# Points reservations at properties closed due to hurricane damage



## GregT (Oct 17, 2017)

All,

Does anyone else have a DC Points reservation at a property that is closed due to a hurricane?  I have a Ritz STT reservation for next month and just got an email indicating that the property will be closed until March 2, 2018.  I have a reservation next month for a week, crossing Thanksgiving.

What is interesting is that Marriott is telling me that my points from the soon-to-be-canceled reservation will be restricted points, per their standard cancelation policy.  I'm really surprised they aren't making an exception to their policy for this unusual circumstance and I have asked for confirmation of this from Customer Advocacy.  I had thought they would make the points unrestricted, at a minimum.   Westin really set the bar by extending the life of their StarOptions, to help their owners.

Considering that I am 0-for-alot at persuading Customer Advocacy of the merits of my positions, I expect to end up with a bunch of holding points that are near worthless to the way I travel.

I was curious if anyone else is in the same position?

Best,

Greg


----------



## StevenTing (Oct 17, 2017)

Are you points also restricted to 2017?


----------



## Superchief (Oct 17, 2017)

Based on MVC's actions in everything related to the hurricane damage, this isn't surprising. Corporations show their true stripes in situations like this. All MVC has done is leverage their power to make sure they don't lose any sales opportunities, while showing they could care less about their customers/owners. They create their own 'rules' and show no consideration for the losses encountered by their loyal owners. They could easily show flexibility in this type of situation, but they prefer to enforce their policies because they can earn a few more dollars on your lost points, and they can justify this by the 'policy'.

I need to spend 180k MR points to salvage a vacation that involved a cancelled II exchange (which I learned my insurance wouldn't cover due to fine print). They could easily provide some MR points to ease the pain, but they would rather uphold their new policy (which was never communicated or justified and may breach their inventory management contract).

You can always use those expiring points to buy the MVC travel insurance, which by the way would not have covered this trip because the damage occurred more than 30 days prior to your reservation. I really expected more from a Marriott related company due to the family legacy, but the new MVC is making me regret my significant investment for my future travel.


----------



## mjm1 (Oct 17, 2017)

Greg, I am sorry to hear that. Hopefully you receive a positive response and they help you out. You didn’t cancel your reservations, so it seems that your points shouldn’t be restricted. Good luck. I look forward to hearing the outcome.

Best regards.

Mike


----------



## urfriend (Oct 18, 2017)

GregT said:


> All,
> 
> Does anyone else have a DC Points reservation at a property that is closed due to a hurricane?  I have a Ritz STT reservation for next month and just got an email indicating that the property will be closed until March 2, 2018.  I have a reservation next month for a week, crossing Thanksgiving.
> 
> ...


Greg, Unfortunately, that is the case. Marriott has a strict policy when it comes to cancellations. If any reservation is canceled within 60 days of arrival, regardless if Marriott closes the resort due to a catastrophic event. If you are using your week and you don't have Travel X you loose your week. If you are using DCP you get holding account points which have restrictions. Even if you do have the insurance you have to file a claim and it is a monetary reimbursement. You may want to write an email to owner.services@vacationclub.com and ask if there are any exceptions they can make on your points. So sorry about your frustrations with this.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 18, 2017)

I think MVC needs to change the name of their 'Customer Advocacy' department to 'Customer Control', based on all of their actions. I've not yet seen any advocacy in my interactions with them as they are all driven by policy and rules. If my company treated customers this way, we would be out of business.


----------



## GregT (Oct 18, 2017)

StevenTing said:


> Are you points also restricted to 2017?


I'm not sure yet, I will find out when Marriott cancels my reservation.  I will keep TUG apprised. 

Urfriend, thanks for the unofficial confirmation. 

Chief, totally agree.  

Best,

Greg


----------



## GregT (Oct 18, 2017)

This is what Westin did in the same situation - I bolded the part that is a special exception benefit to the owners, because banked points only have two year life in Starwood (versus the 3 year life offered).  The other stuff is normal terms. 

Bravo Westin!!


"In order to proceed with these efforts, the recovery process requires the cancellation of all scheduled reservation arrivals through June 30, 2018. At this time, no new reservations are being accepted for 2018. As we make progress, we will communicate updates should these dates change.

Although you are unable to occupy, deposit or convert your ownership, we are providing alternatives to help you preserve your 2018 vacation:

Reserve a Vistana Signature Network reservation for a stay at one of our other 20 network resorts; *OR*
*Bank your 2018 Use Year StarOptions with no transaction fee, which are valid for use through December 31, 2021*; *OR*
Assign your Weeks or Points Use Right with the full trading power of your Home Resort interval with Interval International(1) for use through December 31, 2020. While there is no fee to assign your week, at the time you initiate a vacation exchange request, Interval will collect its current exchange fee.(2)
In addition to the above choices, you may purchase an SPG Starpoints package (up to 110,000 Starpoints) at a preferred rate that can be redeemed at over 1,300 hotels and resorts worldwide (package valid for six years from issuance and subject to the terms and conditions of the SPG program)."


----------



## Superchief (Oct 18, 2017)

As a follow up, the people in the Customer Advocacy department may be trying to communicate our concerns, but it could be that MVC management doesn't want to address them. I guess I shouldn't shoot the messenger because I've been in that situation many times myself. However, it is clear that MVC management is more concerned about controlling things than they are about the impact of their decisions on owners. I have not yet seen any flexibility or actions on their part to 'compromise' in circumstances in which they can lessen the impact of cancellations due to the storm. At least Marriott Hotels give you MR points in these types of situations. It would be easy for MVC to let you have your points back as regular points at little cost to them.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 18, 2017)

Superchief said:


> As a follow up, the people in the Customer Advocacy department may be trying to communicate our concerns, but it could be that MVC management doesn't want to address them. I guess I shouldn't shoot the messenger because I've been in that situation many times myself. However, it is clear that MVC management is more concerned about controlling things than they are about the impact of their decisions on owners. I have not yet seen any flexibility or actions on their part to 'compromise' in circumstances in which they can lessen the impact of cancellations due to the storm. At least Marriott Hotels give you MR points in these types of situations. It would be easy for MVC to let you have your points back as regular points at little cost to them.



This is spot-on.

Reading GregT's posts, it's clear that Vistana has taken an approach that recognizes the pain caused by the hurricane should be shared amongst all parties. Owners and guests were/will continue to be inconvenienced, but Vistana has decided to share some of that pain with their owners by making some exceptions to the rules, extending point expirations, etc. By contrast, Marriott Vacations Worldwide has taken the position that "the rules are the rules" and all pain/inconvenience must be borne by the owner/guest, or by an external company like II that seems to be trying to offer some reasonable options like replacement weeks. MVW hasn't been willing to take on some of the pain themselves to try to mitigate at least some of their owners' inconvenience. All they have done is just decided which owners/guests they want to accommodate and forced those that get cancelled to bear the total burden. They picked the winners and losers amongst their owners/guests, but seem unwilling to share some of the "loss".

It can be argued that, in the case of our situation with our cancelled II exchange last month at Grand Ocean, the company that should offer any restitution was II and not Marriott. So, in our situation, you can argue that we were made largely whole by the correct party. But in GregT's situation, since Destination Points are involved, Marriott Vacation Club is the only entity involved. Any restitution must come from them. So, their position that standard cancellation rules apply places the entire loss/pain on the DP owner. I find that position even more objectionable than their reaction to our situation.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 18, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> This is spot-on.
> 
> Reading GregT's posts, it's clear that Vistana has taken an approach that recognizes the pain caused by the hurricane should be shared amongst all parties. Owners and guests were/will continue to be inconvenienced, but Vistana has decided to share some of that pain with their owners by making some exceptions to the rules, extending point expirations, etc. By contrast, Marriott Vacations Worldwide has taken the position that "the rules are the rules" and all pain/inconvenience must be borne by the owner/guest, or by an external company like II that seems to be trying to offer some reasonable options like replacement weeks. MVW hasn't been willing to take on some of the pain themselves to try to mitigate at least some of their owners' inconvenience. All they have done is just decided which owners/guests they want to accommodate and forced those that get cancelled to bear the total burden. They picked the winners and losers amongst their owners/guests, but seem unwilling to share some of the "loss".
> 
> It can be argued that, in the case of our situation with our cancelled II exchange last month at Grand Ocean, the company that should offer any restitution was II and not Marriott. So, in our situation, you can argue that we were made largely whole by the correct party. But in GregT's situation, since Destination Points are involved, Marriott Vacation Club is the only entity involved. Any restitution must come from them. So, their position that standard cancellation rules apply places the entire loss/pain on the DP owner. I find that position even more objectionable than their reaction to our situation.


Not only did they not help, they actually made the situation worse for everyone by insisting Encore Package reservations be accommodated. In the posting on the Ocean Pointe owners website, the poster indicated the resort was only 30% operating capacity during their visit. I'm confident that MVC's owned inventory (from MR point redemptions or cash) does not support this decision. This is an example that should provide evidence that MVC is breaching their contract for inventory management.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 18, 2017)

I am very disappointed with how Marriott has handled the whole situation, especially as compared to Vistana. There is really no incremental costs associated with granting extension of use and not restricting the cancelled points to 60 days. Same with providing owners to bank their points in these situations even though it is past the normal deadline. Vistana still seems to have their owner's interests in mind where it seems Marriott only has their profits and corporate interest in mind. It would seem that Marriott wants to save as much of the slack and breakage for their own profit.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 18, 2017)

Based on this one thread, I hope VAC does not successfully acquire ILG.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Oct 19, 2017)

This may sound facetious, but *who cancelled the reservation?*  I don't think it was GregT; I think it was Marriott.

What is the precise wording of Marriott's cancellation provision?  The purpose is obviously to prevent abuse by _*owners *_canceling at the last moment and the wording may then logically punish owners when it is the owner who cancels.  I am not suggesting that Marriott didn't have good cause to cancel; I am suggesting that its written policy simply does not apply to this situation (not "should not" apply, but rather "does not" apply).

Otherwise, Marriott could cancel *any* reservation with impunity -- and then restrict the owner's re-use of the points originally used to make that reservation.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 19, 2017)

In all seriousness, what is to stop Marriott from cancelling any reservation with impunity - and then restrict the owner's re-use of the points originally used to make that reservation, no matter what the Docs say? The only recourse is a lawsuit for breach of contract. Who can afford that?


----------



## GregT (Oct 19, 2017)

Well, here it is......straight from Director of Customer Advocacy....

"Good morning,

Thank you for your email.  Yes, it is true that any reservations coming within the 60 day window that are interrupted due to damage caused by Hurricane Irma will be cancelled by Owner Services.  The points tied to the reservation are returned as holding points and may be used for another booking in the same use year.  While I would love to reschedule everyone who has been impacted, we simply do not have enough inventory to move all of these reservations without it impacting ownership stays in 2018.  I am truly sorry for the disruption to your travel plans caused by Hurricane Irma."


----------



## tschwa2 (Oct 19, 2017)

But then again most weeks owners through Marriott or Vistana simply have there reservations cancelled and are out the week when there is a storm, natural disaster or such.  You can't read anything into Vistana allowing points expiration to be extended.  Maybe there weren't that many affected and they did a one time cutesy, it isn't part of their written policy and no guarantee they will do the same next time.  There are vacation insurance providers that have policies that cover these things.  You need to figure out which ones do especially if you are booking in the Southern east coast, gulf, Mexico, and Caribbean during times of extreme weather.  Timeshares aren't hotels and unfortunately they are use it or lose it and "acts of god" are usually listed as cause to lose your use without compensation of any kind.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 19, 2017)

GregT said:


> Well, here it is......straight from Director of Customer Advocacy....
> 
> "Good morning Mr. Tibbitts,
> 
> Thank you for your email.  Yes, it is true that any reservations coming within the 60 day window that are interrupted due to damage caused by Hurricane Irma will be cancelled by Owner Services.  The points tied to the reservation are returned as holding points and may be used for another booking in the same use year.  While I would love to reschedule everyone who has been impacted, we simply do not have enough inventory to move all of these reservations without it impacting ownership stays in 2018.  I am truly sorry for the disruption to your travel plans caused by Hurricane Irma."


You should point out that they have enough inventory to honor their Encore reservations at other damaged resorts, and that their competitors are being more reasonable with their owners. I think the only way to get MVC management to change their selfish decision making is for owners to pursue legal action regarding breach of inventory contract commitments. This would at least force them to provide details regarding how they allocated the limited inventory.


----------



## GregT (Oct 19, 2017)

This was my response:

"Ray, thank you for the response, and I must admit, that is a disappointing solution, as other timeshare systems have sought to accommodate their owners.

Can you tell me if this is the guidance?   From Exchange Procedures (attached)  Thank you

D. Cancellations and No-Shows.

1. *If a Member wishes to cancel or release a confirmed reservation of a Use Period*, and Exchange Company receives written cancellation (or other means of verifiable communication acceptable to Exchange Company) at least sixty-one (61) days prior to the first day of such confirmed Use Period, no cancellation fee will apply, and such cancellation will result in unrestricted restoration of the related Exchange Points to the Member for further use during that Use Year; provided, however, that in the case of an Advance Priority Reservation, Exchange Points required to obtain such Advance Priority Reservation over and above the number of Exchange Points that would be required to reserve the same Accommodations during the Priority 2 Period, Priority 3 Period, or Open Reservation Period will be restored to the Member’s Holding Account, subject to the restrictions on Holding Accounts as set forth in these Exchange Procedures.

2. *If Exchange Company receives written cancellation sixty (60) days or less prior to the first day of a confirmed Use Period, no cancellation fee will apply; however, such cancellation will result in assignment of the related Exchange Points to the Member’s Holding Account*, subject to the restrictions on Holding Accounts as set forth in these Exchange Procedures; provided, however, that in the case of an Advance Priority Reservation, Exchange Points required to obtain such Advance Priority Reservation over and above the number of Exchange Points that would be required to reserve the same Accommodations during the Priority 2 Period, Priority 3 Period, or Open Reservation Period will not be restored and will be forfeited by the Member."


----------



## bazzap (Oct 19, 2017)

GregT said:


> Well, here it is......straight from Director of Customer Advocacy....
> 
> "Good morning Mr. Tibbitts,
> 
> Thank you for your email.  Yes, it is true that any reservations coming within the 60 day window that are interrupted due to damage caused by Hurricane Irma will be cancelled by Owner Services.  The points tied to the reservation are returned as holding points and may be used for another booking in the same use year.  While I would love to reschedule everyone who has been impacted, we simply do not have enough inventory to move all of these reservations without it impacting ownership stays in 2018.  I am truly sorry for the disruption to your travel plans caused by Hurricane Irma."


Very disappointing for you (and others affected)
I do wonder what happens if there is no alternative inventory availability which you are able to use during the restricted holding points period.
It would certainly have been a major issue for us if our Caribbean weeks had been affected, with long haul flights being required from Europe for almost all other MVC resort options.
I really do believe the usage time restriction is unacceptable.


----------



## klpca (Oct 19, 2017)

Wasn't the whole point of the points program to provide flexibility for users - both individual and corporate? Couldn't these points be used for alternate usage, ie, non-weeks based usage such as the heavily promoted safaris?  Couldn't they allow you to save these points to use in a future period? This is so punitive. You have already paid the maintenance fees for these points! Sorry Greg. This sucks.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 19, 2017)

It will be interesting to see their reply. I haven't seen any 'term definition' regarding situations where MVC cancels the reservation.


----------



## GregT (Oct 19, 2017)

I'm not sure I expect a formal response, I think they will duck my query.  

His comment that they don't have sufficient inventory is amusing, considering that skimming creates inventory.  And if they extended the points for additional periods of time (like Westin did), then that would provide additional time for that inventory to be absorbed.    Truly, they just don't think it is a necessary accommodation and they dislike creating precedents.      

Best,

Greg


----------



## mjm1 (Oct 19, 2017)

Greg, sorry to hear their response and the negative impact on you and others. It’s too bad the points you used weren’t borrowed from 2018. If they were, they would be returned to 2018 for usage. Of course, based on the explanation, they would still be restricted.

If Kauai Lagoons or another desired resort is available through the Escapes program for a time frame that works for you, that could be an option. Probably unlikely for Thanksgiving though.

Best regards.

Mike


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 19, 2017)

GregT said:


> I'm not sure I expect a formal response, I think they will duck my query.
> 
> His comment that they don't have sufficient inventory is amusing, considering that skimming creates inventory.  And if they extended the points for additional periods of time (like Westin did), then that would provide additional time for that inventory to be absorbed.    Truly, they just don't think it is a necessary accommodation and they dislike creating precedents.
> 
> ...


They didn't have a problem creating precedents in HHI by moving people to different resorts.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 19, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> They didn't have a problem creating precedents in HHI by moving people to different resorts.


Nor did they have a problem finding space for an Encore package at Ocean Pointe with only 30% of villas available.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 19, 2017)

Superchief said:


> Nor did they have a problem finding space for an Encore package at Ocean Pointe with only 30% of villas available.



I think what we're seeing, sadly, is a by-product of the influence Wall Street has today on many publicly-held corporations like Marriott Vacations Worldwide. Sales of vacation ownership products represent the largest single revenue source for the company. Anything that disrupts that sales stream has a direct impact on revenue, earnings, and the expectations set by Wall Street analysts. MVW management knows that their stock price will get pummeled by a major revenue/earnings miss, so that knowledge probably causes them to want to do everything possible to preserve the sales flow, even if that means owners get displaced in favor of prime sales prospects. Since four institutional investors - Blackrock, Dimensional Fund Advisors, BAMCO, and Vanguard - collectively control 33.2% of the company, and the Marriott family controls another almost 17%, management can't afford to lose the support of these five stockholders/stockholder groups that own over half the company. While some companies choose to be more independent and not let Wall Street call all of the shots, it doesn't look like Marriott Vacations Worldwide is one of those companies.


----------



## Superchief (Oct 20, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I think what we're seeing, sadly, is a by-product of the influence Wall Street has today on many publicly-held corporations like Marriott Vacations Worldwide. Sales of vacation ownership products represent the largest single revenue source for the company. Anything that disrupts that sales stream has a direct impact on revenue, earnings, and the expectations set by Wall Street analysts. MVW management knows that their stock price will get pummeled by a major revenue/earnings miss, so that knowledge probably causes them to want to do everything possible to preserve the sales flow, even if that means owners get displaced in favor of prime sales prospects. Since four institutional investors - Blackrock, Dimensional Fund Advisors, BAMCO, and Vanguard - collectively control 33.2% of the company, and the Marriott family controls another almost 17%, management can't afford to lose the support of these five stockholders/stockholder groups that own over half the company. While some companies choose to be more independent and not let Wall Street call all of the shots, it doesn't look like Marriott Vacations Worldwide is one of those companies.


While this is true, I expect that a large proportion of potential new owners come from owner referrals. If MVC continues to anger its owners, there will be long term profit implications. I've provided MVC with several referrals over the years but will never do it again. The greatest problem with Wall Street is that management focuses only on short term profits at the expense of maintaining customer and employee loyalty. That is why several large companies have lost their leadership positions in the industry.


----------



## MALC9990 (Oct 20, 2017)

Whilst I am not directly affected by this issue. I am at present planning a DC (Enrolled) points reservation at a Caribbean resort for late 2018. I am now reconsidering that plan. It seems to me that the obvious reaction to this unacceptable action by MVC is for owners to avoid using DC points at Caribbean, Floridian and east cost MVC resorts at any time in the later half of the year. Indeed we might all want to consider not booking at these resorts at all. If I book a resort in the Caribbean for late 2018 now, the points are effectively gone. If the resort cancels due to a hurricane less than 60 days before my check in date, then I am totally stuffed.

I think I will bank all these points - giving me 2019 and 2020 to use them and look at an early spring reservation in the Caribbean instead.


----------



## MALC9990 (Oct 20, 2017)

Superchief said:


> While this is true, I expect that a large proportion of potential new owners come from owner referrals. If MVC continues to anger its owners, there will be long term profit implications. I've provided MVC with several referrals over the years but will never do it again. The greatest problem with Wall Street is that management focuses only on short term profits at the expense of maintaining customer and employee loyalty. That is why several large companies have lost their leadership positions in the industry.


I stopped doing referrals as soon as I found TUG and resales. Now I refer friends to resale not MVC


----------



## klpca (Oct 20, 2017)

MALC9990 said:


> Whilst I am not directly affected by this issue. I am at present planning a DC (Enrolled) points reservation at a Caribbean resort for late 2018. I am now reconsidering that plan. It seems to me that the obvious reaction to this unacceptable action by MVC is for owners to avoid using DC points at Caribbean, Floridian and east cost MVC resorts at any time in the later half of the year. Indeed we might all want to consider not booking at these resorts at all. If I book a resort in the Caribbean for late 2018 now, the points are effectively gone. If the resort cancels due to a hurricane less than 60 days before my check in date, then I am totally stuffed.
> 
> I think I will bank all these points - giving me 2019 and 2020 to use them and look at an early spring reservation in the Caribbean instead.


I cannot fault your logic here. The way Marriott has handled this has been poor compared to Vistana. Even the people who had their Interval exchanges cancelled received a replacement week.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 20, 2017)

It makes me wonder how Marriott Vacation Club is going to handle the next recession, when timeshares aren't selling. It is <very> cyclical business, after all.


----------



## GregT (Oct 20, 2017)

I received a very pleasant response reaffirming the policy, so the issue is confirmed and closed.   It really is a shoddy way to treat owners, but then again, so is skimming and junk fees on Trust Point resales.  So much for $2,000 in MFs....

Best,

Greg


----------



## windje2000 (Oct 20, 2017)

GregT said:


> I received a very pleasant response reaffirming the policy, so the issue is confirmed and closed.   It really is a shoddy way to treat owners, but then again, so is skimming and junk fees on Trust Point resales.  So much for $2,000 in MFs....
> 
> Best,
> 
> Greg



Greg, welcome to my world.  You are being treated no differently than weeks owners with lost reservations at storm damaged resorts.  Arguably you are being treated better; you got back some restricted points, which in your case may well have little or no utility.  I have nothing at all to show for 3 weeks of HHI maintenance fees.

Live and learn - people (like me) with hurricane season reservations in hurricane prone locations should buy insurance, although the 60 day rule in your case may have allowed the insuror to avoid paying your claim.

Wonder if the management at Vistana sees storm risk as equivalent to business interruption, something the organization insures against, at what would likely be hugely lower premiums than the individual TravlX policies.  Something MVC might want to think about.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 20, 2017)

This may be a good reason to try to used borrowed points for any reservations that fall after the banking deadline. Then bank any points from the current use year. At least if you use borrowed points, a cancellation would result in the points going back to their use year, albeit restricted. The way it is for Greg now is that he has the points back, restricted to a holding account, but they being 2017 points, they are only good till the 12/31/2017. If one were to use 2018 borrowed points, at least they would be good till 12/31/2018. Live and learn I suppose.


----------



## KarenP (Oct 20, 2017)

When Marriott and II canceled our Oct. 1-8 reservation at Ocean Pointe for two 2-bedroom units, I was initially given one replacement week that could only look out approximately 60 days.  Fortunately, I was able to eplus trade our 2 weeks to Orlando Harbor Lake, but only to two studios.  So I bought two Getaway studios so we'd still have four bedrooms.  Two days before our trip, two 2-bedroom units at Harbor Lake appeared in my account, so I had four studios and two 2-bedrooms for our trip.  I have filed an insurance claim for the airfare increase and the cost of the Getaways and should hear back soon.  Also, when I returned from our trip, the replacement week no longer had the 60 day restriction and I booked a Marriott Grand Chateau week in April!  I have no idea how all this happened, but thought I'd let others know what happened in my case.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 20, 2017)

GregT said:


> I received a very pleasant response reaffirming the policy, so the issue is confirmed and closed.   It really is a shoddy way to treat owners, but then again, so is skimming and junk fees on Trust Point resales.  So much for $2,000 in MFs....
> 
> Best,
> 
> Greg


Well....if nothing else, this provides a really nice response to use as to why we are not interested in more points as we collect our MR points and head out the door during our next sales presentation.  

"Sorry, Mr. MVC Salesperson, I cannot possibly use any more points because we like to use them in HHI, FL and the Caribbean and the way MVC handled MVC Mandated point ressie cancellations in the wake of the hurricane makes using points for my travels during that time of the year much too risky of a proposition, so I certainly don't need any more...thank you."

"Use the MVC Travel Insurance you say....sorry, that wouldn't work either for ressie's MVC cancels outside of 30 days of the weather event per the rules governing the policy that MVC endorses "


----------



## windje2000 (Oct 20, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> Well....if nothing else, this provides a really nice response to use as to why we are not interested in more points as we collect our MR points and head out the door during our next sales presentation.
> 
> "Sorry, Mr. MVC Salesperson, I cannot possibly use any more points because we like to use them in HHI, FL and the Caribbean and the way MVC handled MVC Mandated point ressie cancellations in the wake of the hurricane makes using points for my travels during that time of the year much too risky of a proposition, so I certainly don't need any more...thank you."
> 
> "Use the MVC Travel Insurance you say....sorry, that wouldn't work either for ressie's MVC cancels outside of 30 days of the weather event per the rules governing the policy that MVC endorses "



I agree.  I haven't been to a sales presentation since 2007.  Wasn't interested in buying; wasn't interested in wasting the time of a salesperson.  

That . . .  has now changed.


----------



## kds4 (Oct 20, 2017)

GregT said:


> I received a very pleasant response reaffirming the policy, so the issue is confirmed and closed.   It really is a shoddy way to treat owners, but then again, so is skimming and junk fees on Trust Point resales.  So much for $2,000 in MFs....
> 
> Best,
> 
> Greg



Well, if there is nothing you can personally use before 12/31, I would try for the best reservations available (perhaps a holiday period), and put them up for rent to try and recover as much of your MFs as possible.


----------



## Marathoner (Oct 20, 2017)

In his other post, @JIMinNC stated that his II exchange into HHI being cancelled meant that he is less likely to use II going forward.  After reading that thread and this one, I have decided that I will exchange into II more with my weeks and not elect to use points for my enrolled weeks.  There is zero chance that I will buy trust points (even resale) now that I have seen Marriott's customer policy in action.  When unusual circumstances occur, some people and companies rise to the occasion and engender more respect.  Sadly, others like MVC go the other way and lose people's respect.


----------



## GregT (Oct 20, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> Well....if nothing else, this provides a really nice response to use as to why we are not interested in more points as we collect our MR points and head out the door during our next sales presentation.
> 
> "Sorry, Mr. MVC Salesperson, I cannot possibly use any more points because we like to use them in HHI, FL and the Caribbean and the way MVC handled MVC Mandated point ressie cancellations in the wake of the hurricane makes using points for my travels during that time of the year much too risky of a proposition, so I certainly don't need any more...thank you."
> 
> "Use the MVC Travel Insurance you say....sorry, that wouldn't work either for ressie's MVC cancels outside of 30 days of the weather event per the rules governing the policy that MVC endorses "



I love this response.  I suggest we add it to the Sticky. “Possible responses to exit sales presentation”

Best.

Greg


----------



## Jeffrey (Oct 21, 2017)

While I do have empathy for the affected resorts, owners and reservations,  I do think it is correct that the points for the cancelled reservations are restricted in their usage.

What I definitely find incorrect is that any Introductory or Encore package reservations were upheld, transferred, honored or prioritized over owner reservations.  These should have been the first reservations to have been cancelled on short notice !
Unfortunately this reflects the corporate greed these days.  If the „hit“ could have been mitigated in any way, it should have been a corporate hit and not that of a loyal customer.  The corporate impact on profits is diluted and marginal in comparison to the monetary implications on the individual families when considering vacation budgets in relation to annual income. Today we are more focused on profits, reporting successes and keeping the shareholders happy.

Objectively, if I make a reservation in an area prone to hurricanes and then also during the hurricane season, I would personally have to take the responsibility and risk for this decision.  Either I accept to carry this risk myself or take out an insurance to cover this risk.

As stated above, I do think it is correct that the points are limited in their usage....at least they still have their points.
Imagine that all of these cancelled points are unrestricted and flooded into the years 2018 / 2019 / 2020....  Yes, there would definitely be a major ripple with banked points and ALL OWNERS would then be impacted for the next couple of years and have to take the hit with even more limitations with regards to availability and utilization of their points.  I do not think this is fair for those not directly impacted.
If the risks were covered, no owners would have to take the hit.  Why should others be impacted if I decide to not cover the risks of my decisions?

One might argue that those that have bought directly into the diluted points system are carrying a heavier collective or community burden that the deeded weeks owner... still unfair.

In any case, I hope all impacted individuals find a solution going forward and I would wish that Corporate would step up and take the high road !


----------



## bizaro86 (Oct 21, 2017)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems like the entity that would be least affected by absorbing the lost points inventory would be MVC via the skim.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 21, 2017)

Marathoner said:


> In his other post, @JIMinNC stated that his II exchange into HHI being cancelled meant that he is less likely to use II going forward.  After reading that thread and this one, I have decided that I will exchange into II more with my weeks and not elect to use points for my enrolled weeks.  There is zero chance that I will buy trust points (even resale) now that I have seen Marriott's customer policy in action.  When unusual circumstances occur, some people and companies rise to the occasion and engender more respect.  Sadly, others like MVC go the other way and lose people's respect.



After reading GregT's experience, I might have to modify my perspective that I expressed after our HHI situation. I'm still not a big fan of trading for many other reasons, but we certainly got more accommodation from II than GregT got from MVC.

And by the way, we just received a confirmation overnight that our replacement week we received from II after the HHI cancellation had matched for a 2BR at Marriott's Desert Springs Villas I for next November. Thanks to Mark DelCampo and II, we came out reasonably OK.


----------



## GregT (Oct 21, 2017)

Marriott's argument that they don't have the inventory is suspect.    Because of the skim, there will always be more inventory available than points needed to book the same inventory.  Marriott even skims themselves when they contribute points to the Trust.

So, a week that requires 4,000 points to book, there are only ~3,700 Elected Points issued to book it.  If that owner bought 2,000 Trust Points, well, there were 2,200 points allocated to the week in the Trust that supports those underlying Trust Points.   So there are "partial weeks" available everytime someone decides to book a reservation with points.

Which means there is more inventory then there are points, a lot more inventory.  How many enrolled weeks are there?  400,000? If every week were redeemed for points (which they aren't), that would mean there would be ~28,000 excess weeks every year available from skimming alone (we estimated an average skim of 7% -- personally, my Maui Ocean 3BR prime June weeks are skimmed 13%).

Marriott took the easy road and is enforcing their interpretation of the Exchange Procedures, that they can cancel my reservation and have no obligation.

I suspect they decided because a Week owner lost their week, and there is no way to compensate that week owner (because there isn't an excess of weeks), then point owners should not get special treatment, or the week owners would object.  As others have pointed out, at least I have restricted points.

It sure would be nice to be talking about owner-friendly actions by Marriott.   But today, I love my HGVC and Starwood point systems!!! 

Best,

Greg


----------



## Bunk (Oct 21, 2017)

This issue is not unique to Marriott and is not limited to points.  The question is what are the rights and obligations of the Unit Owner and the HOA that manages the timeshare when the units are not available.  This could arise from a problem affecting a small number of units (e.g., a fire in one building) or an act of God, such as a hurricane, that affects a lot of units.

In order to decide what is appropriate and/or equitable, it might be helpful to look at the following issues.

What authority does the HOA have to extend the time to use the expiring weeks/points?  In other words, let’s say your right to use the week/points expires on December 31, 2017.  Do the by-laws or governing documents give the HOA the right to extend them for cause?  (Otherwise, they might have to amend them to permit this to happen). 

Assuming that the HOA has the right to extend the time of usage, is it equitable to do so?  That issue depends on a number of facts, including:

(i)            How many owners have had their reservations cancelled;

(ii)          Do we extend the expiration date of usage for owners that haven’t yet made a reservation, but are now also impacted because the supply of available units has been curtailed;

(iii)          Do we consider the failure of the owners to obtain travel insurance, especially for travel during hurricane season (recognizing that in MVC’s case, it induced owners to buy travel insurance that might not cover this loss);

(iv)          How much money will the sponsor lose because its opportunity to sell the product to “outside” visitors (such as those who are exchanging into the system through Interval or Encore package visitors) has been curtailed?  (In other words, is the sponsor more likely to sell to people other than those who have already bought into the particular timeshare

(v)          Is there a reason to treat point owners differently than weeks owners; and

(vi)          How much inventory is affected, and if the right to book is extended to another usage period, how will that affect the rights of those who have the right to book for that future usage period when they now have to compete with more people for space?  I don’t consider this to be a trivial issue.  In MVC’s case, I would like to know how many weeks/points Marriott would have to extend, and over what period of time would they be extended.  I recognize that it might not be fair to extend the Irma and Maria victims terms into 2019 if that means that the owners of the right to book in 2019 will find their choices significantly curtailed.  I would like to think the MVC system is big enough to absorb these excess points/weeks, but I am not sure that is the case.  We also own in Tradewinds, which is a points system where owners buy points for catamaran usage that expire within a specific number of years.  (I think it’s 12 years). Tradewinds has suffered a lot of damage as a result of the hurricanes.  Some boats sustained serious damages, some cruises were cancelled and two bases were destroyed and have to be moved/rebuilt.  In addition, some members are having major problems booking flights to the affected areas at reasonable prices.  In our case, we have a lot of points that expire on December 31, 2018.   It would be great if Tradewinds extended us for an extra year or to.  But that might not be fair to the owners whose points expire on December 31, 2019, when they now have to compete with more people to book trips within a short period.  And it might not be fair to Tradewinds, whose business model includes booking new-timers through RCI, thus acquiring the opportunity to induce them to join the system.  I know that Marriott has a lot more inventory than Tradewinds, and is able to better absorb the rolled over points, but suggest that this issue still has to be addressed.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 21, 2017)

Why is this an issue now? DC has been around since 2010. Why wasn't the terms and conditions of a Act Of God thought out and put in the governing docs?

And yes, there is slack in the system. There has to be, or else MVC couldn't be selling points. AFAIK, over selling is not permitted in the governing docs.

Follow the money. . .


----------



## Superchief (Oct 21, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> After reading GregT's experience, I might have to modify my perspective that I expressed after our HHI situation. I'm still not a big fan of trading for many other reasons, but we certainly got more accommodation from II than GregT got from MVC.
> 
> And by the way, we just received a confirmation overnight that our replacement week we received from II after the HHI cancellation had matched for a 2BR at Marriott's Desert Springs Villas I for next November. Thanks to Mark DelCampo and II, we came out reasonably OK.


Also thanks to Mark, I was just confirmed into Mountainside next Labor Day week for my extended deposit. MVC did nothing and the only way I was able to get useful information about the status of Ocean Pointe was by calling the GM, since I am an owner at the resort. From what I've read on the OP owners site, even their employees are very frustrated with actions by MVC corporate. I am saving my emails from my exchanges with MVC customer care to be used as an example for future case studies regarding how not to treat your most loyal customers (who are actually owners of the assets that fund your salaries).


----------



## kds4 (Oct 21, 2017)

GregT said:


> Marriott's argument that they don't have the inventory is suspect.    Because of the skim, there will always be more inventory available than points needed to book the same inventory.  Marriott even skims themselves when they contribute points to the Trust.
> 
> So, a week that requires 4,000 points to book, there are only ~3,700 Elected Points issued to book it.  If that owner bought 2,000 Trust Points, well, there were 2,200 points allocated to the week in the Trust that supports those underlying Trust Points.   So there are "partial weeks" available everytime someone decides to book a reservation with points.
> 
> ...



I agree. Over the 27 years that I have been a Marriott Hotels/Timeshare customer and owner, I've spent most of my travel related discussions talking to others about all of the things Marriott does right from a business model perspective, consistently high product quality, as well as their commitment to customer care and respect for customer loyalty. Unfortunately, on that last topic I haven't had much to speak of lately. I sure hope that changes.


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 21, 2017)

I have owned Marriott timeshares since 1987.  In those 30 years, I thought the worst period ever for customer service was the 3-4 years immediately preceding the introduction of the Destinations Club.  Then it improved greatly (sales presentations of the now fungible points product aside), but it now looks like it is regressing again.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 21, 2017)

kds4 said:


> I agree. Over the 27 years that I have been a Marriott Hotels/Timeshare customer and owner, I've spent most of my travel related discussions talking to others about all of the things Marriott does right from a business model perspective, consistently high product quality, as well as their commitment to customer care and respect for customer loyalty. Unfortunately, on that last topic I haven't had much to speak of lately. I sure hope that changes.


Like you, I travelled extensively for work and would choose Marriott over any other brands.  We also bought more points/week recently.  If this saga had happened prior to our buying more, we would most certainly had not.


----------



## Bunk (Oct 21, 2017)

GregT said:


> Marriott's argument that they don't have the inventory is suspect. Because of the skim, there will always be more inventory available than points needed to book the same inventory. Marriott even skims themselves when they contribute points to the Trust.
> 
> So, a week that requires 4,000 points to book, there are only ~3,700 Elected Points issued to book it. If that owner bought 2,000 Trust Points, well, there were 2,200 points allocated to the week in the Trust that supports those underlying Trust Points. So there are "partial weeks" available everytime someone decides to book a reservation with points.




Sorry but I'm having a problem understanding this.  I own a week at Grande Vista that generates 2,775 trust points when I deposit that week.  I don't know if the room is deposited with the Grande Vista HOA or the Marriott Vacation Club but I am aware that once I deposit that week, it will cost more than 2,775 trust points to rent it for the week, and that we refer to that difference as a skim.

But why does it mean there will always be available space when someone books with destination club points


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 21, 2017)

Bunk said:


> Sorry but I'm having a problem understanding this.  I own a week at Grande Vista that generates 2,775 trust points when I deposit that week.  I don't know if the room is deposited with the Grande Vista HOA or the Marriott Vacation Club but I am aware that once I deposit that week, it will cost more than 2,775 trust points to rent it for the week, and that we refer to that difference as a skim.
> 
> But why does it mean there will always be available space when someone books with destination club points


For simple math...lets assume the skim is 10%.  So if you elect your week for 900 points, on average, it would take 1000 points to book your same week.  Taking that one step further, if 10 identical owners elected weeks for points and those points were totaled together, there would only be enough points to book 9 weeks at the same resort/villa size/view that the 10 owners gave up.  Thus, there remains 1 extra week available to be used by somebody, be that MVC renting it for cash, another DC points owner or enrolled owner using it, etc.


----------



## kds4 (Oct 21, 2017)

Let's say it would cost you 3,000 points to book yourself back into the resort you converted your week to get 2,775 DC points. That 225 point skim adds up as multiple owners do what you did. If you put all of those skimmed points together across the system they equal x number of 'weeks' at whatever point value a given resort has its' units valued as. This is the hidden 'skim' inventory (over and above all of the weeks/points that Marriott actually owns) that Greg is referring to. Even when we get to the day that Marriott has 'sold' everything it owns to someone, it will always have some inventory off of the skim generated annually by weeks converted to DC points.

I just had an interesting thought. Does Marriott's 'skim' inventory abide by the same usage year rules that every other owner's portfolio does (meaning does it zero out annually, or are they potentially banking it up to 2 years like Chairman's Level owners can, or are they writing their own set of rules and stockpiling their skimmed points indefinitely)? I doubt they are burning through their entire skim inventory each year, unless they are using it before owned inventory. However, that would seem very difficult to do effectively since people continue to convert to points throughout the year... Hmm. 

Oh, to pull back the curtain for a look at the wizard ...


----------



## Bunk (Oct 21, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> For simple math...lets assume the skim is 10%.  So if you elect your week for 900 points, on average, it would take 1000 points to book your same week.  Taking that one step further, if 10 identical owners elected weeks for points and those points were totaled together, there would only be enough points to book 9 weeks at the same resort/villa size/view that the 10 owners gave up.  Thus, there remains 1 extra week available to be used by somebody, be that MVC renting it for cash, another DC points owner or enrolled owner using it, etc.




Got it.  Thanks

So the "profit" generated by the skim only applies to weeks that are deposited by the Week owners.  

This may not involve a significant number of transactions, but wouldn't the profit made by the skim be reduced when the elite owners (Presidential, Chairman,etc.) buy at a reduced rate within 30 or 60 days of the reservation.


----------



## kds4 (Oct 21, 2017)

Bunk said:


> Got it.  Thanks
> 
> So the "profit" generated by the skim only applies to weeks that are deposited by the Week owners.
> 
> This may not involve a significant number of transactions, but wouldn't the profit made by the skim be reduced when the elite owners (Presidential, Chairman,etc.) buy at a reduced rate within 30 or 60 days of the reservation.



Good point. It would certainly provide some level of offset depending on the amount of these 'last minute' reservations (like the one I made today that gave me a 180 point discount on a 2 night stay).


----------



## jimf41 (Oct 21, 2017)

Fasttr said:


> For simple math...lets assume the skim is 10%.  So if you elect your week for 900 points, on average, it would take 1000 points to book your same week.  Taking that one step further, if 10 identical owners elected weeks for points and those points were totaled together, there would only be enough points to book 9 weeks at the same resort/villa size/view that the 10 owners gave up.  Thus, there remains 1 extra week available to be used by somebody, be that MVC renting it for cash, another DC points owner or enrolled owner using it, etc.



Or MVC could lose that week to breakage. Or the 10 folks that turned in their weeks could actually book 11 or 12 weeks if they used the point system to their advantage. When you look at skim you have to remember it's a double edged sword. MVC's side is a little sharper but it does still cut nicely both ways. I think the moderators created a separate thread for skim years ago that finally killed the debate. I'm surprised it's surfacing again.


----------



## GregT (Oct 21, 2017)

All,

Sorry, I wasn't trying to rehash skimming (which I still think stinks), but simply to point out that I don't think the argument about inventory being the problem has merit.

I do have a further update however, on Ritz Carlton St. Thomas, which is the property of interest.   I know a direct owner of Ritz STT (not Trust Points) -- they have an interval that gives them two weeks in Winter and one week in Summer (most intervals have this).

Well, apparently, they've been getting periodic updates from the GM and the property is in pretty bad shape. Structurally intact, but water damage everywhere and still infrastructure problems (electricity, HVAC, etc).   They don't expect the hotel to open until October 2018 at the earliest, and are now quoting March 2, 2018 for the timeshare side, but very possibly slipping to April 2018.

What's interesting to me is that the first of the updates came after Irma but before the second hurricane (can't remember the name) and the primary property damage was already severe.   The second hurricane wasn't the cause of the substantial problems (but didn't help either, naturally).   Even if I'd gotten the communication when sent (outside the 60 day window)  I doubt I would have canceled the reservation, so no harm done -- only point is that there is much more information flow going to pure owners than to the DC owners.

Each missive also talks about recognizing the tremendous loss of value of the applicable weeks -- Ritz owners are basically looking at an entire lost season of weeks, and a Special Assessment to boot.  I bet those people are a whole lot more concerned then I am, since they losing two (or three) weeks with MFs at $5K - $6K/week.

So my concern is now switching from my previously-narrow-view on loss of my points, and much more broadly on a concern for the property itself (and its financial health if its owners revolt).  It is truly a stunning property and an amazing addition to DClub.    I hope it gets restored to its former glory and so sorry to report this.

Best,

Greg


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 21, 2017)

jimf41 said:


> Or MVC could lose that week to breakage. Or the 10 folks that turned in their weeks could actually book 11 or 12 weeks if they used the point system to their advantage. When you look at skim you have to remember it's a double edged sword. MVC's side is a little sharper but it does still cut nicely both ways. I think the moderators created a separate thread for skim years ago that finally killed the debate. I'm surprised it's surfacing again.


The skim is across the board though. I don't think this was ever or will ever be settled. While one person could use all their points to book 10 weeks. Those 10 owners still couldn't book that single week. That is where the skim automatically takes 10% cut accross the board.


----------



## GregT (Oct 23, 2017)

Okay, some good news!   I took the holding points and booked time for Dad at Newport Coast Villas in November, so he gets a little R&R!!!    At least something positive will come from the restricted points!

Best,

Greg


----------



## mjm1 (Oct 23, 2017)

Greg, I’m glad to hear that you were able to use the restricted points and get a reservation at a resort that works for you. We love NCV too. Have a nice time.

Best regards.

Mike


----------



## taffy19 (Oct 23, 2017)

I agree with Mike and I hope that your Dad lives close by so doesn't even have to rent a car.  It is a nice timeshare resort on a hill overlooking the ocean and the weather can still be mild in November.  We are so fortunate here in Southern California.

I hope that Marriott will check their insurance policy rules out and update them or let people know about the limitations that came to light with this last hurricane.


----------



## heathpack (Oct 23, 2017)

Wow, just read this whole thread.

Disappointing to hear the way Marriott handled this mess.


----------



## Quilter (Oct 24, 2017)

taffy19 said:


> I agree with Mike and I hope that your Dad lives close by so doesn't even have to rent a car.  It is a nice timeshare resort on a hill overlooking the ocean and the weather can still be mild in November.  We are so fortunate here in Southern California.
> 
> *I hope that Marriott will check their insurance policy rules out and update them or let people know about the limitations that came to light with this last hurricane.*



I've been through this thread, though I have to admit I skimmed some of the posts.   So sorry Greg that you took a hit on your points.   I thought the discussion that it was Marriott who cancelled the reservation and not you was a good argument.  I still do.

I have wondered if you had the insurance through Marriott.   If that was mentioned I missed it.

I also missed the limitations about the insurance that came up in this thread.   Can someone lead me to the posts or give me a the Cliff note version?   

We have reservations on HHI at the end of December.   Nothing near the expense Greg and others had on St. Thomas.  4 days are reserved with DC points, another week is through II.   I have the insurance through Marriott but did not get the insurance (yet) through II.   December is out of the hurricane season but now we know that hurricane damage can affect reservations for months after.  I'm watching the weather.   If a storm comes up that has the possibility of coming close to HHI I'm planning to call to get the insurance before it makes landfall.


----------



## taffy19 (Oct 24, 2017)

Here is one thread about insurance coverage and post #11 is an eye opener.  There may be more threads too.

For the record, Encore Membership Packages cannot be insured through the Insurance Company that Marriott uses, I found out personally.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 24, 2017)

Quilter said:


> We have reservations on HHI at the end of December.   Nothing near the expense Greg and others had on St. Thomas.  4 days are reserved with DC points, another week is through II.   I have the insurance through Marriott but did not get the insurance (yet) through II.   December is out of the hurricane season but now we know that hurricane damage can affect reservations for months after.  I'm watching the weather.   If a storm comes up that has the possibility of coming close to HHI I'm planning to call to get the insurance before it makes landfall.



I don't think the insurance will cover a named storm after it has formed. Virtually all the policies exclude events that "can reasonably be foreseen" and once a storm forms, it can be reasonably foreseen that it might impact a coastal area. Everything I've read about insurance and storms says that you have to buy the insurance before the storm forms. I did some reading on that when Irma was heading toward the southeast and that's what everything I could find said - you have to buy insurance before the storm forms or it's not covered.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 24, 2017)

We stopped buying travel insurance this year when I realized that there are far too many exclusions.  We now rely on Chase Sapphire Reserve built in insurance for trips where we use this card plus annual membership with Medjet for emergency medical evacuation.


----------



## Quilter (Oct 25, 2017)

JIMinNC said:


> I don't think the insurance will cover a named storm after it has formed. Virtually all the policies exclude events that "can reasonably be foreseen" and once a storm forms, it can be reasonably foreseen that it might impact a coastal area. Everything I've read about insurance and storms says that you have to buy the insurance before the storm forms. I did some reading on that when Irma was heading toward the southeast and that's what everything I could find said - you have to buy insurance before the storm forms or it's not covered.




Thanks for this information.  

So with this description do you think Invest 93L has already reached a stage where it would be "formed"?


----------



## Quilter (Oct 25, 2017)

VacationForever said:


> We stopped buying travel insurance this year when I realized that there are far too many exclusions.  We now rely on Chase Sapphire Reserve built in insurance for trips where we use this card plus annual membership with Medjet for emergency medical evacuation.




We rely on he CSR insurance too.     

In the current case I don't have an exchange fee with II because it's a Marriott to Marriott exchange.  The cost of the week was only $250.  I don't even have the Marriott Visa card insurance to fall back on because I didn't pay for it with my card.  A friend bought the week and had it deposited into my II account.  I reimbursed him through PayPal.  It is one of the exchanges offered by Canyon Villas.  

By itself it's not a terrible loss.   However, the relocation for rooms between New Year's Eve and 1/7 would be expensive on top of the $250 loss.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 25, 2017)

Quilter said:


> Thanks for this information.
> 
> So with this description do you think Invest 93L has already reached a stage where it would be "formed"?



Who knows? The insurance company can designate whatever they want as being "reasonably foreseeable" as their justification for denying a claim. They just have to be able to justify that assertion. The policies themselves that I've seen don't specify "formation", they just use the "reasonably foreseeable" language. They can then lump whatever they think they can defend into that category of "reasonably foreseeable" events. The general consensus in the articles I read on the subject was that buying the policy after "formation" would likely be used by the companies as a reason for denying the claim, but "formation" was never defined. 

MY opinion is, something like "Invest 93L" may or may not ever become a real storm, so it would probably be hard for the insurance company to assert the "reasonably foreseeable" clause. But once the National Hurricane Center actually names a storm, that would probably be a more defensible definition of "formation." As I understand it, that is how property/casualty firms make their designation for property damage claims. Generally, at least in coastal areas, much higher deductibles for homeowners/property insurance apply to "named storms" than other types of weather damage. So, once a storm is named, if it damages your house, the higher deductibles apply. As I said, I have no idea if the travel insurance providers would use a similar yardstick, but I would think they would legally have to be able to defend any "reasonably foreseeable" claim.


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 25, 2017)

Quilter said:


> So with this description do you think Invest 93L has already reached a stage where it would be "formed"?


If you are buying the insurance because you think a specific storm is likely coming, I would suspect the insurance company might also reasonably take the same view and deny the claim.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 25, 2017)

Quilter said:


> I've been through this thread, though I have to admit I skimmed some of the posts.   So sorry Greg that you took a hit on your points.   I thought the discussion that it was Marriott who cancelled the reservation and not you was a good argument.  I still do.
> 
> I have wondered if you had the insurance through Marriott.   If that was mentioned I missed it.
> 
> ...


Shouldn't the insurance you already have through Marriott cover your II exchange? It does seem that it was confirmed using a Marriott week since you paid no fee. No need to buy insurance through II.


----------



## TXTortoise (Oct 25, 2017)

BocaBoy said:


> If you are buying the insurance because you think a specific storm is likely coming, I would suspect the insurance company might also reasonably take the same view and deny the claim.



Generally, a company will stop writing coverage in areas that are considered a target for weather related impacts. If they write the policy, you would have coverage. Another method is used for government flood insurance which has a pre-defined waiting period that is used to reduce such adverse risk selection.   All that said, property/auto/inland marine is different than travel, so contract governs.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 25, 2017)

TXTortoise said:


> Generally, a company will stop writing coverage in areas that are considered a target for weather related impacts. If they write the policy, you would have coverage. Another method is used for government flood insurance which has a pre-defined waiting period that is used to reduce such adverse risk selection.   All that said, property/auto/inland marine is different than travel, so contract governs.



I think BocaBoy was referring to travel insurance, which is as you say, different from property/auto, etc. You can often buy travel insurance at any time, but if they rule the claim was foreseeable, they can deny coverage.


----------



## jerseyfinn (Oct 27, 2017)

An informative & instructive  thread, especially if one separates speculation from reality. I too have been a critic of MVC at times, but I'm not so sure that Marriott or the insurance companies are the "robber barons" some claim they are in this specific situation.

Understandable how it might appear to be the case to a casual observer. But life within MVC became a bit more complicated for all of us when Marriott makes it's 2010 move to DC points. Like many things in life, it's all in the details. And most of us don't get acquainted with the details until we ourselves bump into a problem.

MVC multiplies its complexity when it juggles legacy week owners with the DC program & it's "bucket" system which defines & categorizes the ownership & thus usage protocol of all inventory scattered across the MVC product lines. Lots of parallel MVC universes going from Legacy weeks, enrolled legacy weeks to DC points, to corporate hotel Marriott (& soon SPG) as well as internal Marriott trades & II trades.

We all have so many different MVC "doors" from which we can walk in or out of. Quite understandable then that when an unanticipated event such as a hurricane disrupts the world, there are those of us who get caught up in travel disruptions.

MVC, like every corporation is a contingent thinker. That's where all of those oft ignored words in fine print come into practical play. Yes, under ordinary disruptive circumstance, a company like Marriott might be able to accommodate unanticipated changes. But in a wider event/situation, they're going to assiduously stand by the fine print without exception. I can't exactly blame Marriott for doing so. But it is indeed an unpleasant surprise when it happens to you.

I'm not being dismissive of the OP as what's there to say when a much anticipated trip is suddenly washed overboard? But I do suggest that those of us here who are actively ( or better to say aggressively) engaged in destination travel should place our expectations into context. The more you travel, the more you should anticipate that out of all of those great trips we enjoy coming in and out of MVC's various doors/portals/buckets, there may come a day when something goes awry.

Nothing wrong with trying to negotiate with MVC. But don't expect that every complaint can or should be addressed. That's where the fine print comes in. The stinger for the OP is being horse-collared with restricted DC points; but even that is covered in the fine print. No way to anticipate that one coming. So what's left to do?

Exactly what the OP ends up doing. They keep their same travel window, but pick a different destination with the points. A reason to be displeased? Sure! But not the end of the world in the wider context of the big picture which caused the problem.

Admittedly my POV is that of a retired healthcare worker ( we were also very contingent-focused folks in the OR ). So for me, I could more easily pick another destination within the restricted window as time is not a problem to us. I wouldn't be happy either, but you make the best of things. But I do understand the angst one might feel if you're employed & lack the flexibility to roll with those hard punches & must make a belated "second choice" decision.

My big question here is more about the need to look more closely at the travel insurance paradigm. As multiple week owners, we get the policy MVC offers us. What I'd like to know is does travel insurance cover a situation like the OP's which is a disruption to a specific destination that requires one to book a new destination and pay airline change fees for essentially the same (disrupted) booked period?

I can't take issue when an insurance company won't cover a last minute policy application on the eve of an approaching storm. Maybe I or others can try to gather more info about what is and isn't covered. I see that there's been mention of other travel insurance alternatives like that come with credit cards. We can't control hurricanes, but those of us who travel regularly might want to find insurance that helps defray costs if not the disappointment of a disrupted trip.

barry


----------



## Fairwinds (Oct 30, 2017)

Just saw this on Facebook

http://www.paradisebymarriott.com/updates/


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 30, 2017)

Fairwinds said:


> Just saw this on Facebook
> 
> http://www.paradisebymarriott.com/updates/



That's the same Marriott, Int'l page already being discussed in this thread:  Marriott website showing status of hotels/time shares damaged in Caribbean


----------



## Fairwinds (Oct 30, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> That's the same Marriott, Int'l page already being discussed in this thread:  Marriott website showing status of hotels/time shares damaged in Caribbean


Oops


----------



## JIMinNC (Mar 27, 2018)

I went back and found GregT's old thread on his experience with his points reservation being cancelled for St Thomas after last fall's hurricanes. He mentioned in his OP about how Vistana's response was superior to that of Marriott Vacations Worldwide. I happened to come across a post on the VSE forum just now that quoted a lengthy letter from the management/board of the Westin St John about their recovery efforts. In that, they mentioned what Vistana did to accommodate owners who were displaced by the storm:



> ALTERNATIVE VACATIONS
> 
> As you know from previous messages, Vistana is making special efforts to make sure that all owners receive alternative vacation options. *Vistana is making its rental inventory available to St. John owners to facilitate exchanges at other Vistana resorts.* Banking StarOptions from 2018 is free of charge, and the banked options will be valid for three years instead of the usual two years. You can also deposit your unit week with Interval International, but as usual, the exchange through Interval International depends on relinquishment by an owner at a resort to which you want to go.



I've bolded the important sentence above - Vistana took some of its own rental inventory and made that available to WSJ displaced owners. By contrast, Marriott Vacations Worldwide Customer Advocacy rep made it clear to me when I was complaining about our own cancelled reservation last fall, that "our rental inventory and owner inventory are two separate inventory buckets" and basically seemed to say/imply that MVW had made a management decision not to take inventory from the rental bucket to accommodate displaced owners. Greg was told last fall that there wasn't enough excess inventory in the system to accommodate the displaced owners without risking displacing future bookings from owners not impacted by the storms. Vistana's response would seem to show how that could have been done if MVW had been willing to take a hit on their rental income to accommodate owners like Greg. (My cancelled exchange last fall was an II exchange, so I acknowledge that even though we are owners, I had a lower priority claim against Marriott, and II ended up eventually making it right anyway. But Greg's situation was one where he was a MVC owner, and MVW's decisions still left him with limited-use, restricted holding points.) Vistana's approach would seem to say they truly decided to put owners ahead of their bottom line, in contrast to MVW.


----------



## turkel (Mar 28, 2018)

Ok we all agree it stinks when you lose a planned vacation through no fault of your own. But is it Marriott's fault either?

Marriott pushes buying insurance. I would be really bummed to lose a week I paid for but if I didn't choose to purchase the insurance the risk would be mine.

I bought a getaway from II to St. Marteen that was cancelled due to the hurricane. Had insurance offered by II, it was a hassle but the money was refunded. The refund came from the insurance company not II. If I hadn't obtained the insurance I would be out the money.

How is a Points reservation different?


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 28, 2018)

turkel said:


> Ok we all agree it stinks when you lose a planned vacation through no fault of your own. But is it Marriott's fault either?
> 
> Marriott pushes buying insurance. I would be really bummed to lose a week I paid for but if I didn't choose to purchase the insurance the risk would be mine.
> 
> ...



With many of the Hilton Head and Florida DC Points reservations that were canceled following hurricanes last year, it appears that Marriott took that inventory and gave it to Weeks Owners whose reservations at nearby affected properties had to be canceled.  Plus the insurance purchased through Marriott didn't cover the loss if the check-in date was X-number of days away from the storm and the cancelation notification wasn't immediate.

So, one, inhabitable inventory booked by DC Points Members was taken from them and given to Weeks Owners whose reservations at other local resorts were uninhabitable.  And two, insurance didn't cover in many cases because Marriott didn't announce reopening dates in the immediate aftermath of the storms.

I think that's how things happened - I'm sure those affected will be happy to correct me or give any more details.


----------



## VacationForever (Mar 28, 2018)

SueDonJ said:


> With many of the Hilton Head and Florida DC Points reservations that were canceled following hurricanes last year, it appears that Marriott took that inventory and gave it to Weeks Owners whose reservations at nearby affected properties had to be canceled.  Plus the insurance purchased through Marriott didn't cover the loss if the check-in date was X-number of days away from the storm and the cancelation notification wasn't immediate.
> 
> So, one, inhabitable inventory booked by DC Points Members was taken from them and given to Weeks Owners whose reservations at other local resorts were uninhabitable.  And two, insurance didn't cover in many cases because Marriott didn't announce reopening dates in the immediate aftermath of the storms.
> 
> I think that's how things happened - I'm sure those affected will be happy to correct me or give any more details.


From my memory, I don't think the inventory was given to weeks owners at other resorts that were affected by hurricane, but rather it was given to folks who booked using Encore packages.


----------



## JIMinNC (Mar 28, 2018)

SueDonJ said:


> With many of the Hilton Head and Florida DC Points reservations that were canceled following hurricanes last year, it appears that Marriott took that inventory and gave it to Weeks Owners whose reservations at nearby affected properties had to be canceled.  Plus the insurance purchased through Marriott didn't cover the loss if the check-in date was X-number of days away from the storm and the cancelation notification wasn't immediate.
> 
> So, one, inhabitable inventory booked by DC Points Members was taken from them and given to Weeks Owners whose reservations at other local resorts were uninhabitable.  And two, insurance didn't cover in many cases because Marriott didn't announce reopening dates in the immediate aftermath of the storms.
> 
> I think that's how things happened - I'm sure those affected will be happy to correct me or give any more details.



In the dust-up over this last fall, I don't recall any examples of points owners being displaced at the HHI resorts (not sure about FL, SuperChief should be able to address that). In HHI, it was II exchangers who got the boot, even exchangers who were Marriott owners. There were reliable anecdotal stories of Encore package rentals and other rentals being accommodated in these units vacated by the displaced II exchangers. Then, after all that was dying down, GregT posted this thread about his St Thomas points reservation being cancelled and only being offered holding points, under the theory that MVC could not extend the expiration date of his 2017 points without creating a demand-supply imbalance in the system in 2018.

My point in rejuvenating this topic was not to revisit the old "you should have bought insurance" argument advanced by turkel above, but to simply point out that another timeshare company, Vistana, found a way to make at least a partial accommodation for owners whose vacations were impacted by hurricanes Irma and Maria by using some of their rental inventory to allow them to keep the system in balance after extending the use dates of impacted StarOptions. By contrast, Marriott Vacation Club took a considerably less owner-friendly approach, and appeared to prioritize rental income over trying to accommodate owners. It would seem to me that Marriott could have easily accommodated extending the dates of the displaced points reservations in St Thomas, like GregT's, had they been willing to follow the Vistana model and devote a percentage of their system-wide 2018 rental inventory to absorb this extra demand.


----------



## turkel (Mar 28, 2018)

I think what Vistana did was awesome. But I still don't think it's fair to be upset with Marriott for their business decision not to follow suit. They are in business to make $$$ and have to answer to shareholders as well as timeshare owners.

The cost to Marriott would have been exponentially higher than the loss to each individual owner. Again I wouldn't have been happy with the loss of my valued vacation but the hurricanes happened, resorts closed, and repairs were needed. There were no winners here. 

I meant no offense and was not wagging my finger about having insurance, although it sounds like the insurance through Interval was superior to what Marriott offers. The getaway was for this coming June 30 th. The cost of the getaway was refunded 100% with 9 months notice of cancellation. Marriott should offer a better insurance product. In my humble opinion that is where Marriott could and should do better for their owners.

SueDonJ post is troubling, makes you wonder what per portion of guests were cancelled. Were any encore ressies cancelled or renters or were they all II exchangers and owners that were cancelled. How would anyone outside of Marriott know the answer?


----------



## Superchief (Mar 28, 2018)

I know for a fact based on owners posts on the ocean pointe owner website that some encore packages were being honored while II exchangers (and a few DC point reservations) were being cancelled. If check-in date was over 60 days after the hurricane, the insurance didn't cover it. 

I think it is obvious that MVC follows the philosophy of many corporations today: Wall Street and short term profits are much more important than keeping our current customers and owners satisfied. (I would expect that most executive managers at MVC don't plan to be there long term and are most concerned with meeting numbers this year to get bonuses or promotions, similar to executives at other corporations today.) Vistana appears to be taking the approach that keeping current owners/ customers happy will lead to long term profits. The Marriott family used this same philosophy which is why I was a loyal Marriott customer for over 40 years. However, Sorenson and current management has totally changed this approach and care less about loyalty, and MVC appears to be following the same path.


----------



## JIMinNC (Mar 28, 2018)

turkel said:


> I think what Vistana did was awesome. But I still don't think it's fair to be upset with Marriott for their business decision not to follow suit. They are in business to make $$$ and have to answer to shareholders as well as timeshare owners.
> 
> The cost to Marriott would have been exponentially higher than the loss to each individual owner. Again I wouldn't have been happy with the loss of my valued vacation but the hurricanes happened, resorts closed, and repairs were needed. There were no winners here.



All true of course, but my point was simply that Vistana/ILG is also in business to make $$$ and they have to answer to their shareholders as well. They clearly approached it in a very different, and seemingly more owner-centric, way than Marriott Vacation Club did.



turkel said:


> I meant no offense and was not wagging my finger about having insurance, although it sounds like the insurance through Interval was superior to what Marriott offers. The getaway was for this coming June 30 th. The cost of the getaway was refunded 100% with 9 months notice of cancellation. Marriott should offer a better insurance product. In my humble opinion that is where Marriott could and should do better for their owners.



Insurance for Getaways is more straightforward because it is essentially a cash outlay/rental. I do recall reading posts from some II exchangers who were impacted by the hurricanes who also stated that the II insurance would only reimburse for previously paid maintenance fees under certain very restrictive circumstances. Many of the travel insurance providers' products are designed to work well with traditional airfare/prepaid lodging expenses, but don't work as well for the timeshare model - even the policies sold on behalf of timeshare companies.



turkel said:


> SueDonJ post is troubling, makes you wonder what per portion of guests were cancelled. Were any encore ressies cancelled or renters or were they all II exchangers and owners that were cancelled. How would anyone outside of Marriott know the answer?



I think Sue is referring to the information that both Superchief and I shared last fall concerning our various conversations with management at our respective  resorts as well as additional direct conversations/emails with Marriott Vacation Club Customer Care/Advocacy. We obviously don't know total numbers or percentages, but what we do know is this:

In the storm aftermath, all II exchanges were cancelled into many/most impacted MVC resorts in Florida and SC, even after the resorts had partially reopened. Many resorts had some % of damaged units, so this was a logical way for MVC to allocate the inventory that was available. Even though we were directly impacted by this decision, I said at the time that in that situation, MVC was in a no win position, and if prioritization had to take place, it made sense that II exchangers were first to go to make room for owners.
Where many of us took issue however, were in some of the arbitrary decisions that were made over and above that base decision to prioritize II exchanges as last priority. All I can address directly is Grande Ocean where we had been scheduled to stay, but I was told on two separate occasions on the phone by GO staff, that only a handful of units were out of commission there, but ALL II exchanges were cancelled, "So our owners from other Hilton Head Island properties that are still closed can be accommodated." We also know from TUGgers who were staying at GO that week, that they were given the same information, and at least some of those accommodated guests were not just owners, but were cash rentals and Encore program cash rentals that had been relocated from Marriott Monarch and/or other HHI properties. These were from poolside conversations and other guest-to-guest interactions.
In later conversations with Marriott Customer Care/Advocacy, I was specifically told that they view "owner inventory" and "house inventory" as two separate buckets that are not intermixed. They can do whatever they want to with "house inventory" and rental guests were accommodated after the storm in the "house inventory" because that is a separate bucket that owners have no access to.
Clearly, Vistana made the decision to use some of their house inventory to help soften the blow for their owners. MVC apparently did not. Again, not trying to open old wounds/issues, but the information that I saw on the Vistana board did highlight that there was a different way to handle the difficult situation last fall than the one chosen by MVC.


----------



## JIMinNC (Mar 28, 2018)

I should add to what I wrote just above, that the situation we were faced with right after the storm and right after the HHI resorts re-opened is somewhat different than the situation faced by GregT and the situation faced by the Westin St. John owners. Our situation was literally the weekend the resort re-opened and the decision Marriott faced was actually *which reservations to cancel that week*. Which customers did they want to inconvenience/anger? That is obviously a more difficult decision to make since the decision had to be made immediately and someone had to be disappointed/angered/inconvenienced. I think as an owner, we would have preferred MVC to prioritize owners, or even owners who were exchanging, ahead of cash guests, but it was a difficult decision and was truly a no-win for Marriott. Someone was inevitably going to have a vacation cancelled.

But the reason I chose this thread as the one to re-open this discussion was because GregT's situation was more directly comparable to the situation faced by Vistana at Westin St. John than my situation last fall at Grande Ocean. Greg was told by Marriott Customer Care that the reason they could not extend DC points from the cancelled reservation into 2018 was because that would upset the supply-demand balance for 2018 by injecting those 2017 points into the competition for 2018 bookings. In Greg's situation, had MVC chosen the same path as Vistana, MVC could have just reallocated a portion of their unbooked 2018 "house inventory" to DC points owners to correct for any supply shortages caused by allowing expiring 2017 points to be extended. NO existing cash bookings would have had to have been cancelled, and no existing cash guests would have been inconvenienced. They would just have had a little less house inventory available for cash rentals in 2018, so rental revenue on their financial reports would have been negatively impacted. So, Greg's situation is actually more comparable to the topic at hand than the situation we faced in the immediate aftermath of the storm last fall.


----------



## Dean (Mar 29, 2018)

turkel said:


> I think what Vistana did was awesome. But I still don't think it's fair to be upset with Marriott for their business decision not to follow suit. They are in business to make $$$ and have to answer to shareholders as well as timeshare owners.
> 
> The cost to Marriott would have been exponentially higher than the loss to each individual owner. Again I wouldn't have been happy with the loss of my valued vacation but the hurricanes happened, resorts closed, and repairs were needed. There were no winners here.
> 
> ...


As I wrote on previous versions of this discussion, I agree with you in principle.  It was a difficult time and Marriott made difficult decisions.  From what I know they didn't do anything they didn't have the right or authority to do but some disagree on both counts, esp the latter.  They decided to prioritize HHI as a group and honor reservations and encore packages excluding exchanges including Marriott exchanges across the resorts.  This meant they canceled II reservation at say Grande Ocean and moved another reservation from say Monarch to GO.  But technically the risk is ours with II and to a degree, directly with MVC as well.  I'm OK with with their decisions but I feel doing so resort by resort would have been the better and simpler course.


----------



## Superchief (Mar 29, 2018)

JIMinNC said:


> All true of course, but my point was simply that Vistana/ILG is also in business to make $$$ and they have to answer to their shareholders as well. They clearly approached it in a very different, and seemingly more owner-centric, way than Marriott Vacation Club did.
> 
> Clearly, Vistana made the decision to use some of their house inventory to help soften the blow for their owners. MVC apparently did not. Again, not trying to open old wounds/issues, but the information that I saw on the Vistana board did highlight that there was a different way to handle the difficult situation last fall than the one chosen by MVC.


I have been working mostly for large corporations for the past 45 years. When I started, most companies focused on long term growth. Therefore, they used the operating philosophy that developing loyal customers would result in long-term profits and growth. These companies were consistently successful year after year. 

This later changed to Wall Street and quarterly earnings focus. Corporate decisions were based on enhancing margins and annual bonuses. Since most managers weren't planning to work longer term with the company, they could care less about longer term impact. As a result, most major corporations either merged or restructured every few years because of major downturns due to lost customer loyalty. I still believe that companies should return to caring about the customers. If you offer customers a superior product and can manage costs to produce the product, the company will be successful. The stock market is really more impacted by daily 'news' and programmed trading than by the actual quarterly performance of companies.


----------



## Fasttr (Mar 29, 2018)

Superchief said:


> The stock market is really more impacted by daily 'news' and programmed trading than by the actual quarterly performance of companies.


Just look at Amazon stock price drop yesterday as a perfect example of your daily news theory.


----------



## JIMinNC (Mar 29, 2018)

Dean said:


> As I wrote on previous versions of this discussion, I agree with you in principle.  It was a difficult time and Marriott made difficult decisions.  From what I know they didn't do anything they didn't have the right or authority to do but some disagree on both counts, esp the latter.  They decided to prioritize HHI as a group and honor reservations and encore packages excluding exchanges including Marriott exchanges across the resorts.  This meant they canceled II reservation at say Grande Ocean and moved another reservation from say Monarch to GO.  But technically the risk is ours with II and to a degree, directly with MVC as well.  I'm OK with with their decisions but I feel doing so resort by resort would have been the better and simpler course.



Dean, I think we've digressed a bit and are re-litigating what happened in Hilton Head last fall, and as I said in post #87 just above, my HHI situation is not all that relevant to the discussion at hand here. I brought it up only because my discussions with Marriott after that happened helped me understand a bit better how they view their inventory buckets - "owner" versus "house" - and that is what is more relevant to the topic at hand here. The HHI situation was an immediate response to a temporary loss of inventory where MVC had to decide which guests got booted - that's a tough, awkward situation, and very different than the situation faced by Vistana at Westin St. John where they are dealing with a long-term loss of an entire resort. MVC's decision to honor rentals in their house inventory in Hilton Head, while canceling other reservations, may provide a window into their priorities in managing their inventory buckets, but it is still a very different situation than the longer term issue faced by both Vistana and MVC in St Thomas.

The situation that should be of focus here is from the OP in this thread - GregT. That is the most relevant situation to compare and contrast MVC's response with Vistana's. In Greg's situation with his Ritz STT reservation, Marriott had no choice but to cancel all reservations just as Vistana had no choice but to cancel all of theirs on St. John. The issue I was trying to highlight was simply that Vistana apparently chose re-allocating some of their 2018 house inventory to their StarOptions owners, thus allowing them to extend the usage dates for 2017 StarOptions impacted by the hurricane damage. By contrast MVC seems to have chosen to retain the "firewall" between their inventory buckets based on their unwillingness to extend the usage date for Destination Club points like Greg's that were freed up by cancelled St Thomas reservations. While I agree with Dean and turkel that MVC had no obligation to do what Vistana did, I think it serves to highlight two different ways to handle the situation - Vistana's more owner-focused approach versus MVC's approach, which I can only conclude was driven by a desire not to negatively impact future rental revenue streams. Vistana appears to have put their StarOptions owners ahead of maximizing 2018 earnings, whereas Marriott Vacations Worldwide did not give their Destination Point owners the same level of consideration.


----------



## Dean (Mar 29, 2018)

Jim, that wasn't my intent.  My intent was to agree with Turkel in general terms and offer a background of where I stand as it applied to a real world situation.


----------



## JIMinNC (Mar 29, 2018)

Dean said:


> Jim, that wasn't my intent.  My intent was to agree with Turkel in general terms and offer a background of where I stand as it applied to a real world situation.



Yep. I understand totally. I was simply trying to re-focus the conversation a bit back onto GregT's situation, since that one is more an apples-to-apples comparison to the situation Vistana's approach addressed, rather than the HHI situation that was being discussed at some length.


----------

