# SURF CLUB and OC owners- let Marriot know how we feel



## m61376 (Apr 19, 2007)

I apologize for starting a new thread but I wanted to attract attention to this thread; I am pretty upset and I hope others will join me and let management know that their new palapa policy of morning and afternoon reservations (only half day availability), all made in advance and for a fee, is NOT acceptable to the majority of owners!

It is apparent that many people are VERY upset with the new palapa policy. As per my correspondence with the Vice President of the BOD, the Boards of the OC and the SC have adopted a new palapa policy under the mistaken impression that this works best for most people.

I have been a huge advocate for the Surf Club but I am more than a little upset over this new policy. While the old system wasn't ideal, at least I knew that with a little inconvenience I would have a great vacation.

Here is an excerpt of what I sent to the President and VP of the BOD and the manager:
There are several problems that I see with the new policy:
-instead of lining up before 7:30, people will be standing on line by 8 or so in the hopes of reserving palapas at 10AM. Lines will again form before 1 to reserve for the afternoon's use. So- instead of standing on line once early in the morning, I can look forward to someone having to stand on line for a good part of the day. Alternately, my use of the beach will be limited to half the day, having to leave at 1:00 because we don't like to burn and I have elderly parents. My mother is on medication which makes her sun-sensitive and she must not lie out in the sun.
-as happened last year, when I arrived on Sunday all the palapas were reserved until Wednesday by people who had arrived in advance and/or were there since the previous week. At least I knew with a bit of inconvenience I would be able to get one the next morning. Under this new system, I would not have been able to enjoy the beach any morning for half the week. In fact, I was only able to secure an advance reservation for 3 days when I was there in January. That means, under the new system, I would only have been able to enjoy the beach for 3 days out of a week's stay, and the likelihood is that I would only have been able to enjoy the beach for half a day for each of those 3 days. If I was lucky I would have gotten to again stand in line at 11 or 12 o'oclock to have the "privelege" of my family staying on the beach for the day and, if I was lucky, we would all get to
 move our lounges and belongings to a different location.
- I am not even going to address the issue of cost, except in passing to say that we paid a lot of money to buy at the Surf Club and further support the facility with our annual maintenance fees and purchases while we are there, along with compensation (tipping) to the staff for services rendered. Forcing people to pay for palapa use is not fair; the system you are imposing imposes not one, but TWO rental fees per day on anyone "lucky" enough to get one for both the morning and afternoon.

I hope others will join me in letting them know how we feel about this new system. If me stay mute then nothing will change. E-mails for the personnel can be found on: http://www.arubaoceanclub.com/pages/contact.html

Please note- subsequent to this inital post they have put the new policy in writing on the website and, although I was told in an e-mail that the Boards of both the OC and SC had decided it was the best policy, the new policy only applies to the SC. I don't want to mislead anybody.


----------



## IngridN (Apr 19, 2007)

I have also sent an e-mail to Michael Reilly voicing my extreme displeasure with this new policy.  Here's an earlier TUG posting about my displeasure.  In re-reading the original post, it appears the new palapa policy only allows you to reserve 1 shift per villa.  You have a choice of reserving a.m. or p.m., but *not* both...totally unacceptable to me.  I asked Reilly to send me a copy of the new policy...will see what he says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish  
from what i understand, this is a trial period for a future implementation. as the surf club comes to completion, the beach area will not be able to hold all the guests requiring palapas. so to accomodate all the requests, they are trying out this system to see if it works. if so, it will become the new way of regulating palapa use. 

IngridN posted:  Interesting...when we bought in Aruba, that was THE issue of concern for us. Guess what the salesperson repeatedly assured us...yep, we were assured that the beach would have sufficient palapas and could accommodate everyone once the resort was completed and the docks moved!

I realize that this may not be of concern to everyone and some will think I'm over-reacting, but to us it's a huge deal given that we go to Aruba for 2 weeks in early May to regnerate from stressful jobs. The only thing we do is sit under the palapa (on the beach; we're not pool people) all day and catch up on our reading with a couple of snorkeling excursions thrown in. I'm on vacation and don't want to watch the clock and move come 1:00pm. We'll just have to rent out our Aruba unit and find somewhere else to vacation. Fortunately, we do travel "off season" so, hopefully, they will not need to implement this policy except during peak season. I hope this doesn't come to pass as we love Aruba and want to continue to go each year. 

What I don't understand is why Marriott thinks this will end the queues...even in May with palapas currently available at any time of the day, folks queued up beginning at 6:00am to get a front row palapa! DH rises before the crack of dawn, so didn't mind queueing up, but was never down early enough to get a front row palapa!

Ingrid


----------



## Eric (Apr 19, 2007)

Ingrid,

Lets just assume most people do like the new system. Because you don't, do you think they should change it ? They would be stupid not to do what the masses want but even if they do, probably 1/3 of the people won't be happy.



IngridN said:


> I have also sent an e-mail to Michael Reilly voicing my extreme displeasure with this new policy.  Here's an earlier TUG posting about my displeasure.  In re-reading the original post, it appears the new palapa policy only allows you to reserve 1 shift per villa.  You have a choice of reserving a.m. or p.m., but *not* both...totally unacceptable to me.  I asked Reilly to send me a copy of the new policy...will see what he says.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by irish
> ...


----------



## JimC (Apr 19, 2007)

IngridN said:


> ...Quote:
> Originally Posted by irish
> from what i understand, this is a trial period for a future implementation. as the surf club comes to completion, the beach area will not be able to hold all the guests requiring palapas. so to accomodate all the requests, they are trying out this system to see if it works. if so, it will become the new way of regulating palapa use.
> 
> ...



Seems like this is the critical issue.  If there is insufficient beach space then they overbuilt the resort.  Since the physical constraints are a given, then the only real solution is possibly some sort of rotation program so that all villas are given equal opportunity to use the beach.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 19, 2007)

Eric-
I think a pertinent point is that the owners were not consulted. How can they claim that "the system works very well for the most people" (and I am quoting what was written to me) when they have not polled the owners. If most people were happy with it (which I dount) then, as you implied, the rest of us would have to accept it. BUT this is a huge change on a critical issue and the owners were not consulted as to their preferences.


----------



## Eric (Apr 19, 2007)

I am sure there were MANY owner that were onsite before the change, that gave their opinion. I am not sure why you would think they weren't. Marriott and any company is in the buisness to make the masses happy so there would be no advantage to make any changes without having a good amount of feedback that its a better choice. What did you want a letter ? Then when the HOA bill for mailing was $10,000, owners would complain about that.
I am not picking on you but with any timeshare everyone who does n't like something says 'change it". Comapnies will change it if MOST people agree. If you are not th the "most", you need to learn to live with it.



m61376 said:


> Eric-
> I think a pertinent point is that the owners were not consulted. How can they claim that "the system works very well for the most people" (and I am quoting what was written to me) when they have not polled the owners. If most people were happy with it (which I dount) then, as you implied, the rest of us would have to accept it. BUT this is a huge change on a critical issue and the owners were not consulted as to their preferences.


----------



## icydog (Apr 19, 2007)

This new solution is stupid. We were there just recently and standing on lines twice was a major pain. And I hated to PAY to sit under the Palapas because Marriott made us. Eventually we just snuck onto the hotel property and enjoyed their palapa and drank pina coladas and free of charge. I don't feel badly about doing that either since Marriott's idea to build a gigantic resort, with thousand of people, with a tiny beach, just doesn't make sense.


----------



## IngridN (Apr 19, 2007)

Thank you,  icydog, well said.  I'm sure DH would complain if I made him stand in line 2x day :hysterical: !

Eric, Aruba is a beach destination, not a cultural destination.  We've explored the island and other than a couple of snorkeling excursions to DePalm, vegging on the beach is my idea of what Aruba is all about.  I mean, there's only so much jewelry one can buy...and that only covers one afternoon.   Oh, and I was on site before the change and I wasn't asked for my opinion...in fact I'm on site every year and I was never asked for my opinion.

I'll wait this out and if the change is permanent, we bought early enough that dumping it would get our $ back.  I love Aruba and if this change is permanent will check out some of the smaller resorts on Eagle Beach and buy there.  We all have different criteria for a fabulous vacation experience and in Aruba vegging on the beach without playing musical chairs is ours.  To each his own.

In hindsight, we should have insisted on seeing the plans and having DH do the math on beach to guest ratio.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 19, 2007)

Eric said:


> I am sure there were MANY owner that were onsite before the change, that gave their opinion. I am not sure why you would think they weren't. Marriott and any company is in the buisness to make the masses happy so there would be no advantage to make any changes without having a good amount of feedback that its a better choice. What did you want a letter ? Then when the HOA bill for mailing was $10,000, owners would complain about that.
> I am not picking on you but with any timeshare everyone who does n't like something says 'change it". Comapnies will change it if MOST people agree. If you are not th the "most", you need to learn to live with it.



My point is- how do they know that "most" people agree and like this solution. Unless they have actually polled the owners they cannot possibly know what "most" people feel.

I am not saying the old system was ideal, but I really feel this one is much worse. Maybe my opinion is shared by "most"- how do they know if they don't bother to ask?

THE PURPOSE OF MY POST IS TO LET THE MARRIOTT OFFICIALS MAKING THE DECISION REALIZE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE UNHAPPY WITH THEIR DECISION, and that perhaps their assumption that "most" people were happy with it was wrong. The only way to efectuate a change is to let them know how you feel.


----------



## icydog (Apr 20, 2007)

Maybe when they polled _"Most People"_  they were polling their staff and/or Marriott who gets 2x the $ for this _improvement._


----------



## m61376 (Apr 20, 2007)

There are several ways to consider the Boards' (both the AOC and ASC) contention that the management update they received indicated that this system worked well for the most people. One is, as suggested above, that it is purely a money-making decision. The other is that they are under the mistaken assumption after talking with a limited number of owners that this is a good idea. 

Whether their motivation was to improve things (which I am hopeful it was) or purely monetary (which others feel it is and, since I don't know, am reserving comment on), the end result is the same. Owners who are unhappy need to let the management know. Either way, if they get enough adverse publicity they will likely reconsider, whether it is in an effort to keep their owners happy (which I would hope is the case) or to avoid adverse publicity and bad-mouthing of the resort, which would affect their bottom line since it is still in active sales.

I know, personally, I loved our visit there so much I was toying with perhaps another purchase. Wouldn't consider it if this policy remains in effect. If others feel as strongly as I do, we need to let them know so they don't remain under the misimpressions that "most" people like the new policy.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Apr 20, 2007)

If this new solution gives more people with 4 hrs of use, vs. less people of all day use, I would vote for the more people with 4 hr use.

Regards.
Joe


----------



## m61376 (Apr 20, 2007)

Joe-

I understand your feelings- however, consider an alternate scenario: you arrive on Sunday afternoon for a Sun.-Sun. stay, and all the palapas are already booked until mid-week by people who were there since the previous week, or who booked Fri-Fri or Sat to Sat stays. Since there are no longer unreserved palapas that everyone has an equal chance to get every morning, those booking Sunday to Sunday have no chance of getting a palapa until mid-week at best.

When I arrived in Jan. on Sunday afternoon that was the scenario, but at least I had the option of getting one by going down early. That was when many people also opted to go down early to get one for free. Now that everyone has to pay anyway, people will likely just reserve them since they are no longer free and, in reality, you could get down there and find no or very limited availability all week the day that you arrive.

Given that people can reserve the palapas not only for that week (if they will be there for more than 2 weeks), which made it impossible to reserve a palapa until midweek under the old system, I foresee it being even worse under the new system, which is why I am so upset about it. Those coming down Sunday will likely be out of luck for a good part, and possibly most/all of the week.


----------



## MikeM132 (Apr 20, 2007)

What's a palapa, and how does it get everybody so worked up? 
Why would somebody line up for one twice a day? Sounds like you might need palapa anonymous. ;-)


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Apr 20, 2007)

I'm new to this controversy, but it would seem to me that the old policy wasn't very good either. I have a problem with being able to reserve for more than a day at a time. Can you do that in the new system?, or is it a day at a time, now in 4 hr increments?  

So to try to summerize and help me completely understand is the comparison; 

old system - few free available daily, and others reservable for mulitple days/weeks for a fee, whereby freezing out later arriving travelers

new system - no more free ones, reserve daily in 4 hr increments for fee.

If this is correct, I vote for new.

Regards.
Joe


----------



## KatyJ (Apr 20, 2007)

*Bring your own*

I to am a Surf Club owner who likes to spend a day going from the beach to the pool as well as trying out other beaches.  I do not want to spend my vacation standing in line or being angry because I couldn't get a "hut".  So, I brought my own.  http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4664262.  This portable shelter was great.  I could put it anywhere I wanted, it blocked the wind & sand, and it was easy to set up, take down and carry.  I'll never waste my vacation worrying up the hut issue again, and I'll always have the best spot on the beach.


----------



## englishowner (Apr 20, 2007)

I would love to exchange next year to Aruba, not bothered which and will prob try to stay in Hotel for a week too. Although queueing (standing in line) is the National Sport of the British, I really don't want to spend a holiday waiting in a line or getting up at dawn to bag a place on the beach, so if all the palapas have gone, can you still get a chair round pool, or is it hard to get a seat there too? Would hate to travel all that way and find we can't sit out in sun. 

Hope no one takes offence at this post, it just sounds like this may be quite a problem in Aruba, yet it is one of the places within Marriott family that I really would love to visit. 

Lynne


----------



## qlaval (Apr 20, 2007)

Dear *m61376*,

RE:SURF CLUB and OC owners- let Marriot know how we feel 

As of now only the Surf Club owners are affected, the Ocean Club owners are NOT subject to these rules.

If you read the new policy it is stated:
_"...a new procedure which will help alleviate the inventory shortage until more Palapas are built..."_
On the good side it looks like a temporary solution... 

_"...The palapas can be reserved for 2 days at a time. On the second day, another 2 days may be reserved if inventory is available..."_
So even if you arrive on Sunday you will have a chance to reserve one for Tuesday or Wednesday.

_"...Reservations for both shifts begin at 9:00am each morning at the Towel Hut on the beach..."_

I'm also against any rental fee for the palapas but if they were to be free everyone would reserve one just in case they would need it... 
A solution: I would like to see these fees refunded to the renters if the palapas are really used...:whoopie: 

New Surf Club pricing: $5 or $10 (for the first two rows) per 4 hours shift.

At the Ocean Club the rental fees are as follow:
50% of the palapas can be reserve for $10/day or $15/day(for the first 2 rows)
The other 50% of the huts are distributed on a first come first serve basis at no charge.

I really don't think Marriott is doing the two palapas "shift" for greed. 
They are just trying to alleviate the palapas burden.
Most of the palapas money goes toward reducing the maintenance fees anyway.

The sad part is that Marriott was very greedy when then decided to build such a BIG Surf Club. 
They did it big not for the owners convenience but for the $$$.
Should Marriott have decided to put the owners first in their business vision, the Surf Club would have been five story lower and with only the first two buildings...
I don't think it was business wise for them to do that, because now we all know that they are choosing money over quality...
On the long term I'm not sure that it will be a profitable choice.

The whole palapas thing is just the consequence of their greed.
And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 20, 2007)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I'm new to this controversy, but it would seem to me that the old policy wasn't very good either. I have a problem with being able to reserve for more than a day at a time. Can you do that in the new system?, or is it a day at a time, now in 4 hr increments?
> 
> So to try to summerize and help me completely understand is the comparison;
> 
> ...


Joe- if the policies were as you stated I might even agree with you- but that's not the case.

Under the old policy, half were reservable for free daily. Half could be reserved in advance for 2 days at a time. Advance reservations could be made from one week for the next, so that by the time a Sunday arrival came down the reservable units were reserved halfway through the week. However, half the palapas could be reserved, for free, the morning of use. Only half of the palapas were reservable in advance for a fee, so if you really wnated one you could always get up a little early and get one.

Under the new policy, all palapas can be reserved in advance for 2 days at a time for a fee for either the morning or afternoon. Those wishing to continue to use a palapa for the afternoon could stand in line and, beginning at 1 PM, they will let people reserve and pay again to use a different palapa for the afternoon.

Now that there are no free ones you can be sure that people will just reserve them in advance, so people coming down for a single week will be at a disadvantage and by the time Sunday, and likely even Sat. arrivals, come down the beginning of the week will be accounted for and there will be none left to reserve. So the likelihood is that if you come down later in the weekend you will not be able to reserve a palapa until mid-week, at the earliest.

Glaval- I see the new policy has been posted and you are correct in that it does not affect the OC. The reason why I initially included the OC in my post was that a Board member had e-mailed me and stated that the BOD of both the AOC and ASC had decided to change the policy, so I naturally assumed it affected both locations.

However, you are wrong in assuming that "even if you arrive on Sunday you will have a chance to reserve one for Tuesday or Wednesday." Each unit may only reserve a palapa for 2 days at a time, but necessarily only 2 days in advance. What that means is that, for example, you go down with a friend. They can reserve for Monday and Tuesday and you can reserve for Wed. and Thursday. You call could make these reservations on the Friday or Sat. you arrived- or even during the week before. Now- if I came down on Sunday that palapa would be spoken for until Friday...and, yes, there are multiple palapas but lots of owners doing this with their friends, since 2 couples can and do share one.


----------



## MikeM132 (Apr 20, 2007)

KatyJ said:


> I to am a Surf Club owner who likes to spend a day going from the beach to the pool as well as trying out other beaches.  I do not want to spend my vacation standing in line or being angry because I couldn't get a "hut".  So, I brought my own.  http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4664262.  This portable shelter was great.  I could put it anywhere I wanted, it blocked the wind & sand, and it was easy to set up, take down and carry.  I'll never waste my vacation worrying up the hut issue again, and I'll always have the best spot on the beach.



ah, a portapalapa!


----------



## irish (Apr 20, 2007)

glaval
i  agree with you on the point that the surf club was just built way to big. when they first started construction owners of the ocean club were offered preconstruction price. when i saw how many units they intended to build i did not purchase because i knew the property would just not accommodate that many people comfortably. now, as far as i know, this same system DOES NOT APPLY TO THE OCEAN CLUB. 50% free and 50% paid reservation for the whole day of use. if that changes, you can bet i will be one of the first to contact my HOA president, or i will sell my units and purchase on eagle beach. i am not aware of any other TIMESHARE RESORT charging for use of the palapas. yes, the big hotels do charge a fee, but not the t/s resorts. that may change when RUI opens. that is also a VERY LARGE property,but i believe they also have a very large beach area.

as far as income from palapas going to keep m/f's down, my m/f's increased by almost $200.00 this year. i don;t see any savings to me from palapas.

i think you are ABSOLUTELY correct that owners at the surf club should have been asked what they want BEFORE the rule went into effect. i'm not sure this is a MARRIOTT policy. it sounds like something the board members instituted. if they didn't, why the heck aren't the incensed by this action.

it will be interesting to see how this plays out.  i do feel your pain and hope the solution you get is the one you are hoping for. i too am a beach person and i get up REALLY REALLY  early to reserve my little peace of the beach.
good luck


----------



## irish (Apr 20, 2007)

this is a posting i just copied from one of the aruba boards. 







Joined: 24 Jul 2003
Posts: 573
Location: Maryland

New postPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:32 am    Post subject: 	Reply with quote
Below is a list of all the email addresses I have and have sent my concerns/complaints to. The last one is not a email address, its the link to the Marriott web site where you fill out a form w/ your comments and then it goes directly to Marriott customer service.

As for the entire party being present at once for wristbands, I read that was newly enacted as well...either on this board or another one. When they gave out the wristbands w/o everyone being present, the thought was that those bands could be used for people not staying at the SC or OC.....GEEZ, next they'll be asking for fingerprints.

Please, I implore everyone who has to be subjected to this BS to email, write, call, do whatever you can do to make them aware of our level of dissatisfaction. If anyone knows of more email addresses we can use, please post them. I have not been able to come up with any others.

Thanks so much.



michael.reilly@vacationclub.com< /a>
dirk.schavemaker@vacationclub. com
jim.shonkwiler@vacationclub.com< /a>
Customer.Relations@vacationc lub.com
orlando.vrolijk@marriotthotel s.com
https://marriott.com/suggest/suggest.mi


----------



## irish (Apr 20, 2007)

here is another:


Freshman


Joined: 08 Dec 2002
Posts: 20
Location: Atlanta, GA

New postPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:36 am    Post subject: 	Reply with quote
OCEAN CLUB
Palapas (beach huts) Reservations
Marriott’s Aruba Ocean Club & Aruba Surf Club owners and guests are able to rent or reserve the resort’s palapas. Fifty percent of these huts are available for reservations at a nominal fee; and the remaining 50% of the huts are distributed on a first come first serve basis at no charge. The reservation fee is set at US$15 per day for the first 2 front rows (half of the total front rows) and US$10 per day for the rest of the rows (half of the total). In order to accommodate all owners and give everyone a fair opportunity to use a hut, Ocean Club Owners are welcome to reserve a hut for a maximum of 3 days (of your choice) at a time and Surf Club owners are welcome to reserve a hut for a maximum of 2 days (of your choice). Please note that the reservation system is for guests who are on property - we do not take advance reservations. To distribute the huts on a consistent and fair basis, the odd numbered palapas are for reservation and the even numbered palapas are on a first come first serve basis. Any unreserved huts will be added to the pool and issued as mentioned above. Due to the high demand for palapas, please return your reservation card to the Towel Hut as a courtesy to others when you have finished occupying the palapas for the day. This will give the opportunity to others to enjoy the palapas for a short time.


SURF CLUB
Palapas (beach huts) Reservations
In response to your many comments concerning the Palapas on the beach at the Surf Club, we have implemented a new procedure which will help alleviate the inventory shortage until more Palapas are built. This policy which started on March 16, 2007 will remain in effect until further notice. The procedures for the Palapa reservations will be as follows:
There will be two (2) reservation shifts for the Palapas
a. Shift One * 7:00am to 1:00pmb. Shift Two * 1:00pm to end of day
There will be a charge for all palapas
Rows 1 & 2 - $10.00
All others - $5.00
Only one (1) reservation shift per day per unit will be permitted. However, if at 1:00pm not all the palapas are reserved and your AM shift has ended, you may visit the Towel Hut to reserve a palapa for the PM shift. The Beach Attendants will be glad to assist in moving you to your new palapa.
The palapas can be reserved for 2 days at a time. On the second day, another 2 days may be reserved if inventory is available.
Reservations for both shifts begin at 9:00am each morning at the Towel Hut on the beach.
If the reservation is for the AM shift, the palapa must be vacated at 1pm for the next reservation shift.
The two (2) hour occupancy requirement will be lifted for the palapas during the testing period.

Since there is not a ³First Come * First Served² palapa with this procedure, this eliminates the need for the owners/guests to rise early in the morning to stand in line to reserve a palapa. This also increases the inventory of palapas available for use by a factor of two (2). We would like to re-emphasize that this policy is applicable to Aruba Surf Club only. We would also like to remind you that the B¹Mini¹s also provide shade for your time spent on the beach. Marriott is always trying to find ways of creating a more memorable experience for you while you are at home in Aruba and we hope this policy eliminates some of the stress that you have experienced in the past.



This is the wording on the Ocean Club / Surf Club website regarding the palapa situation. As of now they do not mention the same procedure for guests at the Ocean Club. As we own at the Ocean Club I hope they do not implement the same policy as the Surf Club.

I am going to email our board of directors voicing my concern.


----------



## qlaval (Apr 20, 2007)

m61376 said:
			
		

> ...Qlaval- I see the new policy has been posted and you are correct in that it does not affect the OC. The reason why I initially included the OC in my post was that a Board member had e-mailed me and stated that the BOD of both the AOC and ASC had decided to change the policy, so I naturally assumed it affected both locations.
> 
> However, you are wrong in assuming that "even if you arrive on Sunday you will have a chance to reserve one for Tuesday or Wednesday." Each unit may only reserve a palapa for 2 days at a time, but necessarily only 2 days in advance. ...


I didn't notice that it wasn't necessarily for two days in advance... 
You sure are right to be unsatisfied, have yourself heard loud and clear!
Good luck with your battle and I hope it will bring you satisfaction.



irish said:


> "... i will sell my units and purchase on eagle beach.
> ...as far as income from palapas going to keep m/f's down, my m/f's increased by almost $200.00 this year. i don;t see any savings to me from palapas. ..."



If they try that at the OC that wouldn't create one seller but two sellers...
I was thinking about buying two more weeks at the OC and finally decide to buy at the Renaissance instead...
Without the palapas the m/f would have increase to $250...


----------



## Smooth Air (Apr 21, 2007)

We stayed @ Marriott Aruba 6 years ago. It was obvious then that the place was crowded. Very crowded. Too many people, too little space on the beach and @ the pool. Since that time Marriott, has built *another *development. Why are you complaining? When you bought,  you knew there was only X amount of beach space. Where did you think they were going to put everybody?? If you don't like  it, sell.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 21, 2007)

smoothair said:


> We stayed @ Marriott Aruba 6 years ago. It was obvious then that the place was crowded. Very crowded. Too many people, too little space on the beach and @ the pool. Since that time Marriott, has built *another *development. Why are you complaining? When you bought,  you knew there was only X amount of beach space. Where did you think they were going to put everybody?? If you don't like  it, sell.



Crowded is a relative term. Thousands of people flock to Waikiki beach every year and love it; now, that is what I call a crowded beach. Even during peak season I don't feel the beach at the SC is crowded; we had plenty of room all around us. Yes, from what I have heard it is crowded Christmas week, just like every other place in the Caribbean, but otherwise (except I'd guess President's week) it is not overcrowded. The expanded beach area was largely unused (was first being spruced up) while we were there and there was a lot of unused space, ample for the new villas. The pool area was likewise being expanded and they are considering adding another pool if needed.

I still feel it is a wonderful place. This is not a scathing attack on the Surf Club but a protest over a new policy that has been instituted which I think is awful. In an effort to improve a workable, albeit flawed system, they are substituting a system which, IMHO, has the potential to ruin an otherwise incredible vacation. This is the first place I have actually enjoyed sitting out and mellowing for the week on the beach and I want to preserve that ability.

In their defense, I have already received responses from 2 individuals, one of whom I have had a back and forth e-mail "conversation" with. I do not feel this policy was instituted to extract blood from owners in the form of additional fees or out of disregard for owners. I do feel it was and is a misguided attempt to improve a flawed system. It is clear to me that they are responsive to their owners and, as I stated above, need to hear from people who are unhappy with the new system. 

When they instituted the trial system they were getting a lot of positive feedback and have mistaken this to mean that it was a good system. In general, the trial period was during a busy but not busiest time and, from what others have told me, people who wanted to continue staying on the beach in the afternoon were able to switch palapas just by seeing a free one (not having to stand in line again, not having to pay another fee). In addition, for the most part owners had not been down for about a year and this was the first time they had the opportunity to view and enjoy the expanded beach area and see the docks moved, so that engendered a positive overall resposne with the beach, regardless of the palapa policy, since things were much better than they were last year.

This shouldn't be viewed as a forum to condemn Marriott or the Surf Club. I still think it is a wonderful resort. I just want to make sure that my family and I can continue to enjoy a wonderful vacation there and to force them to reconsider what I feel is a policy that will be detrimental to our enjoyment of the resort.


----------



## Eric (Apr 21, 2007)

This is of course your opinion and not fact and despite what you think, you may be in the minority 





m61376 said:


> When they instituted the trial system they were getting a lot of positive feedback and have mistaken this to mean that it was a good system.


----------



## IslandJoe (Apr 21, 2007)

My daughter was with me at the Ocean Club last week and I observed that the new system seems to be working.  Granted you aren't guaranteed a palapa all day but you do get one.  I saw at least 20-25 palapas unused every day as late as 11-noon every day at the Surf Club.  Just thought everyone should check it out before they get thier blood pressure out of whack.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 21, 2007)

Eric said:


> This is of course your opinion and not fact and despite what you think, you may be in the minority
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Eric (Apr 21, 2007)

Opinions are great, its just how you say it

""When they instituted the trial system they were getting a lot of positive feedback and have mistaken this to mean that it was a good system""

That tells me you are saying they are wrong. Wrong in YOUR opinion but maybe not the masses. Any company will do what the majority wants and MANY people still won't like it but if its the fairest way, then the rest have to get over it. 





m61376 said:


> Eric said:
> 
> 
> > This is of course your opinion and not fact and despite what you think, you may be in the minority
> ...


----------



## Smooth Air (Apr 21, 2007)

This "discussion" reminds me of "a thing" some of us got into a couple of weeks ago. I posted to say I was not happy w/ a couple of things @ Ocean Pointe: One being what I consider to be loud, very bad bar music that intrudes upon our peace & quiet; the other being "chair hogs" who claim their territory @ 7:00AM. Well, guess what? Turns out that I am in the minority on both these issues. It was interesting to see things from the other guy's perspective. With respect to the music, some people absolutely love the "happy" tunes! And, with respect to the "Chair hogs" I was encouraged to "get over it" & go sit on the grass! These responses helped me to see that I was making a very big deal about nothing. Maybe , just maybe, you are doing the same here with "the new palapa Policy."  Go to the Aruban equivalent of Target & buy a chair w/ an umbrella, pour yourself a cool one & just chill!


----------



## m61376 (Apr 21, 2007)

Eric- What you have stated, albeit somewhat acrimoniously (and your reason for that escapes me), underscores my point. The management cannot state that "most" people are happy with the policy unless they have polled the owners to determine if the majority like the new policy. The fact that they have had a limited number of complaints over the few weeks that they tried it does not mean that the majority of owners like the new policy, yet that is exactly what they are assuming. Just because a lot of people haven't been yelling and screaming about it doesn't mean most people like it and, furthermore, in the two week trial it is safe to say that they were gauging the reactions of less than 4% of the owners during that timeframe.


----------



## Eric (Apr 21, 2007)

Would you prefer they say most people "so far" Geez, give it up 

People love to complain so YES they would be yelling and screaming just like you are. Even though its only 2 weeks, my guess is if it works to 2 weeks it will work for 52 weeks and again, you will have to get over it. 






m61376 said:


> Just because a lot of people haven't been yelling and screaming about it doesn't mean most people like it and, furthermore, in the two week trial it is safe to say that they were gauging the reactions of less than 4% of the owners during that timeframe.


----------



## Eric (Apr 21, 2007)

That is 100% what I am saying. Resorts do thier best and just because you don't like something or agree with it, doesn't mean it's wrong. 





smoothair said:


> This "discussion" reminds me of "a thing" some of us got into a couple of weeks ago. I posted to say I was not happy w/ a couple of things @ Ocean Pointe: One being what I consider to be loud, very bad bar music that intrudes upon our peace & quiet; the other being "chair hogs" who claim their territory @ 7:00AM. Well, guess what? Turns out that I am in the minority on both these issues. It was interesting to see things from the other guy's perspective. With respect to the music, some people absolutely love the "happy" tunes! And, with respect to the "Chair hogs" I was encouraged to "get over it" & go sit on the grass! These responses helped me to see that I was making a very big deal about nothing. Maybe , just maybe, you are doing the same here with "the new palapa Policy."  Go to the Aruban equivalent of Target & buy a chair w/ an umbrella, pour yourself a cool one & just chill!


----------



## m61376 (Apr 21, 2007)

Sheesh- the purpose of my post was not to get into a diatribe with any of you or to be subject to your derision. I find that really disappointing. My purpose was simply to voice my concerns and alert people to the fact that the management is under the impression that most people are happy with the new policy. If that is, in fact, the case I will have to learn to live with it or make alternative arrangements. However, if others feel it is not in their best interests, I am simply suggesting that they let management know how they feel so that hopefully they will be responsive to their owners. 

Receiving sarcastic comments from people who may not even be owners at the resort in question (and even if you are) is not called for!


----------



## Eric (Apr 21, 2007)

You need to read your first post. You state the policy is NOT acceptable to the majority of owners. You don't know that yet think everyone agrees with you.
You mention many people are VERY upset with the new policy. What, 2 TUG members emailed you ? You are doing exactly what you are accusing Marriott of doing which is asking a few people and thinking thats the majority. 
As you have been told already, chill out and let the resort try and do what's best for the majority of the owners. That may or may not be you so except that. 






m61376 said:


> I apologize for starting a new thread but I wanted to attract attention to this thread; I am pretty upset and I hope others will join me and let management know that their new palapa policy of morning and afternoon reservations (only half day availability), all made in advance and for a fee, is NOT acceptable to the majority of owners!
> 
> It is apparent that many people are VERY upset with the new palapa policy. As per my correspondence with the Vice President of the BOD, the Boards of the OC and the SC have adopted a new palapa policy under the mistaken impression that this works best for most people.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2007)

Not that I have to defend myself to you, but I have actually spoken to several more than 2 owners and no one is happy with the policy. The most positive response I have heard is that they wanted to wait and see for themselves when down there next month. Believe it or not, Tug is not the only venue to talk to owners and, moreover, I happen to know several personally.

I have freely admitted that I don't know how the majority of owners feel. Just like Marriott did a small sampling and they don't really know how the majority feels. My post was an attempt to get people to voice their concerns not only on message boards (and, btw, Tug is not the only message board to be actively discussing this; I actually learnt about it elsewhere), but directly to the powers that be who can modify the system. 

Thankfully, unlike you, the Marriott management apprears, at least, to be responsive to the concerns and opinions of their owners and is receptive to hearing them and will hopefully act accordingly. It is in everyone's best interest (except perhaps yours, if you are even an owner there) to let them know how you feel so that the Surf Club can continue to be a fabulous property and in high demand both for personal use and to retain its trading power, which is why we all invested in it.

PS- your statement: "That may or may not be you so except that."- what I take exception to is your attitude; obviously, iIF (and that's a big IF) most people are truly happy with the new system of waiting in lines and musical chairs, then that's their perogative and I will, obviously, have to accept that .


----------



## Eric (Apr 22, 2007)

Ahh, actually you have not. You said the complete opposite. Your exact quote is 
"
all made in advance and for a fee,* is NOT acceptable to the majority of owners!"*

[QUOTE=m61376

I have freely admitted that I don't know how the majority of owners feel.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2007)

Eric- this bantering should end. Obviously you are intent on blasting me for some unknown reason. I don't even know if you are a SC owner, so have a vested interest in the topic, or just like being nasty to a stranger. If you bothered to take my post in the context in which it was written, it was intended to generate interest in getting people to complain to the management to convince them that they were wrong stating that most people were happy with this. I read numerous comments, all negative, before I made this post; the intent was that complaining on a bulletin board doesn't effectuate change- we have to let the powers that be know we are unhappy and, if the sentiment is as expressed by the others I have heard from, to let them know that in fact the majority of owners are unhappy. If it turns out that I am wrong, like I said before, then I don't have to like it but when you buy a condo or coop- and a timeshare is like purchasing a piece of one- you cannot make independent decisions like in your own home and have to go along with the majority. Except in a condo or coop there is a vote, and my point here was that an assessment of the feelings of all the owners was never done.

If you own at the SC then you are certainly entitled to express your opinion. If you don't, please stop giving me a hard time just for the purpose of being nasty.


----------



## jerseygirl (Apr 22, 2007)

M61376 -- Don't let Eric bother you.  He defends Marriott regardless of the issue.  You're definitely not the first, nor probably the last, to be on the other side of his mean spirited posts.  My theory (since he first started posting):  He's a Marriott sales rep.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2007)

THANKS!! I was wondering there....


----------



## Eric (Apr 22, 2007)

Blasting you ? Please, All I am saying is you went of on a rant and spouted things that were not true.Actually I just pointing out what specifically you said which is that MOST owners don't like the new system when it fact you meant, "I don't like the new system so everyone should agree with me and get them to change it"

What part of " Most owners don't like the new system" was taken out of context ? 
You said it and had no facts to back it up, END 






m61376 said:


> Eric- this bantering should end. Obviously you are intent on blasting me for some unknown reason. I don't even know if you are a SC owner, so have a vested interest in the topic, or just like being nasty to a stranger. If you bothered to take my post in the context in which it was written,


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2007)

I give up trying to convince you of what I meant. Your mind is obviously closed. It is interesting that in all your negative commentary you do not mention any first hand expereince with the system, nor offer any positive or negative constructive criticism. You are just being obstreperous, which makes one wonder what your motives are....


----------



## Eric (Apr 22, 2007)

You said what you meant. You are now just trying to backtrack because what you said made no sense and you were stating the opinion of a few yet made it sound like you knew what the majority wanted. I have given positive criticism, you were just to busy trying to NOT admit your statement was not based on facts. What I said was all HOA's try and do whats best for the masses and will do that most times BUT that still means alot of people won't be happy with thier decision. 





m61376 said:


> I give up trying to convince you of what I meant. Your mind is obviously closed. It is interesting that in all your negative commentary you do not mention any first hand expereince with the system, nor offer any positive or negative constructive criticism. You are just obstreperousness, which makes one wonder what your motives are....


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2007)

OK- I will clarify things to make YOU happy- if others feel that the new palapa system is not in their best interests, please write the Marriott Board members and let them know how you feel about it. They are under the impression, from their limited surveyance done over a 2 week period, during which most members did not voice complaints, that most members were happy with the new policy. From my limited discussions with other members I feel the majority of people really will be unhappy with this new policy and, if that is the case, instead of complaining to each other by posting on BB we need to let the powers that be know we are unhappy and request that they modify the policy for everyone's benefit so that, in fact, the majority of owners are happy with it.

Now, I hope that makes you happy too Eric- I am not backtracking, btw, as once again you acrimoniously suggested- that was the intent of my original post. Too bad you are too narrow-minded to have seen it that way.

BTW- when I suggested that you give positive criticism I did not mean that you positively should criticize me. Once again, you seem to need clarification. What I meant was that, if you are an owner at the SC and/or have first-hand knowledge of the property, and can offer either positive or negative criticism or suggestions regarding the palapa policy, that would be much more welcome than a personal attack on me.


----------



## Eric (Apr 22, 2007)

I have not once said anything bad about you yet you just called me narrow-minded so it seems you are a hypocrite . Actually I do own there and don't spend my time complaining about shade on the beach because if I want shade, I go to my room. Its vacation, why is it people from NY can never relax.

BTW
The intent of your original post was to let people believe you were right in your opinion and owners should be up in arms when in fact it seems most people like the new system and you are just causing trouble. Its a shame owners can't leave well enough alone. 



m61376 said:


> OK- I will clarify things to make YOU happy- if others feel that the new palapa system is not in their best interests, please write the Marriott Board members and let them know how you feel about it. They are under the impression, from their limited surveyance done over a 2 week period, during which most members did not voice complaints, that most members were happy with the new policy. From my limited discussions with other members I feel the majority of people really will be unhappy with this new policy and, if that is the case, instead of complaining to each other by posting on BB we need to let the powers that be know we are unhappy and request that they modify the policy for everyone's benefit so that, in fact, the majority of owners are happy with it.
> 
> Now, I hope that makes you happy too Eric- I am not backtracking, btw, as once again you acrimoniously suggested- that was the intent of my original post. Too bad you are too narrow-minded to have seen it that way.
> 
> BTW- when I suggested that you give positive criticism I did not mean that you positively should criticize me. Once again, you seem to need clarification. What I meant was that, if you are an owner at the SC and/or have first-hand knowledge of the property, and can offer either positive or negative criticism or suggestions regarding the palapa policy, that would be much more welcome than a personal attack on me.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2007)

Please, don't start down that "people from NY" route....

I go to Aruba to relax on the beach. If I want to stay inside I can enjoy the comforts of my own home. Admittedly, I don't like to burn to a crisp...I never did, but after burying a close friend due to melanoma last year I am poignantly aware that being a sun worshipper is not all it's cracked up to be. 

Oh- I am glad you own there, am glad you don't look for shade, and am absolutely amazed that you are so omnicient that you know that most people like the new system.

I guess my personality is not passive enough to just "leave well enough alone." I think Marriott runs a great facility and great resorts in general but, like me, they are not perfect.


----------



## qlaval (Apr 22, 2007)

GEEEE!  
Eric I can't hardly understand why after making your point you have to be the one with the last word on somebody thread...
*m61376* is probably one of the nicest contributer to this forum.
Patient and generous in her writing and always eager to help others even the newbie who needs lots of infos.

Why I'm adding this to the debate? 
Because if m61376 wasn't such a nice contributer to this board I might have understand why you're doing what you're doing....but frankly I can't see why.
Now you're into where people come from next what it will be? Race...
Come on make your point add a little if you want but why the obsession to have THE truth. 
Do you always need to win? Even if you're right? Come on give the lady a break...


----------



## hipslo (Apr 22, 2007)

qlaval said:


> GEEEE!
> Eric I can't hardly understand why after making your point you have to be the one with the last word on somebody thread...
> *m61376* is probably one of the nicest contributer to this forum.
> Patient and generous in her writing and always eager to help others even the newbie who needs lots of infos.
> ...



I find I am able to identify most of Eric's posts on any topic before reading the signature line.  Not based on what he says, but on how he says it.  I am often quite taken aback by his tone.  I find this quite puzzling.  I also think I'd probably put more stock in his point of view if it were stated more respectfully.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 22, 2007)

knock off the silly argument and get back to the topic at hand...

I think it was something marriott related? =)


----------



## PNBN (Apr 22, 2007)

It seems to me that part of the solution should be to allow Surf Club owners tor use the Ocean Club palapas.  If the lazy river is reciprical then the palapas should be as well.  This won't solve the larger issue but does provide better balance of the two properties.

I am sure this will get some interesting replies.:ignore:


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 22, 2007)

*The grab it and it's mine mentality*

Be it palapas or the best weeks deposited or anything in between why do some feel it is their right to grab them and keep them indefinitely? I prefer a system that promotes the best chances that when you want a week/palapas/lounge at the pool or anything else that a timeshare ownership gets you it will be there for you. I really dislike the idea that someone gets up at 6AM to run down and grab a lounge or whatever to hold it for the day. Come on. How long are you actually going to be using that? An hour? Two? The rest of the time it is sitting there unused and no one else can enjoy it. When that happens the mindset becomes that you "need" to grab it while it's there at 6AM or you won't get it at all. It's the grab the 3 bedroom unit 24 months ahead even though we only need a 1 bedroom because it's there mindset. It feeds itself.  

If Marriott or anyone else that has to try to satisfy 100's of owners/guests each week with limited quantities of whatever has a method to get it spread out over more users each use period I say more power to them. It is a shared amenity not personal property. If it was meant to be used one for each unit week then there would be one assigned to every unit. There isn't so everyone has to learn to play nice and share. Seems fair to me - how about you kids?


----------



## m61376 (Apr 22, 2007)

PNBN- I'm surprised your comment hasn't been met with outrage  . Seriously though, one of the things that I find troublesome is that, by creating a convoluted, half day and fee-for-use system at the SC while OC users get to enjoy easy to secure and free palapas, the SC is being relegated to a second-class resort. I can tell you with certainty that is not only my opinion, as there have been many comments made that the beach and pool are better at the OC because of the overcrowding (although OC owners do like to have it both ways and want to retain the right to use the SC pool at whim).

I have been one of the SC's biggest advocates, touting what we perceived as an amazing place to vacation and defending it against others who have commented that Marriott greedily overbuilt the resort. This new policy gives credibility to that contention- otherwise, why would the Boards of the OC and SC deem it necessary to impugn such a policy on the SC owners while giving OC owners continued easy access to the OC/SC pools and the OC palapas? With the nicely expanded beachfront, if adequate planning was done, why are SC owners being relegated to being second class citizens in Marriott's eyes, since only SC owners, and not OC owners or hotel guests, are subject to this new policy? 

IMHO, the new policy and its inequity conveys the very message that Marriott wants to avoid. I do think if the resorts are going to operate as one big Marriott family that they should share uniform policies.

And, yes, lounges and palapas or umbrellas at the pool are shared amenities and, as posted above, owners need to learn to share and not be possessive. I agree that commandeering a lounge or palapa and letting it sit unused for over an hour is selfish. However, I also feel all owners should have an equal opportunity to reserve ones- not that those who were there the previous week should have first dibs, or those who arrive earlier in the weekend or even on an earlier flight. As I stated previously, when we arrived Sunday afternoon, all the palapas were reserved ahead of time till mid week. At least under the old system half were saved and unreserved, so those who really wanted one could get one. I agree that the lines were ridiculous and largely generated by the monopolization even if not being utilized. Trust me, I didn't like having to get on line at 7AM. But substituting a 6-7AM line with one beginning an hour and a half later for a 9AM opening (and, during the height of the season, possibly just as early with a later opening). And then, people who want to stay on the beach until after 1PM and still want shade can look forward to standing on yet another line to play musical chairs if they are "lucky" and can secure a palapa for a few more hours.

I think, in an attempt to make things easier, the management has complicated things. In an atttempt to rectify a problem they have placed an unfair burden on SC owners rather than finding a real solution- whether that be by trying harder to get more palapa permits or devising other allowable solutions (the bimini chaises are a great addition, but are difficult for older people due to the constant shifting of the sun; I do think they should try to really increase the number of the bimini chaises, though, as a start toward alleviating the problem). I also think Marriott should resolve these issues before adding new owners.

While I would love to think that simply by grabbing OC beachfront use as a trade for SC pool use the problem at the SC would be rectified, fixing the problem at the SC beach cannot be done at someone else's expense. I do think there is ample space at the newly expanded beachfront. I think Marriott has to find a way to convince the powers-that-be in Aruba to allow for more palapas.

I quipped earlier to someone about a timestamp slip system out of jest- but, actually, although it will never be adopted it isn't that far-fetched an idea. If you're going to leave the area, you have to get a time-stamped sticker and place it on your lounge. After an hour, akin to a meter, it's expired and belongings can be moved by staff. If a 1 hour rule (or even the 2 hour rule that is currently in place) was really enforced (and without some system it really can't be) a lot of these problems would disappear on their own, since desirable space/lounges remaining claimed but unused is a big part of the problem.


----------



## Cathy in Boston (Apr 24, 2007)

Well, I have not been on the board for a few days and look what I miss!   

I am so confused by the various rules and regulations apparently being tried out at the SC, all I can say is, I am going to have to see how things go down when we're there (in 24 days, 22 hours...approximately).  

One thing I am confused about (one of many, lol) is that m61376 mentioned that, when they arrived on Sunday, all of the palapas were reserved through midweek - what happened to the old rule about only being able to reserve for two days?  

Admittedly, we will be there during the "slow" season, so we may not encounter the problems those traveling in January and February encounter.

Anyway - I will surely post as much info as I can when we do return!


----------



## m61376 (Apr 24, 2007)

To Marriott's credit, although they have not changed the policy (which hopefully will change  ), they are apparently, at least, receptive to input and considering  mine, and others', concerns (I was careful not to state it as "our concerns", lest I be misinterpreted).

As I've always said, I think Marriott runs a great resort and, while I strongly disagree with the new policy, I don't think it was created out of greed, but simply to make an inconvenient situation better. Sometimes good intentions make things worse rather than better, which I feel is the case here.

It is obvious they intend to monitor the situation. Hopefully they will respond to the concerns and input of owners and exchangers.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 24, 2007)

Cathy in Boston said:


> Well, I have not been on the board for a few days and look what I miss!
> 
> I am so confused by the various rules and regulations apparently being tried out at the SC, all I can say is, I am going to have to see how things go down when we're there (in 24 days, 22 hours...approximately).
> 
> ...



Cathy- the old rule was for 2 days at a time- but not for only the next two days. What I was told by the people at the towel hut when I arrived on Sunday was that people who were there from the previous week had reserved in advance. I was also surprised; in fact, while there were reservations available for later in the week, over half of them (meaning over half of the ones available for reservations) were already reserved for the entire week before I even arrived. Arriving on Sunday, even if I wanted a palapa in the first few rows on Sat. there were none available for advance reservations.


----------



## Cathy in Boston (Apr 24, 2007)

Aaahhh...Okay now I get it, thanks!

I doubt May will be like that.  But I've been wrong before...


----------



## m61376 (Apr 24, 2007)

Cathy- actually, you will be quite impressed with the expanded beach- prob. looks a lot different than when you were there before. I agree that you will likely not have the same issues in May as during the peak season. One of my concerns with this whole new system is that they will be judging it largely based on the comments of people who are happy and impressed at first seeing the expanded beach (since many owners were concerned as to whether or not the beach could accomodate the number of villas they were building) and during times when it is not as crowded anyway, and the policy will become entrenched before its effects are really tested.

My guess is that, during May, you will likely be able to make advance reservations for most mornings and will be able to secure another for most, if not all, afternoons and I wouldn't anticipate that lines will be too long, since it is one of the quieter times. Your biggest inconveniences will be having to stand on line again before 1, having to pay twice and having to play musical chairs. During peak periods the lines for morning and afternoon reservations will likely be much longer, advanced reservations will likely be gobbled up (as they were before for the half that could be reserved in advance), and I would expect the whole system to be very aggravating. 

I hope you have a great trip and hope you are as impressed with the changes (meaning the expanded beach- not the new policies of course) since last year as I was.


----------



## Cathy in Boston (Apr 24, 2007)

I really can't wait to see the beach.  As for standing in line twice, we won't - what we will do is just pull up stakes for the day a little earlier and move over to the pool.  Last year we went around 2:00 - now we'll go at 1:00 instead.


----------



## qlaval (Apr 27, 2007)

PNBN said:


> "...part of the solution should be to allow Surf Club owners tor use the Ocean Club palapas.  If the lazy river is reciprocal then the palapas should be as well...."



You're right I've oversaw that one... 

Do you know why the Ocean Club owners have access to the Lazy River?  

Because the Ocean Club has accepted to rent about ten palapas daily to the Surf Club in exchange of this privilege... 
Add to that the use of our lobby for check in (until you have yours finished) it was last year) and that you can use our pool too (now after 10 am)
More in the low season we accept to rent our unused palapas to the SC (the ones near the Surf Club)...  

Are you sure you want to break this deal?
You're already are too low on palapas at the Surf Club and need to split the reservation in two shifts.
Imagine 10 less palapas and the other buildings open….

I think it's already a win-win situation.

As for the Surf club owners who were placing their chairs on the Beach (which is public) in front of our Palapas.  
The Surf Club Board is now instituting a policy that their chairs must stay on their property, adding more seating and improving the beach.

And just a few numbers to make you understand the palapas problem.
The Ocean Club owns 118 and the Surf Club owns 79 plus 30 scheduled for a total of 109.
Surf Club once finished will be 3 time bigger with less Palapas then the OC...


----------



## irish (Apr 28, 2007)

while i share the pain of the surf club owners having to deal with the palapa situation i have to weigh in here about surf club using the ocean club palapas.
as i understand  it, OCEAN CLUB shares both the use of their  POOL and PALAPAS with the HOTEL. OCEAN CLUB and SURF CLUB share the use of the POOLS. now you think OCEAN CLUB should share the use of the palapas with BOTH the HOTEL and the SURF CLUB. sorry i don't agree. Marriott knew when starting to build the SURF CLUB that they were over building. Marriott thought they could just throw money at the arubian gov't and get anything they wanted. THEY WERE WRONG!
as with any other contract you sign, what was IMPLIED should have been in WRITING. 
when, and this is JMO, the surf club is completed, the same situation will occur at the pool. to many people not enough space. 
i am an OCEAN CLUB owner and i am not willing to give up my PALAPAS as a solution to MARRIOTT GREED.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 28, 2007)

Interesting conversation and a bit of confusion- possibly all on my part  ...I was under the impression that the hotel facilities were for hotel guests only, that the beaches in front of each facility were for the use of the guests of that facility only and that the OC and SC shared their pool facilities, at least temporarily (there have been a few different answers to the question as to whether or not that would end this year).

The above posts indicate a few different scenarios. I was wondering if anyone knows the real restrictions/rules in place.

As far as the palapas- I do agree that monopolizing OC property (in this case palapas) is not a suitable fix for Marriott's miscalculations wrt what the Aruban government would allow. The letter from the Board president and my own communications make it clear, at least to me, that the developers anticipated being allowed to build more palapas (as the letter indicated, they applied for many more than were approved). This was an issue that, IMHO, should have been determined before the scope of the project was finalized.

However, I do feel that both the Lazy River at the SC and palapas at the beachfront are desirable amenities. And, Irish, you are right- when the rest of the villas are opened the space at the pool will become more constrained. Personally, I think that with the anticipated added sitting areas it will be fine and, even in peak season, the pool wasn't crowded, at least the week I was there. 

I think if the OC and SC are going to share desirable amenities they should do so equivalently. Currently, OC owners/guests can use the SC pool, but cannot access it before 10AM. That is to allow, I assume, SC owners first dibs on the lounges/umbrellas, etc. I think if this policy will continue, in an equivalent manner, SC guests should have access to unutilized amenities at the OC. While .12 palapas per keyed unit is insufficient for owner's needs at the SC, .38 exceeds demand at the OC. Even in January I noticed several OC palapas sat shading the sand but nothing else. If they are not needed by OC owners/guests, then I think, like the pool policy wrt use of the Lazy River by the OC, SC owners should be allowed to use them. If both Boards agree 10AM is the magic time, then it should apply equally. In the interest of fairness, I don't think useage of any facility by the other should be applied unilaterally.

OC owners may argue that the space should be saved in case someone wants it later in the day. Personally, if people weren't so bent on saving space I think a lot of the issues would go away. People hog palapas and spend half the day at the pool or elsewhere, but they have to maintain their space so it is available to them when they want to use it. Same at the pool- at times I think there were as many empty lounges with towels on them as there were occupied ones- far in excess of the number of people in the pool. I think there should be a way of regulating saving- after sitting empty for an hour stuff should be moved. People may think I'm crazy, but a timestamp sticker system so there is no argument might be worth considering- if you're leaving your belongings but want to reserve the space, place a sticker on a card attached to a lounge- after an hour, your hold time is expired and peopple are free to ask security to move your belongings. No arguments that you weren't gone that long, becuase there would be a system in place. It does sound silly, and as adults it is a bit ridiculous, but it is not only the Marriotts with this problem. Practically every resort has issues with chair hogs. People come down in the middle of the night to reserve their idel space on the beach or at the pool (which is why marriott will remove things placed before 7:30). Ridiculous- of oourse, but let's face it, that is a major issue. And it is self perpetuating- I don't liek it, but feel compelled to do it too, becuase if I don't go down early and reserve my space for future use, there will be none left.

I think there are many viable alternatives to easing the palapa situation other than the new system Marriott has imposed. If units were not allow to be monopolized but unused, at both the SC and the OC, along with the addition of the bimini chaises (which, interestingly, despite what was posted above about blocking the view, some OC owners have also posted about really liking because of their portability), a lot of the problems might self correct.


----------



## irish (Apr 28, 2007)

with the advent of the" PALAPA RESERVATION SYSTEM", we are no longer able to determine whether or not the "unused palapas" people are seeing are actually  
unused or reserved. possible, the "unused" palapas,actually are reserved. the occupants might have gone for lunch, gone to the pool, gone to town,on a site seeing tour, or scuba diving, snorkeling and will use the huts at sometime during the day.they paid for use, they can use or NOT use at will. when i was in the beach, the occupants of the  reserved palapa next to me did not show up until  after 3pm every day.therefore, people were ASSUMING is was vacant.in reality, it was occupied.
the figure given for the o.c palapa count(118) i believe is a misnomer.the 118 figure count INCLUDES the palapas in front of the hotel.therefore, i believe(i could be mistaken), the actual count for the O.C.to be far less then the 118 count given. 

 the O.C. is expecting to incorporate the BIMINI chairs into the O.C. as well.i have also read, but have not confirmed, that there is also a new reg. inplace for the the use of the surf club BIMINI chairs.that is, they(surf club) will no longer be able to remove them off the surf club property. as i said, i have not confirmed this. i think the HOA president is sick of hearing from me.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 28, 2007)

From what I was told, the 118 palapas are for the OC. Actually, I read the 118 figure, I believe on this post, but that corresponds to the .38 per keyed room at the OC that came directly from the Marriott letter. So those are not hotel but OC palapas. 

Maybe you don't agree with me, and that's certainly your right, but one of my points is I really object to the reserving for future use sometime during the day concept. Reserving in advance is fine, but if people aren't going to use them by a pre-determined "reasonable" time (whether or not the homeowners agree on this time, but let's use 10AM for arguments sake, since this was the pool use time) then after 10AM they should be available for alternate use. Why should a palapa give shade to the sand while someone is off shopping or on an excursion, or spending hours at the pool? That is my whole point. I really think some of the problems would be alleviated if the concept of chair/palapa/umbrella-hogging was eliminated. I don't think reservations should be absolute- they should only give guests the ability to use the palapa if they intend to use it by a set time- otherwise, they should be available for others to enjoy. There are too many people who look at the $10 or $15 fee as a minor expense and well worth it in case they decide to sit at the beach, oblivious to the fact that there are people who would otherwise really like to use the amenities. And if the OC wants to make sure that guests who only want a palapa for the afternoon have one guaranteed, they can offer an optional half day rental for reserving an afternoon in advance (don't get me wrong, I am NOT suggesting they do a mandatory half day program that I object to like the SC- I am suggesting that OC owners who may only want to use a palapa in the afternoon but want to make sure they have one reserved should be able to do so without monopolizing one for the whole day). On the other hand, I am sure there are OC owners who will disagree with me, feeling that as long as there is an abundance of palapas at the OC, possibly in excess of what their owners need at any given time, then having them sit unused but reserved is ok as long as it doesn't infringe on their owners/guests useage. And, in a sense, if you look at the SC as a different property all-together, then it would be hard to argue with the concept. BUT- if you consider them as part of a larger resort, and given that they are sharing some amenities I think that was the concept behind the development, then considering others' needs without imposing a hardship doesn't seem unreasonable. I guess it boils down to whether one considers not being able to hold onto chairs/palapas/umbrellas for hours without using them a hardship.

I am a little confused about the whole bimini chair issue myself. First I heard that they could be used at both facilities, then that they were restricted to in front of the SC because OC owners objected to their presence (yet there are OC owners who posted that they really liked the convenience of the bimini chaises), and now that the OC is going to get their own but that the SC's are not going to be allowed in front of the OC's beach. Wonder if they are going to attach little signs or something, or get a different color for the OC? I can understand if the OC doesn't want the bimini chaises blocking the front row for those that consider that important (so if they don't want any at all), but will it be better if they are OC's biminis and not SC's? To me that's taking things a little too far, unless the HOAs decide to keep everything separate- the beaches, the chaises, and the pools. I just don't think you should have sharing of some without sharing of others, with equivalent restrictions.


----------



## PNBN (Apr 28, 2007)

irish said:


> .
> as i understand  it, OCEAN CLUB shares both the use of their  POOL and PALAPAS with the HOTEL. OCEAN CLUB and SURF CLUB share the use of the POOLS. now you think OCEAN CLUB should share the use of the palapas with BOTH the HOTEL and the SURF CLUB.
> 
> We have stayed at the hotel and were NOT allowed to use the OC pool or beach as it was explained to us.
> ...


----------



## irish (Apr 28, 2007)

i guess we'll just agree to disagree. i believe, AND THIS IS JMO, that if/when the showdown comes(and eventually it will come) O.C will  just give up the use of the lazy river pool and end the agreement involving the 10 O.C. palapas.  from speaking to SOME  O.C owners, the pool is not a big deal . we lived without it before it was built, we'll live without it after it's gone.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 28, 2007)

Glaval-
I too was unaware that the OC was renting 10 palapas to the SC and it was not mentioned by either the Pres. or VP of the Board, or the gen. manager. Are you even sure that is still in effect- or was it a temporary situation until the SC beach was expanded and/or a rumor, as apparently the OC sharing the pool and palapas with the hotel is a rumor according to PNBN's post (btw- I was also told the hotel was an entity unto itself and the facilities were not shared, other than access to the restaurants and casino, of course)?

I could be wrong, but when I was there in Jan. I don't think any OC palapas were available for SC use; all of the ones available were in front of the SC. I seem to remember there may have been some temporary sharing when the first building opened before the Compass tower opened, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

Irish- I'm not saying you are wrong, although I know a lot of people who feel the Lazy River is a very big feature so the OC Board would have to assess what is in the best interest of their owners (because that's where their responsibility lies). But I hope you can understand that I am not proferring a "let's grab everything we can" but that if the OC owners are getting to enjoy and use facilities at the SC that there should be a reciprocal exchange (and, really, although they can use the Lazy River space, what we are really discussing here is their access to lounges/umbrellas after 10AM which are otherwise unused and what I am suggesting is similar access to unused palapas; I am suggesting that OC owners be inconvenienced only in that they cannot reserve a palapa and let it sit unused most of the day. From your earlier post I think that is our biggest difference, in that retaining that right is important to you; of course, if that's important to your vacation enjoyment, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion and, as you said, let's agree to disagree).


----------



## irish (Apr 28, 2007)

m61376, yes, i TOTALLY agree  that palapas should NOT be reserved and allowed to sit unoccupied all day. however, how do you police this situation?they instituted a policy whereby you pay for use and it's yours to do as you please. i was quite happy with the 2 hour rule and fought to maintain it but i was overridden by the board so it is what it is. i learned to accept it. 
i am a beach person. i get up EXTREMLY early to reserve my palapa.luckily, i am a morning person and enjoy the solitude. i grab a coffee and a chair, sit and read a book or watch my portable dvd player until the 'GANG' arrive and then enjoy good conversation and I have learned much in my morning gab fests with other marriott owners. i am on the beach from early morning to sunset. i ALSO agree that having to vacate my space on the beach and stand in another line to  get another hut is a REAL PAIN IN THE A**!!  i believe the only point we don't see eye to eye on is shared palapa use. that's okay too. we will just agree to disagree. exchange of ideas is one of the many reasons i love this board. i can't wait to see how this situation plays out 
on the "3rd week of january" 2008 when 'THE GROUP' arrives and is expected to adhere to the newly instituted policy. that is assuming it is still in effect at that time. should be interesting to say the least.


----------



## qlaval (Apr 29, 2007)

Hi again...  

So many subjects I will try give my opinion for a few of them (for what it's worth...)

"...why would the Boards of the OC and SC deem it necessary to impugn such a policy on the SC owners while giving OC owners continued easy 
access to the OC/SC pools and the OC palapas?..."
Because both resorts are separate entities and the SC is in a big need of palapas...

"...if adequate planning was done, why are SC owners being relegated to being second class citizens in Marriott's eyes..."
The answer is in the question adequate planning wasn't done properly by Marriott for the SC. 

"...(Marriott should try)harder to get more palapas permits..."
I'm sure they have tried VERY hard but surprisingly the local government didn't budge.

"...I also think Marriott should resolve these issues before adding new owners...."
It is unfortunately too late for that they have sale contracts to fulfill. Not doing so would cost them millions 
(and since there are in the TS business for money that isn't an option for them)

Irish stated:"...OCEAN CLUB shares both the use of their POOL and PALAPAS with the HOTEL..."
Are you sure about that? (If so I was under another impression)

"...the developers anticipated being allowed to build more palapas ... This ... issue ... should have been determined before the scope of the project was finalized...."
ABSOLUTELY! Like I said earlier adequate planning wasn't done properly.
Marriott did failed on his obligation to verify and confirm before starting the SC project. (especially considering his size)

"...when the rest of the villas are opened the space at the pool will become more constrained..."
And when that happen the use of the Lazy River won't be share anymore with the OC. 
It simply isn't build to support this amount of people period. If the SC board don't do it at first the complains of the SC owners will...

"...I am sure there are OC owners who (feel) that as long as there is an abundance of palapas at the OC ... then having them sit unused but reserved is ok as long as it doesn't infringe (other OC owners)..."
Sorry m61376 but that's exactly how I feel... 
On the other hand it's true that I see the OC as an entity not a member of a "Marriott-Resort-City"

"... part of a larger resort ... I think that was the concept behind the development..."
I've always saw it like a good neighbours thing... good friends on both sides, no need for a fence, welcome to walk by, etc... 
Not a we share everything... (but that's my view...)

"...The issue of using the lobby temporarily should not be considered a long term payback to the OC owners, IMO...."
I totally agree with you.

"...I believe, ... that if/when the showdown comes(and eventually it will come) OC will just give up the use of the lazy river pool and end the agreement ..."
Me too! I'm 100% sure that this is exactly what will happen by 2008. 
This might sounds selfish but I prefer by 10x times the accessibility to our palapas to the use of the lazy river. And I feel most OC owners feel the same.
As for renting unneeded palapas to the SC I'm sure it will continue as it is a good income for the OC.

"...I too was unaware that the OC was renting 10 palapas to the SC ... Are you even sure that is still in effect-..."
The number 10 isn't a fix number it can vary a little. I was told by the President of the OC board only a few days ago...

"...I don't think any OC palapas were available for SC use; all of the ones available were in front of the SC...."
I think they were rented by the SC directly more they were situated by the SC side so you might not have noticed?


----------



## irish (Apr 29, 2007)

okay, here's the scoop on what is shared at the 3 resorts .
OC and hotel share pool use. OC and surf club share pool use. 
palapas are NOT shared by ANY of the marriotts. 
OC does RENT some of the palapas to the surf club as long as this policy does not have an adverse effect  on the OC owners. i take this to mean that in high season when the OC is fillied to capacity that may not occur.
there  ARE  118  palapas at  OC.  ORIGINALLY theses were shared by the hotel but that agreement has been terminated.
so there you have it.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 29, 2007)

Glaval- We agree more than you think actually. I agree that Marriott should have thought this out beforehand and now they are scrambling to try to fix it. It is clear that adequate planning was not done; I was attempting to underscore that fact when I wrote that "if adequate planning was done..."- that was meant as a rhetorical question. The intent of my post was for people to let Marriott know that they shouldn't look to fix their mistake by shifting the onus to the owners, but should endeavor to do everything possible to rectify them and ameliorate the impact on owners.

Interesting that the SC Board did not mention anything about any rental of palapas; it is also possible that, since you were told the number fluctuates, they may not do it in peak season, which is when I was there. With the numbering I think I would have noticed if they were being offerred, but possibly not. As another poster mentioned, you are right that the hotel and the OC don't share (oops, Irish, you posted while I was writing- I guess you have the inside scoop from your post). 

The suggestion about trying to get more permits is that the wheels of government turn slowly, and we all know in this country that applications are made and then only partially approved and people reapply to get more. Sometimes it depends on other politics at the moment, sometimes on the mood of the legislators, sometimes on who knows  ...but sometimes things are approved that were initially denied. It can be as simplistic as grouping a few together or different type of placement on the beach, who knows. Maybe they would approve of some further back rather than on beach edge, or maybe to the side so the villa views won't be affected (that seems to be a big issue with the Aruban government; they allowed palapas to block the ocean views of the OC villas, but will not allow them to block the clear view from the SC). We are guests in Aruba and the government must do what it feels is in the best interests of its citizens. Compromises are made by every government for economic reasons and, obviously, it will be up to the Aruban government to set the parameters as to what concessions they want to make to attract tourists. For example, there is a large area in the newly expanded beach, kind of between the pool and the beach. I would call it beach since it has sand, but it is back quite a bit. Clustering palapas in that area might be a great compromise. It won't impinge on the view of the beach from those sitting at the beach already and might be a very convenient area to sit for those families that like to sit by the beach but use the pool, since it is midway. I had actually thought they were going to put more palapas up in that area while I was there. Of course, that's just one thought...we'll leave it to better minds than mine....

While I understand why different policies were instituted at both resorts, what I don't find equitable is that SC owners are subject to what I think is a very inconvenient policy while OC owners continue to have unfettered access to their own pools/palapas (rightfully so) and the SC's pools after 10AM. This is obviously  where we disagree, in part. It appears you would rather give up access and use of the Lazy River at the SC and maintain the right to reserve palapas for possible future use during the day, while letting them sit unused for hours at a time. And that is your option, and the option of the other owners. What I am saying is that the OC shouldn't have it both ways- either the resorts are friendly but selfish neighbors and don't share amenities except for perhaps access to stores/restaurants, or they share access in an equal fashion. Obviously, the SC's better amenity (or at least what many OC owners like to use) is their larger pool facilities. I still maintain that IF OC owners get to use the SC pool after 10AM, and occupy vacant lounges/umbrellas, then SC owners should be allowed to use vacant lounges/palapas at the OC. Really, the only thing I am suggesting is that OC owners shouldn't be able to reserve a palapa for the day and let it sit unused while they are out snorkeling, shopping, or sitting at the pool. As the policy currently exists, OC owners can have an empty, reserved palapa, while sitting under an umbrella for several hours at the SC pool. Sorry if that doesn't seem fair to me. Of course, as you said, you would prefer to give up the use of the SC pool, then that's for the OC Board to decide, but it isn't right to have it both ways. 

Interestingly, even there we agree  . What we differ on is that I'd like everyone to play nicely in the sandbox together, sharing toys when they aren't being used. You'd prefer to use your own toys or keep them by your side to use just in case you want them later...and while I might not agree, we can agree to disagree there. I don't think a long term policy where I can't use any of your toys but you can use some of mine for part of the day is a fair policy; while you may not agree on the issue of "fairness," it is clear that you realize that it is not a tenable policy. I guess my proposal is one of friendship whereas you'd like to just be good neighbors, co-existing peacefully side by side but not intermingling. While not my preference, that's ok too- just can't have it both ways.

Now that I'm done being metaphorical here- hope we can still be friends  . I've enjoyed our bantering.


----------



## qlaval (Apr 29, 2007)

AMEN!

(But should we ever met at the beach I will gladly share my palapa with you and your husband for the whole day...   )


----------



## m61376 (Apr 29, 2007)

qlaval said:


> AMEN!
> 
> (But should we ever met at the beach I will gladly share my palapa with you and your husband for the whole day...   )



:hysterical: Thanks!


----------



## Blondie (Apr 29, 2007)

And for this you guys paid how many thousands of dollars? I don't know of ANY other resort in Aruba that insults its guests by making them cough up dough to rent a palapa. What a scam and how insulting to owners.


----------



## swing4thefence (May 1, 2007)

*Marriott is doing the best it can with a difficult situation.*



Blondie said:


> And for this you guys paid how many thousands of dollars? I don't know of ANY other resort in Aruba that insults its guests by making them cough up dough to rent a palapa. What a scam and how insulting to owners.



 If you don't like it, go back to the Caribbean Palm Village and leave us alone. 

Perhaps Marriott merely underestimated the demand for these palapas.  After all, NO other resort has a problem with them right?

I do agree that something needs to be done to encourage people to actually use the time they reserve.


----------



## m61376 (May 1, 2007)

swing4thefence said:


> Perhaps Marriott merely underestimated the demand for these palapas.  After all, NO other resort has a problem with them right?
> 
> I do agree that something needs to be done to encourage people to actually use the time they reserve.



I think it is a combination of perhaps underestimating the demand but, more noteably, overestimating what the Aruban government would allow. They applied for many more than they were given permits for. Evidentally, the government allowed views from the villas to be impaired by palapas at the OC, but at the SC restricted their construction so as to give a clear line of view to the water. Marriott's mistake, perhaps, was not in determining what their limitations would be prior to designing the scope of the project. I think they assumed they would get what they want and were thwarted.

And, I REALLY agree that one of the biggest problems, not only at the SC, but at many resorts, is chair/umbrella/palapa "hogging." People think they have the right to retain an amenity for future use later in the day, or even in case they may want it later. People lie on the beach but reserve lounges poolside and vice versa. They go shopping or snorkeling on another beach, or take an excursion, but don't give up their palapa reservation, so they can be sure of having the one they want when they make it to the beach in the mid or late afternoon. It is the "if I can get it, why not keep it in case I need it" mentality  and it becomes self-perpetuating- because since others do it, you become nervous if you don't then nothing will be left for you later on. While the 2 hour rule is nice (although I am not sure 2 hours is not excessive, except possibly during the lunchtime period), everyone knows it is a rule without much teeth, because it is nearly impossible for security to enforce it. Devising a way to monitor how long people are gone (possibly with a timestamp sticker system or some other way) would go a long way. Once people realize that saving for later will not be tolerated and their stuff moved, the cycle will be broken and there will be more facilities available for people to actually use.


----------

