said:


> Oh thank you, thank you Saintsfanfl.   Something in writing.   Something to cling to.   Now that's what I want. . .facts.



I pulled this out separately because I have to say that I'm really disappointed in you for this snarkiness.  Other info was quoted in this thread, too, info from official Marriott sources which you easily discarded because it doesn't support your position in this discussion.  Like you asked about something else - "REALLY?"


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

iconnections said:


> Would they do it when all owners have been taken care of and are satisfied?  Why let an oceanfront condo stand empty?



I can tell you with certainty that Ocean Pointe will never change the unit. It is a a policy at the resort and there are no exceptions, even if the units sit empty. 

Barony is different because they openly change exchangers. Exchangers are owned and paid for units, so if one is changed, then something else has to change as well. Certaintly the HOA would not put up with marriott taking the better views for themselves to rent out.

My case, now that I think about it, could possibly be different. It was a Marriott deposit so perhaps that gives Marriott the right to upgrade it? They still do not do that at Ocean Pointe so it still has to be resort specific.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> That doesn't make sense unless I am missing something. Barony has an open policy of placing all exchangers into the Garden View buildings even if II shows as Courtyard or Ocean View. If all (or almost all) exchangers are downgraded, wouldn't others have to be upgraded? Are you saying marriott.com "takes" the upgraded views? I doubt that.
> 
> I am not a Barony owner so I expected to be downgraded from the exchange Courtyard View to the Garden View. Sure enough it was changed immediately on Marriott.com. The funny thing is that when they assigned units shortly before check-in they gave me an Ocean Front unit instead. If they upgraded me then I am sure they would upgrade an owner.



I think that's why there's always a chance of an exchanger being placed into something other than gardenside despite their warning that it's the most likely placement.  They take all the exchangers and prioritize within that list (Barony owner exchanging back in, other Marriott owner exchanging in, other II exchangers,) then work backwards beginning at the bottom of the list with available (not being used by owners) gardenside units and moving to the other sections as needed.  So what's on the II confirmation doesn't matter one bit.

That's how it's been explained to me, anyway.  Does it make sense?



iconnections said:


> Would they do it when all owners have been taken care of and are satisfied?  Why let an oceanfront condo stand empty?
> 
> We stayed at an expensive hotel chain (Starwood) and didn't book ocean view because of the high price and were only staying there two nights en route to another destination resort.  When we were checking in, we asked if there was a possibility to upgrade us and he did.  We got a high floor ocean view and appreciated it very much.  This was also a few days before high season kicked in.



With hotel stays, or even cash stays at the timeshare resorts, they're not constrained by ownership rules that supposedly prohibit placement into something other than what is entitled.  I want Marriott to follow the rules with my timeshares.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> I can tell you with certainty that Ocean Pointe will never change the unit. It is a a policy at the resort and there are no exceptions, even if the units sit empty.
> 
> Barony is different because they openly change exchangers. Exchangers are owned and paid for units, so if one is changed, then something else has to change as well. Certaintly the HOA would not put up with marriott taking the better views for themselves to rent out.
> 
> My case, now that I think about it, could possibly be different. It was a Marriott deposit so perhaps that gives Marriott the right to upgrade it? They still do not do that at Ocean Pointe so it still has to be resort specific.



Be careful when saying, "Ocean Pointe will never change the unit ... even if the units sit empty."  I thought the same thing about owners using their own Weeks at Barony until about fifteen minutes ago.  :annoyed:


----------



## Fasttr (Jul 9, 2013)

I know there are not many pure points owners on Tug, but I am one of them.  I really don't hang my vacation enjoyment on what exact room I get, so where I am exactly at in the pecking order is not that big of a deal for me, but in order to potentially help in the understanding of the process (if there is one), I offer the following.... When I book a reservation using my trust points, in the reservation Preferences Summary under Not Guaranteed, it always says the following:   "MVC Points Owner (O5)".  I am assuming that is some attempt to tell somebody where I am in in some pecking order, either real or imagined.  Then again, perhaps when you book with Legacy points, your reservations say the same thing.  I only know what mine always say.  Knowing there are not a lot of pure trust'ers out there, I figured I would offer that up.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Fasttr said:


> I know there are not many pure points owners on Tug, but I am one of them.  I really don't hang my vacation enjoyment on what exact room I get, so where I am exactly at in the pecking order is not that big of a deal for me, but in order to potentially help in the understanding of the process (if there is one), I offer the following.... When I book a reservation using my trust points, in the reservation Preferences Summary under Not Guaranteed, it always says the following:   "MVC Points Owner (O5)".  I am assuming that is some attempt to tell somebody where I am in in some pecking order, either real or imagined.  Then again, perhaps when you book with Legacy points, your reservations say the same thing.  I only know what mine always say.  Knowing there are not a lot of pure trust'ers out there, I figured I would offer that up.



Good info.  All of my upcoming reservations are for Owned Weeks; I'm enrolled and don't own Trust Points.  This is on all my reservations: "MVCI Premier Pls Pts Owner."  I believe the same thing has been on past DC reservations.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> I think that's why there's always a chance of an exchanger being placed into something other than gardenside despite their warning that it's the most likely placement.  They take all the exchangers and prioritize within that list (Barony owner exchanging back in, other Marriott owner exchanging in, other II exchangers,) then work backwards beginning at the bottom of the list with gardenside units and moving to the other sections as needed.  So what's on the II confirmation doesn't matter one bit.
> 
> That's how it's been explained to me, anyway.  Does it make sense?



That definitely makes sense.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Be careful when saying, "Ocean Pointe will never change the unit ... even if the units sit empty."  I thought the same thing about owners using their own Weeks at Barony until about fifteen minutes ago.  :annoyed:



I should have said "never have that I am aware of". Things definitely could change especially with the gradual increase of trust units and Marriott's HOA voting power.


----------



## RBERR1 (Jul 9, 2013)

Back to the original question:

In a perfect world, there would be two sets of properties.  One which is owned by the trust and one by Legacy.  The exchange company would bring together people to either cross trade within the legacy bucket or between trust and legacy.  That is what Marriott said they were doing.  It would be easy in the perfect world as trust owners would have priority in trust properties and legacy would have priority in the legacy bucket.

The problem for FT and others in the same situation is that there is almost no properties that either that are fully or nearly in that trust bucket.  The trust owns pieces of all of the properties in the legacy bucket.

The other thing that is interesting is what the trust actually owns and how it fits in.  Usually the weeks that the trust owns in the legacy properties are not prime weeks ( Not all but most). 

Let's say a person buys and then uses 5000 pts to book a platinum week for Barony.  Let's say for argument sakes that Barony weeks are in the trust and the points were sold based on the deposit of 5 Bronze Barony weeks worth 1000 pts.  The person is clearly an exchanger.  However if a Barony platinum week were the only weeks deposited in the trust then person is clearly the same as another owner.

Should it make a difference what the trust actually owns vs. what the person is requesting in terms of season to determine whether the person is considered an owner or a exchanger?  Not saying the answer should be yes or no but it is an dimension which has not been discussed.

Interesting thread.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

RBERR1 said:


> Let's say a person buys and then uses 5000 pts to book a platinum week for Barony.  Let's say for argument sakes that Barony weeks are in the trust and the points were sold based on the deposit of 5 Bronze Barony weeks worth 1000 pts.  The person is clearly an exchanger.  However if a Barony platinum week were the only weeks deposited in the trust then person is clearly the same as another owner.



In your first example wouldn't a platinum reservation be impossible (unless Marriott does an actual exchange, which maybe is your point)?.

In your second example you definitely have a point, but it is hypothetical. In reality what needs to occur is the recognition of a trust owned week reserved is an owned week. BUT, if Marriott is jumping on II and snagging weeks for trust reservations this might be difficult. Another wrinkle is partial stays. Since the priority at many resorts is based on the number of weeks occupied, a single night stay would be at the bottom of the list.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 9, 2013)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning....
> 
> This thread is not about enrolled DC members such as myself...  We are clearly exchangers...
> 
> The OP started this to represent the views of the TRUST owners...  Despite the protestations of the majority on this thread (Legacy weeks owners).  They are owners too!!!



The problem truly is that many reservations that are made with pure trust points are still being facilitated through the MVC Exchange Company. There is really no transparency when making the reservation. It may look at smell like a pure trust reservation, but the inventory may have passed through the Exchange Company and then it now becomes an exchange. This seems to be what is happening with all of FTs DC reservations. 

We know that MVCI is dumping a lot of Kauai Lagoons inventory in to the exchange company at the 13 month mark. That inventory from that point forward can never be booked as a trust reservation.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 9, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Honestly, it's like we're reading two different threads!
> 
> FT's very first post in this thread, the title of the thread even!, refers to him being, "*homeless in the Trust since no MVCI property recognizes me as an owner!*"  out a discussion.  We're not trying to take over the world here by legally parsing every single comment that's introduced.  We're just trying to help FT validate, or not, the frustration he's been made to feel.



No, we're reading the same thread.   

Sometimes people make themselves feel frustrated because they're not getting what they expect.   

It is important to clarify what kind of owner he wants recognition for.

When visiting a property where FT is not an owner, there is no reason for that property to consider him an owner.   His MVC ownership is, however, taken into consideration.   How do I know this?   Today I talked with people who work with room reservations at two resorts where we own: Ocean Pointe and Grande Ocean.   Their reports complemented each other.   Both properties do their best to take care of their owners first.    Using the guidelines below:

• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners occupying their ownership weeks ("in 
season") 
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners occupying their ownership week ("in season") 
• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners exchanging through Interval International 
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners exchanging through Interval International

Here's about where DC users would fit.   I was told that total ownership is also considered.   He would come before an exchanger from another MVCI property. 


• Multiple-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International 
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International 
• Single-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International 
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International 
• Guests visiting Ocean Pointe on a Sales Preview Package 
• Ocean Pointe Owners that are renting a guest room or villa 
• Marriott Reward Members that are visiting Ocean Pointe on Marriott Reward 
point redemption 
• Guests that are renting a guest room or villa 
• Owners of resorts outside Marriott Vacation Club International exchanging into 
Ocean Pointe through Interval International

When you get the form asking for your room preference you have to prioritize and decide what is most important to you.  Do you want high floor, sunny balcony, convenience to amenities.   You can't expect it all.   Sometimes you get lucky and get it all, but you can't expect it.  You can make yourself sick with frustration that you can't have it all.   You can post on TUG that you are being treated unfairly.   

That is the same with using DC points.   In the 2 examples FT used, Ocean Pointe and Frenchman's Cove, he capitalized on Flexibility.   Both of the reservations went out of the norm of 7 nights so he prioritized that Flexibility was most important to him.   We don't know what other Flexible features of the DC he utilized.   He could have made the reservations 13 months out.   He could have made them at the last minute with a discounted rate of points.   There was a time before the DC owners were dreaming of such Flexibility,   longing for 2 night stays without wasting 5.   Now we have it.   What we forfeited is the place in line that recognizes us as owners occupying our owners week.   If we're not at our home resort then we won't be considered a home resort owner.   Makes perfect sense.   

We will still be recognized as MVCI customers.   Our total ownership will be taken into consideration. 

As for that rotation memo referred to in other posts.   It doesn't stand on it's own.  It is in conjunction with the above guidelines.   As mentioned above, the resorts use the above guidelines.   They try to accommodate owners first.   If it comes to a draw between a couple owners then the rotation guideline come in to play.   

Sue, I had to look up snarkiness.   Honestly, I'm not trying to be snarky.   I am very serious in my stand on this issue.   Remember when FT took a lot of heat for being suspected as a mole?   From the beginning I've appreciated his steadiness.   He doesn't get frazzled and bluster.   I like that.   I like how he and his buddies tell about their many adventures utilizing the Flexibility in the DC.   He seems very knowledgeable about the system.   But on this issue he is mistaken.   I am surprised how 3 years with the DC and it's not clear that "vacations" were the product.   I am surprised that the limitations of the system were missed because when it was rolled out the DC was put under the microscope. 

Sue, what other information are you referring to which you say I easily discarded because it doesn't support my position.   Show me.   Don't just refer to it.   Show me.   How can you say I easily discarded it?   You don't know that.  


Don't expect me to read too much further into a post that begins "I think" or "I feel" or "They say" or "it's been reported".


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 9, 2013)

What it boils down to is MVCIs greed has led us to this point. The real root cause is that many units were given a view category that they never should have had.

*Beach Place Towers* - Should have had two views, Ocean View and Intercoastal.
*Newport Coast* - Should have two views, Ocean View, and Courtyard View
*Ocean Poin*t - Those low floors should be Garden View
*Waiohai* - There are some rally bad Ocean Views that probably should have been Island View.
*Frenchman's Cove* - Should they all have really been Ocean View?
*Aruba Ocean Club* - Those upper floor Spyglass Garden View units really should have been Ocean View.

It is because of the huge view disparages within like views that there is huge competition for the better villa locations. Marriott decided to maximize profit than to give villas the true view that the unit should have had.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 9, 2013)

good evening....

Bingo...Dioxide...

next thing you know ol' Jeb's a millionaire!!! (beverly Hillbillies)

Dioxide's accurate assessment ends this thread for me!!!


----------



## Quilter (Jul 9, 2013)

RBERR1 said:


> Let's say a person buys and then uses 5000 pts to book a platinum week for Barony.  Let's say for argument sakes that Barony weeks are in the trust and the points were sold based on the deposit of 5 Bronze Barony weeks worth 1000 pts.  The person is clearly an exchanger.  However if a Barony platinum week were the only weeks deposited in the trust then person is clearly the same as another owner.



If you want the Trust owner to have roaming ownership then their total points should be spread over the 53 properties with just a percentage of ownership at each resort.   

Last night I was trying to figure out how to determine that percentage.   In post #141 I came up with something but after considering the math I've come up with something different.

For my example I'm going to use my Grande Ocean week.   My Gold Oceanfront ownership is valued at 3850 DC points.  This is for 7 nights.   One night would have 550 DC points value.

In order for a Trust owner to be deemed equal they would have to have 3850 x 53 = 204,050 Trust points.   But, that's not very likely.   Let's say they have a good number of Trust points, enough to give them Premier Plus status.   Let's give them 30,000 Trust points.   30,000/53 = 566.037.   That's their percentage of ownership at each resort.   How does it compare to the one week owner?   Well it puts them somewhere below the 1 week owner.   They have .147% of a week's ownership.  Their priority for room preference should be reflected by that.   It would be below a 1 week owner.   That they fall under the 1 week owner who has exchanged back into the resort is just natural because you can't ignore the fact that they only have enough for 1 night and the rest of the points for their stay would be exchanged from their other 52 resorts.  As the number of resorts grows, their percentage at each will diminish.   

In the guideline chart in post #170 that is where DC Trust owners are placed.   They come in somewhere under a 1 week owner exchanging back into their resort.  

The system isn't broken.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Quilter said:


> ... How do I know this?   Today I talked with people who work with room reservations at two resorts where we own: Ocean Pointe and Grande Ocean.   Their reports complemented each other.   Both properties do their best to take care of their owners first. ...



Great.  So because you're familiar with the policy in place at two Marriott resorts, _you think_ that the policy can be applied to every Marriott resort.  Does it make any difference at all that people have shared in this thread and in others on TUG that not all resorts use a placement system and/or that where one is used, it might be completely different from any other placement policy in the network?



Quilter said:


> When you get the form asking for your room preference you have to prioritize and decide what is most important to you.  Do you want high floor, sunny balcony, convenience to amenities.   You can't expect it all.   Sometimes you get lucky and get it all, but you can't expect it.  You can make yourself sick with frustration that you can't have it all.   You can post on TUG that you are being treated unfairly. ...



I don't see where anyone has said that they're entitled to "it all."  FT has shared that he feels he's being treated unfairly when it comes to unit placements.  He based it on being told by a Marriott rep after a consistent pattern of poor unit placements that his DC Trust Membership is not considered to be ownership, despite the fact that over the last three years he's been told by other reps/execs that he most certainly IS an owner.  I agree with him, he's being treated unfairly.  Certainly Marriott hasn't officially supported or dismissed his feeling - what makes any of our opinions more valid than others when none of us has any idea what Marriott thinks?   



Quilter said:


> That is the same with using DC points. ...  We will still be recognized as MVCI customers.   Our total ownership will be taken into consideration. ...



Will it?  Obviously it's what _you think _but again, that hasn't been FT's experience.  It's funny that you talked to Marriott reps at two of the resorts where he's had DC stays, and they've explained things to you in far greater detail than what was ever explained to him.  Seems to me, it's my opinion, that the reps with whom you spoke could have been pacifying you as easily as the ones with whom FT has spoken could have been trying to pacify him.  The fact is, none of us can count on what's been told to us by Marriott reps because there's nothing in the Weeks or DC governing documents that support any priority placement system.



Quilter said:


> As for that rotation memo referred to in other posts.   It doesn't stand on it's own.  It is in conjunction with the above guidelines.  ...



Again, that's what _you think_.  As I said, prior to the GM using the info that I quoted as the sum total of Barony's placement system, it used to be that the resort's placement system was similar to the hierarchy lists you posted for those two resorts.  But they do not publish such a list anymore, they publish only the facts related to unit types and locations, and which requests are made more often and how they rotate all owners among all the units within unit/view type.  Whether you consider it valid information or not, I can tell you that my placement experience the last few years has been one week in a high floor unit in one building, the next in a low floor unit in another, the next in a middle floor, etc.  Requesting any certain placement appears to make absolutely no difference - they rotate owners according to the info they published.  There is no longer a hierarchy.  Or if there is an unwritten one somewhere, I haven't seen any evidence that they use it for unit placement.  (Which I like, by the way, even as someone whose ownership ranks at the top of the hierarchy you're attributing system-wide.)



Quilter said:


> ... But on this issue he is mistaken.   I am surprised how 3 years with the DC and it's not clear that "vacations" were the product....



You mean, _in your opinion_, "he's mistaken."  It's very clear what the product is - Points which represent ownership interests in a Trust to which Marriott Vacation Club Weeks have been conveyed.  What's unclear is why Marriott reps are so inconsistent with when they attribute "ownership" to DC Trust Members and when they don't.  What's also unclear is why _you think_ that you know exactly how all this works while the rest of us are floundering around trying to figure it all out with absolutely no clear direction from Marriott reps/execs.



Quilter said:


> Don't expect me to read too much further into a post that begins "I think" or "I feel" or "They say" or "it's been reported".



Well, that's an odd way to limit a discussion but sure.  I hope you don't mind the favor being returned.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2013)

Fasttr said:


> I know there are not many pure points owners on Tug, but I am one of them.  I really don't hang my vacation enjoyment on what exact room I get, so where I am exactly at in the pecking order is not that big of a deal for me, but in order to potentially help in the understanding of the process (if there is one), I offer the following.... When I book a reservation using my trust points, in the reservation Preferences Summary under Not Guaranteed, it always says the following:   "MVC Points Owner (O5)".  I am assuming that is some attempt to tell somebody where I am in in some pecking order, either real or imagined.  Then again, perhaps when you book with Legacy points, your reservations say the same thing.  I only know what mine always say.  Knowing there are not a lot of pure trust'ers out there, I figured I would offer that up.





SueDonJ said:


> Good info.  All of my upcoming reservations are for Owned Weeks; I'm enrolled and don't own Trust Points.  This is on all my reservations: "MVCI Premier Pls Pts Owner."  I believe the same thing has been on past DC reservations.



It occurs to me, maybe the notation field can be useful!  I think we all pretty much agree that the resort personnel have a difficult time enough with all the variables for unit placement, without adding the unknown factor of whether a DC Points user reserved inventory direct from the Trust or through the DC Exchange Company.

I don't think the resort personnel need that much detail to incorporate DC Members into any hierarchy lists.  I think that the simple solution dioxide posted pages back in this thread, based on type of DC ownership and not type of interval, is doable:


> 1. Put Premier Plus Owners on par with Multi Week owners staying on their owned week.
> 2. Put Premier Owners on par with single week owners staying on their owned week.
> 3. Put Standard Owners on par with MVCI owners exchanging in.



Obviously Marriott uses notations in the Reservation Details of Weeks and DC Points stays that verifies DC ownership (and notably, by using the actual word, "owner.")  All they'd have to do is a minor change to that field indicating whether the owner is a DC Trust Member or a DC Exchange Member (the legal terms in the docs used to define us DC Members.)

Hmmmmmm.


----------



## davidvel (Jul 9, 2013)

After 7 pages, I think all these comments have talked me into my "food for thought": all weeks are deeded "owner weeks" and regardless of who stays there they should all be treated equally (or at least not unequally). People (or the DC trust) should be able to do what they want with their week with the expectation that the user will get all the same rights and privileges (deeded views, etc.) as if the owner herself stayed for those 7 nights.  

It seems odd to me that people are perfectly content with the idea that if they sell or trade their deeded OF unit's week to someone else, that those people will automatically be relegated to garden/island view because the owner is not staying in the unit. 

If I buy ($400) Club level seats to the Chargers, and sell them, give them away, or "exchange" them, those people shouldn't be placed below season ticket owners who show up at the game, and have to sit in the ($65) view level.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Jul 9, 2013)

Quilter said:


> No, we're reading the same thread.
> 
> Sometimes people make themselves feel frustrated because they're not getting what they expect.
> 
> ...



You have proven my point exactly.

I don't have answers to all your questions.  All I can do is ask questions and communicate my experiences to others.  I do have lots of data points over the last 3 years of DC reservations.  I have executed owner week, DC, and pure Trust reservations.

I am a Trust owner.  I am an owner!  Have you seen all the properties and units in the Trust lately?

1. Why should single or multi week legacy owners have preferential treatment over Trust Owners?

2. Why should Trust inventory not be directly available to me?

3. Why is there no transparency in Trust Inventory?

4. Why should a single week owner occupying their week in MFC get a better villa unit location than someone who has over 20K points as a Premier Plus?

5. Why does my status mean nothing at these properties?  Today, it only provides reservation priority and some other limited benefits.

6. Why are Trust owners being treated as exchangers?  Because the properties can't distinguish between inventory types?

7. If deeded week owners have villa preference priority over Trust Owners, then why would folks but Trust Points?  I could just buy an e-bay resale for next to nothing and get my preference honored.

Homeless in Paradise indeed.....


----------



## davidvel (Jul 9, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> You have proven my point exactly.
> 
> I don't have answers to all your questions.  All I can do is ask questions and communicate my experiences to others.  I do have lots of data points over the last 3 years of DC reservations.  I have executed owner week, DC, and pure Trust reservations.
> 
> ...


I agree. Or put another way, why should there be "priority" at all (other than deeded views)? Why should those that exchange for an OWNER'S week not get what was exchanged?

Yes, a twist on the whole idea that "owner occupants" of a week should get more out of their week than someone they give it to, but why not?


----------



## Quilter (Jul 10, 2013)

To start my post I'd like to say I made a mistake when I typed in the position where I was told a Trust owner would be placed on the priority list.   After proofing it several times I still didn't catch it until seeing my quote used in FT's post.  My notation had it right but my placement was wrong.   Here's where I meant to place it:

• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners occupying their ownership weeks ("in 
season") 
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners occupying their ownership week ("in season") 
• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners exchanging through Interval International 
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners exchanging through Interval International

Here's about where DC users would fit. I was told that total ownership is also considered. He would come before an exchanger from another MVCI property. 


• Multiple-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International 
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International 
• Single-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International 
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International 
• Guests visiting Ocean Pointe on a Sales Preview Package 
• Ocean Pointe Owners that are renting a guest room or villa 
• Marriott Reward Members that are visiting Ocean Pointe on Marriott Reward 
point redemption 
• Guests that are renting a guest room or villa 
• Owners of resorts outside Marriott Vacation Club International exchanging into 
Ocean Pointe through Interval International

I've fixed my post but I can't fix it in FT's quote.  

Now to respond to FT the best I can. 



FractionalTraveler said:


> You have proven my point exactly.
> 
> You're right.   I agreed with you back in post #100.   The difference is our opinion if it's wrong or right that you should not be considered on the same level as an owner.  I'm sorry to have to disagree with you because, as I've said, I appreciate your presence here on TUG.   I'd rather not have the conflict.
> 
> ...


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 10, 2013)

FractionalTraveler said:


> 4. Why should a single week owner occupying their week in MFC get a better villa unit location than someone who has over 20K points as a Premier Plus?





Quilter said:


> I'm also Premier Plus with an ownership value over 20K points. But if I go to a property where I don't own by using either DC points or an II exchange I will fall below the single week owners. I'll be down the list just like you. The front desk will process my room request somewhere in line with your. They'll see my total ownership and consider it.



lol...  So the poster with the most annual points is the 'The Authoritative' voice in this timeline?  20K beats my point balance!  lol...

I didn't realize they take total ownership into consideration. I guess it's like most loyalty programs, the greater your loyalty the better...
-- hotel room size
-- hotel room location
-- car rental size
-- airline cabin seat location
-- ship cabin

and now, for MVW the more points or weeks you own, the better...
-- villa location

All that said, an owner staying at the VC they bought into should always get location preference over anyone else, either using DClub points AND/OR their assigned week/season.


----------



## MALC9990 (Jul 10, 2013)

Superchief said:


> FT,
> This is a very interesting point. I also own some trust points and have had a few DC point stays, but I didn't notice this on my reservation. My major concern when staying on points is what is my location assignment priority. It appears that each resort has their own policy regarding where DC point redeemers (trust or legacy) stand in the priority line. Some have told me that DC points are equal in priority to single week owners staying on owned week. Others give a slightly lower priority. In my experience, my villa assignments on DC points have been similar to my owned weeks: some good, some ok.
> Have you noticed any difference in your villa assignment?
> 
> The other benefit of home resort is that we get to vote for board members. I still don't know how this workds for DC trust. This is my third year of point ownership and I have never received any information regarding the board. Do you have any information regarding this?



I would expect that the DC board (which would be an Advisory Board not a HOA) would operate in the same manner as the ABOD of the MVCI Asia Pacific Club points system. The board is elected by members, the number of points you own defines your electoral votes. The ABOD advises the Club Management in the operation of the Club. The Club owns the weeks at the resorts which the Club Members can use. The club thus exercises its votes for the HOAs and ABODs at those resorts where it is an owner.

Perhaps those TUGers who are DC Trust members can advise on what elections have taken place.


----------



## MALC9990 (Jul 10, 2013)

*An Outsider's View*

Well the view of an owner from outside the USA.

I've been reading this thread from Post number one on day one with increasing interest but until just now I had not contributed since being an owner outside the USA resorts And not a DC Trust point owner I felt that I was really just an observer rather than a player in this particular game. However I decided that since I am a point owner in the AP points system and also a DC enrolled weeks owner, I would offer some observations from my observers viewpoint.

My 2 main home resorts (Son Antem & Phuket Beach Club) have no units with special views. All are considered the same. No ocean front or penthouse etc.

I have always understood the basic placement priority system that has been explained in this thread and realized that when I exchanged thru II that I would be a way down the pecking order but my main concern was not where I was on that order but what would I get as a unit assignment. Generally I have always been satisfied with what I have been allocated when I have exchanged. We got a great unit at St. kitts last year and also got exactly what I asked for at Cypress Harbour last year - (Top Floor as far from the action and potential disturbance as possible). 

I recognize that as a DC enrolled owner, when using my DC points, I am an exchanger. When using my AP points I am a club member since the units are not owned by me or any member, they are owned by the AP Club but I do get the appearance of owner privileges in terms of getting a unit that reflects what I requested. When using my home resort I am an owner of multiple weeks and should be at the top end of the pecking order for placement requests - note I say requests since I also understand that others arrived before me and may well still be In residence and so specific unit requests are not wise since I increase my chances of disappointment.

My only DC points reservation so far was 2 nights added to the end of an II week exchange into MMC. I was not asked to change units at the end of the first week so I guess that the DC points got me the same or slightly higher placement priority as an II exchanger who is a multiple week owner. So far so good. Later this year we have a major DC point vacation coming up at Crystal Shores (6 nights) and Frenchman's Cove (13 nights). Oceanside at Crystal Shores will be fine and whatever we get at Frenchman's Cove will be fine - we have never stayed at a bad Marriott in the ten years that we have been owners.

So that is my two pennies worth (cents here in the UK). 

Final comment. I do not believe there will ever be total transparency in the unit allocation process nor any real consistency across resorts. I would never ever want the job of the Resort Manager nor to be the person designated to work out who goes where in the resort!

I look forward to being able to tell you all what a great unit we got at Crystal Shores and Frenchman's Cove but whatever we get I know they are both great vacation destinations and we will have a wonderful time.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 10, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Great.  So because you're familiar with the policy in place at two Marriott resorts, _you think_ that the policy can be applied to every Marriott resort.  *Does it make any difference at all that people have shared in this thread and in others on TUG that not all resorts use a placement system and/or that where one is used, it might be completely different from any other placement policy in the network?*
> 
> I have to take drama created by some owners into account when I read through posts here on TUG.   I've been at the check-in desks and watched the drama.   I've listened to it around the pools.   Some things get blown way out of proportion.   So, when I read a blustering post that So and So property doesn't follow the placement policy I take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> ...







rpgriego said:


> lol...  So the poster with the most annual points is the 'The Authoritative' voice in this timeline?  20K beats my point balance!  lol...
> 
> I didn't realize they take total ownership into consideration. I guess it's like most loyalty programs, the greater your loyalty the better...
> -- hotel room size
> ...



First, I never said total ownership would or should be a factor of top priority.    But it is a consideration.   I know I've often had remarks from front desks and CS reps thanking me for my loyalty.   Maybe it would be a tie breaker if other things were considered equal.   Ownership, as I've been told, always takes precedence.  

I only brought my point amount (value of my loyalty) into play to make a comparison.   FT mentioned his amount of points (value of his loyalty) should be a consideration as an owner.   I contend that his 20K should be divided over 53 resorts.   I have 20K divided between 4 resorts.   At 1 I am a multi-week owner so there I'm kind of special.   At the other 3 I'm a 1 week owner so at those properties I'm special but at a lesser degree.   At the other 49 resorts I'm a valued MVCI customer but will be slotted in according to what type of reservation I made.   Trust owners would be deemed special but just a notch below 1 week owners.   This is supported by what I've been told from the conversations I've had with a few resorts.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Quilter said:


> ... Trust owners would be deemed special but just a notch below 1 week owners.   This is supported by what I've been told from the conversations I've had with a few resorts.



I'm sorry but it's too much to keep picking away point-by-point.  Respectfully, the crux of the matter is that there is no consistency between what Weeks Owners and DC Points users have been told, and/or between what any of us have experienced.  All of the Marriott reps in the world can say something but if what they say isn't supported by consistent experience or, more importantly, by language in the governing documents, it's worthless no matter who says it.  What you're hearing might support your usage at your home resorts but it still doesn't provide an answer from the corporate powers-that-be to the basic questions in this thread, i.e. "where are DC Trust and Exchange Members supposed to be incorporated into any placement hierarchy," and, "if they're not supposed to be incorporated as Marriott owners of a type (which has been suggested to FT by at least one Marriott rep AND borne out by his not-inconsiderable usage pattern,) why not?"

I still simply don't understand why you think that you have heard/experienced The Definitive Marriott Corporate Statement/Policy related to unit placements and DC Points usage.  It should be painfully obvious to all of us that we're not all being told the same thing, and we're not all treated consistently across every resort in the network.  Even taking into account all of the variables involved with unit placement, there is no consistent hierarchy or placement system at work across the network.

(I do thank you for sharing your conversation with the front desk employee at Barony Beach Club.  As an Owner I've been led to believe differently both by official communications from the GM as well as an actual usage pattern.  Next time I'm going to bring a print-out of the statement you were given and ask them why they're telling Owners one thing and non-Owners another.)

Finally, I think we've all seen some of the bluster that takes place at check-in areas.  But I don't think that it's correct for any of us in this thread to attribute bluster to each other's posts.  IMO no one here has appeared to be unreasonable or dramatic.  But to be blunt, it's interesting that you're the only one who is making claims that the information and opinions you're sharing are more valid - somehow more supported by Marriott - than anyone else's.


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 10, 2013)

*Bottom Line*

At first, this timeline started with someone feeling their not getting the respect their purchase warrants. That may be so, but post after post confirms their is NO official MVW policy. Their seems to be a policy overridden by check-in bluster, advance smooze calls to the placement team and plain hoping for the best. 

The BOTTOM LINE is if you're being assigned a crapy room and accept it because it's your turn, you're the kind of owner I like. Because I continually angle for the best location. And that means I need someone to accept "it's their turn".


----------



## rpgriego (Jul 10, 2013)

Quilter said:


> First, I never said total ownership would or should be a factor of top priority.    But it is a consideration.   I know I've often had remark  from front desks and CS reps thanking me for my loyalty.   Maybe it would be a tie breaker if other things were considered equal.   Ownership, as I've been told, always takes precedence.
> 
> I only brought my point amount (value of my loyalty) into play to make a comparison.   FT mentioned his amount of points (value of his loyalty) should be a consideration as an owner.   I contend that his 20K should be divided over 53 resorts.   I have 20K divided between 4 resorts.   At 1 I am a multi-week owner so there I'm kind of special.   At the other 3 I'm a 1 week owner so at those properties I'm special but at a lesser degree.   At the other 49 resorts I'm a valued MVCI customer but will be slotted in according to what type of reservation I made.   Trust owners would be deemed special but just a notch below 1 week owners.   This is supported by what I've been told from the conversations I've had with a few resorts.



RELAX I only mentioned the points as a joke. And you're right, you were not the first to bring-up, "well I have...". While some posts within the timeline seem to have frustrated you... you are doing a great, but I'm sure a tiring job, of trying to keep everyone fact based.

To be honest...
You've called three or four resorts. I suggest you keep calling the other resorts. Create a spreadsheet with names and titles of the PLACEMENT Team members you speak with. The key will be speaking to a PLACEMENT Team member. 

In the end, the time invested will prove YOUR point. And your chart will be powerful evidence.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 10, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> *I'm sorry but it's too much to keep picking away point-by-point.* In other words, as long as you get the last word then point-by-point can be considered closed? Respectfully, *the crux of the matter is that there is no consistency between what Weeks Owners and DC Points users have been told, and/or between what any of us have experienced. * Only you understand the crux of the matter?  You're speaking for all Tuggers? All of the Marriott reps in the world can say something but if what they say isn't supported by consistent experience or, more importantly, by language in the governing documents, it's worthless no matter who says it.  What you're hearing might support your usage at your home resorts but it still doesn't provide an answer from the corporate powers-that-be to the basic questions in this thread, i.e. "where are DC Trust and Exchange Members supposed to be incorporated into any placement hierarchy," and, "if they're not supposed to be incorporated as *Marriott owners * I'd like to know what kind of owner the Marriott rep was referring to:   was it an owner at the property or a MVC owner.  There is a definite difference.   (which has been suggested to FT by at least one Marriott rep,) why not?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I like statements backed up by something more concrete than innuendo, hearsay, drama and bluster.   So I go looking for the backup.   I didn't know what I'd find when I began.   I didn't start with an agenda.   I'm just submitting my findings. No one has to listen.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 10, 2013)

rpgriego said:


> RELAX I only mentioned the points as a joke. And you're right, you were not the first to bring-up, "well I have...". While some posts within the timeline seem to have frustrated you... you are doing a great, but I'm sure a tiring job, of trying to keep everyone fact based.
> 
> To be honest...
> You've called three or four resorts. I suggest you keep calling the other resorts. Create a spreadsheet with names and titles of the PLACEMENT Team members you speak with. The key will be speaking to a PLACEMENT Team member.
> ...



I am relaxed rpgriego.   Read my response as a calm clarification.  

I'm done calling.   I'm satisfied.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 10, 2013)

rpgriego said:


> At first, this timeline started with someone feeling their not getting the respect their purchase warrants. That may be so, but post after post confirms their is NO official MVW policy. Their seems to be a policy overridden by check-in bluster, advance smooze calls to the placement team and plain hoping for the best.
> 
> The BOTTOM LINE is if you're being assigned a crapy room and accept it because it's your turn, you're the kind of owner I like. Because I continually angle for the best location. And that means I need someone to accept "it's their turn".



The guy I spoke with at Canyon Villas said the guidelines I listed previously were sent out by corporate to all the resorts.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 10, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm sorry but it's too much to keep picking away point-by-point. ...





Quilter said:


> In other words, as long as you get the last word then point-by-point can be considered closed? ...



No, but I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.  I only meant it's too much _for me._  I find I'm repeating myself to the points you're repeatedly making because they're not any more clear to me now than when you first made them.  We disagree, obviously, and that's okay and that's probably not going to change.  The last word doesn't matter.


----------



## timtax (Jul 10, 2013)

*Informative discussion*

I have to say as a reader of the entire post from the beginning, this has been great give and take on the various points. I will say that I am very impressed with the ability to provide information with verrrrry limited frustration showing in the posts of the contributors. While we will never all agree, it is amazing to see the quality of the writing and opinions of the TUG community. Kudos to all!


----------



## Quilter (Jul 12, 2013)

With some anxiety I'm posting on this thread again.  It bothered me considerably to be called out for being snarky and told that my comments were so far off base that it was like I was reading another thread.   So I had to look again from the beginning to see if I was totally confused.   For a couple days I tried reading it through again but kept getting interrupted.   So last night when the others went to bed I stayed up to go over the whole thing, looking at each post.  Whew, 8 pages.   Plus a couple more because in post #54 dioxide introduced a quote from another thread, so I went through that one too.  I'm not quick at dissecting each person's thoughts so I read and had to re-read some of them many times.   It took me until the wee hours of the morning.   (Hence, my post to GregT's thread at 2:46 in the morning.)   The cat was happy.   She wanted in around 3 to have a snack, use the litter box and then go back out.   

I won't get into my ultimate determination as I've already stated my convictions.   However, I would like to say I'm sorry if I've offended anyone with my bluntness.   My family says I'm brutally blunt.   It's not meant in any means to be malicious.   If one of my kids had sat at the table and said "None of the teachers like me" I could probably be inclined to say "That's pretty dramatic, can you give me the details?"   My daughter, who would be the one most likely to call me out on being blunt will also be the one to call me out on being dramatic.   We've been told we're very much alike so she knows what's she's talking about.   All that to say I'm not trying to be mean.   If I think something sounds a bit dramatic I'm likely to say so.  Again, I'm sorry if I've caused offense.  

To points (oops, wrong word) items related to this thread, I got a call today from the rooms location person at OP.   I had called her the other day but when she wasn't available I talked with one of her staff.   She did, however, get my message and was returning my call.   Most of what she said was comparable to the previous conversation.  While I tried to take notes, it would be too difficult to type and I might make a mistake and misquote something.   A couple points she brought out that others didn't were interesting:

-- Owner occupancy rates really matter.   OP has one of the highest owner occupancy rates, especially during the 3 month winter crunch.   

-- There are relatively few DC reservations.   I asked how they distinguish priority between DC and II exchangers and all are considered exchangers.   

-- The reservation of an owner who has mixed DC and use of an owned week would be looked at for averages.  If it was mostly a DC reservation then it would be an exchange.   i.e., out of the whole reservation how many nights were owner week and how many on DC.

-- Here's where the conversation went to a truly personal level.   After saying Platinum owners will want certain locations and Gold owners will come in wanting something very different she concluded it's very difficult to please everyone.   She then went further to say it's their wish that they could make everyone happy.   Being blunt, I asked "Really?"   She came right back with "Yes, why wouldn't I?"  Having known her for several years I'm convinced she's sincere.   

The next item is something I noticed at greater depth last night than I had before.   I have some questions on the quote below.   Let's say a Premier Plus Trust member goes to 20 different resorts over several years.   With the following list would they always be deemed to get multi-week priority?   On reservation #1 they go to Ocean Pointe.   It's their first time there so the rotation plan puts them at the top of the food chain.   On reservation #2 they go to Oceana Palms.   It's their first time on the rotation there so they go to the top of the food chain.   On reservation #3 they go to Grande Vista and head to the top of the food chain because it's their first time for that rotation system.   Same for reservations #4 - 20.   

Multi week and single week owners who return to their resort year after year and are slotted into the rotation guidelines will have PP and P Trust members competing for most coveted buildings and rooms every year because Trust members new to the rotation will be coming in every year.

It's difficult to formulate my thoughts.   Am I making any sense?




dioxide45 said:


> Wouldn't they be better to just use ownership status in DC to prioritize priority placement. Do as follows.
> 
> Put Premier Plus Owners on par with Multi Week owners staying on their owned week.
> Put Premier Owners on par with single week owners staying on their owned week.
> ...


----------



## m61376 (Jul 13, 2013)

Quilter- what you surmised above in reference to Dioxide's prior post makes sense to me. Actually, while I agree with the vast majority of Dioxide's posts, that one didn't make sense to be either.

I think a lot of your analysis in this thread is right on, and correlates with what you've posted about what you've been told is the prioritizing system for placement. I think a lot of the problem is there doesn't appear to be a universally applied- or at least publicized- assignment policy.

I can certainly understand the disappointment of a trust points owner not getting owner priority for unit placement. To me, the analysis that a trust point owner, by virtue of the fact that he/she is an owner at every resort is actually proportionately only a minor owner ( unless an exorbitant number of points are owned) at each individual resort and therefore would fall below a single week owner staying in the resort in which they own. 

To a certain extent it comes back to the price of flexibility of the DC. If you use an owned week you are considered an owner at the resort you fully support with your MF's..Trust points convey ultimate flexibility, but minor ownership in each entity of the Trust.  Thus, at each individual resort Trust point owners really aren't on par with actual owners of the resort, and should fall below them for unit placement, but above non-owner exchangers because they do own a small piece of the pie, so to speak. I think part of the price of flexibility is also giving up preferential treatment enjoyed by actually being an owner at a particular property.

That said, I do think they really try to accommodate people as best as they can. We recently had two units at Harbour lakes, with reservations for one of them being switched into a few weeks before (both using points). They assigned me 4th floor villas in the location requested, and more importantly gave me units next to each other.. Another big plus- we arrived around 1, and had requested an earlier check-in if possible, since we had a toddler with us; one villa was ready on arrival. So I certainly felt I was treated as an owner- if not at that property, certainly as a valued Marriott owner, commensurate with having Premiere status, whether or not that had any bearing on anything..


----------



## Quilter (Jul 13, 2013)

m61376 said:


> That said, I do think they really try to accommodate people as best as they can. We recently had two units at Harbour lakes, with reservations for one of them being switched into a few weeks before (both using points). They assigned me 4th floor villas in the location requested, and more importantly gave me units next to each other.. Another big plus- we arrived around 1, and had requested an earlier check-in if possible, since we had a toddler with us; one villa was ready on arrival. So I certainly felt I was treated as an owner- if not at that property, certainly as a valued Marriott owner, commensurate with having Premiere status, whether or not that had any bearing on anything..



Am I right that Harbour Lakes is mostly Trust like Oceana Palms and Crystal Shores?  At those Trust properties it makes perfect sense that Trust owners will have very little competition for rooms with the "home court" owners.   Therefore, they are closer to the top priority pecking order than at the "old" properties.    

As the Trust grows in numbers a new priority which utilizes the Premier Plus, Premier and Standard levels will likely take place at mostly Trust properties.  But that's just speculation based on my experience with Marriott customer service.   

For now, those mostly Trust properties can be seen as "Home" for Trust owners.   This was evidenced in post #122 by NightSkyTraveler.   In post #71 CashEddie said he received a good room for points at Crystal Shores but didn't specify if he's a Trust holder.   

As owners of the "old" properties sell and the Trust gains control home owner competition for rooms will diminish.


----------



## CashEddie (Jul 13, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Am I right that Harbour Lakes is mostly Trust like Oceana Palms and Crystal Shores?  At those Trust properties it makes perfect sense that Trust owners will have very little competition for rooms with the "home court" owners.   Therefore, they are closer to the top priority pecking order than at the "old" properties.
> 
> As the Trust grows in numbers a new priority which utilizes the Premier Plus, Premier and Standard levels will likely take place at mostly Trust properties.  But that's just speculation based on my experience with Marriott customer service.
> 
> ...



Quilter, 

I'm not a trust owner.  I just used legacy points of my own that go converted to from a legacy week.  I also was placed in good room at OceanWatch in oceanfront, center unit with the larger balcony.  I requested all of this during the request period and I was granted all the requests I made, except I didn't get a high floor at OceanWatch.  I still had an excellent view of the ocean.  

Two ressies with great placement using points.  One at a trust heavy resort during the "off season" (Crystal Shores) and one at during ultra prime season with a resort that is not trust heavy and high owner occupancy during this time of the year (OceanWatch).  All using plain legacy points elected from converted weeks. 

I think it goes back to what you stated in the conversation with the room placement person at OP: they try to fill every request as best as they can.


----------



## windje2000 (Jul 13, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> Wouldn't they be better to just use ownership status in DC to prioritize priority placement. Do as follows.
> 
> Put Premier Plus Owners on par with Multi Week owners staying on their owned week.
> Put Premier Owners on par with single week owners staying on their owned week.
> ...



This is a good idea, IF the occupancy is reserved from the Trust and NOT from the exchange co.  

All occupancy is either owned, exchanged, or rented.  

That's pretty easy to see when you own a week and 
1. use it, 
2. exchange it or 
3. rent it.

If you own points and the occupancy you reserve is obtained from the Trust, it is an owner stay.  You should be treated no different than a legacy owner especially for a points stay of seven nights equivalent to a traditional week.  Short points stays are a tougher call, because broken weeks may make it more difficult for legacy owners to reserve their week in season.  Short stays probably are a royal PITA for the villa assignment folks.

If you own points and the occupancy you reserve couldn't be filled from the trust it came from the exchange co.   You are therefore an exchanger.  

Are you  different from a Marriott owner who has an II exchange?  Yes - you had a view choice and guarantee.  You paid for that.  You should get what you paid for.

That aside, I don't see why two otherwise equivalent Marriott owners, one of whom is a points exchanger while the other is an II exchanger, should be prioritized differently.  II exchangers can be enrolled in DC and just using the asset they signed up for - their week or an otherwise equivalent week from that other Marriott endorsed exchange company - II.

Positing II exchangers as 'second class' exchangers, ranking after DC exchangers, is that fair?  Because I purchased occupancy in weeks and have no current interest the flexibility (and associated cost read skim) of points stays?  

Moreover, I think if the points exchanger is a short stay week breaker, the preference should go to the full week II week stay.

But that's my opinion.  Nothing more.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 13, 2013)

windje2000 said:


> If you own points and the occupancy you reserve is obtained from the Trust, it is an owner stay.  You should be treated no different than a legacy owner especially for a points stay of seven nights equivalent to a traditional week.  Short points stays are a tougher call, because broken weeks may make it more difficult for legacy owners to reserve their week in season.  Short stays probably are a royal PITA for the villa assignment folks.
> 
> If you own points and the occupancy you reserve couldn't be filled from the trust it came from the exchange co.   You are therefore an exchanger.



Isn't there the possibility the reservation will be mixed with days from the Trust and days from the Exchange bucket?   

From the conversation I had with the OP rooms control person I got the distinct impression priority placement isn't so fine tuned as to dissect between how many days are from Trust and from the Exchange pool.   It's owner's first, exchangers after that.  That's where owner occupancy comes into play.   There's so little availability for exchangers during the crunch time at properties with high owner occupancy.   Then you add in check in dates.   The availability for an exchanger on a particular day is very limited.   Dissecting the few exchangers isn't as big an issue as dissecting the owners.   

As owners sell and the Trust takes control there will be more competition between Trust and points users and less competition with home owners.


----------



## klpca (Jul 13, 2013)

Quilter said:


> As owners sell and the Trust takes control there will be more competition between Trust and points users and less competition with home owners.



I saw someone else mention something similar and I don't get this. As owners sell (to other third parties) how would the trust gain more control? Perhaps I'm being dense, but I haven't had my coffee yet.


----------



## MALC9990 (Jul 13, 2013)

klpca said:


> I saw someone else mention something similar and I don't get this. As owners sell (to other third parties) how would the trust gain more control? Perhaps I'm being dense, but I haven't had my coffee yet.



As more owners sell and MVCI invokes their ROFR more prime units go back into the Trust. However this will take many many years. MVCI would have to ROFR more than do at present.


----------



## Fasttr (Jul 13, 2013)

klpca said:


> I saw someone else mention something similar and I don't get this. As owners sell (to other third parties) how would the trust gain more control? Perhaps I'm being dense, but I haven't had my coffee yet.



I believe Quilter was referring to Marriott buy backs of weeks to place into the Trust.


----------



## klpca (Jul 13, 2013)

Thanks. I had totally forgotten about ROFR. Not too much of that going on at my home resort (DSVII).


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Isn't there the possibility the reservation will be mixed with days from the Trust and days from the Exchange bucket?
> 
> *From the conversation I had with the OP rooms control person I got the distinct impression priority placement isn't so fine tuned as to dissect between how many days are from Trust and from the Exchange pool.*   It's owner's first, exchangers after that.  That's where owner occupancy comes into play.   There's so little availability for exchangers during the crunch time at properties with high owner occupancy.   Then you add in check in dates.   The availability for an exchanger on a particular day is very limited.   Dissecting the few exchangers isn't as big an issue as dissecting the owners.
> 
> As owners sell and the Trust takes control there will be more competition between Trust and points users and less competition with home owners.



About what's bolded - from a few other threads dealing with DC inventory management we're finding that the majority of DC reservations are being made through the DC Exchange Company especially after the 12-mos Reservation Window opens.  Because of that the majority of DC reservation confirmations are more likely to indicate "MVC EXCHANGE" on them even when a DC Trust Member uses only Trust Points to reserve an interval, which is probably why the resort personnel can't fine-tune their inventory according to the source of any intervals.

Absent that ability, what other mechanism could they use to try to incorporate DC Points users into any Priority Placement system?  That's why I think dioxide's suggestion is the simplest to implement.  As shared by a few of us earlier in the thread, DC reservation confirmations already notate DC ownership and status tiers so what's available now could allow for an immediate change in whatever systems exist now.  If Marriott could tweak that IT field to confirm whether a DC Points owner is either a Trust or Exchange Member, or a hybrid, the notation could allow for even more fine-tuning.

I still think the problems are that there isn't a placement system being consistently implemented at all the resorts network-wide, and, various Marriott reps/execs say that a DC Points user IS or ISN'T an owner depending on the situation.  That's why FT started this thread after using the DC for three years - because his dealings with various Marriott personnel, as well as his usage pattern, haven't been consistent at all.

IMO Marriott's first step should be to rewrite the placement hierarchy that was quoted earlier in this thread, clearly delineating the placemark(s) for DC Points users (whatever they determine those to be.)  The second should be making sure that ALL owners/members and resort personnel are given a written notice of the newly-written policy and how the resorts will be expected to consistently implement it.

There shouldn't be any more instances of DC Members being told flat-out by Marriott reps that they are not Marriott Owners - that's just wrong and a terrible way to treat your customers.  Even if the inference should be that, "a DC Points Member sits below a Weeks Owner in the hierarchy," Marriott should direct their resort personnel to say that rather than the insulting way it was said to FT.


----------



## windje2000 (Jul 13, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Isn't there the possibility the reservation will be mixed with days from the Trust and days from the Exchange bucket?



I think that is a more than a possibility but rather a certainty, and some reasonable rules can accommodate those situations.  

For example, if the stay is more trust days than legacy days, you get owner status . . .  and vice versa.

If you have tacked on a few days to a legacy week with bonus or legacy points, you may have to move, or accept a lesser unit for the entire stay.  

Heck, I've had to move during a two weeks II exchange.   

But in the end I think FT original post illustrates a real problem that VAC will need to address with equity to both groups of owners. 

Keep in mind that one can never lose one's deeded week at one's home resort.

If the VAC exchange policies become truly egregious, outside exchange venues will no doubt arise.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 13, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Am I right that Harbour Lakes is mostly Trust like Oceana Palms and Crystal Shores?  At those Trust properties it makes perfect sense that Trust owners will have very little competition for rooms with the "home court" owners.   Therefore, they are closer to the top priority pecking order than at the "old" properties.



Harbour Lake is definitely not a trust property. Only 2.71% of the weeks at the resort are conveyed to the trust. The big trust resorts like Newport Coast and Ko'Olina are 15% and 11.7% respectively.

Check out post #193 of the Recorded Trust Documents thread for all the details on where resorts rank in the trust.


----------



## Quilter (Jul 13, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> Harbour Lake is definitely not a trust property. Only 2.71% of the weeks at the resort are conveyed to the trust. The big trust resorts like Newport Coast and Ko'Olina are 15% and 11.7% respectively.
> 
> Check out post #193 of the Recorded Trust Documents thread for all the details on where resorts rank in the trust.



Thank you.   It's embarrassing to admit this but it would be even more helpful if I fully grasped what I was looking at.   Would you be a dear and give me a Chart 101 lesson?   

So what happened to Crystal Shores and Oceana Palms?   I thought they were big in the Trust.   

Thanks,
Quilter


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 13, 2013)

Quilter said:


> Thank you.   It's embarrassing to admit this but it would be even more helpful if I fully grasped what I was looking at.   Would you be a dear and give me a Chart 101 lesson?
> 
> So what happened to Crystal Shores and Oceana Palms?   I thought they were big in the Trust.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I think I perhaps directed you to the wrong chart. The chart I should have pointed you to was the one in post #217. Thus I also provided some bad information. This chart shows the percentage of weeks at each resort that are actually conveyed to the trust. I hope it is easier to understand.

Harbour Lake has a percentage of weeks in the trust at 11.138%. So there is a higher percentage of trust ownership than I initially reported. It is 12th on the list though you will also see that many resorts have trust ownership well over 20%.

Oceana Palms is almost 65%. That means that the trust owns 65% of all weeks at Oceana Palms. I think I have read that the GM there has said that weeks owners will get preferential treatment and get unit placement in the Sunrise Tower. However, what if a trust points owner is staying at Oceana Palms? Should they not be placed on the same level as a weeks owner in the placement priority. One could say that most of the weeks that were conveyed to the trust are actually in the Sunset Tower, but remember that Oceana Palms is a floating week floating unit resort, so all owners bought in to the same system, including the weeks in the trust.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 14, 2013)

windje2000 said:


> This is a good idea, IF the occupancy is reserved from the Trust and NOT from the exchange co.
> 
> All occupancy is either owned, exchanged, or rented.
> 
> ...



I agree, even though I tossed that suggestion out there. I didn't necessarily mean it mean it to be across the board. It should apply to trust based reservations only. An exchange is still an exchange in my book and I did put that out there early on. If a point is not a point, then a week booked through the MVC Exchange Company is not an owner stay and shouldn't be treated as such. It is still an exchange, just a different exchange company handling the transaction.

Using Ocean Piontes priority placement policy as an example.



> • Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners occupying their ownership weeks ("in season") *<<<--- Trust Pionte owners using trust inventory should probably here.*
> • Ocean Pointe single-week Owners occupying their ownership week ("in season") *<<<--- or here.*
> 
> • Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners exchanging through Interval International *<<<--- This is where an Ocean Pointe owner using their DC points to reserve in to Ocean Pionte should be.*
> ...



Really, all that Ocean Pointe has to do to clarify their policy from an exchange standpoint is update the policy with a few minor modifications. It would also bring it up with the times. There are new ways to exchange other than II. Ocean Pointe's policy is still living in the past. With DC now three years old, it is overdue for an update.



> • Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners occupying their ownership weeks ("in season")
> • Ocean Pointe single-week Owners occupying their ownership week ("in season")
> • Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners exchanging through Interval International or the Destinations Club program.
> • Ocean Pointe single-week Owners exchanging through Interval International or the Destinations Club program.
> ...


----------



## Quilter (Jul 14, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> Sorry, I think I perhaps directed you to the wrong chart. The chart I should have pointed you to was the one in post #217. Thus I also provided some bad information. This chart shows the percentage of weeks at each resort that are actually conveyed to the trust. I hope it is easier to understand.
> 
> Harbour Lake has a percentage of weeks in the trust at 11.138%. So there is a higher percentage of trust ownership than I initially reported. It is 12th on the list though you will also see that many resorts have trust ownership well over 20%.
> 
> Oceana Palms is almost 65%. That means that the trust owns 65% of all weeks at Oceana Palms. I think I have read that the GM there has said that weeks owners will get preferential treatment and get unit placement in the Sunrise Tower. However, what if a trust points owner is staying at Oceana Palms? Should they not be placed on the same level as a weeks owner in the placement priority. One could say that most of the weeks that were conveyed to the trust are actually in the Sunset Tower, but remember that Oceana Palms is a floating week floating unit resort, so all owners bought in to the same system, including the weeks in the trust.



Thank you.   That is much easier to understand.   

We've stayed at Oceana Palms twice.   Once on an II exchange before the DC.   Lovely large balcony room on the north side of the building, 18th floor.   Then again this past March.   I used DC points.   Wanted a certain view so I used enough points for ocean front.   We were put in the NE corner unit (my preferred location) on the 11th floor.   The front desk told me it was the break for high floor designation so I just made the cut.   We had a beautiful view.


----------



## ciscogizmo1 (Jul 14, 2013)

We just got back from Custom House.  I booked through DC.  We were placed on the 18th floor in room 1801 facing the Marketplace.  Great room for us.


----------



## Carlsbadguy (Jul 27, 2013)

*Room Location Hierarchy*

I went to an Owners meeting at Kauai Beach Club and asked about room assignments and was told room locations are assigned in the following way.  I do not know if this holds for all properties.

1. Legacy multiple week owners staying more than 1 week.
2. Legacy week owners staying 1 week.
3. Legacy week owners who are also using destination points.  They will try and keep you in the same villa your entire stay.
4. Destination Point Owners.
5. Marriott II exchangers
6. Other exchangers

I don't remember where in the hierarchy they are,  but owners who lockoff their unit to stay 2 weeks are lower in priority.

Also I found out from my room location as a Marriott II exchanger at KoOlina not to come late as they tend to give away the better rooms earlier at check in. I had a first floor room facing a wall, without cell phone service, and then was able to change the next day.  We did not arrive until 10:00pm.


----------



## yobo500 (Aug 5, 2013)

*Reservation Priority*

Hello All:

Does anyone know the priority for Reservations. I know Owners come first, but who is next in line? Exchangers, DC Points, Marriott Reservations,etc

The reason I ask is that we are at Frenchman's Cove and I had requested St. John building, but was told that all owners were occupying 3 bedrooms units. I was given Custom House which has to have the worst view of any 3 bedroom unit I have seen. All Marriott resorts that I have ever stayed at always give the best views to 3 bedroom units due to cost of the unit to the owner to begin with. 

Thanks for your reply.


----------



## Carlsbadguy (Aug 5, 2013)

When I was at Kauai Beach Club I was told the reservation order was:
1)Legacy week owners staying multiple weeks
2)Legacy week owners staying 1 week
3) Legacy week owners combining destination points with their reservation
4) Destination point owners
5) Marriott-Marriott exchangers
6) II exchangers
7) Renters
8)Preview packages

This could be for this property only.


----------



## Fasttr (Aug 5, 2013)

Carlsbadguy said:


> When I was at Kauai Beach Club I was told the reservation order was:
> 1)Legacy week owners staying multiple weeks
> 2)Legacy week owners staying 1 week
> 3) Legacy week owners combining destination points with their reservation
> ...



What if you are staying on a MOD discount.  Are you a #7 Renter....or a # 5.5 because of the Marriott Relationship?


----------



## gblotter (Aug 5, 2013)

*DC Points - Bottom of the Barrel*

Last night we checked into Timber Lodge for a 5-night stay using legacy points to make the reservation.  We were assigned the absolute worst unit they have in the entire resort - without question.

Low floor, handicap unit, facing the public transit bus parking area, long hike to the pool.  DW is pretty steamed.

In speaking with the General Manager, we were enlightened about several things.

When making unit assignments, DC Points reservations are considered the same as outside trades.
There is no priority given for owning multiple weeks.
There is no priority for being Premier or Premier Plus.
There is no priority for being MRP Platinum.
And this is the kicker ... a non-Marriott trade for 7 days will get a better unit assignment than a DC Points reservation for 5 days.

In addition, Timber Lodge seems to throw all designated room assignments out the window on check-in day if you arrive after the 4pm check-in time.  The GM actually said it was our fault because we didn't arrive until 7pm!

All that "flexibility" for DC points reservations starts to look a lot less appealing when you learn how it works behind the scenes.  DC points reservations for less than 7 days seem to be "bottom of the barrel" for unit assignments.

We are attending a sales presentation later in the week (in exchange for 15K MRPs).  I intend to bring this up with the salesman highlighting a big dis-incentive to buy DC points (not that it will make any difference to them).

After multiple visits to the front desk and some unpleasant conversations with the GM, they are moving us to a better room this morning.  Not a great way to start our summer vacation.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 5, 2013)

yobo500 said:


> Hello All:
> 
> Does anyone know the priority for Reservations. I know Owners come first, but who is next in line? Exchangers, DC Points, Marriott Reservations,etc
> 
> ...



Yobo, Marriott doesn't have a policy that's consistently implemented across all resorts.  I've moved your post to this thread because it's become a catch-all for all items related to unit placement.

You may also want to check out these threads in which MFC is specifically mentioned:
Need to Vent - Frenchman's Cove
Worst unit placement/location since we've owned with Marriott


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 5, 2013)

gblotter said:


> Last night we checked into Timber Lodge for a 5-night stay using legacy points to make the reservation.  We were assigned the absolute worst unit they have in the entire resort - without question.
> 
> Low floor, handicap unit, facing the public transit bus parking area, long hike to the pool.  DW is pretty steamed.
> 
> ...



Wow.  Just wow.  If I were you I'd write to the Customer Advocacy office and tell them everything you've written here, in as much detail.  I don't blame your wife for being steamed!  

_Marriott Vacation Club Corporate Office
Customer Advocacy
800 936 6824
customer.advocacy@vacationclub.com
Hours: 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST (Monday - Friday)_


----------



## bazzap (Aug 5, 2013)

It sounds like the GM here may have some serious personal issues he needs to address!
I have come across many GMs who are very proactive and helpful, some who are sadly ineffective, but none who seem quite like this one.
And if the prioritisation (or lack of) really is like he says, that would be very worrying indeed.


----------



## Steve A (Aug 5, 2013)

Is it possible that the priorities, or the lack of them, are established by the HOA?


----------



## bazzap (Aug 5, 2013)

I guess some HOAs may move in weird and wonderful ways, but I struggle to grasp why they would want to prioritise non Marriott traders over Marriott owners in any scenario?


----------



## davidvel (Aug 5, 2013)

Steve A said:


> Is it possible that the priorities, or the lack of them, are established by the HOA?



Wholly agree. In CA at least, these priorities are a violation of law which requires all members to be treated equally by the HOA (subject to deeded views, etc.), IMHLO.


----------



## DB-Wis (Aug 5, 2013)

Yes, that sounds pretty awful, Gblotter, and I agree it's an awful way to start a vacation. I'm glad to hear you're getting moved.  

In recent years, I've tried not to be too hung up on getting my preferred location.  It just adds anxiety and I've found that I can enjoy my stays and have a great time even without my top room choice.  But sometimes they try to put you in a room at a location that is simply not acceptable for an owner (including the owner of DC points) and you just have to say "no, I want a different unit, tomorrow if not today."  

I'm glad things worked out.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 5, 2013)

Steve A said:


> Is it possible that the priorities, or the lack of them, are established by the HOA?



Could be but there are many examples of Marriott asserting dominance over the HOA's and applying blanket policies to every resort, supposedly by virtue of the rights they hold as written into the Management Agreements with each resort.  If Marriott wanted the resort personnel to conform to a fairer, uniform, network-wide system, it would happen.  I have no doubt that the problems related to unit placement exist because Marriott is choosing to hang back and let the resorts deal individually with the aggravation.


----------



## klpca (Aug 5, 2013)

davidvel said:


> Wholly agree. In CA at least, these priorities are a violation of law which requires all members to be treated equally by the HOA (subject to deeded views, etc.), IMHLO.



I'm just curious as to which members have to be treated equally? The deeded owners of the resort and/or the owners in the DC? Is the law elastic enough to account for changes such as the DC?

Anyway, I agree - why would a non Marriott exchanger ever be given priority over a Marriott owner?


----------



## klpca (Aug 5, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Could be but there are many examples of Marriott asserting dominance over the HOA's and applying blanket policies to every resort, supposedly by virtue of the rights they hold as written into the Management Agreements with each resort.  If Marriott wanted the resort personnel to conform to a fairer, uniform, network-wide system, it would happen.  I have no doubt that the problems related to unit placement exist because Marriott is choosing to hang back and let the resorts deal individually with the aggravation.



As if unit placement wasn't difficult enough for those working at the front desk. I wouldn't want that job. Ever.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 5, 2013)

davidvel said:


> Wholly agree. In CA at least, these priorities are a violation of law which requires all members to be treated equally by the HOA (subject to deeded views, etc.), IMHLO.



That doesn't stop the NCV resort personnel from being among the most unfair when it comes to unit placement.  The chances of an NCV single-week owner being placed into one of the best-view units during the highest-demand periods are practically nil because so many multi-week owners book those weeks and are _always_ given priority.  That resort's policy was one of the first I ever learned about through TUG and it hasn't changed in all these years.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 5, 2013)

klpca said:


> As if unit placement wasn't difficult enough for those working at the front desk. I wouldn't want that job. Ever.



As a permanent position, neither would I.  But on the rare days when it feels like it's really true that Nice Guys Finish Last, I'd love a chance to put some self-entitled, pompous blowhards in their place by telling them too bad, it's simply someone else's fair turn to be placed in the unit with the better view.

I'd say it nicely, of course.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 5, 2013)

davidvel said:


> Wholly agree. In CA at least, these priorities are a violation of law which requires all members to be treated equally by the HOA (subject to deeded views, etc.), IMHLO.



This situation is not applicable to the law you are referring to. Booking with DC enrolled points has nothing to do with being a deeded owner. It is an internal exchange system which does not come with legal protection governing deeded rights for an individual. 

It's a raw deal. It is mind boggling that Marriott wouldn't push to do something to protect and enhance the only product they are selling. Marriott even holds HOA voting power at many resorts due to the low turnouts. 

Mind boggling.....


----------



## davidvel (Aug 5, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> This situation is not applicable to the law you are referring to. Booking with DC enrolled points has nothing to do with being a deeded owner. It is an internal exchange system which does not come with legal protection governing deeded rights for an individual.
> 
> It's a raw deal. It is mind boggling that Marriott wouldn't push to do something to protect and enhance the only product they are selling. Marriott even holds HOA voting power at many resorts due to the low turnouts.
> 
> Mind boggling.....


I don't agree. Reservations made by the owner of the week (a member of the HOA) whether you, me, the trust or whomever, should be given equal *priority* in the room they get (subject to deeded view rights). Just because someone chooses to use the reservation, trade, rent, or put their week into a trust and participate in some internal trading system, should not change this.  

I know lots of people who have higher levels of "priority" don't agree, but CA law is pretty clear on this.   

CA law is clear that all deeded rights to members of the HOA must be applied equally and without preference to some members above others. In other words, CA law states there should be no "preference system" at all as between member's reservations.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 5, 2013)

davidvel said:


> I don't agree. Reservations made by the owner of the week (a member of the HOA) whether you, me, the trust or whomever, should be given equal *priority* in the room they get (subject to deeded view rights). Just because someone chooses to use the reservation, trade, rent, or put their week into a trust and participate in some internal trading system, should not change this.
> 
> I know lots of people who have higher levels of "priority" don't agree, but CA law is pretty clear on this.
> 
> CA law is clear that all deeded rights to members of the HOA must be applied equally and without preference to some members above others. In other words, CA law states there should be no "preference system" at all as between member's reservations.



So an exchange through II would be treated the same?


----------



## davidvel (Aug 5, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> So an exchange through II would be treated the same?


Some may argue that an owner contractually gives up certain rights by depositing. I don't see this as a requirement in the T&C, but haven't analyzed this as much. 

Marriott, as developer, created their timeshare docs almost exactly the same as a typical so-cal planned developments, even using the same lawyers to create the CC&Rs as the developers did. Since then, they have been trying to make their "programs" fit the legal requirements that those docs impose. 

Simply stated the CA Marriott TS developments are simply condos, not really different than any condo (except the usage limitations), with an HOA, etc. The HOA (and Marriott, as agent, who is the manager) cannot _legally_ discriminate as amongst owners. It is a hard concept for many people to understand as they think that Marriott is in charge of their ownership, which his technically, not true (in CA).


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 5, 2013)

davidvel said:


> I don't agree. Reservations made by the owner of the week (a member of the HOA) whether you, me, the trust or whomever, should be given equal *priority* in the room they get (subject to deeded view rights). Just because someone chooses to use the reservation, trade, rent, or put their week into a trust and participate in some internal trading system, should not change this.
> 
> I know lots of people who have higher levels of "priority" don't agree, but CA law is pretty clear on this.
> 
> CA law is clear that all deeded rights to members of the HOA must be applied equally and without preference to some members above others. In other words, CA law states there should be no "preference system" at all as between member's reservations.



Sorry, but your point does not make any sense to me. They ARE NOT a deeded member of the HOA. An exchanger is not named on the deed. It amounts to nothing more than membership in a vacation club. Members of various vacation clubs ARE NOT granted deeded ownership rights under the law. They are not in any way like a condo owner. They have no voting rights. They have a right to use and nothing more.

Keep in mind that I do not believe this was even a DC trust reservation. It was an enrolled week exchange. This means the exchanger doesn't even have a deed in the trust, so any point you are making about a deed is moot, because there isn't one. 

Even if the reservation was based on a trust deed, I still disagree. It is still not a deeded right under the HOA. It is just a vacation club points system, which is a completely different animal.

All that said I think it is a horrible mistake by Marriott and it should be changed. I just don't think there is any breaking of the law, just bad business.

The only way you get legal protection here is if you own deeded allotted time at this specific resort, and you occupy that specific ownership right. Any manner of exchange or shared right to use does not carry legal ownership rights.

If you want an example of blatant illegal processes take a look at Westgate. It is mind boggling what they are trying to get away with.


----------



## FractionalTraveler (Aug 6, 2013)

gblotter said:


> Last night we checked into Timber Lodge for a 5-night stay using legacy points to make the reservation.  We were assigned the absolute worst unit they have in the entire resort - without question.
> 
> Low floor, handicap unit, facing the public transit bus parking area, long hike to the pool.  DW is pretty steamed.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your detailed post.  

This is why I started this thread in the first place.  Your experience is all too common to me and  I don't believe it to just be a coincidence.  Also, I would add that it has happened to us on stays of 8-14 days as well.

I have used pure Trust points, Legacy enrolled points, and rented points along the way.  All with similar results.

Still homeless in the trust.

FT


----------



## davidvel (Aug 6, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> Sorry, but your point does not make any sense to me. They ARE NOT a deeded member of the HOA. An exchanger is not named on the deed. It amounts to nothing more than membership in a vacation club. Members of various vacation clubs ARE NOT granted deeded ownership rights under the law. They are not in any way like a condo owner. They have no voting rights. They have a right to use and nothing more.
> 
> Keep in mind that I do not believe this was even a DC trust reservation. It was an enrolled week exchange. This means the exchanger doesn't even have a deed in the trust, so any point you are making about a deed is moot, because there isn't one.
> 
> ...



This is exactly the misunderstanding people have about Marriott timeshares (in CA). All units are owned and have a deed, with a right to use a unit 1 week a year. Feel free to read the CC&Rs to get a better picture of the relationships involved. The fact that one choses to let another use their deeded rights/reservation should not change those rights. I don't expect many to agree without undertanding the underlying laws and language in the docs, nor do I expect people (esp. owners using their week) not to want to be ranked in some hierarchy. I'm just trying to give another perspective, and explain the underlying legal mechanism. 

All that said, even the HOA issue aside, I still believe that no one should get priority as all reservations are derived from the same source, an owner's  deed. Not a popular opinion, I understand.


----------



## windje2000 (Aug 6, 2013)

davidvel said:


> I don't agree. Reservations made by the owner of the week (a member of the HOA) whether you, me, the trust or whomever, should be given equal *priority* in the room they get (subject to deeded view rights). Just because someone chooses to use the reservation, trade, rent, or put their week into a trust and participate in some internal trading system, should not change this.
> 
> I know lots of people who have higher levels of "priority" don't agree, but CA law is pretty clear on this.
> 
> CA law is clear that all deeded rights to members of the HOA must be applied equally and without preference to some members above others. In other words, CA law states there should be no "preference system" at all as between member's reservations.



If I as an owner choose to trade my 'occupancy rights' with an exchange company and in consideration of facilitating that trade I agree to the terms and conditions imposed by the exchange company as to 'priority', that's an enforceable contract that I voluntarily entered into.

If I obtain occupancy in a resort where I am not an owner through an exchange, I am not a member of that resort's HOA and have whatever priority they choose to assign me.  

That's probably why there is a distinction between an owner exchanging in and a non owner exchanging in as seen in many of the exchange priorities I have seen posted and discussed.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 6, 2013)

davidvel said:


> This is exactly the misunderstanding people have about Marriott timeshares (in CA). All units are owned and have a deed, with a right to use a unit 1 week a year. Feel free to read the CC&Rs to get a better picture of the relationships involved. The fact that one choses to let another use their deeded rights/reservation should not change those rights. I don't expect many to agree without undertanding the underlying laws and language in the docs, nor do I expect people (esp. owners using their week) not to want to be ranked in some hierarchy. I'm just trying to give another perspective, and explain the underlying legal mechanism.
> 
> All that said, even the HOA issue aside, I still believe that no one should get priority as all reservations are derived from the same source, an owner's  deed. Not a popular opinion, I understand.



So what would my recourse be? I booked on marriott.com and I want to be treated just like an owner because the unit I am occupying is owned by somebody somewhere (although I have no idea who). 

Timber Lodge is in CA by the way. I am wondering if the Marriott legal department has heard of this law.

Show me the law that says a hotel style booking or exchange by someone that is not an owner of the HOA must be treated like an owner. Point me in the right direction and I will eat crow.


----------



## davidvel (Aug 6, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> So what would my recourse be? I booked on marriott.com and I want to be treated just like an owner because the unit I am occupying is owned by somebody somewhere (although I have no idea who).
> 
> Timber Lodge is in CA by the way. I am wondering if the Marriott legal department has heard of this law.
> 
> Show me the law that says a hotel style booking or exchange by someone that is not an owner of the HOA must be treated like an owner. Point me in the right direction and I will eat crow.


You are correct that it is the owner that holds the rights. Without knowing what the source of your week is, who the owner is, and what rights they may have agreed to waive, the question cannot be answered. 

But, if the owner of the week (Marriott, or whomever) did not waive their right to be treated equal to all other owners, they are entitled to assign the accompanying usage to whomever they want without penalty of being treated as a second-class citizen. That's the law in CA, in a nutshell. 

Also, certain developer/HOA controlled weeks (your reservation?) do have different deeded usage rights, and my comments are not directed at these.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 6, 2013)

davidvel said:


> You are correct that it is the owner that holds the rights. Without knowing what the source of your week is, who the owner is, and what rights they may have agreed to waive, the question cannot be answered.
> 
> But, if the owner of the week (Marriott, or whomever) did not waive their right to be treated equal to all other owners, they are entitled to assign the accompanying usage to whomever they want without penalty of being treated as a second-class citizen. That's the law in CA, in a nutshell.
> 
> Also, certain developer/HOA controlled weeks (your reservation?) do have different deeded usage rights, and my comments are not directed at these.



Not to beat a dead horse but the reservation in question was management controlled, and therefore as you put it "they are entitled to assign the accompanying usage to whomever they want". That is what they did. They either owned or were the legal administrator of the reservation. In assigning usage to "whomever they" wanted they also assigned the unit that they wanted. They did what they wanted which was in their legal right but in doing so they really ticked a paying customer off.


----------



## Dean (Aug 19, 2013)

My experience thus far is that Owners at a given resort come ahead of all others and that trust or DC points are treated the same and come it at about the same priority as a Marriott exchanger.  Multiple week is only a tie breaker and gives priority within a given level alone.  We were at MGO this summer using 3 weeks we own and 3 weeks using DC points and they made a distinction between the 2 even for a single trip of a multiple week owner putting owned weeks on 4th & 5th floors and DC points weeks on the first.  The one thing that MGO does that not all do, is that they tend to alternate priorities by year (High this year, lower next).  One thing MGO doesn't do, that some do, is to give owners there a priority when staying using other than their owned time there.  In general I find Marriott does a good to very good job with unit assignments but then I go overboard to make reasonable and simple requests.


----------



## davidvel (Aug 20, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> Not to beat a dead horse but the reservation in question was management controlled, and therefore as you put it "they are entitled to assign the accompanying usage to whomever they want". That is what they did. They either owned or were the legal administrator of the reservation. In assigning usage to "whomever they" wanted they also assigned the unit that they wanted. They did what they wanted which was in their legal right but in doing so they really ticked a paying customer off.


I understand what you are saying, but you slightly change what I referred to. My only point is that the underlying "rights" of an owner to occupancy should be freely assignable. While "they", in your example above, assigned the usage, the controversy is over what particular unit is assigned for that usage. I don't agree that "they" as the owner, can "assign[] the unit that they wanted." 

The assignment of particular units, or "priority", should be done by the HOA (or its agent, Marriott as manager), in a manner that treats all owners (and any who are assigned the owner's rights), in an equal fashion. 

Is there anything anyone can do if they don't? Not easy, unless owners want to get together and try to fight it. Despite personally having the ability to do so, I've never felt sufficiently pushed down in priority to justify such a fight.   

I am confident, based upon conversations with Marriott management, that they are aware of the conflicts between all of the various governing docs (and state laws) and their "timeshare system" (a legal fiction). I also believe that this is the motivation for the DC system: to systematically encourage owners to contractually give up rights (see voting etc.), or establish through trust ownership a system that is based upon contract and not title/governing docs. 

In other words, a reversal of the long lived Marriott mantra of "deeded ownership," (and all the pesky obligations this imposes on Marriott.)


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 20, 2013)

davidvel said:


> ... I also believe that this is the motivation for the DC system: to systematically encourage owners to contractually give up rights (see voting etc.) ...



About this ... the voting restriction (1e) that was in the Enrollment t&c's at the DC introduction doesn't exist anymore.  TUGger Cmore alerted the rest of us to its removal in Feb '11.  Also, during the one voting cycle in which it may have played a part, none of us saw anything in our proxies that made us think Marriott was trying to impose it.

As far as I know that was the only DC item that might have, "encouraged owners to contractually give up rights."  Is there something else?


----------



## curbysplace (Aug 20, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> That doesn't stop the NCV resort personnel from being among the most unfair when it comes to unit placement.  The chances of an NCV single-week owner being placed into one of the best-view units during the highest-demand periods are practically nil because so many multi-week owners book those weeks and are _always_ given priority.  That resort's policy was one of the first I ever learned about through TUG and it hasn't changed in all these years.



So are you saying that a multi-week owner of NCV who is already occupying their unit, say in week 3 of their 6 week stay, should be moved out of their unit and into another unit just so a 1-week owner can move in for the week asserting an owner priority claim?

My understanding is that there are proportionally many platinum multi-week owners of NCV that stay for "long term".   That does indeed tie up their unit for multiple weeks. As the resort room assigner when the multi week owner checks in what would you do?

One reason we all use and love TUG is to learn and gain experience in how to best use our Marriott TS ownership within the system.  There is every chance that these platinum multi-week NCV owners also use TUG or learn some other way to best use their ownership and the Marriott system to their advantage. And this just may conflict with another owner's best-laid plans.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 20, 2013)

curbysplace said:


> So are you saying that a multi-week owner of NCV who is already occupying their unit, say in week 3 of their 6 week stay, should be moved out of their unit and into another unit just so a 1-week owner can move in for the week asserting an owner priority claim?
> 
> My understanding is that there are proportionally many platinum multi-week owners of NCV that stay for "long term".   That does indeed tie up their unit for multiple weeks. As the resort room assigner when the multi week owner checks in what would you do?
> 
> One reason we all use and love TUG is to learn and gain experience in how to best use our Marriott TS ownership within the system.  There is every chance that these platinum multi-week NCV owners also use TUG or learn some other way to best use their ownership and the Marriott system to their advantage. And this just may conflict with another owner's best-laid plans.



x2

Ocean Pointe does the exact same thing. To call it unfair is ludicrous. Making a 4 consecutive week owner move or have lesser priority over a single week owner would be the unfair method. A 4 week owner holds 4 times the ownership of a single week owner. They get 4 times the votes. They clearly should be given priority.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 20, 2013)

curbysplace said:


> So are you saying that a multi-week owner of NCV who is already occupying their unit, say in week 3 of their 6 week stay, should be moved out of their unit and into another unit just so a 1-week owner can move in for the week asserting an owner priority claim?
> 
> My understanding is that there are proportionally many platinum multi-week owners of NCV that stay for "long term".   That does indeed tie up their unit for multiple weeks. As the resort room assigner when the multi week owner checks in what would you do?
> 
> One reason we all use and love TUG is to learn and gain experience in how to best use our Marriott TS ownership within the system.  There is every chance that these platinum multi-week NCV owners also use TUG or learn some other way to best use their ownership and the Marriott system to their advantage. And this just may conflict with another owner's best-laid plans.





Saintsfanfl said:


> x2
> 
> Ocean Pointe does the exact same thing. To call it unfair is ludicrous. Making a 4 consecutive week owner move or have lesser priority over a single week owner would be the unfair method. A 4 week owner holds 4 times the ownership of a single week owner. They get 4 times the votes. They clearly should be given priority.



Yes, I do think it's extremely unfair that a single-week NCV owner rarely gets a turn to stay in what's considered the units with the "best" views because multi-week owners always get the priority for those units.

Where is it stated that multi-week owners, "clearly should be given" such a priority?  Nowhere in the governing docs.  It's a policy that the resort personnel adhere to based on a vague directive from Marriott, but from what I understand the directive also includes a rotational component that NCV personnel choose to not implement the way some other resorts do.

The governing docs make it clear that owners are entitled to one week in season in the particular type of unit purchased, for each Week purchased.  No more and no less.  They certainly don't bestow any type of "priority owner" status on any certain owners, and they don't guarantee that the "best" units are reserved for any certain owners.

So yes, I think that multi-week owners staying consecutive weeks at their home resorts can be inconvenienced by having to move partway through their stays, if that's what it takes to give single-week owners a fair chance to take their turns in the "best" units on property.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 20, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Where is it stated that multi-week owners, "clearly should be given" such a priority?



Because majority rules and logic "should" prevail.

Why do multi-week reservations get to book at 13 months? With your reasoning the 13 month reservations shouldn't exist or it should exist for everyone because it isn't fair. It's the exact same thing.

I agree to disagree


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 20, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> Because majority rules and logic "should" prevail.
> 
> Why do multi-week reservations get to book at 13 months? With your reasoning the 13 month reservations shouldn't exist or it should exist for everyone because it isn't fair. It's the exact same thing.
> 
> *I agree to disagree*



What's bolded works for me.  

About the 13-mos Reservation Window for consecutive/concurrent multi-Weeks, though?  It's contractually bestowed.  As long as it is, it doesn't matter if you, me or anybody else thinks it's fair.  IF any priority placement advantages were contractually bestowed, what's fair or not wouldn't matter then, either.


----------



## Dean (Aug 20, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Yes, I do think it's extremely unfair that a single-week NCV owner rarely gets a turn to stay in what's considered the units with the "best" views because multi-week owners always get the priority for those units.
> 
> Where is it stated that multi-week owners, "clearly should be given" such a priority?  Nowhere in the governing docs.  It's a policy that the resort personnel adhere to based on a vague directive from Marriott, but from what I understand the directive also includes a rotational component that NCV personnel choose to not implement the way some other resorts do.
> 
> ...


There's no truly fair way to do unit assignments, someone will always be left out.  Fitting all the variables together with multiple weeks, different start dates and the points options has to be a daunting task.  Personally I'm OK as long as there's a plan and they generally stick to it.  That currently appears to be the case at the places I have any info about even if the multi week owners are favored over single weeks.  I doubt there's many places/times when the density of multi week owners is enough to rob single week owners of a reasonable chance of a good villa assignment, esp at a place like NCV where there are no official view types.  That would mean that at least 30-40% of the villas a given week are taken by multi week owners on a regular basis.  IF the number of views are so limited that a much smaller % will take them up, the odds of success are not enough to matter anyway.

Remember the original reason for the 13 month window (which is not in all resort documents) was a sales incentive and given that reservation issues are at the whim of Marriott (legally and contractually), I don't think a specific option is truly contractual.  Thus to favor that group for both reservations and unit assignments is consistent and I would think reasonable.  I can tell you with 100% certainty that my second GO unit was purchased mainly for the 13 month reservation option as were my trading units.  Others would have the opportunity to reserve at 13 months out and have a higher unit assignment priority if they so chose.


----------



## curbysplace (Aug 21, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> So yes, I think that multi-week owners staying consecutive weeks at their home resorts can be inconvenienced by having to move partway through their stays, if that's what it takes to give single-week owners a fair chance to take their turns in the "best" units on property.



Using this logic why not have single-week owners move out and switch their unit each day or every second day to allow other single-week owners that good view for a day or two.  They can be incovenienced by having to move partway through their stay too.  After all what makes any certain single-week owner better than any other or better than a multi-week owner?

Now back to reality and real life.  Consider that the multi-week owners are both 86 years old.  They specifically purchased those six weeks in season to get out of the heat in their Palm Springs desert home not unlike Midwesterners or Northeasterners who go to the sunbelt in winter. They made their reservation thirteen months out.  What you are suggesting is that they be required to move out, say to the second floor of a building without an elevator for one week in the middle of their stay in order to accommodate a single-week owner. Oh and did I say between the two of them they've had three hips replaced?  Then of course we will move them back to the original villa or perhaps to a different villa the next week. Does this make sense when all of a sudden you know its real people?


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 21, 2013)

curbysplace said:


> Using this logic why not have single-week owners move out and switch their unit each day or every second day to allow other single-week owners that good view for a day or two.  They can be incovenienced by having to move partway through their stay too.  After all what makes any certain single-week owner better than any other or better than a multi-week owner?
> 
> Now back to reality and real life.  Consider that the multi-week owners are both 86 years old.  They specifically purchased those six weeks in season to get out of the heat in their Palm Springs desert home not unlike Midwesterners or Northeasterners who go to the sunbelt in winter. They made their reservation thirteen months out.  What you are suggesting is that they be required to move out, say to the second floor of a building without an elevator for one week in the middle of their stay in order to accommodate a single-week owner. Oh and did I say between the two of them they've had three hips replaced?  Then of course we will move them back to the original villa or perhaps to a different villa the next week. Does this make sense when all of a sudden you know its real people?



The view discrepancies at Desert Springs are far different than those at Newport Coast Villas.


----------



## curbysplace (Aug 21, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> The view discrepancies at Desert Springs are far different than those at Newport Coast Villas.



My real-life illustration refers to full-time Palm Springs area residents who own six weeks at Newport Coast Villas.


----------



## suzannesimon (Aug 21, 2013)

Being a multiweek owner, I have no issue with us getting prime locations obviously.   I think the real problem comes with everyday check-ins and short stays.  There should be a location price to pay for the convenience of checking in on Wednesday for 2 nights or for just a weekend.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 21, 2013)

curbysplace said:


> Using this logic why not have single-week owners move out and switch their unit each day or every second day to allow other single-week owners that good view for a day or two.  They can be incovenienced by having to move partway through their stay too.  After all what makes any certain single-week owner better than any other or better than a multi-week owner?
> 
> Now back to reality and real life.  Consider that the multi-week owners are both 86 years old.  They specifically purchased those six weeks in season to get out of the heat in their Palm Springs desert home not unlike Midwesterners or Northeasterners who go to the sunbelt in winter. They made their reservation thirteen months out.  What you are suggesting is that they be required to move out, say to the second floor of a building without an elevator for one week in the middle of their stay in order to accommodate a single-week owner. Oh and did I say between the two of them they've had three hips replaced?  Then of course we will move them back to the original villa or perhaps to a different villa the next week. Does this make sense when all of a sudden you know its real people?



Here's the NCV resort map.  Every unit is the same - 2BR with an "excellent" view, but it's obvious even from the map that the views vary widely across the entire property.

I don't know what the ages or physical limitations of guests have to do with whether or not single-week owners should be given their fair chance at the units with the "best" comparable views during the highest-demand periods.  Aren't there elevators and handicapped-accessible units (if that's what you're saying these particulars guests will need) in every building at NCV?  Or every other building?

If folks are able to have gotten to the resort and situated in an accessible unit in any of the few buildings which are closest to the ocean, wouldn't they also be able to move once during a six-week stay to a unit on the same floor in another building further back?  Or if not moving at all is the only objective, wouldn't they be able to be placed in a "best" unit one year for the entire visit, then in a building further back the next year?

The 13-mos. Reservation Window is stipulated in the governing docs, but it says only that owners of multi-weeks may reserve them concurrently/consecutively one month ahead of single-week Owners, based on availability.  It doesn't guarantee unit placement at all.  In fact, the governing docs make it perfectly clear that all owners should have an equal shot at unit placement.

The only thing that speaks to any sort of unit placement priority is the statements from various GM's relating how it's done at some specific resorts.  As we see from this thread there's no blanket policy across the resort network, and obviously the exec level doesn't want to get involved in helping to make a more fair policy network-wide.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 21, 2013)

suzannesimon said:


> Being a multiweek owner, I have no issue with us getting prime locations obviously.   I think the real problem comes with everyday check-ins and short stays.  There should be a location price to pay for the convenience of checking in on Wednesday for 2 nights or for just a weekend.



That will definitely occur especially if the unit is vacant on the normal check-in days. We know these types of stays are at the very bottom of priority anyway but even if they weren't a Wed check in would default to the bottom since unit assignments were handed out days earlier. It would be an afterthought.


----------



## GregT (Aug 21, 2013)

Has anyone experienced an "inferior room" when they added one or two days to a week long reservation, for a total stay of 8 or 9 days?

Just curious if the addition of the DC point reservation dilutes the home week priority?  I would hope not, but you never know.

Thanks!

Greg


----------



## suzannesimon (Aug 21, 2013)

I own holiday weeks at Frenchman's Cove.  The problem we had were the people who checked in for short stays a couple days before Christmas week and were given prime units. There should have been plenty available for them because December is pretty dead before the holidays.  The Fri., Sat., Sun.  Holiday fixed-week  check-ins  received lesser-quality views and then the short stays checked out on Monday.


----------



## jeepie (Aug 21, 2013)

suzannesimon said:


> Being a multiweek owner, I have no issue with us getting prime locations obviously.   I think the real problem comes with everyday check-ins and short stays.  There should be a location price to pay for the convenience of checking in on Wednesday for 2 nights or for just a weekend.


Just curious (as both a multiweek and DC points owner)...do you think a "location price to pay" should be imposed for an owner who reserves two nights at the start or end of a multiweek reservation? And, of greater interest, any observations as to how Marriott deals with such situations?


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 21, 2013)

GregT said:


> Has anyone experienced an "inferior room" when they added one or two days to a week long reservation, for a total stay of 8 or 9 days?
> 
> Just curious if the addition of the DC point reservation dilutes the home week priority?  I would hope not, but you never know.
> 
> ...




I am wondering if most resorts even look that far ahead. I think what occurs at Ocean Pointe is they assign units each week which is a continuous process starting Wed night all the way through Sat night. In your example I believe they would be given the best unit based on priority as if they were staying 7 nights. When it gets to the next week they then skip that unit because it is still occupied. It is possible they would make the person move, but I doubt it with Ocean Pointe. I don't think Ocean Pointe ever makes someone move provided the two reservations are compatible. 



jeepie said:


> Just curious (as both a multiweek and DC points owner)...do you think a "location price to pay" should be imposed for an owner who reserves two nights at the start or end of a multiweek reservation? And, of greater interest, any observations as to how Marriott deals with such situations?



I believe multi-week reservations work the same way. Unit assigned based on the priority and then that unit is skipped for consideration until that person checks out. So with this logic one would want to tack on DC, II, or any other reservation type at the end of the Owner booking and not at the beginning. I don't think you would get multi-week priority but at least it would be owner occupied priority.

It is just a theory and with no consistency from resort to resort it is difficult to know anything for sure. Something could change just because there is a change of personnel.


----------



## Superchief (Aug 21, 2013)

I haven't seen any policy mentioned regarding length of stay impacting assignment priority. Intuitively, I would think that a 5-7 day stay should have priority over 1-3 day reservations. As a DC member, I wouldn't have a problem with a Marriott II exchanger having priority for a 7 night stay over my 3 Night DC stay as a Premiere Plus member. Additionally, if I added a 2 night stay to my owned week, I would rather move to another villa after 2 nights rather than stay in one with an inferior location, depending on resort.

I wish each resort had a clear priority policy that would be communicated on the website so expectations can be established prior to arrival. I've had pretty good luck with villa assignment, including my recent stay at Timber Lodge on an II exchange. However, I usually travel in non-prime season. The only problems I have had were at Ocean Pointe and Canyon Villas during owned weeks, and the front desk staff had obviously given my originally assigned unit to someone who complained at check-in. I was actually behind the one person who didn't even own a Marriott.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 21, 2013)

Superchief said:


> The only problems I have had were at Ocean Pointe and Canyon Villas during owned weeks, and the front desk staff had obviously given my originally assigned unit to someone who complained at check-in. I was actually behind the one person who didn't even own a Marriott.



I strongly suspect that Ocean Pointe actually does this on a regular basis. And in addition I am wondering if they change unit assignments slightly based on check-in time. My basis is that they refuse to disclose the assigned unit until you actually check in. They claim they cannot guarantee the unit assignment until the actual check-in. The only reason for doing this is to have the flexibility to change assignments as check-ins occur. I find it unsettling but what can you do?


----------



## jeepie (Aug 21, 2013)

Saintsfanfl said:


> ...but what can you do?


Arrive early? How far ahead of check-in time? I would think the front desk folks may not appreciate this, but anyone's experiences would be appreciated.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Aug 21, 2013)

jeepie said:


> Arrive early? How far ahead of check-in time? I would think the front desk folks may not appreciate this, but anyone's experiences would be appreciated.



Sometimes showing up early is impossible, but there is nothing wrong with showing up at 10AM and announcing arrival. They simply notate it and will then let you know when your room is ready. The front desk deals with people showing up all hours of the day and night. That is their job.

We know for a fact that they are pushing unit assignments down the list for late check-ins for at least one resort. The manager at Timber Lodge used this excuse for a recent poor unit placement. I checked with Ocean Pointe on a Saturday night for a Sunday check-in because my renter was worried about a bad unit assignment. If they couldn't tell me the unit placement the night before, I am not sure what else it could be.


----------



## suzannesimon (Aug 21, 2013)

On the years when we fly into St. Thomas the night before and stay at the hotel, we have gotten better unit placement than when we arrived on the day of check-in at about 4pm.  However, the only bad unit placement we have received has been since the Destination Club so I don't know which one to blame.


----------



## bazzap (Aug 21, 2013)

Because of flight timings, it is not unusual for us to arrive at a resort mid morning. We just let check in know we have arrived and head off to the pool to chill out until they are ready for us. This seems to work fine for both them and us.


----------



## davidvel (Aug 22, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> About this ... the voting restriction (1e) that was in the Enrollment t&c's at the DC introduction doesn't exist anymore.  TUGger Cmore alerted the rest of us to its removal in Feb '11.  Also, during the one voting cycle in which it may have played a part, none of us saw anything in our proxies that made us think Marriott was trying to impose it.
> 
> As far as I know that was the only DC item that might have, "encouraged owners to contractually give up rights."  Is there something else?



Sure. By electing to receive DC points (by depositing your unit to Marriott's exchange program), you are giving up your deeded rights to reserve your unit for a week, in your season, in your view category. In exchange you are at the mercy of a points reservation (er, trade), which may or may not come through for what you want. You are subject to Marriott prioritizing its super-duper-platinum members (or any other premium designation that they may/will sell in the future), and if all that's left is a mud week at an outdated resort mid-week, that's what you get. 

Marriott can decide who to give your prized deeded week to (and who gets the best room) based upon their secret priorities (but of course based on who got gouged the most when they purchased, which is only fair).  This way, Marriott can continue to monetize your deeded week that you graciously gave them, in exchange for the coveted points.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 22, 2013)

davidvel said:


> Sure. By electing to receive DC points (by depositing your unit to Marriott's exchange program), you are giving up your deeded rights to reserve your unit for a week, in your season, in your view category. In exchange you are at the mercy of a points reservation (er, trade), which may or may not come through for what you want. You are subject to Marriott prioritizing its super-duper-platinum members (or any other premium designation that they may/will sell in the future), and if all that's left is a mud week at an outdated resort mid-week, that's what you get.
> 
> Marriott can decide who to give your prized deeded week to (and who gets the best room) based upon their secret priorities (but of course based on who got gouged the most when they purchased, which is only fair).  This way, Marriott can continue to monetize your deeded week that you graciously gave them, in exchange for the coveted points.



Oh.  That wasn't my train of thought.  That voting restriction would have been in effect for every Owner who enrolled a Week in the DC regardless of how the Week would be used, even if s/he never elected to convert it to DC Points.  The Owner had to choose whether to accept the restriction as a condition of enrollment, or to not enroll.  No other exchange company has restrictions in place which can impact your ownership if you don't elect to exchange it.  (All of which is, as I said, now a moot point because the DC voting restriction no longer exists.) 

I agree with the others in this thread who are saying that when you make the choice to exchange a Week, you agree to follow the rules of whichever exchange company you'll be using.  That's how it's always been; the only difference now is that Marriott now manages an Exchange Company component.


----------



## Dean (Aug 22, 2013)

suzannesimon said:


> Being a multiweek owner, I have no issue with us getting prime locations obviously.   I think the real problem comes with everyday check-ins and short stays.  There should be a location price to pay for the convenience of checking in on Wednesday for 2 nights or for just a weekend.


They're generally going to give them the best unit available for that day and let the chips fall where they may for a few days later.  While I understand the idea of looking ahead, I just don't think it's realistic and maybe not even reasonable.



SueDonJ said:


> The only thing that speaks to any sort of unit placement priority is the statements from various GM's relating how it's done at some specific resorts.  As we see from this thread there's no blanket policy across the resort network, and obviously the exec level doesn't want to get involved in helping to make a more fair policy network-wide.


My understanding is there is a blanket plan but that individual properties have added to it and made adjustments on their own.  The last time I saw it in writing was shortly before the DC points rolled out (maybe a year, possibly 2) and it was basically as stated here.  


Multiweek or multi unit owners
Single week owners
Cash Guests
Marriott Exchangers
Other Exchangers.
I've asked at several locations and I get the impression Marriott hasn't given updated instructions related to how to handle DC reservations.  



jeepie said:


> Just curious (as both a multiweek and DC points owner)...do you think a "location price to pay" should be imposed for an owner who reserves two nights at the start or end of a multiweek reservation? And, of greater interest, any observations as to how Marriott deals with such situations?


There already is at locations that have different view categories.  I think it's unreasonable for them to try to micromanage this issue and it's 100% guaranteed to prove the law of unintended consequences.


----------



## timtax (Sep 1, 2013)

*Aruba Surf Club Policy*

We received the following email from the Surf Club prior to our arrival and true to their word we received the worst Ocean view unit. 4th floor facing the back of the Ocean club and parking lot. I think it is the same as an II trade.

I received your villa location preferences and although we are not able to guarantee a certain villa location, we will do our utmost to honor your preferences upon availability for your day of arrival.  The villas are assigned in the category you’ve acquired. 
Please take note that we do have a rotation system in place in regards of assigning the villas (high season or hotel fully booked with home owners in their home owner’s week). Rotation process meaning for example if you were on a high floor last stay, you will be assigned to a lower floor this stay or overlooking the pool last stay on this stay facing non-pool side. Your villa requests has been noted by our rooms controllers and we  will do all we can to best fulfill your preferences. 
Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club enjoys one of the highest Owner occupancy of all Marriott vacation Club Resorts. As is true at every property, we place our Owners at the very top of the priority list in terms of requests for villa locations and preferences. Because of the very high number of Owners that we welcome each week, we are often challenged with villa location preferences that we are essentially unable to grant. We respectfully ask for your understanding and acceptance of our meticulous adherence to the established priorities of villa assignments as listed below. As Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club is completely sold out, there is virtually no availability to upgrades. Since you are almost certain to be vacationing during the same week as many Surf Club Owners, it is likely that the resorts’ physical capacity will not support the number of requests for particular views or locations. Requests are handled (and granted when available) in the following order: 
Room preferences and Room Assignments;
-	 1. Surf Club (Home) Owners occupying their ownership weeks (“in season”)
-	 2. Surf Club Owners using Destinations Points
-	 3. Surf Club Owners exchanging through Interval International
-	 4. Marriott Owners at another MVCI resort exchanging into Surf Club through Interval International or Destination Points
-	 5. Surf Club Owners that are renting a guest room or villa
-	 6. Guests visiting Surf Club on a Sales Preview Package
-	 7. Marriott Rewards Members that are visiting Surf Club on Marriott Reward point redemption
-	 8. Guests renting a guest room or villa 
-	 9. Owners of resorts outside MVC exchanging into Surf Club through Interval International
Please note: Reservations made through Interval International are completely managed and controlled by Interval international and subject to the villa and guest room deposits made by our Owners. While we may have larger units available on a rental basis, the unit size that Interval International confirms to you may not be altered or upgraded here at the resort. If you would like to explore options for exchanging into a different unit, please call Interval International at 800-858-8200. 
Reservations made using Destinations Points can only be modified by owner services. Please contact Destinations Points at 888-682-4862 for any changes.

Furthermore, we would like to inform you that there is a daily mandated government occupancy tax of $11.88 per night. In addition, the Aruban government has implemented an Environmental Levy applicable to every hotel and timeshare stay in Aruba. This Environmental Levy applicable to timeshare owners started on August 1st, 2013, which for your stay would be a charge of $25. Should you have any questions, please find more information in the attachment named Aruba Environmental Levy.  

Please find attached some Important Information tips for your upcoming stay with us at Marriott’s Aruba Surf Club that will assist you with some questions you may have. 

Allow me to invite you to the Captain’s Galley while you are on property; see the attachment for all the specials just for you no reservation needed.

We would like to add a friendly reminder that the Seaworthy’ s pool area will be undergoing a significant renovation and enhancement from September 6 to October 19, 2013. During this time, the Calico’s Jack Pool with the slide, Lazy River Pool, Serenity Pool and Captain's Galley restaurant/bar will not be affected and will remain open. Please do pardon our "wake zone" as we refresh the pool area for all to enjoy.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: 
As we have added additional palapa’s on the beach over the course of the last year we will not allow tents (information for guest in doing so for the last couple of years) to be placed on the Surf Club beach, which is located behind the blue pillars.
On the public beach, in front of the blue pillars, tents are not allowed without a permit. The police is controlling this regularly and removal of the tents will take place in addition to a fine if permit is not present.   

We strive to deliver a perfect '10' stay for you. Please let us know if there is anything we could assist you with. 

I hope to have informed you accordingly. We look forward to your arrival tomorrow.

Sunny regards from “ne Happy Island” Aruba,


----------



## MALC9990 (Sep 1, 2013)

Thanks for that information. Whilst Aruba and the two MVCI resorts were not very high on my list of places to visit using my DC points - I've now removed them both from the list totally.


----------



## suzannesimon (Sep 1, 2013)

MALC9990 said:


> Thanks for that information. Whilst Aruba and the two MVCI resorts were not very high on my list of places to visit using my DC points - I've now removed them both from the list totally.


We went to Aruba Surf Club on an II Accommodation Certificate a year ago.  We were given a handicap studio with a nice view of the palm trees, BBQ grills and an ocean peek.  We loved it anyway so we rented a 3BR from an owner for next April and I expect a dumpster view.  Unless you have a full oceanfront view, you stop looking out at it after awhile.  We spent so much time at the Serenity Pool and floating on the Lazy River, that the room view was inconsequential.

But when I received poor unit placement at my home resort fixed week, I was very disappointed.  I think we need to be top-of-the-pecking order somewhere so I have no problem with their priority list assuming they stick with it.  Still, I have no idea how they can manage it with daily check-ins for less-than/more-than 7 days visits.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 1, 2013)

MALC9990 said:


> Thanks for that information. Whilst Aruba and the two MVCI resorts were not very high on my list of places to visit using my DC points - I've now removed them both from the list totally.



I think from a DC points users points of view, DC exchangers are as high on the list as they would be at any resort. At least the Surf Club has taken them in to consideration when compiling their priority placement list.


----------



## Quilter (Sep 1, 2013)

Hi timtax,

Thanks for the detailed post.   Sorry you don't have a lovely view of either the garden/pool or the ocean because that surely is what we all hope for.   Even though you described the room as being the worst ocean view unit how has it impacted your vacation?   Did the forewarning email from the resort give you caution for expectations?   

Again, sorry for the disappointment on room location.


----------



## timtax (Sep 2, 2013)

*not disappointed*



Quilter said:


> Hi timtax,
> 
> Thanks for the detailed post.   Sorry you don't have a lovely view of either the garden/pool or the ocean because that surely is what we all hope for.   Even though you described the room as being the worst ocean view unit how has it impacted your vacation?   Did the forewarning email from the resort give you caution for expectations?
> 
> Again, sorry for the disappointment on room location.



Actually our vacation is going great! We love Aruba and the Surf Club.I just wanted to share their policy with Tuggers. The DC allowed us to come and still have leftover points. Life is good. Don"t let poor room placement stop you from coming to Aruba.


----------



## Quilter (Sep 2, 2013)

timtax said:


> Actually our vacation is going great! We love Aruba and the Surf Club.I just wanted to share their policy with Tuggers. The DC allowed us to come and still have leftover points. Life is good. Don"t let poor room placement stop you from coming to Aruba.



That's good to hear.   The repeated lists for room location guidelines look generally comparable to each other.  When exchanges were made through II to resorts that were not our home resorts we always wondered where we would be placed.  The detailed explanation in the SC email shows the extent of how difficult it is with all the different ways a guest can reserve a room.


----------



## JanT (Sep 22, 2013)

We arrived at KoOlina this morning about 11:30.  This trip is a combination of an exchange via II and we tacked on 2 nights with DC points.  When we received the "preferences" emails, I indicated "High Floor" as my first priority and requested the Nai'a Building.  I also asked that the two reservations be linked together so we wouldn't have to move.  They had not linked them together but did so at my request this morning.  

My II confirmation showed our reservation as a 2BR dedicated ocean view.  I booked a 2BR ocean view with DC points after I got the exchange.  I really didn't think we would get the Nai'a building and we didn't.  BUT, we were placed on the 10th floor of the Hale Moana building with a magnificent view which includes the pool area and the ocean.  Couldn't be happier.  Here's a shot from our balcony.  It's going to be a great week!


----------



## suzannesimon (Sep 23, 2013)

What a beautiful view!  Is it crowded this time of year?  How is the weather?


----------



## Fasttr (Sep 1, 2016)

I wanted to revive this Classic thread to see if others have been experiencing improved DC ressie room assignments lately.  I know back when FT first started this thread a few years back, his feeling, and the feeling of many others was that he was a second class citizen as far as room placement was concerned when he booked with DC points.  I must say, over the past couple of years, either I have been very lucky, or things are slowly changing, as I have gotten nearly every request (high floor, great views) that I have made when booking with DC points.  Are other DC members experience similarly good villa placement results??  

And what ever happened to FT... he was a prevalent poster back in the day.


----------



## dioxide45 (Sep 2, 2016)

Fasttr said:


> And what ever happened to FT... he was a prevalent poster back in the day.



Last posted in February and last visited in April. Not sure what happens to some people. Some come and some go. SOme stick around for a long time, some for only a short period of. Some never leave.


----------



## ilene13 (Sep 2, 2016)

We just arrived at Oceana Palms on an encore package.  We are on the 18th floor in an oceanfront villa.  Very nice


----------

