# Terrible "oceanfront" at MOC



## bobmcgraw (Mar 29, 2014)

Hi Tuggers,

We own at the MOC (both original and sequel).  We were at MOC at the end of February and beginning of March and were assigned Unit 3110 (oceanfront) in the Lanai Tower.  When they called us in advance and asked for preferences, I gave them units in the Molokai Tower.  

The view was HORRIBLE.  I have attached a picture.  This unit is exactly at palm tree level.

My question is...is there anything that we, as owners, can to about this?  I know that the view category cannot be changed as it has been legally sold as an oceanfront unit.  And it is oceanfront but implied with that category is a good oceanfront VIEW, which this unit does not have.

While the view category cannot be changed, the resort could (GASP) cut down some of the palm trees.

Do any of you have any thoughts about what, if anything, can be done and who to contact about this?

I am glad that I am a unit owner.  With the price of DC points, if I had paid for points and then got this unit, I would be really pissed.  As it was, I was not happy but nobody at the resort could/would do anything about it.

Any thoughts?

And BTW - avoid this unit at all costs.  If it weren't for the owners lounge a couple floors below, I would have been even more displeased.


----------



## Mister Sir (Mar 29, 2014)

http://www.protoolindustries.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/021.jpg


----------



## bobmcgraw (Mar 29, 2014)

Thanks!  That gave me a chuckle!!


----------



## pedro47 (Mar 29, 2014)

I can feel your disappointment.


----------



## Wally3433 (Mar 29, 2014)

Are the units below you considered Garden or Oceanfront as well?  I ask, because based on the picture, those palm trees have ALWAYS been in the way.


----------



## tschwa2 (Mar 29, 2014)

I would call that ocean view more than ocean front (not garden though).  Do they have a lottery system for the higher units or assign based on when the unit was reserved based on a time date stamp?  

If there are a few floors of semi duddy views (still looks very pretty to me) based on the way it was originally sold they really need to make sure that owners aren't assigned the sub par ones more than once every x years.  And as to DC and straight paid reservations in the OF category they need to keep a certain percentage of those as well because it isn't fair that the regular deeded owners are always the ones who have to take the hit.

Most ocean front resorts are not allowed to cut down the trees to make better views.


----------



## bobmcgraw (Mar 29, 2014)

tschwa2 said:


> I would call that ocean view more than ocean front (not garden though).  Do they have a lottery system for the higher units or assign based on when the unit was reserved based on a time date stamp?
> 
> If there are a few floors of semi duddy views (still looks very pretty to me) based on the way it was originally sold they really need to make sure that owners aren't assigned the sub par ones more than once every x years.  And as to DC and straight paid reservations in the OF category they need to keep a certain percentage of those as well because it isn't fair that the regular deeded owners are always the ones who have to take the hit.
> 
> Most ocean front resorts are not allowed to cut down the trees to make better views.



They do assign units based on when the reservation was made and mine was later than normal.  I have attached a picture that is pretty representative of what I have had in the past so this is my reference point.  The contrast between the two views is pretty stark.  Especially since this was whale season and we expected to be able to sit on the lanai and enjoy the whales.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 29, 2014)

Time stamp of the reservation doesn't seem to ever appear in the "pecking order" that is published my the resorts for priority placement. That seems to be a Starwood thing.


----------



## bobmcgraw (Mar 29, 2014)

Wally3433 said:


> Are the units below you considered Garden or Oceanfront as well?  I ask, because based on the picture, those palm trees have ALWAYS been in the way.



The units above and below are considered oceanfront, too.  Those palm trees may have always been there.  I do know they can install them already quite tall but at a minimum, I suspect the've been there since the property was switched to timeshare in 1999-2000 and maybe before.


----------



## bobmcgraw (Mar 29, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> Time stamp of the reservation doesn't seem to ever appear in the "pecking order" that is published my the resorts for priority placement. That seems to be a Starwood thing.



The date of when I made the reservation was the reason given by the front desk for not getting any of my requested units and why I got the yucky unit.


----------



## laurac260 (Mar 29, 2014)

I dunno, certainly better than the view from where I'm sitting….


----------



## BocaBoy (Mar 29, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> Time stamp of the reservation doesn't seem to ever appear in the "pecking order" that is published my the resorts for priority placement. That seems to be a Starwood thing.



Actually, at MOC the "pecking order" within a given category (e.g., owners staying on their deeded week) is consistently communicated as date of reservation being the sole criteria for room assignment preferences.


----------



## Aviator621 (Mar 30, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> Time stamp of the reservation doesn't seem to ever appear in the "pecking order" that is published my the resorts for priority placement. That seems to be a Starwood thing.



At our last stay in Ko Olina, the 'time stamp' was also given as a prioritization tool for requests within a category; i.e., owners had highest priority, but within the owners, date of reservations was used to sequence those requests.


----------



## taffy19 (Mar 30, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> Actually, at MOC the "pecking order" within a given category (e.g., owners staying on their deeded week) is consistently communicated as the sole criteria for room assignment preferences.


It is the same if you are staying with elected points at your own resort. Someone in Stephanie's department called us to find out what our choices were and she also said that we booked so late so we couldn't get the choices we asked for. 

She asked us if we preferred a higher floor further back or a lower floor more forward but still not close to the ocean because of our late booking of an ocean view condo. This department really has a very difficult job to make everyone happy and we feel that they try their very best.

I read already several times here that people were not happy with the oceanfront view they got while it took many points to get that view so we decided to get ocean view instead.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 30, 2014)

bobmcgraw said:


> The date of when I made the reservation was the reason given by the front desk for not getting any of my requested units and why I got the yucky unit.





BocaBoy said:


> Actually, at MOC the "pecking order" within a given category (e.g., owners staying on their deeded week) is consistently communicated as the sole criteria for room assignment preferences.





Aviator621 said:


> At our last stay in Ko Olina, the 'time stamp' was also given as a prioritization tool for requests within a category; i.e., owners had highest priority, but within the owners, date of reservations was used to sequence those requests.



We see written pecking orders at resorts and I have yet to see one where it indicates time stamp is among the criteria. I don't think we have seen a written pecking order for MOC or Ko'Olina. Now that isn't to say that time stamp isn't used as it seems that the resorts are telling guests this. Remember though that resorts will give just about any excuse to appease guests. If you had the same room and had called on day 1 to make your reservation, they would have given another excuse.

If they are now using time stamp, it seems to be rather new and a first for Marriott resorts.


----------



## Aviator621 (Mar 30, 2014)

iconnections said:


> This must be the most difficult job to make everyone happy. I read already several times on this forum that people were not happy with the oceanfront view they got while it took many points get an oceanfront view.



I have started to notice this is one of the unintended consequences of the Destination Points and the point tiers for various views. It used to be that you were just happy to get the trade and a nice view was a bonus. However, when an upgraded view requires an increased capital outlay, you have much higher expectations and threshold for satisfaction (I want what I paid for). You want some fun reading, check out the Tripadvisor one and two star reviews on Waiohai--almost every downgrade on ratings are from reviewers paying for what they thought were unobstructed ocean views, and getting the infamous 'across the parking lot and through trees' ocean view--not happy campers.

 I'm sure it also doesn't help that losing the traditional week structures to accommodate shorten stays gives less assignment flexibility on an given arrival day.  You used to be able to count on about a third of the rooms turning over on your check in days, now who knows; a lousy view may really be the best they could offer for that day.


----------



## Weimaraner (Mar 30, 2014)

That's a disappointing view. At Marriott Aruba Surf Club, they use to have trees on the beach obstructing the view so the lower floor units were considered "oceanside" view. Once the trees came down, they were renamed "oceanfront" like the higher floors. They should have done the same with your resort.


----------



## BocaBoy (Mar 30, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> We see written pecking orders at resorts and I have yet to see one where it indicates time stamp is among the criteria. I don't think we have seen a written pecking order for MOC or Ko'Olina. Now that isn't to say that time stamp isn't used as it seems that the resorts are telling guests this. Remember though that resorts will give just about any excuse to appease guests. If you had the same room and had called on day 1 to make your reservation, they would have given another excuse.
> 
> *If they are now using time stamp, it seems to be rather new and a first for Marriott resorts.*



Actually, at MOC using the time stamp is not new.  We have owned there for about eight or nine years and it has always been this way.  I have never seen a written "pecking order" for MOC but I have had many conversations with Stephanie Pharmer, the Guest Relations Manager who is in charge of making room assignments, about our room preferences over the years, including two face-to-face meetings in her office.  And I can attest to the fact that the only two times I have been a little disappointed was when we made our reservations later than normal.  She always starts by looking at when the reservation was booked and then uses that as a basis for the discussion.  She will say something like: "you booked very early so we should be able to get you pretty much what you want" or "this year you booked late so you won't get your top choice, but would you rather have a lower floor in Lahaina or in Napili?"  The worst oceanfront units in the new towers are the 01 stack in Napili, and the only year we booked very late (due to a cancellation it was available), we were assigned the second or third floor in that stack.  I can pretty accurately predict my satisfaction with the assignment by the date I make the reservation.  I actually like this system very much.  To me it seems fair and predictable.

I have heard a couple of times that Ko Olina also uses a time stamp criterion, but our villa preferences there are much less specific so I don't have the deep personal knowledge of their system like I do for MOC.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 30, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> Actually, at MOC using the time stamp is not new.  We have owned there for about eight or nine years and it has always been this way.  I have never seen a written "pecking order" for MOC but I have had many conversations with Stephanie Pharmer, the Guest Relations Manager who is in charge of making room assignments, about our room preferences over the years, including two face-to-face meetings in her office.  And I can attest to the fact that the only two times I have been a little disappointed was when we made our reservations later than normal.  She always starts by looking at when the reservation was booked and then uses that as a basis for the discussion.  She will say something like: "you booked very early so we should be able to get you pretty much what you want" or "this year you booked late so you won't get your top choice, but would you rather have a lower floor in Lahaina or in Napili?"  The worst oceanfront units in the new towers are the 01 stack in Napili, and the only year we booked very late (due to a cancellation it was available), we were assigned the second or third floor in that stack.  I can pretty accurately predict my satisfaction with the assignment by the date I make the reservation.  I actually like this system very much.  To me it seems fair and predictable.
> 
> I have heard a couple of times that Ko Olina also uses a time stamp criterion, but our villa preferences there are much less specific so I don't have the deep personal knowledge of their system like I do for MOC.



Interesting, first I have ever heard of this.


----------



## dougp26364 (Mar 30, 2014)

I don't think there is an actual "published" pecking order. There's on,y what TUGGERS have discovered through experience and asking various resort employees. It would not surprise me if time stamps have been used to differentiate views for owners/exchangers in the same pecking order category. 

We almost always book early and we've nearly always received a very nice unit location. I've often thought booking earl helped get the better location but never had the desire to ask to confirm it.


----------



## n777lt (Mar 30, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> We see written pecking orders at resorts and I have yet to see one where it indicates time stamp is among the criteria. I don't think we have seen a written pecking order for MOC or Ko'Olina. Now that isn't to say that time stamp isn't used as it seems that the resorts are telling guests this. Remember though that resorts will give just about any excuse to appease guests. If you had the same room and had called on day 1 to make your reservation, they would have given another excuse.
> 
> If they are now using time stamp, it seems to be rather new and a first for Marriott resorts.



Just a +1 to Boca Boy's comments just above, including our face-to-face meets with Stephanie, and my experience that her group appears to be consistent and more transparent than many MVCI properties (and give the impression of taking time with you to answer your questions, even if they can't satisfy a request).  We have also been told that regardless of time stamp, a Sunday check-in may have more trouble getting the most desirable rooms, because they will have gone to Friday and Saturday check-ins.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 30, 2014)

DC point definitely brings in additional challenges. When in the past people were on a Fri, Sat or Sun checkin schedule, it allowed the resorts to set aside a third of each room category for each checkin day. Short stays now adds additional challenges.  Someone may tack on a single night to the beginning of their weeks ownership, they don't want to move that owner after one night. Also, someone booking an 7 night reservation that goes from Wed to Wed throws things awry.

I seem to favor a lottery or rotational type allocation system vs times tamp of the reservation. Not everyone can make an early reservation. For some people, due to work demands, they can't always plan 12 or 13 months in advance. Is it fair to them that they always get the low level views within a category?


----------



## bobmcgraw (Mar 30, 2014)

Just to be clear, I am not saying the view itself is terrible.  But from my experiences of the past (I have been coming to MOC since the original timeshare conversion), it is a very poor oceanfront view.  And I did pay extra for that view.

Also, my reason for posting was to see if any Tuggers knew who to talk to about remedying the view on these units.  I am not criticizing those that have to prioritize.  They are doing the best they can with what they have.  And I was very nice to those I spoke with at the front desk as it is not their fault.

I do think, however, that someone, either in resort management or on the HOA board should have the ability to assess the situation and do something.

A few years back, I turned in some of my units for points to "upgrade" my garden view Waiohai unit for an ocean view.  I knew it might be a scant view but thought I'd give it a try.  The small sliver of ocean that should have been available was blocked by a tree that had likely grown up over the years.  I talked with the front desk and they moved us to a much better unit.  The next year, I noticed the tree was gone and the view restored.  This is the kind of action I am hoping MOC would take.

I'm not saying they should take out all the trees but maybe thin them out a little?

If they don't, maybe this post will help my fellow Tuggers avoid these units in their preference requests.

Cheers,

Bob


----------



## csxjohn (Mar 30, 2014)

bobmcgraw said:


> ...While the view category cannot be changed, the resort could (GASP) cut down some of the palm trees.
> 
> ...Any thoughts?
> 
> ...



My thought is that it's pretty selfish to want to cut down trees so you can get a better view.

And maybe the resort can't cut the trees down.  I know there are areas where the cutting of trees is very regulated.

As laurac260 stated, that view is way better than not being there at all.

EDIT:

I was typing this before you made your last post and I see you're not advocating the complete removal of the trees.  Hopefully someone will have a solution to your problem.  If it's just a matter of first ressies get first choice, then get than darn thing in earlier.


----------



## Bill4728 (Mar 30, 2014)

We own a TS on the California coast right across from the ocean. All the rooms in the 5 story building face the ocean. Over the years, the palms trees have blocked the view from the second story, then the third story, NOW they are starting to block of the view from the fourth story. BUT now the second and third story views have wonderful ocean views. 

I'm afraid the same thing is happening at MOC


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Mar 30, 2014)

bobmcgraw said:


> Hi Tuggers,
> 
> We own at the MOC (both original and sequel).  We were at MOC at the end of February and beginning of March and were assigned Unit 3110 (oceanfront) in the Lanai Tower.  When they called us in advance and asked for preferences, I gave them units in the Molokai Tower.
> 
> ...



I wonder how many rooms are like this. I would love to somehow petition the resorts as owners and ask to have the situation addressed if possible. 

Not sure if anything can be done with possible island gov't restrictions existing but I'd like to ask the question to see. Maybe its just a few rooms and the cost to alleviate is not worth the cost or the legal trouble but if its a bigger problem where  8-10 rooms are effected then I'd say it needs to be addressed.

Personally I've never been disappointed with our room assignment with last time being in an amazing 8th floor wrap-around OF but if I got 3110 I'd be very disappointed as well so I'd like to understand the extent of the problem.

We're going in July so I'll have to see where we get placed. I'll be on the island 7 days prior to our stay at the MOC, with two days right next door at the Hyatt so hopefully I can pay a personal visit and kindly request a nice room.  We did place the reservation 12 months out so hopefully we're higher on the pecking order.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Mar 30, 2014)

Although I have not seen any 'published' rules on this written down anywhere, I have the next best thing, which is a string of emails with guest relations stating and clarifying exactly how room preferences are accommodated.  I have also met with them in person multiple times.  With Marriott, it doesn't matter if it's written down or not, they can change it at any time, but it's our current stake in the sand...

The primary consideration is the date and time stamp of reservation.  I have seen the printout and can attest to it's existence, and yes, even time of day. 

Let's say you are excessively picky like myself, and you've reserved at the 13 or 12th month at 9 AM ET, and have given Marriott your top 4 or 5 preferences by room numbers.  When they start to assign rooms, the only way someone else will get my first priority is 1) Someone's reservation date is prior to mine, 2) There was someone already in that suite/villa in a multi-week stay, 3) My reservation is Sat-Sat and that room is on a different schedule. They do have a way of dealing with tie breakers, and not necessarily in this order:  Owner at MOC, Marriott owner, Marriott direct owner.

When we've booked early, which is our M.O., we've always received one of our first 3 preferences.

So if room location is important to you, the early bird gets the room...


----------



## BocaBoy (Mar 31, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I seem to favor a lottery or rotational type allocation system vs times tamp of the reservation. Not everyone can make an early reservation. For some people, due to work demands, they can't always plan 12 or 13 months in advance. Is it fair to them that they always get the low level views within a category?


Yours is certainly a legitimate view, but I take the opposite position.  I think time of reservation is very fair and not unlike a cruise where the earlier you book the better choice of staterooms you have.  Same with airline seats, sporting events, theater tickets and many other things in life.


----------



## bogey21 (Mar 31, 2014)

This is one reason I sold my Floating Weeks and bought carefully selected Fixed Units/ Fixed Weeks.  I always knew when I was going and what unit I would be in.  My own!!

George


----------



## BocaBoy (Mar 31, 2014)

n777lt said:


> Just a +1 to Boca Boy's comments just above, including our face-to-face meets with *Stephanie*, and my experience that *her group appears to be consistent and more transparent than many MVCI properties* (and give the impression of taking time with you to answer your questions, even if they can't satisfy a request).(


I definitely agree.  No secrets and very open with owners about the process.  And I feel they are always truthful and helpful in their communications.


----------



## gblotter (Mar 31, 2014)

Reservation timestamp (including day and time) has been consistently communicated to us as the primary basis for unit assignments at Maui Ocean Club.  To me it seems like an equitable method.

In our case, it worked out very much in our favor.  We booked our two MOC units 13-months in advance at exactly when the phones first opened up.

We got first our first choice for both units - excellent locations!

Lesson learned: Reserve early!


----------



## cp73 (Mar 31, 2014)

One of the worst jobs in the world has to be scheduling room assignments at timeshare resorts. And then you have to do it every week...do you think they ever have a week when no one complains?


----------



## snowgoose (Mar 31, 2014)

I too have been going to MOC since the original timeshare conversion.  We book 12-13 months in advance and request a range of rooms and floors.  MOC has always met our requests until the point system started.  Since the points system started MOC has not met our requests upon arrival.  We had to "work out" a satisfactory room assignment with MOC who have been very accommodating.

IMO the time stamp is the only way to prioritize guest requests.  I know MOC and Stephanie Pharmer care and they do an outstanding job.  It's the point system that makes their life miserable.  Maybe it could be resolved if they abolished the any day arrival for points users.  Or allow us week owners to also arrive on any day.  That would be great plus we could save on airline fares.

In January one guest/owner told us the problem stems from mismanaging room allocations.  That is, a certain percent of the rooms are reserved for points system guests and a certain percent reserved for week owners.  He was sure of what he said, I don't know if true or not.

MOC and Stephanie have always voiced that they go by the time stamp.  I hope they never change that.


----------



## jeepie (Mar 31, 2014)

*Any recommendations?*

Hopefully this will be "on topic." I made a points reservation exactly 13 months ahead, Lahaina/Napili, 2BR OF, for Thanksgiving, 8 nights starting the Saturday before Thanksgiving. A month later (at 12 months), I made an additional 3 day reservation starting the Wednesday before, also 2BR OF.
First, sorry to screw up my fellow weeks owners!
Second, do you think this will hurt my room placement request, since probably virtually nobody is checking out midweek? Should I consider telling the room placement people I'd be willing to move after 2 or 3 nights (especially if that would be the best way to get a nice room for the majority of the stay)? Thanks in advance. Cheers.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 31, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> Yours is certainly a legitimate view, but I take the opposite position.  I think time of reservation is very fair and not unlike a cruise where the earlier you book the better choice of staterooms you have.  Same with airline seats, sporting events, theater tickets and many other things in life.



This of course gives multi week owners reserving at the 13 month mark a big benefit over those that have to wait until 12 months to reserve. Sure wouldn't want to be a single week owner at MOC.


----------



## Aviator621 (Mar 31, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> This of course gives multi week owners reserving at the 13 month mark a big benefit over those that have to wait until 12 months to reserve. Sure wouldn't want to be a single week owner at MOC.



Is there a Marriott that doesn't put multi-week owners at the top of the heap anyway?


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 31, 2014)

Aviator621 said:


> Is there a Marriott that doesn't put multi-week owners at the top of the heap anyway?



True, but it most are those staying multiple weeks on their ownership week. It is possible that an owner owns weeks at other resorts and just one week at MOC. They could have an earlier time stamp than an owner staying multiple weeks at MOC. I of course don't agree with Ocean Pointe's policy of always placing multi week owners staying weeks on end in the primo units either.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 31, 2014)

Aviator621 said:


> Is there a Marriott that doesn't put multi-week owners at the top of the heap anyway?



No, but there are a few that use a rotational system so that all owners get equal opportunity at both the "best" and "worst" units within their owned categories.  The Hilton Head resorts (that don't have fixed Weeks or Units) all say they follow this placement procedure; I've noticed the pattern at my home resorts and know at least one other TUGger (jme) has experienced it at Grande Ocean.  From our few DC Points stays, it appears that those same resorts consider DC Points users to be owners of a sort (which IMO is correct) because our rotational pattern continued through those stays.

I've always thought the system at NCV was the least equitable, with multi-week owners ALWAYS getting the prime units during high-demand periods.  Now I'm thinking MOC and the other Hawaii resorts are right up there in the "worst" column if they all give the time-stamp the most importance.  I completely disagree with those in this thread who are saying that's an equitable policy - I think it's about as UN-equitable as it can get!

It's obvious from just this thread that the room assigners can't win - the few of us here can't even agree how they should do things!  I just wish that Marriott would declare a policy that ALL the resorts will be required to follow; whatever that policy might be, at least we'd have some idea of what to expect.


----------



## dioxide45 (Mar 31, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> It's obvious from just this thread that the room assigners can't win - the few of us here can't even agree how they should do things!  I just wish that Marriott would declare a policy that ALL the resorts will be required to follow; whatever that policy might be, at least we'd have some idea of what to expect.



It seems that the time stamp really only applies to owners staying on their ownership week. Or does it also include DC based reservations? It seems that any II exchange, they wouldn't know the time stamp of the reservation. So it is really a way to rank people within the top pecking order category?


----------



## snowgoose (Mar 31, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> I completely disagree with those in this thread who are saying that's an equitable policy - I think it's about as UN-equitable as it can get!



SueDonJ,

I completely disagree with you but I'm always open to a better idea. Can you describe a policy that you think is equitable?
While you're at it, please explain why using the time stamp is "about as UN-equitable as it can get!"


----------



## GregT (Mar 31, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> SueDonJ,
> 
> While I completely disagree with you I'm always open to a better idea. Can you describe a policy that you think is equitable?



So what are the different options?

1. Time Stamp of reservation
2. Number of Marriott weeks owned
3. Number of Marriott weeks owned (at that property)
4. Years of Marriott ownership (for that home week)
5. Dollars paid (to Marriott)
6. Random chance
7. Rotation (ie, good view one year, bad next time)
8. Status (Premier Plus, etc.)

Rightly or wrongly, I feel that if I pay the MFs for multiple weeks at that property, that should mean something in room selection.  I also feel that being on the ball and being the first person in line for a reservation, should matter.

Best,

Greg


----------



## OutAndAbout (Mar 31, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> I've always thought the system at NCV was the least equitable, with multi-week owners ALWAYS getting the prime units during high-demand periods.


Wouldn't this be more equitable?  You own more weeks or more points (more equity) and therefore are higher in the queue.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 31, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> SueDonJ,
> 
> I completely disagree with you but I'm always open to a better idea. Can you describe a policy that you think is equitable?
> While you're at it, please explain why using the time stamp is "about as UN-equitable as it can get!"



The one I mentioned that's in use at the Hilton Head resorts would be more equitable - they rotate placements among owners so that if you were given the "best" of the unit type that you own one year, the next you'll be placed in the "worst."  For example, one year we were placed in the highest-floor oceanfront end unit at Barony Beach with an unobstructed panoramic ocean view, the next we got a second-floor oceanfront middle unit overlooking the pool with some palm trees directly in front.  One year at SurfWatch we got the highest-floor end unit in one of the oceanside buildings that had an expansive view of the beach, the next we got a second-floor unit in the other oceanside building that didn't have a water view at all.  Each successive visit we've been placed according to that pattern, with widely-varying views but still within the parameters of the types of units we own.  To me that's the most equitable policy because every owner knows that we all get equal time in the "best" units, despite knowing that it means we have to also take our turns in the "worst."

The time-stamp method rewards those whose schedules allow for earliest bookings while punishing those whose schedules don't allow it.  It's easy to say that everyone has the same chance to book when the Reservation Windows open but that's theoretical, and in real life sometimes people's circumstances interfere.  It doesn't seem fair that the owners who can't schedule 12- or 13-months out are repeatedly punished by poor unit placements when other owners are consistently getting the best.

Like I and others have said, we're not all going to agree.  That's okay by me.


----------



## SueDonJ (Mar 31, 2014)

OutAndAbout said:


> Wouldn't this be more equitable?  You own more weeks or more points (more equity) and therefore are higher in the queue.



No, I don't think so.  Owning more Weeks gets you the multi-Week 13-mos Reservation Window and, obviously, more time at your resorts.  That's what the governing docs dictate.  They don't say that owning more Weeks gives you a priority for unit placement.


----------



## OutAndAbout (Mar 31, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> No, I don't think so.  Owning more Weeks gets you the multi-Week 13-mos Reservation Window


Only if booking consecutive or concurrent weeks.



SueDonJ said:


> That's what the governing docs dictate.  They don't say that owning more Weeks gives you a priority for unit placement.


Nor do the governing docs say owning any weeks gives you priority for unit placement.  

If owning one week gives you priority over a non-owner, then following the same logic owning two gives you priority over an owner with one.


----------



## davidvel (Mar 31, 2014)

cp73 said:


> One of the worst jobs in the world has to be scheduling room assignments at timeshare resorts. And then you have to do it every week...do you think they ever have a week when no one complains?


Scheduling is easy. Its the front desk clerks and management that have to deal with the belligerent Marriott "owner" (at another resort) who trades in a  (garden/street view) unit and demands to check in at 10am to an oceanfront unit.


----------



## snowgoose (Mar 31, 2014)

SueDonJ,

Thanks for explaining your ideas so well.  I am still in disagreement.

I guess I'm just to old fashioned with thinking the person at the front of the line gets first choice.  I've never been in a line where the proprietor went to someone behind me and said, "may I help you before I help the guy in front".

I want to call your way the "entitlement system".  That is the guy at the back of the line is "entitled" to have what the guy in the front line has or wanted.  

I liked what I bought at MOC.  If they had told me they use the Hilton Head entitlement system I would not have purchased their product.

You are correct, we're not all going to agree.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 1, 2014)

davidvel said:


> Scheduling is easy. Its the front desk clerks and management that have to deal with the belligerent Marriott "owner" (at another resort) who trades in a  (garden/street view) unit and demands to check in at 10am to an oceanfront unit.



It's not just exchangers looking for "The Best" every time they check in.  I've seen more than a few home resort owners making life miserable for the front desk staff.  I like when the staff reacts with an explanation of how every owner is entitled to "The Best" but there aren't enough "The Bests" to go around so all owners have to take turns.  I don't like when the front desk staff gives in just to shut up the "Do You Know Who I Am?" loudmouths.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 1, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> SueDonJ,
> 
> Thanks for explaining your ideas so well.  I am still in disagreement.
> 
> ...



I think we might be using different definitions of "entitlement."


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 1, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> I've always thought the system at NCV was the least equitable, with multi-week owners ALWAYS getting the prime units during high-demand periods.  Now I'm thinking MOC and the other Hawaii resorts are right up there in the "worst" column if they all give the time-stamp the most importance.  I completely disagree with those in this thread who are saying that's an equitable policy - I think it's about as UN-equitable as it can get!



I usually agree with you on most things, but on this issue we couldn't disagree more.  Not only do I like the MOC way of doing things, I also think the rotational system used at Hilton Head is a terrible system.  I guess it would be pretty boring if everyone viewed things the same way.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 1, 2014)

GregT said:


> Rightly or wrongly, I feel that if I pay the MFs for multiple weeks at that property, that should mean something in room selection.  I also feel that being on the ball and being the first person in line for a reservation, should matter.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## bazzap (Apr 1, 2014)

I agree, you explain this very well.
As a multi week owner at some resorts and a single week owner at other resorts, I don't believe I have any absolute entitlement, but I do believe as you say
"that should mean something in room selection"



GregT said:


> So what are the different options?
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, I feel that if I pay the MFs for multiple weeks at that property, that should mean something in room selection.  I also feel that being on the ball and being the first person in line for a reservation, should matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Apr 1, 2014)

So when is the ideal time to put in the specific room request and does that timing effect room selection?

We always put in our reservations 12 or 13 month but wait until 2 weeks before to put in specific room requests. Its always worked before in the past so just wondering what others do and what the ideal is.


----------



## csxjohn (Apr 1, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> SueDonJ,
> 
> ....  I've never been in a line where the proprietor went to someone behind me and said, "may I help you before I help the guy in front".
> 
> ....



I have and I like the way it's done.  A popular cabinet maker here in N E Ohio, CraftMaid has a true warehouse sale every other Sat but you don't have to get up at 4 AM to be first in line.

You get in line to get a numbered wrist band starting at 6:30 and ending at 7:10.  At 7:15 they pick a number.  That number and the next 149 numbers go in.  After 30 minutes another 150 go in.  When they get to the end of the numbers given out that day they let in the people who did not get there in time for numbers.

I'm not saying that this can be translated into TS room assignments but it is a line I've been in a few times were everyone has a chance at the being the "best" person to get in.

If the retailers would use a system like this on Black Friday you'd eliminate those nuts camping out and give everyone a chance at the deals.

 From Merriam-Webster equitable "dealing fairly and equally with all concerned."  (the red is mine)

Being able to be first in a line is not equal to me.  

Giving everyone who has paid for the room that week  an equal chance at getting a good room would be treating every one fairly and equally.


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Apr 1, 2014)

I'll have to agree on this one...   



csxjohn said:


> I have and I like the way it's done.  A popular cabinet maker here in N E Ohio, CraftMaid has a true warehouse sale every other Sat but you don't have to get up at 4 AM to be first in line.
> 
> You get in line to get a numbered wrist band starting at 6:30 and ending at 7:10.  At 7:15 they pick a number.  That number and the next 149 numbers go in.  After 30 minutes another 150 go in.  When they get to the end of the numbers given out that day they let in the people who did not get there in time for numbers.
> 
> ...


----------



## dougp26364 (Apr 1, 2014)

In the end, there is no one way to make room assignments and make everyone happy. The best thing to do is pick a method and stick with that method. Some will be happy, others upset. But in the end we all play by the same rules.

Now, how about we talk about chair hogs. I actually witnessed a Marriott employee HELPING a couple reserve prime spots for pool lounges this morning.


----------



## pharmgirl (Apr 1, 2014)

Sunshine, palm trees and a good glimpse of the ocean - would love that right now!  NJ doesn't have snow now finally but lots of mud and bare trees.
Really maybe best to look at the glass half full when you get a unit like that, or even a parking lot view that you can't change.  

Agree that seeing what you can do for next time is reasonable but think it might be a better vacation to just relax and enjoy [after maybe a short hissy fit!]

First time we went to Kaui we rented a 'cottage' just 'steps' from ocean.  It was a converted garage and many steps from ocean, we had left the JW Marriott in KoOlina for this.  I did throw a hissy fit but then realized I was in Hawaii and enjoyed the rest of the week.


----------



## GregT (Apr 1, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> I have and I like the way it's done.  A popular cabinet maker here in N E Ohio, CraftMaid has a true warehouse sale every other Sat but you don't have to get up at 4 AM to be first in line.
> 
> You get in line to get a numbered wrist band starting at 6:30 and ending at 7:10.  At 7:15 they pick a number.  That number and the next 149 numbers go in.  After 30 minutes another 150 go in.  When they get to the end of the numbers given out that day they let in the people who did not get there in time for numbers.
> 
> ...



So this is a lottery system, which is equitable, but practically speaking, how would MOC apply that to room assignments?

I'm not advocating this, just trying to see if it could work.

1. Everyone who is an owner is put into the lottery (irrespective of single/multi-week owners)
2. Room Assignments randomly selects the first owner, and sees if they have a room request
3. If RA can fill that request, then they assign the room and move to the next owner.
4. If RA can't fill that request, then they assign the best room available, in their opinion, and then move to the next owner.

There is no doubt that this is a fair and equitable approach.  I do believe it is harder to explain to the owner (lottery versus time stamp) but it is fair and equitable.    The imperfect time stamp is at least tangible, and something can be showed to the owner to rationalize the decision versus they lost the coin flip (that they didn't even realize was happening).

If someone with a computer ran a simulation a million times, I bet that the lottery system and the time stamp approach probably produce room locations that aren't that different.  

I think the filter is being able to get the reservation in the first place and the available rooms (post DC) probably have an enormous impact on the Room Assignments ability to influence location.  If we lifted the curtain, there may be 100 rooms available for check-in on any given day, and there are 50 multi-week and 50 single-week owners who mostly made reservations 12 and 13 months out, within minutes of each other.

Interesting conjecture.  I still like the time stamp because I have a (dis)orderly mind and I can accept getting a crappy room location if I see something tangible like I made my reservation on Friday instead of Thursday, 12 months ago.   We all have different views here.

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 1, 2014)

You know, I remember TUG discussions where some folks theorized that Marriott should reward direct purchasers with the better room assignments because those owners made the effort and sacrifice to invest more money with Marriott than external resale purchasers did.  In fact when we first became owners I was more in tune with those folks than with the group who argued that, "a Week is a Week is a Week … it doesn't matter how much money we've each invested, we're all equal owners."  Eventually my thinking changed because it is simply true, _we're all equal owners_.  During each interval, Weeks or Points, regardless of when we were able to reserve the interval or how many intervals we've strung together, the governing docs say that we are all equally eligible for every unit in a resort (subject to the unit type/view purchased, of course.)

But now some of the folks who quite convincingly argued against a priority placement system based on the amount of money invested are saying that there should be a system, based on other non-deeded factors, that consistently gives certain owners an advantage over all others.  Funny how the tables turn when the perceived advantage is yours and not somebody else's.


----------



## cp73 (Apr 1, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> "a Week is a Week is a Week … it doesn't matter how much money we've each invested, we're all equal owners." .



I agree we are all equal owners. But to me money is always the equalizer. 

What about if the resort added a weekly premium (lets say $500) to all the predetermined prime ocean views units in the ocean view category. Then if you had an ocean view you could upgrade for $500 to the premium view units. Kind of like what the airlines do with larger legroom seats. The extra money generated could be used to reduce the maintenance fees at the resort which we all could benefit from. If the fee was set based on supply/demand then at some point the demand for premium views would diminish. I think I would be willing to pay an extra $500 for a week if it means the best view in the house.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 1, 2014)

MOXJO7282 said:


> So when is the ideal time to put in the specific room request and does that timing effect room selection?
> 
> We always put in our reservations 12 or 13 month but wait until 2 weeks before to put in specific room requests. Its always worked before in the past so just wondering what others do and what the ideal is.



At MOC the key is the date of the reservation and not the date of the room request, assuming it is before the rooms are assigned a week or so ahead of time.  We always follow the  same timing as you do and we have had great success.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 1, 2014)

cp73 said:


> I agree we are all equal owners. But to me money is always the equalizer.
> 
> What about if the resort added a weekly premium (lets say $500) to all the predetermined prime ocean views units in the ocean view category. Then if you had an ocean view you could upgrade for $500 to the premium view units. Kind of like what the airlines do with larger legroom seats. The extra money generated could be used to reduce the maintenance fees at the resort which we all could benefit from. If the fee was set based on supply/demand then at some point the demand for premium views would diminish. I think I would be willing to pay an extra $500 for a week if it means the best view in the house.



I'd also be willing to pay for it, but why should it have to come to that in order for every owner to be given a fair chance on a routine basis at the "best" units within his/her ownership parameters?  The governing docs already give Marriott the leeway to enact a rotational or lottery system for unit placements.  What we have now are some resorts that choose not to implement one of these more equitable systems - what you're proposing would result in an even less equitable placement policy.  Not to mention, it would probably be a violation of the governing docs which stipulate that every like owner is as entitled to a unit as every other like owner.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 1, 2014)

cp73 said:


> I agree we are all equal owners. But to me money is always the equalizer.
> 
> What about if the resort added a weekly premium (lets say $500) to all the predetermined prime ocean views units in the ocean view category. Then if you had an ocean view you could upgrade for $500 to the premium view units. Kind of like what the airlines do with larger legroom seats. The extra money generated could be used to reduce the maintenance fees at the resort which we all could benefit from. If the fee was set based on supply/demand then at some point the demand for premium views would diminish. I think I would be willing to pay an extra $500 for a week if it means the best view in the house.


But then you are paying twice, or three times.  Once to buy into Ocean View, second for the OV MF which may be for a larger unit and more $ and then Third to upgrade to the best of the best OV rooms.

If this is such a problem the lottery is surely most fair, or booking early.

This could be especially galling for a weeks owner who has a deeded week on a high floor and then has to pay again to actually use the deeded unit / floor.  Probably not legal.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 1, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> The governing docs already give Marriott the leeway to enact a rotational or lottery system for unit placements.  What we have now are some resorts that choose not to implement one of these more equitable systems - what you're proposing would result in an even less equitable placement policy.



It is far from clear that a rotational system is more equitable--it depends on the standards you use to define "equitable".  I personally think the rotational system is NOT equitable.  I think the most equitable system I have seen is the time stamp.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 1, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> It is far from clear that a rotational system is more equitable--it depends on the standards you use to define "equitable".  I personally think the rotational system is NOT equitable.  I think the most equitable system I have seen is the time stamp.



But what's not equitable with owners being rotated among the best and worst units, when more owners are staying at their home resorts than there are prime units to house them all?  That's when the rotation really comes into play, during the highest-demand periods with 90%+ owner occupancy.

I understand why an owner who can take advantage of immediate booking would prefer MOC's system, but don't see how it gives those who aren't able to book at the earliest opportunity a fair chance at occasionally being placed in the prime units.  At least the owners at my resorts know that the staff will do all they can to make sure we'll all get the same consideration eventually.  (The GM's there do a great job explaining the system in the newsletters so it's a transparent policy much like the MOC owners are saying that one is.)


----------



## gblotter (Apr 1, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> It is far from clear that a rotational system is more equitable--it depends on the standards you use to define "equitable".  I personally think the rotational system is NOT equitable.  I think the most equitable system I have seen is the time stamp.


I couldn't agree more.

I'm glad that MOC uses the existing timestamp system for unit assignments.
And I'm also glad that Marriott will likely pay no attention to the suggestions to do otherwise.


----------



## bobmcgraw (Apr 1, 2014)

*Update*

I received an email from a manager at Marriott in WW Customer Advocacy in response to the end-of-stay survey I completed where I indicated that I was not satisfied with the view of the unit.

It was clear that he read my comments as his response was specific to my comments.  He asked that I contact him when I make my next reservation so he could "work with the resort’s management team to ensure your stay is a great one."

At this point, I am satisfied with this response.  We'll have to see if he is able to have any impact next time but it seems they are willing to try.

My issue was that this unit was such a poor view compared to the other oceanfront views at MOC that I have experienced.  I've had better oceanview "views" at MOC than this.  And I did pay extra for the great oceanfront view.

So, if the approach MOC is taking is that the view is determined by timestamp but if an owner gets one of these "obstructed views" (his words, not mine) then Marriott will help ensure it is not repeated the next year, then I am OK.  (I realize he didn't promise that but I am ever hopeful that is what he meant!)

I guess I had my turn in the barrel and maybe I can get a few years in before it happens again, if I get my reservation in later than 12-13 months.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 1, 2014)

I think there are two issues here; is the current policy equitable and is it fair.

I don't see how by any definition it is equitable. One could say that if an owner wants a better unit, they could call earlier. Realize though it isn't always a matter of days or months. During prime booking, inventory sells out in a matter of minutes. So time stamps in a lot of cases will be seconds apart. Also, some owners can book at 13 months where others have to wait until 12. I don't know if they lump DC based reservations in to the equation, but consider that the inventory release days for weeks and points is also different in many cases. So, regardless of anyone's personal situation in being able to reserve early, some owners clearly have an advantage. Due to this, time stamp isn't equitable. Not every owner is being treated equally.

Is it fair? Obviously that is up for debate and a matter of opinion. Though I don't understand how something where owners are not treated equally can be considered fair.

Is there a policy that is more fair. Who knows, that is up for debate too. The most fair thing would have not to have sold these low floor units as ocean front, but MVCI was in it for the buck and ocean front sold for more dollars than garden or ocean view.

Another problem that is now occurring due to the DC program is people being sold an ocean front unit and paying a premium for it and getting a less than stellar unit. Because of how inventory is released for points, all points reservations will almost always be after a weeks based reservation. At MOC, the 12 month points window opens on a Friday, but for weeks the inventory releases on a Thursday. So if they are counting DC points users (remember the trust owns physical weeks), then DC points owners are always at a disadvantage with the MOC policy.

All that aside, I am still surprised that in the almost eight years I have been reading TUG that this is the very first time I recall reading about the time stamp policy.


----------



## snowgoose (Apr 1, 2014)

I like MOC.  I like the location, the facilities, the people and the policies.  That's why I own there and was willing to pay a premium.

What I don't like is people who don't own at MOC trying to change MOC's policies.

It's sorta like I live in California by choice with high sales taxes, etc.  If you live in Oregon where there is no sales tax you wouldn't want me lobbying that it's unfair and you should also be paying high sales taxes to make it equitable.

We like the time stamp, leave us alone!

:deadhorse:


----------



## gblotter (Apr 1, 2014)

bobmcgraw said:


> I received an email from a manager at Marriott in WW Customer Advocacy in response to the end-of-stay survey I completed where I indicated that I was not satisfied with the view of the unit.
> 
> It was clear that he read my comments as his response was specific to my comments.  He asked that I contact him when I make my next reservation so he could "work with the resort’s management team to ensure your stay is a great one."
> 
> ...


The personal response does not surprise me.  I assume Customer Advocacy is a corporate department, but I have received similarly good customer service directly from resort management.

I believe the timestamp method is a good one, but I am not surprised they will make special efforts to address individual concerns when needed.

Over the years, I have been able to establish contacts in MOC resort management.  I make a point to send thank you messages whenever I get a particularly good unit assignment.  No doubt they deal with plenty of complaints, so I am hopeful they will remember an owner who takes the time to say thanks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 1, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> I like MOC.  I like the location, the facilities, the people and the policies.  That's why I own there and was willing to pay a premium.
> 
> What I don't like is people who don't own at MOC trying to change MOC's policies.
> 
> ...



Sheesh. Debating the subject is far different than wanting to change the policy. So you don't like my opinion. It doesn't make it right or wrong and it doesn't mean I am not entitled to it.


----------



## m61376 (Apr 1, 2014)

Dioxide- actually, can't a DC points user booking 7 days or more reserve at the 13 month mark? That would mean that they would have an earlier time stamp than a single week owner (or a multiple week owner using only a single week), and theoretically be assigned a better unit than a MOC owner paying MF's for their home resort.

As you pointed out, sometimes seconds or minutes are the difference in resorts that sell out quickly. So for the owner who calls in exactly on time, but perhaps gets stuck in a longer waiting hold time, they're stuck with an inferior unit; that hardly sounds fair or equitable.

I know the Surf Club has moved to a rotational system. While I wasn't thrilled with my 7th floor assignment versus my typically higher floor, I had to concede it was equitable to give all owners a chance to enjoy preferred views and look forward to a higher floor assignment next year. Owners still receive preference over non-owners, but they are checking prior assignments to make sure the best units get rotated.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 1, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> I like MOC.  I like the location, the facilities, the people and the policies.  That's why I own there and was willing to pay a premium.
> 
> What I don't like is people who don't own at MOC trying to change MOC's policies.
> 
> ...



If any of us had any power to change Marriott policies I'd guess that a whole lot of things would be done a whole lot differently!  Minus that power, I think what you're suggesting is that each of us should share our opinions only when we have a personal stake in the matter.  That's not quite the aim of TUG, where all are welcome to share in the discussion forums.  If you prefer that a topic be shared privately among only owners or any other subset of folks, TUG probably isn't the ideal forum.

As a Marriott owner I think the discussions about how different resorts handle unit placement are interesting, and I hope folks feel perfectly comfortable participating in them whenever they please.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 1, 2014)

m61376 said:


> Dioxide- actually, can't a DC points user booking 7 days or more reserve at the 13 month mark? That would mean that they would have an earlier time stamp than a single week owner (or a multiple week owner using only a single week), and theoretically be assigned a better unit than a MOC owner paying MF's for their home resort.



They can book more than 7 nights, but DC inventory is still always released on a Friday and Tuesday for 12 and 13 month windows respectively. This is for checkin days from Wednesday through Tuesday. So for any given checkin day, a DC reservation would always have a time stamp that is after that of any weeks owner with the same checkin day if they both booked as early as possible. At least for 12 month reservations.


----------



## snowgoose (Apr 1, 2014)

SueDonJ and dioxide45,

Sorry you took offense.  I wasn't directing my comments to you folks but if the shoe fits, wear it.  I did get the impression from both of you that you were more than debating, I received it as if possible you would change the policies to your liking.  If I read it wrong I certainly apologize.

Susan,
I thought I was merely sharing in the discussion with my opinions.  I never implied that the topic should be shared privately among only owners - where'd you get that idea?  You don't need to chide me like you did.  If you can't stand my side of the discussion just say so and I'll leave the thread or TUG - no big deal.

dioxide45,
I agree.  Opinions are not right or wrong.  Like a question, there is no bad opinion.  And you certainly are entitled to your's as am I.

Peace!  I never thought my likes and dislikes or opinions would cause so much commotion.  And if I was out of line I humbly apologize to all.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 1, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> SueDonJ and dioxide45,
> 
> Sorry you took offense.  I wasn't directing my comments to you folks but if the shoe fits, wear it.  I did get the impression from both of you that you were more than debating, I received it as if possible you would change the policies to your liking.  If I read it wrong I certainly apologize.
> 
> ...



As a TUG participant I'm okay with anybody sharing any opinion they want.  We're not delicate flowers here; I'm pretty sure we all can handle differences of opinion.

As the Marriott board moderator I'm not okay with somebody saying anything that gives the appearance that all are not welcome to join in a public forum discussion, because it's counter to the "be courteous" section of TUG's Posting Rules.

I believe that your post which I quoted was off-putting to non-MOC owners and that's why I responded as I did, both as a TUG participant who was made to feel unwelcome in the discussion and as a TUG moderator who saw an opportunity to reinforce TUG's inclusionary nature.  I apologize if I read you wrong.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 1, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> SueDonJ and dioxide45,
> 
> Sorry you took offense.  I wasn't directing my comments to you folks but if the shoe fits, wear it.  I did get the impression from both of you that you were more than debating, I received it as if possible you would change the policies to your liking.  If I read it wrong I certainly apologize.
> 
> ...



No harm, no foul. For whatever reason, unit assignment discussions always cause a ruckus in the Marriott forum. It doesn't take much to get us worked up.

{Edited}


----------



## OutAndAbout (Apr 1, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> I guess I'm just to old fashioned with thinking the person at the front of the line gets first choice.  I've never been in a line where the proprietor went to someone behind me and said, "may I help you before I help the guy in front".


Ever board a legacy airline?  Status has priority regardless when tickets were booked, or checked in, etc. (some exceptions for elderly, traveling with kids, sometimes armed forces personnel, etc)


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 1, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> I have and I like the way it's done.  A popular cabinet maker here in N E Ohio, CraftMaid has a true warehouse sale every other Sat but you don't have to get up at 4 AM to be first in line.
> 
> You get in line to get a numbered wrist band starting at 6:30 and ending at 7:10.  At 7:15 they pick a number.  That number and the next 149 numbers go in.  After 30 minutes another 150 go in.  When they get to the end of the numbers given out that day they let in the people who did not get there in time for numbers.



This method is also often used for event tickets. I remember in the 90s when Garth Brooks was huge, my mom went to get a wristband to buy tickets. They handed out the bands for about a week before tickets went on sale and the day sales opened up they drew a number, everyone lined up behind that number in the order of their band. When they got to the last number they went back to the lowest numbered band and continued on to the number before the one that was drawn.

I think this method is used more for crowd control and prevent fights and security issues in lines. It also prevents camping out and security guards having to monitor that whole situation. Not sure it is an ideal method to use for villa assignments or not.


----------



## OutAndAbout (Apr 1, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> As a TUG participant I'm okay with anybody sharing any opinion they want.  We're not delicate flowers here; I'm pretty sure we all can handle differences of opinion.



Since we are no longer stepping on egg-shells, here's a business point of view in response to *GregT*'s list of options





GregT said:


> So what are the different options?



1. Time Stamp of reservation
=>Lets be honest, a time stamp doesn't make much sense from a business point of view.  Why should you provide an incentive to book early?  They already own and pay their maint fees, so this makes no business sense.
2. Number of Marriott weeks owned
=>Junior to #3 (which I think was commonly used prior to DC).  This is a proper business incentive and closer to how "loyalty programs" work.  Presumably weeks can be translated to point values for better "valuation" 
3. Number of Marriott weeks owned (at that property)
=>Main priority (which I think was commonly used prior to DC).  Again, a proper business incentive and closer to how "loyalty programs" work.
4. Years of Marriott ownership (for that home week)
=>Interesting for tie breaker 
5. Dollars paid (to Marriott)
=>What dollars would you count?  timeshare only?  hotel & timeshare?  Seems that weeks or points make more sense.
6. Random chance
=>To be completely random owners and non-owners would be equal which does not seems very popular.  It also makes little sense from a business perspective as you have a benefit (better villa) and not to reward people/owners with it is bad management. 
7. Rotation (ie, good view one year, bad next time)
=>Rotation doesn't make much sense either – lots of extra book keeping (extra work) with no benefit (from either the business or management perspective).  What happens the "bad year" when you exchange?  Does that carry over to the following year or do you just "skip" your bad year?
8. Status (Premier Plus, etc.)
=>I never heard  of hotel status mattering at the timeshares (other than Platinum benefit) and doubt that it carries any weight other than possibly tie breakers (altogether I could be wrong)


----------



## GaryDouglas (Apr 2, 2014)

*The Little Red Hen*

Ten years ago we bought into timeshares at MOC with the knowledge of how to reserve 13+ weeks in advance. We also learned how MOC prioritized their room designations. There was some work involved in researching the optimization process, due dilgence, and most certainly, money was involved for us to optimize our room placement. Now we have people that come in after the bread is already baked, asking the Little Red Hen for an equitable piece of bread. Can you think of anything more inequitable? I didn't think so... 



dioxide45 said:


> I don't see how by any definition it is equitable.


----------



## sparty (Apr 2, 2014)

*Barony's Policy*

1.	How Villa Requests are Honored

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

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


----------



## m61376 (Apr 2, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> They can book more than 7 nights, but DC inventory is still always released on a Friday and Tuesday for 12 and 13 month windows respectively. This is for checkin days from Wednesday through Tuesday. So for any given checkin day, a DC reservation would always have a time stamp that is after that of any weeks owner with the same checkin day if they both booked as early as possible. At least for 12 month reservations.



But wouldn't a DC owner booking a week stay be able to book it t 13 months, while a week owner booking a week stay first be able to book at 12 months? Or am I confused (very possibly ). If I'm right, then for single week stays, DC point users would have a room placement preference over owners at MOC using their home resort for their owned week, and who pay all their MF's to MOC.nIs that equitable???


----------



## WFP (Apr 2, 2014)

As an enrolled  weeks owner (Three, so Premier, but very far from the Premier Plus level) , we have some benefits but then again some limitations.  

It appears that as time goes on and new things develop, Marriott has to add some "Bling" to entice new sales.  

So, multi-week owners were given the perk over single week owners of earlier booking at their home resort .  DC starts and they add some more "Bling" giving Trust owners access to inventory that is not as available to enrolled members.  Having three TS, we just cleared the Premeir tier requirements.  So we would get some minor benefits that enticed us to enroll (10 Month window for short stays, 30 day, now 60 day window for a 25% discount, easier access to other MVCI properties without the transaction going through interval).  So we did in fact enroll. And so on.

Is this Fair? Equitable?  Probably not especially in the long term.  Don't be surprised if the next evolution in MVCI (Whatever that will be)  negatively affects those that currently hold the advantage.

MVCI is still a business and is in the business to make money.  We are not owners of the Business but rather something closer to tenents.  As such, the next change will have to give some new perks that will cause new distress. 

Just our Humble opinion.

/WFP


----------



## Mamianka (Apr 2, 2014)

gblotter said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> I'm glad that MOC uses the existing timestamp system for unit assignments.
> And I'm also glad that Marriott will likely pay no attention to the suggestions to do otherwise.




Ever deal with the VA, Social Security, or various insurance companies - or be put on *hold* at an important-to-you business - even Time Warner?  Ever timed your call to a radio station so you can try to be the "fourth caller" to win those tickets?  Time stamp.  Yes, there are people who cannot get their plans together to contact/call/click at precisely the moment when what they want, comes available.  Sorry - they knew the rules, they just could not comply, sometimes for reasons beyond their control, at the optimum time; that's why we all put in several trade requests, or at least mentally have back-up plans.  When a company is giving out things that are *all equal* - identical items or tickets - then a lottery is fine, and is just as fair as time-stamp.  But when we are talking about property assignments in a system we PAID many thousands of $$ - to whomever - to participate in, and actually bought things in different tiers (views, Enrolled, DC points only, etc.) then there are already some factors in place - 12 versus 13 versus 10 versus 6 months to be allowed to get to be FIRST in the correct line.  To THEN be told that my name is going to be pulled out of the proverbial HAT to get what I ask for?  Nah - most PLAYGROUND rules are fairer than that.

I "vote" to keep things pretty much the way they are - unless I am missing something HUGE here - because I think that the current rules work out OK for me - and that's all I can base my opinion on.  Got some properties, some deposited, some not, some in line for trade, and  meanwhile have made a rez using points. If my top trade comes thru (not likely) then I can massage this differently, according to The Rules as laid out, and get my points back to use another time/place.  Therefore, I can use the leftover brain cells (both of them . . .) for learning the Phil Jackson triangle offense, the subtleties of the ground-rule double, and figuring out who invented Bitcoin.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 2, 2014)

GaryDouglas said:


> Ten years ago we bought into timeshares at MOC with the knowledge of how to reserve 13+ weeks in advance. We also learned how MOC prioritized their room designations. There was some work involved in researching the optimization process, due dilgence, and most certainly, money was involved for us to optimize our room placement. Now we have people that come in after the bread is already baked, asking the Little Red Hen for an equitable piece of bread. Can you think of anything more inequitable? I didn't think so...



I have a few questions here …

Obviously the views among OF units at MOC vary widely (which is true for many unit type categories throughout the Marriott resort system.)  This thread was started because a long-time owner got a disappointing placement and when he asked, he learned it was because the time-stamp method is being used.  It's been noted that a few pretty knowledgeable TUGgers had no idea that any Marriott resorts used that method; in fact, most don't.  So how did you learn prior to purchasing that it was being used?

What do you mean by, "money was involved for us to optimize our room placement?"  Presumably however you purchased, you paid what any like purchaser at the time would have had to pay for the same Week(s).  So say if you bought an OF 2BR Week, another buyer at the time would have been able to purchase the exact same Week for the exact same price.  Now are you saying that you paid more, over and above what that hypothetical buyer would have paid, in order to guarantee your future priority placement over him/her?  I know that doesn't make any sense but I can't figure out your statement any way that does.  (Unless you mean you paid a premium for OF over oceanside or something else, but that has no bearing on this discussion about priority within a specific view type.)

If the time stamp method is the Number One factor in priority placement at MOC, what do, "people coming in after the bread is baked" and "The Little Red Hen" have to do with any of this?  If a same-as-yours Week is sold today on the external market and that new owner gets in a future queue before you for the same reservation that you're booking, that new owner will get a higher placement priority for that stay than you will.  When the purchase was made has nothing to do with it, right?  It's a new deal every year with reservations and unit placement, and the only thing that matters is First-Come-First-Served?


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 2, 2014)

m61376 said:


> But wouldn't a DC owner booking a week stay be able to book it t 13 months, while a week owner booking a week stay first be able to book at 12 months? Or am I confused (very possibly ). If I'm right, then for single week stays, DC point users would have a room placement preference over owners at MOC using their home resort for their owned week, and who pay all their MF's to MOC.nIs that equitable???



Yes, a Premier Plus DC Points user can book any reservations at the 13-mos window, which depending on the inventory release days may be at the same time or a couple days after a multi-Week Owner can book consecutive or concurrent Weeks and prior to a single-Week Owner booking at the 12-mos window.  So if DC Points users are included in MOC's reservation process by way of the time-stamp placement method, a Premier Plus Member may get in the queue on the same day as multi-Weeks Owners and a month ahead of single-Week Owners.

As for whether it's "equitable" for DC Points Members to be considered owners of a sort in any priority placement systems, that's a different discussion.  But to your point, the Trust pays the equivalent MF's to the resorts for all Weeks conveyed.  If a DC Member uses Points to reserve Trust intervals, the equivalent MF's for those intervals have indeed been effectively paid by the Trust Member through his/her per-Point annual MF's.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 2, 2014)

^ Great post / points - I don't have a horse in this race but it is an interesting spectator sport.

If timestamp is the key then as dioxide said, some get to print an earlier timestamp than others by default of their membership type.  Those with DC points may have spent more money than those that bought OV weeks 10 years ago but cannot get an earlier timestamp.  So if this is about money that is not right.

Also who's rooms are who's?   Logistically there is a pool of weeks owner weeks, a pool of trust owned weeks, weeks owned and rented by Marriott Hotels and I'm sure another pool for kicks.  What if Marriott 'owns' all the top floor rooms, should those booking through the hotel pool get those rooms?  What if I exchanged with II into a room and the owner that exchanged out has a PH level OF Fixed / Fixed I should get that owners room right?

But that is for booking, when you get to reservations and room allocations I doubt the resort cares what source your booking came from, just that you have a right to an OF view and a an arrival date.

The little red hen is baking bread every year.  The ingredients are a new round of MF.  What you paid for the unit is irelevant to the resort just that you are paying your dues on time each year, the bread is baked every day the reservation lines open for business.

If I did have a horse in this race and I owned one OF view week I would be majorly pissed that those with multiple weeks and with DC points could book ahead of me and would get view priority even though I make the same contribution to the operations of that resort.  I may have even paid the same for my week as the multiweek person.

To that, the current time stamp system is unfair.


----------



## rpw (Apr 2, 2014)

*Surprisingly, I do have a horse in this particular race....*



SueDonJ said:


> I have a few questions here …
> 
> Obviously the views among OF units at MOC vary widely (which is true for many unit type categories throughout the Marriott resort system.)  This thread was started because a long-time owner got a disappointing placement and when he asked, he learned it was because the time-stamp method is being used.  It's been noted that a few pretty knowledgeable TUGgers had no idea that any Marriott resorts used that method; in fact, most don't.  So how did you learn prior to purchasing that it was being used?




But I've decided to stay out of it because it's not worth the argument (yes, I've been married a few times, so I know when to keep my mouth and choose my battles) 

But I guess I've always known that the TSs were reserved on a "first come-first served" basis?  TUG told me that if you want a reservation you need to be "on the phone and online at 9am EST on the first day that reservations were opened for the week you wanted to stay".  Why else would you do that unless you expected the order you made the reservations reflected the placement of your request?  I know that during some VERY POPULAR weeks the resorts might literally run out of rooms, but most of the time you can still get a room 6 months in advance (as some of you have obviously done).

So why else the big 9AM push?  

To be honest, this is the first time I've heard of any TS NOT using a first-come, first serve policy at Baronys.  That is NOT the norm in almost anything else in life.


----------



## snowgoose (Apr 2, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> It's been noted that a few pretty knowledgeable TUGgers had no idea that any Marriott resorts used that method; in fact, most don't.  So how did you learn prior to purchasing that it was being used?



SueDonJ,

You asked GaryDouglas but I'd like to offer how I learned prior to purchasing MOC at MOC in 2000.

We had an outstanding sales lady.  She was very thorough including explaining how MOC uses the time stamp method for satisfying an owner's requests.  She also explained the 13 month advantage for multiple weeks owners.  Liking what she had to offer we purchased our two weeks.

:whoopie:


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 2, 2014)

rpw said:


> But I've decided to stay out of it because it's not worth the argument (yes, I've been married a few times, so I know when to keep my mouth and choose my battles)
> 
> But I guess I've always known that the TSs were reserved on a "first come-first served" basis?  TUG told me that if you want a reservation you need to be "on the phone and online at 9am EST on the first day that reservations were opened for the week you wanted to stay".  Why else would you do that unless you expected the order you made the reservations reflected the placement of your request?  I know that during some VERY POPULAR weeks the resorts might literally run out of rooms, but most of the time you can still get a room 6 months in advance (as some of you have obviously done).
> 
> ...



I think the difference is that the governing docs stipulate a first-come-first-served policy for Reservation Procedures which is in effect system-wide, while they do not stipulate the same type of policy for unit placement at the individual resorts.  That's left up to each resort to determine and what we're seeing is that obviously, they all don't do things the same.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 2, 2014)

snowgoose said:


> SueDonJ,
> 
> You asked GaryDouglas but I'd like to offer how I learned prior to purchasing MOC at MOC in 2000.
> 
> ...



Excellent, always glad to hear about positive sales experiences.  We had the same type of informative experience with our rep at SurfWatch, which made the decision to purchase an easy one.


----------



## bobmcgraw (Apr 2, 2014)

This has all been interesting, informative and even occasionally entertaining!

It has, however, veered away from my original intent.  I suspect that is at least partially my fault for not being clear enough in my original post.

So, here are some follow-up comments:

1) I have always known that the units were assigned by time-stamp and those with the earlier time-stamp are more likely to get their requested views.  I don't have a problem with that.  I do appreciate the situation of those that cannot reserve early every year and I do think it would be fair for them to get those really good units sometimes too.  I don't have a suggestion, I just would be OK if that happened.

2) In my mind, how much one pays for the unit does matter in one important area...which view category you you bought.  Doesn't matter to me whether you bought from Marriott or resale, you likely paid more for an OF than you would have for a Garden view at whatever time you bought or from whatever source.  So in that sense, OF owners paid more to get that specific view.

3) This leads me to my original issue.  I was not unhappy that I did not get my  preferred view.  I didn't expect to, given #1 above.  I was unhappy because the OF units are superior not just because they are facing the ocean but because they afford a superior ocean  view.  And the view from the unit I was assigned was WAY, WAY inferior to other OF views I have had at MOC.  I've stayed at MOC probably a dozen times and this was not even close.  I am pretty sure if that view was like that when it was categorized as OF at the beginning and any owner or potential owner saw it, they would have said "no way"!  It is similar to why some units at ground level are garden views while those above are ocean views.  The garden view units have vegetation blocking any view of the ocean.

So, my personal assessment was, I was experiencing something closer to a garden view or marginal OV unit while owning an OF unit.  That was my issue.  If Marriott sold it as an OF unit, they have a responsibility to keep it an OF unit as that is what we all paid for.

And contrary to an opinion expressed earlier, I do not think it is selfish to expect what I paid for.  Especially when it would involve trees which are renewable.  Any trees taken down could be replaced in other parts of the property.  I am a big believer in preserving trees but I also realize this is landscaping and it gets changed all the time.  I'm pretty sure the creative folks at Marriott could figure it out, if they wanted to.

So, that was my deal.  It wasn't about getting the best or preferred units.  It was about getting what I paid for.


----------



## csxjohn (Apr 2, 2014)

bobmcgraw said:


> ...And contrary to an opinion expressed earlier, I do not think it is selfish to expect what I paid for.  Especially when it would involve trees which are renewable.  Any trees taken down could be replaced in other parts of the property.  I am a big believer in preserving trees but I also realize this is landscaping and it gets changed all the time.  I'm pretty sure the creative folks at Marriott could figure it out, if they wanted to.
> 
> ...



I was typing  that comment before you made post #23.  And in your original post you asked for thoughts and at that time that's what I gave you.

Post 23 better explained your position and I did edit my post to reflect that.

I agree 100% that you should get what you paid a premium to get and it's not at all selfish to expect that.

I also still believe that it's not always possible to move trees or cut them with all the conservation measures out there.

It's been an interesting thread. Those that can make ressies as early as possible love the system, others, not so much.


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 2, 2014)

bobmcgraw said:


> 3) This leads me to my original issue.  I was not unhappy that I did not get my  preferred view.  I didn't expect to, given #1 above.  I was unhappy because the OF units are superior not just because they are facing the ocean but because they afford a superior ocean  view.  And the view from the unit I was assigned was WAY, WAY inferior to other OF views I have had at MOC.  I've stayed at MOC probably a dozen times and this was not even close.  I am pretty sure if that view was like that when it was categorized as OF at the beginning and any owner or potential owner saw it, they would have said "no way"!  It is similar to why some units at ground level are garden views while those above are ocean views.  The garden view units have vegetation blocking any view of the ocean.


So what should Marriott do?  Take a Chainsaw to the Palm Trees?  Then the OF owners will be complaining about palm tree roots spoiling their view?
I don't think you can pollard a palm tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollarding


----------



## bobmcgraw (Apr 2, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> I was typing  that comment before you made post #23.  And in your original post you asked for thoughts and at that time that's what I gave you.
> 
> Post 23 better explained your position and I did edit my post to reflect that.
> 
> ...



My apologies.  I didn't see your edit as I haven't gone back to reread all the posts.  Thanks for following up with me.  And I agree the tree thing would be a long shot and less than ideal.   At this point, I'm satisfied with the proposal from Marriott as an effective, pragmatic solution.  Hope it turns out well in the end.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 2, 2014)

bobmcgraw said:


> This has all been interesting, informative and even occasionally entertaining!
> 
> It has, however, veered away from my original intent.  I suspect that is at least partially my fault for not being clear enough in my original post.
> 
> ...



Now you're speaking my language.  The same issue exists at the Hilton Head resorts where the unit designations are correlated to their placement within the footprints of the resorts and not to any views, perceived or not, of the adjacent ocean.  The Hilton Head resorts were sold with designations of Ocean Side, Ocean Front, Ocean Vista (SW only) and Garden View - note the only one which even includes the word "view" is the Garden term.

Getting back to your first post, before we went down the rabbit hole of Which Owners Are More Entitled To The Besty-Best Units, you mention an "implication" that oceanfront should mean an ocean view.  It's almost natural to make that leap isn't it?  I think so, except that at the Hilton Head resorts the staff is careful to not further the implication and in fact, they make clear in their explanations of the priority placement systems just exactly which buildings house which unit designations.

A couple people in this thread have mentioned what an excellent job Stephanie at MOC has done with explaining the unit placement system in use there, why it's so important to reserve as early as possible if you want a Besty-Best unit.  It's been said that it's a very "transparent" system, that every owner understands how it works.  Well, how transparent can it be if owners are still left thinking that some OF units should not be designated that way at all because they don't have a view that was never guaranteed, that being placed in those units leaves an owner feeling as though s/he "didn't get what was paid for?"  I hate to be harsh but Stephanie apparently isn't doing a very good job with respect to transparency if owners are not clear on the resort terminology or the placement system.  If you're an OF owner and you were placed in a unit designated OF, regardless of whether on a low or high floor, you got what you paid for.

I'm glad, Bob, that Customer Advocacy has responded to your concerns and stated an intention to help you get your fair turn next time in one of the better-view OF units.  I've been saying all along that's how it should work, that no owner should have to worry about consistently being placed in the worst-view units.

It wouldn't hurt, either, for you to contact your BOD with any suggestions for at least trying to open up the view from the lower-floor OF units.  I don't know about Maui's rules and regs but the town of Hilton Head is very strict about removing/thinning out the natural habitat within and outside resort footprints, especially along the dunes that line the beach.  Maybe Maui isn't as strict and with your BOD's help all of you can reach a happy medium, at least.


----------



## sparty (Apr 2, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> I think the difference is that the governing docs stipulate a first-come-first-served policy for Reservation Procedures which is in effect system-wide, while they do not stipulate the same type of policy for unit placement at the individual resorts.  That's left up to each resort to determine and what we're seeing is that obviously, they all don't do things the same.



Yes it's an interesting tact Marriott takes with respect to how they worded Unit Assignments in the governing documents.  While I have not looked at many Marriott governing documents I have looked at Barony's and would expect the others to be the same.

Here's the relevant section from Barony's Master deed, specifically Appendix "A" to Exhibit "G" to Master Deed Barony Beach Club Page 23 of 27, section 1.3

"1.3 UNIT ASSIGNMENTS

Unit assignments will be made by the Management Agent upon the guest's arrival at the resort."

That's it - all there is! Basically they can do all the pre-assigning and unit assignment planning they want, but in the end your unit gets officially assigned when you get there. 

One of the reasons I like to get to the resort early and why I believe Marriott can unfortunately try to re-assign units on the fly if people complain upon arrival.

IMO - I wish they would of been more prescriptive in creating the master documents. That said, Barony at least has a well communicated policy they *try* to follow which I posted before.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Apr 2, 2014)

*So how did you learn prior to purchasing that it was being used?*
We knew people that owned there. Marriott should have stated what the existing policy was at the point of sale, but they don't. I was lucky, I knew owners, but I also asked people at the registration desk a lot of questions, so I'm a little more inquisitive than most people.

*What do you mean by, "money was involved for us to optimize our room placement?"*
We bought another unit to be able book at 13+ months. A tidy sum at that time...

*If the time stamp method is the Number One factor in priority placement at MOC, what do, "people coming in after the bread is baked" and "The Little Red Hen" have to do with any of this?*
I'm afraid some of my references can be a little obtuse sometimes. I was refering to other's comments suggesting or thinking is it okay to change the process after so many have made choices based upon the policy of that time, and those choices cost money. This is a group communication and not to a specific person...




SueDonJ said:


> I have a few questions here …
> 
> Obviously the views among OF units at MOC vary widely (which is true for many unit type categories throughout the Marriott resort system.) This thread was started because a long-time owner got a disappointing placement and when he asked, he learned it was because the time-stamp method is being used. It's been noted that a few pretty knowledgeable TUGgers had no idea that any Marriott resorts used that method; in fact, most don't. *So how did you learn prior to purchasing that it was being used?*
> 
> ...


----------



## bobmcgraw (Apr 2, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> The Hilton Head resorts were sold with designations of Ocean Side, Ocean Front, Ocean Vista (SW only) and Garden View - note the only one which even includes the word "view" is the Garden term.



Hi Susan - I think you've captured why I was disappointed with the view.  When the MOC was sold by Marriott, the villas were categorized as Garden View, Ocean View and Ocean Front.  (I suspect I still have a copy of the Marriott price sheet that shows those designations).  To me, that's pretty suggestive that there should be the expectation of a certain view.

I did note that the Marriott representative did NOT use those terms in the message to me but used Garden, Ocean Side and Ocean Front.  I think they are being a bit disingenuous here.  That may be how they refer to them in the DC program, I don't know, but it is definitely NOT how they referred to them when they were selling them.

Thus, my expectation of what the view would be...


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 2, 2014)

Ocean Front at Ocean Pointe has a similar issue. There are low floors and high floors. Each of the four building in the main section is 7 stories, with Kingfish being 5. The problem is that the first three or four stories in the main section and the first two or three in Kingfish do not have an ideal ocean view because of the growing trees. People were sold a wonderful model unit that didn't have an obstructed view. But now those single week owners get stuck with them unless they are traveling in the low season.

Trees grow. Does it make sense to cut them or trim them to keep the view? Does Ocean Front always mean Ocean View? The Ocean Front units at Ocean Pointe are set a long way back from the ocean. They are more pool and resort front with an ocean view.


----------



## suzannesimon (Apr 2, 2014)

I would love it if Marriott would come up with a standard policy so that I can adjust my expectations.  There are no view categories at MFC but the views can vary widely.  Owning fixed weeks, I have Fri, Sat or Sun check -in days but if a lot of DC reservations come in earlier in the week, the weeks reservations  get the leftovers.  

I like Starwood/Harborside's policy.  Certain buildings have certain check-in days so I know if I book a 3BR for a Saturday check-in, I at least know what building I will get.

If anyone knows Frenchman's Cove's policy, please share it.  The last  time we were there, I think we had the worst unit in the resort.


----------



## rpw (Apr 3, 2014)

*Maybe your request was too restrictive?*



bobmcgraw said:


> This has all been interesting, informative and even occasionally entertaining!
> 
> 3) This leads me to my original issue.  I was not unhappy that I did not get my  preferred view.  I didn't expect to, given #1 above.  I was unhappy because the OF units are superior not just because they are facing the ocean but because they afford a superior ocean  view.  And the view from the unit I was assigned was WAY, WAY inferior to other OF views I have had at MOC.  I've stayed at MOC probably a dozen times and this was not even close.  I am pretty sure if that view was like that when it was categorized as OF at the beginning and any owner or potential owner saw it, they would have said "no way"!  It is similar to why some units at ground level are garden views while those above are ocean views.  The garden view units have vegetation blocking any view of the ocean.



Once I made some VERY specific requests at KoOlina.  I had reserved a 2BR for my OF week.  I stated I did NOT want to be in the Moana building because its too far back for my OF.  When I arrived I got an INCREDIBLY crappy room overlooking the front entrance and staring at the Naia tower.  I was MAD.  so I immediately contacted the front desk.  They sent me over to Bob(?) in room assignments and he basically told me that for Friday checkins they really didn't have any other rooms that were OF and NOT in the Moana building.  He did his best to give me what I wanted.  I asked if there were any rooms available in the Moana building and ended up on the 12th or 13th floor.

So in the end, (assuming he wasn't lying to me)* I * caused my problem by being too restrictive in my placement.  From now on, I let the room assigner do their job and assume he will do the best he can.

I also think that the DC Club is probably causing some problems with all the short stays (or long stays) that dont free up some rooms on FRI, SAT, SUN checkin for weeks owners.  I have no proof that this is true, but flying to HI on a Tuesday is FAR cheaper than flying in on a FRI, SAT, SUN.


----------



## snowgoose (Apr 3, 2014)

rpw said:


> I also think that the DC Club is probably causing some problems with all the short stays (or long stays) that dont free up some rooms on FRI, SAT, SUN checkin for weeks owners.



I agree - we go every year since 2000 and never had a problem until they began the DC points system.  Haven't received our requests upon arrival since points started. Each time we've had to negotiate with the front desk for a room more like our request.  We request a range of rooms on a range of floors - which is not at all restrictive.

Had another guest suggest it's their way of getting owners to convert to points - he may have a point there (no pun).


----------



## suzannesimon (Apr 3, 2014)

I could convert to points and get an earlier check-in day, but then I wouldn't have enough points for a full week, thanks to the skim!


----------



## cp73 (Apr 3, 2014)

suzannesimon said:


> Owning fixed weeks, I have Fri, Sat or Sun check -in days but if a lot of DC reservations come in earlier in the week, the weeks reservations  get the leftovers.



I don't think this is a valid conclusion. Your making the assumption it is a blank slate at the begging of the week which is when? Monday? They are probably just getting the leftovers from the prior week. I dont think the day of the week should matter at all. Or am I missing something?


----------



## suzannesimon (Apr 3, 2014)

Prior to the DC program, Frenchman's Cove had 3 check-in days:  Fri, Sat. & Sun, so we can assume that maybe 1/3 of the units were allotted to every check-in day.  Maybe it was not exactly 1/3 due to their history of the number of people who prefer certain days, but close.    Now Destination Club owners, using points, can reserve any number of days beginning on any day of the week.  In my case, I have a 3-bedroom and I believe there are only 9 of those in the whole resort.  If I don't convert to points, then I
am limited to Fri, Sat & Sun check-in.  I don't have any idea how Marriott handles this inventory mess, because in my case I have a fixed week.  They have to give it to me, but if someone gets a great view with a Tuesday check-in, it's not going to be available for me.


----------



## Larry M (Apr 3, 2014)

*Amen!*



bogey21 said:


> This is one reason I sold my Floating Weeks and bought carefully selected Fixed Units/ Fixed Weeks.  I always knew when I was going and what unit I would be in.  My own!!



Amen!

Larry M


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 3, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> I believe that your post which I quoted was off-putting to non-MOC owners and that's why I responded as I did, both as a TUG participant who was made to feel unwelcome in the discussion and as a TUG moderator who saw an opportunity to reinforce TUG's inclusionary nature.  I apologize if I read you wrong.



Sorry, but I actually read your earlier comments the same way that snowgoose did.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 3, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> A couple people in this thread have mentioned what an excellent job Stephanie at MOC has done with explaining the unit placement system in use there, why it's so important to reserve as early as possible if you want a Besty-Best unit.  It's been said that it's a very "transparent" system, that every owner understands how it works.  Well, how transparent can it be if owners are still left thinking that some OF units should not be designated that way at all because they don't have a view that was never guaranteed, that being placed in those units leaves an owner feeling as though s/he "didn't get what was paid for?"  *I hate to be harsh but Stephanie apparently isn't doing a very good job with respect to transparency if owners are not clear on the resort terminology or the placement system.*



This is a wildly unfair statement.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 3, 2014)

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is that the unit placement rules are the responsibility of each resort, not of "Marriott".  The resort's Board of Directors have the authority here.


----------



## suzannesimon (Apr 3, 2014)

Good info , BocaBoy.  I didn't realize it was BOD policy.  I've never heard what MFC's policy is.  Maybe I should book a trip to their next annual meeting.


----------



## pedro47 (Apr 3, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is that the unit placement rules are the responsibility of each resort, not of "Marriott".  The resort's Board of Directors have the authority here.



This is great information  and I agree some resorts management staff are more accommodating than others.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 3, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> Sorry, but I actually read your earlier comments the same way that snowgoose did.



I did get the same impression that Sue did from the post. That non owners were not welcome to post or have an opinion in this thread. I don't think that was the intention, but that was the perception.

Consider though, companies pay a lot of money for outside consultants. It is important to have an outside view in to any situation. It brings considerable amounts of insight. People close to the situation or process don't see things that people that have no direct knowledge do. It makes people think about things that they never would have even thought of.

Considering that my advice and opinion is free, you are getting a bargain compared to what big companies pay for like services...


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 3, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> This is a wildly unfair statement.



You may be right.  You've had personal contact with her and I'm forming my opinion based only on what's been shared in this thread.  But going only by this thread, a longtime owner was distressed/confused enough over his placement at the resort that he chose to post his experience and questions about it on TUG.  All I'm saying is that his interaction with Stephanie, if he'd had any, didn't appear to lead him to the same conclusion about the resort's policy - or her transparency with it - that a few of you other owners have reached.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 3, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is that the unit placement rules are the responsibility of each resort, not of "Marriott".  The resort's Board of Directors have the authority here.



I think we have said that the placement systems are being handled at the individual resort level.  Thus the confusion, and the repeated discussions about how it's handled at specific resorts and the differences among all the resorts.

Like pretty much everything else related to resort management, though, I think Marriott has the leeway by virtue of the Management Contracts with each resort to enact a blanket-wide system if they choose.  Obviously they don't choose, and I'm not advocating that they should.  I'd like it if they would, if only because I prefer law and order throughout the land , but not even in the numerous related discussions on TUG does there seem to be anything earth-shattering enough to cause them to rock each of the individual resorts' boats.


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 3, 2014)

rpw said:


> Once I made some VERY specific requests at KoOlina. I had reserved a 2BR for my OF week. I stated I did NOT want to be in the Moana building because its too far back for my OF. When I arrived I got an INCREDIBLY crappy room overlooking the front entrance and staring at the Naia tower. I was MAD. so I immediately contacted the front desk. They sent me over to Bob(?) in room assignments and he basically told me that for Friday checkins they really didn't have any other rooms that were OF and NOT in the Moana building. He did his best to give me what I wanted. I asked if there were any rooms available in the Moana building and ended up on the 12th or 13th floor.
> 
> So in the end, (assuming he wasn't lying to me)* I *caused my problem by being too restrictive in my placement. From now on, I let the room assigner do their job and assume he will do the best he can.
> 
> I also think that the DC Club is probably causing some problems with all the short stays (or long stays) that dont free up some rooms on FRI, SAT, SUN checkin for weeks owners. I have no proof that this is true, but flying to HI on a Tuesday is FAR cheaper than flying in on a FRI, SAT, SUN.


I agree with you. We got a call, when we were still home, that we booked so late so there was no way that they could accommodate our wishes.

She asked me if it was more important to be on a higher floor or closer to the ocean but not near the front at all because of that "famous" date stamp and what tower we preferred. I had no idea because we own a fixed week/unit here so we never studied condo placement and left it up to her to decide but requested a higher floor.

We were thrilled with what we got so went to see Emily and thanked her. We met Stephanie and the two other ladies too in her office. They all seem to be very helpful and friendly and the same at the front desk as we had a tiny injured bird on the bridge we have to cross from one building to the other. It was taken care of immediately to the right place by someone who works here but does this kind of thing.  Several guests felt better after that.

We are in the Molokai tower in the last stack of condos (1 BR) on the 9th floor with a panoramic view over the ocean as well as the mountains. The condo is #9020 but the condos on the 7th and 8th floor have an equally panoramic view and the condos closer to the ocean do not have a big shade tree so the view on the ocean would be excellent on every level that is rated as ocean view and the further forward the better yet. All 2 BR condos on this side of the tower have a very good view. You are facing the Napili tower but there is enough space between the two buildings and there is a lot of green grass plus their pool.

I already posted earlier that our Lanai tower on the side has several designated garden views but, in reality, are ocean view condos too. I even posted a picture in that thread. Many ocean view condos are very nice and you can see the whales jump right from even where we are.

Because of this long thread, I decided to make an appointment with the General Manager as I had never met him yet and some of you did.

I brought up some other points first and some recommendations too. He took notes and one of my recommendations is being talked about already (fans in the MOC condos that we have in the new towers already) as that would make a big difference of being more comfortable. We try to avoid A/C and leave our doors and windows wide open in March. This year is very humid and strange weather too.

He told me that trees are being trimmed and they were doing it this week as we had a notice on our door. They have to be careful with trimming or removing trees because many people like them so they are listening to the other owners too. At one time, they were not allowed to remove trees at all but we noticed that many Keawe trees have been trimmed or even removed as there are no thorns on the beach anymore when walking closer to the Hyatt.

We also talked about the beach erosion and that is being addressed also but needs cooperation of the State. They want tourists and we want beaches. They do it in Oahu too so we may see it here one day. I see it happen with the new tower going up next door.

We love this resort but have to skip it next year at the MOC. If I would stay on points again, we would book an ocean view again and reserve it earlier plus there are many more of them than oceanfront.  You hear lots of birds too.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 3, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> You may be right.  You've had personal contact with her and I'm forming my opinion based only on what's been shared in this thread.  But going only by this thread, a longtime owner was distressed/confused enough over his placement at the resort that he chose to post his experience and questions about it on TUG.  All I'm saying is that his interaction with Stephanie, if he'd had any, didn't appear to lead him to the same conclusion about the resort's policy - or her transparency with it - that a few of you other owners have reached.



I think the OP clarified that his complaint was not with room placement priority "pecking orders" but rather that his assigned unit should not have been classified as ocean front.  That is not something that Stephanie can change.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 3, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> Considering that my advice and opinion is free, you are getting a bargain compared to what big companies pay for like services...



It is sometimes said that one gets what they pay for, but in your case we usually get more than that.  I hope you do not get the impression that I don't enjoy hearing your views, even when we disagree.


----------



## GregT (Apr 3, 2014)

Emmy,

That is a great report, thank you for posting it.  I'm glad you have a good room in the original towers, I know that was a concern.  And I appreciate your posting the conversation with the GM, it is good that they are listening to the concerns of the ownership -- I for one would be happy to see some trimming of the trees because I think there is a lot of "greenery" in front of Lahaina Villas.

I'm 2 1/2 months away from MOC and looking forward to it!

Best,

Greg


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 4, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> I think the OP clarified that his complaint was not with room placement priority "pecking orders" but rather that his assigned unit should not have been classified as ocean front.  That is not something that Stephanie can change.



No, but it does show that her explanations to owners about the resort policy may not be detailed enough as far as the unit classifications.  Are you not surprised that a long-time owner is only learning now that those units on the lower floors are also classified OF?


----------



## SMHarman (Apr 4, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> I think the OP clarified that his complaint was not with room placement priority "pecking orders" but rather that his assigned unit should not have been classified as ocean front.  That is not something that Stephanie can change.



But yet as elucidated above the unit was on the ocean front even if it did not have an ocean view. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 4, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> No, but it does show that her explanations to owners about the resort policy may not be detailed enough as far as the unit classifications.  Are you not surprised that a long-time owner is only learning now that those units on the lower floors are also classified OF?



I would be surprised if they did not know there were lower floors classified as ocean front, but I am not at all surprised that they did not know of the obstructed views.  I myself did not realize until recently that there were obstructed ocean front units at MOC like at so many other MVCI resorts.  There are actually very few of them at MOC.    If you have never been assigned to one of these and have not personally made a study of specific units and views you would not know about the obstructions.  Most of the lower floor OF units in the original towers are not obstructed by palm trees.  Most of those that are obstructed are classified as garden view.  One of the best ocean front views we ever had was on the third floor of Lanai Tower.  

It would never have occurred to me that Stephanie should be routinely communicating the nuances of unit classifications as opposed to unit assignments because her job is to make unit assignments within the classifications as they exist.  But if asked, I am also sure she would be open and honest in her responses.


----------



## bobmcgraw (Apr 4, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> I would be surprised if they did not know there were lower floors classified as ocean front, but I am not at all surprised that they did not know of the obstructed views.  I myself did not realize until recently that there were obstructed ocean front units at MOC like at so many other MVCI resorts.  There are actually very few of them at MOC.    If you have never been assigned to one of these and have not personally made a study of specific units and views you would not know about the obstructions.  Most of the lower floor OF units in the original towers are not obstructed by palm trees.  Most of those that are obstructed are classified as garden view.  One of the best ocean front views we ever had was on the third floor of Lanai Tower.
> 
> It would never occurred to me that Stephanie should be routinely communicating the nuances of unit classifications as opposed to unit assignments because her job is to make unit assignments within the classifications as they exist.  But if asked, I am also sure she would be open and honest in her responses.



BocaBoy is correct.  I knew it was classified as Ocean Front.  I have the map like everyone else.  But I did not know I was assigned that unit until I arrived.  And the real issue is until you actually get the unit, walk to the sliding door, open the curtains and see the view, it's really impossible to tell what the view will be.

I tried to tell if I could have anticipated this by standing at the ground level, looking at the units and the trees and I could not tell because I could not accurately gauge the level of the trees or how thick they would be at the unit level.

I don't think it is a Stephanie issue at all.  She can only work with the view classifications given to her. 

I think the root cause is the view has changed significantly over time and Marriott/MOC have not been diligent or maybe even legally allowed to manage the landscaping to preserve the view.

In some cases, Marriott is no longer referring to these units as "views".  The categories, as noted in the email I received are Garden, Ocean Side and Ocean Front.  These refer to location, not view.  I find this a bit dishonest for weeks owners that were sold views.

I pulled a couple of my old price sheets from when MOC started.  The categories are Mountain/Garden View, Ocean View and Ocean Front.  And these are still the designations in the DC Points Charts.

At the time I bought, (October 1999) the premium for Ocean Front was $5,300 for a 1BR.  That's a lot of money to pay to ensure a superior view.  By November 1999, one month later, the premium went up to $8,100.  The units are exactly the same and an OF with no view is not likely to be considered superior to a Mountain/Garden View or Ocean View.  Why would anyone, including me, pay that premium if it weren't for the view? 

Assuming $10/point paid in the DC club, those owners pay less of an "upgrade premium" between OV and OF of about $4,000 for prime time weeks.  But they pay much more overall as it takes $51,000 (5,100 points * $10/point) to get enough points to stay 1 BR OF every year.  And I would be unhappy in a very big way if I paid over 50 grand for an ocean front view and got what I had in February.

So, back to my original point, I think Marriott or the Board of Directors or someone I have yet to discover, needs to take ownership for preserving the views for which people paid a whole lot of money.


----------



## bazzap (Apr 4, 2014)

At Phuket Beach Club, some of the villas in the buildings closest to the ocean had wonderful ocean views, but as the trees have grown this view has mostly disappeared even on the top floor.
Here though, there was only a single view category for the whole resort - excellent, 
so I guess we should be thankful that we were able to enjoy these ocean views for several visits and we still have really good tropical garden views.
It would be good though to think that a balance could be struck between maintaining the beautiful landscaping and opening up the views again.
And I can understand that at resorts like MOC, where you actually buy into an Ocean Front designation then expectations are justifiably higher.
It is a tricky one though as to what constitutes Ocean Front - is it just nearest to the ocean or that plus partial ocean view or that plus full ocean view or...?
I am sure this issue applies to other resorts too, e.g. St Kitts Beach Club Ocean Front is nearest to the ocean but some villas have full ocean view, some have views significantly blocked by the palm trees.
For that very reason, as well as cost, we bought Garden View weeks there and generally still get a limited ocean view when we stay and spend much of the day on the beach anyway.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Apr 4, 2014)

bobmcgraw said:


> BocaBoy is correct.  I knew it was classified as Ocean Front.  I have the map like everyone else.  But I did not know I was assigned that unit until I arrived.  And the real issue is until you actually get the unit, walk to the sliding door, open the curtains and see the view, it's really impossible to tell what the view will be.
> 
> I tried to tell if I could have anticipated this by standing at the ground level, looking at the units and the trees and I could not tell because I could not accurately gauge the level of the trees or how thick they would be at the unit level.
> 
> ...



The thing I hope is they did their best to accommodate Bob. Like I hope there wasn't a renter or god forbid a trader who got a better view.

Those rooms should be clearly identifiable to the room coordinator and it should be given to the lowest man on the totem pole so to speak so that to me means someone like Bob should be in front of renters and every trader in my book.

Now if that happened and it was just Bob's turn with the short straw then sh** happens and you have to just accept it but I have to believe he could have been better accommodated in some way.

When we go in July we'll be on the island for 7 days before we check in to MOC so I'm going to try to get room selection before check-in but if I find out its 4th floor or lower I will politely ask for another unit and hope that they can accommodate me better than they did Bob.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 4, 2014)

It's not exactly different for me to be at odds with other Marriott owners on this forum, but usually it's because I don't expect as much from Marriott reps as other do.  For example it doesn't make much sense to me when TUGgers expect sales reps to be well-versed in the legal nuances of the governing docs, or for phone reps to be well-versed in the myriad items that go into inventory metrics, or any number of things.  In my view every Marriott employee can't possibly be expected to know the product details to the extent that each owner should, and certainly not to the extent that TUGgers delve into every facet of ownership as well as the multiple Marriott companies' responsibilities and rights.  Each employee has his/her own job and they can't be expected to know more than what that job requires - that's what makes sense to me.

But honestly, to me it's preposterous that an on-property rooms controller/assigner shouldn't be responsible for knowing which units fall under which designation, as well as - and maybe more importantly - why there are "better" and "worse" units within each designated unit/view type.  Really?  The one person whose job it is to assess requests prior to stays and then field complaints from dissatisfied owners/guests about unit assignments isn't expected to know why some units are better than others?  S/he takes requests on a regular basis for "a high floor" but has never walked the property or visited the units to find out why nobody wants the lower floors?  S/he hears complaints about the obstructed views from owners/guests who have been assigned the lower floor units, and doesn't retain the information or pass it on to the overall ownership at the same time she's explaining the time stamp policy and why it's so important to get in the queue as soon as possible?

I don't get that line of thinking.  It genuinely perplexes me.


----------



## suzannesimon (Apr 4, 2014)

I still have to go back to the DC short-stays and daily check-in's.  I just can't imagine how that is managed along with the "weeks" reservations.  Do you think they might have built some software for that?  Do they do it with some kind of huge chart on the wall with in/out magnets?  Do they designate certain buildings as short-stay buildings?   It has to be a nightmare to manage, especially with the really large resorts.


----------



## gblotter (Apr 4, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> A couple people in this thread have mentioned what an excellent job Stephanie at MOC has done with explaining the unit placement system in use there, why it's so important to reserve as early as possible if you want a Besty-Best unit.  It's been said that it's a very "transparent" system, that every owner understands how it works.


Nobody said that every owner understands how it works.  Many owners don't make the effort to understand such things.  But the information is there for those who indicate interest by inquiring at the front desk.  Stephanie makes herself very available to owners.



SueDonJ said:


> Well, how transparent can it be if owners are still left thinking that some OF units should not be designated that way at all because they don't have a view that was never guaranteed, that being placed in those units leaves an owner feeling as though s/he "didn't get what was paid for?"


That is a separate issue that has nothing to do with Stephanie.  Owners certainly know what category they purchased and they know which units are in each category (from the familiar resort map).  If some rooms in that category have developed view obstructions over the years due to growing palm trees - well, that is a maintenance issue to be raised with the BOD in my opinion.  Stephanie cannot fix that.



SueDonJ said:


> I hate to be harsh but Stephanie apparently isn't doing a very good job with respect to transparency if owners are not clear on the resort terminology or the placement system.


Yes - you are being harsh.  Many MOC owners who have interacted with Stephanie think she is doing a good job with the always-difficult job of making room assignments.  She does a good job of explaining the system to those who ask.  I don't think the OP was confused about the room assignment method or the categories.  He was just unhappy (understandably) about the view obstruction for his particular unit.  Once again, addressing that obstruction is a job for the BOD - not Stephanie.



SueDonJ said:


> If you're an OF owner and you were placed in a unit designated OF, regardless of whether on a low or high floor, you got what you paid for.


The OP got a unit in the OF category, but he did not get the view he wanted and expected.  Therefore, I don't know if he "got what he paid for".


----------



## taffy19 (Apr 4, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> It's not exactly different for me to be at odds with other Marriott owners on this forum, but usually it's because I don't expect as much from Marriott reps as other do. For example it doesn't make much sense to me when TUGgers expect sales reps to be well-versed in the legal nuances of the governing docs, or for phone reps to be well-versed in the myriad items that go into inventory metrics, or any number of things. In my view every Marriott employee can't possibly be expected to know the product details to the extent that each owner should, and certainly not to the extent that TUGgers delve into every facet of ownership as well as the multiple Marriott companies' responsibilities and rights. Each employee has his/her own job and they can't be expected to know more than what that job requires - that's what makes sense to me.
> 
> But honestly, to me it's preposterous that an on-property rooms controller/assigner shouldn't be responsible for knowing which units fall under which designation, as well as - and maybe more importantly - why there are "better" and "worse" units within each designated unit/view type. Really? The one person whose job it is to assess requests prior to stays and then field complaints from dissatisfied owners/guests about unit assignments isn't expected to know why some units are better than others? S/he takes requests on a regular basis for "a high floor" but has never walked the property or visited the units to find out why nobody wants the lower floors? S/he hears complaints about the obstructed views from owners/guests who have been assigned the lower floor units, and doesn't retain the information or pass it on to the overall ownership at the same time she's explaining the time stamp policy and why it's so important to get in the queue as soon as possible?
> 
> I don't get that line of thinking. It genuinely perplexes me.


I have to defend Stephanie or Emily here. I have talked to them both this week in person as I told them that we loved this corner unit and she made note of it immediately. We also discussed the big shady tree down below. It is my opinion that it shades the first five or six floors but the ocean view category is given from the third floor and up (I believe as I do not have the view category plan with me here) so two stories wouldn't have that good a view. I can't remember who it was but one of the two ladies told me that they warn the guests that the condo is very shady and she told me that there are people who love the idea to be next to a big tree because it gives them complete privacy. 

Emily warned us that we would have noise so they do communicate if there are drawbacks with the view or noise. We have stayed at several Marriott resorts too and nobody ever told us anything about the view. They do about noise or something unusual. 

Also, these ladies have met many owners over the years and anyone is welcome to visit them. These are my words because we felt very welcome when we went to see them plus we met two new ladies too.

Now about the noise. I reported the other day in my other thread that there was minimal noise but that can change very much from one day from to the other. When we parked our car on a higher floor, we noticed a lot of noise two days ago so there is noise and we could even hear it here quite far away. Yesterday was noisy too when I walked down from the parking structure again so they must hear it on the side of our tower. Not so much at the ocean front because the waves will block it out.


----------



## ruhskis9713 (Apr 4, 2014)

*Good News*



bobmcgraw said:


> Hi Tuggers,
> 
> We own at the MOC (both original and sequel).  We were at MOC at the end of February and beginning of March and were assigned Unit 3110 (oceanfront) in the Lanai Tower.  When they called us in advance and asked for preferences, I gave them units in the Molokai Tower.
> 
> ...



Good news:  In a few years the palms will grow taller and annoy the guests in the unit above this one.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 5, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> But honestly, to me it's preposterous that an on-property rooms controller/assigner shouldn't be responsible for knowing which units fall under which designation, as well as - and maybe more importantly - why there are "better" and "worse" units within each designated unit/view type.  Really?  The one person whose job it is to assess requests prior to stays and then field complaints from dissatisfied owners/guests about unit assignments isn't expected to know why some units are better than others?  S/he takes requests on a regular basis for "a high floor" but has never walked the property or visited the units to find out why nobody wants the lower floors?  S/he hears complaints about the obstructed views from owners/guests who have been assigned the lower floor units, and doesn't retain the information or pass it on to the overall ownership at the same time she's explaining the time stamp policy and why it's so important to get in the queue as soon as possible?
> 
> I don't get that line of thinking.  It genuinely perplexes me.



Why in the world do you think Stephanie doesn't know what units fall in what classifications or what units are better than others?  Your assumption is not true and it has never even been hinted at in any of the posts in this thread except by you.  Stephanie obviously knows this information and communicates it to owners when relevant.  I repeat, OP was not surprised he got a low priority because of the time he made his reservation.  He was just surprised that an ocean front room would have a palm tree obstruction.  He does not claim to have been mislead by Stephanie and even he specifically says it is not her fault.  He probably did not personally discuss this specific assignment with her but relied on a written request.  I frequently do it that way myself.  You use the word "preposterous".  What I find preposterous is that everyone in this thread who has dealt with Stephanie is singing her praises and yet you are for some reason making up facts and criticizing her job performance despite never having dealt with her.  I repeat, you are the only one if this entire thread who has been critical of Stephanie Pharmer.

A few years ago I made a rather late reservation and was assigned a villa in Napili Tower that I did not like.  I then discussed the assignment with Stephanie and I must say after that discussion that I could not fault her in any way.  I was very impressed.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Apr 5, 2014)

Stephanie does not make the room designations, others are responsible for that.  She can obviously intervene, and as noted by others, is very informative and helpful.

Two things:  I don't want to be a room assigner when I grow up AND for those that want to maximize their room assignment, learn the rules and take advantage of them...


----------



## csxjohn (Apr 5, 2014)

bobmcgraw said:


> ...In some cases, Marriott is no longer referring to these units as "views".  The categories, as noted in the email I received are Garden, Ocean Side and Ocean Front.  These refer to location, not view.  I find this a bit dishonest for weeks owners that were sold views.
> 
> I pulled a couple of my old price sheets from when MOC started.  The categories are Mountain/Garden View, Ocean View and Ocean Front.  And these are still the designations in the DC Points Charts.
> 
> ...So, back to my original point, I think Marriott or the Board of Directors or someone I have yet to discover, needs to take ownership for preserving the views for which people paid a whole lot of money.



These statements make me question what your deed says.  Are you saying you bought "views" based on what the sales people told you and what was printed in the old price sheets, or is it what's deeded?

Thinking back so some of the earlier posts it seems there is a difference.  Does OF actually mean an unobstructed view of the ocean or is this being inferred and is it a deeded right?

I'm just curious about how Marriott handles this issue in the deeds it sells.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 5, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> These statements make me question what your deed says.  Are you saying you bought "views" based on what the sales people told you and what was printed in the old price sheets, or is it what's deeded?
> 
> Thinking back so some of the earlier posts it seems there is a difference.  Does OF actually mean an unobstructed view of the ocean or is this being inferred and is it a deeded right?
> 
> I'm just curious about how Marriott handles this issue in the deeds it sells.



Whether they call it a "view" or a "location designation" the issue is that Marriott sold the units with a certain categorization. They identified which units had such a designation. If they desired, they could have designated a basement unit with an ocean front category. It does really come down to how the units were originally designated, rightly or wrongly. It is all in the CC&Rs. I don't think the deeds actually spell out the view.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Apr 5, 2014)

My floating units at MOC, as far as the deed goes, have a specific room location. If you look up the room location in MOC's handy-dandy lookup table, you will see it's one of the ocean front units. So it spells out the view, indirectly.  I have the PDF, but is too large to share...


----------



## bobmcgraw (Apr 5, 2014)

GaryDouglas said:


> My floating units at MOC, as far as the deed goes, have a specific room location. If you look up the room location in MOC's handy-dandy lookup table, you will see it's one of the ocean front units. So it spells out the view, indirectly.  I have the PDF, but is too large to share...



My deeds spell out the specific unit (Apartment) as well.  And if I actually got that unit every time I would be a happy camper as it is on the 9th floor of the Molokai Tower (Unit 9009).  

But then the deed states I have the right to "use and occupy a Unit of the same Unit Type as the Apartment".   And while legally the unit I got that was sub-par may be recorded as the same type, in practice it is not.  Not even close.


----------



## snowgoose (Apr 5, 2014)

I believe the deeds specify a particular unit/villa to comply with a law that says they can only sell so many deeds per unit or something to that effect.  That's how it was explained to us when we purchased.  The sales lady also explained that the deed's unit number is not used when assigning a villa.  In fact, the assigning people don't even know the deed's villa number.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Apr 6, 2014)

*Giving Luck a Nudge*

My deeds, Exhibit 1 of Marriott's Disclosure statement, and the infamous multi-colored view chart show what the range of possibilities are for any of our stays. We knew this when we signed onto this endeavor. 

A couple years ago, we let our daughter and son-in-law use one of our units. Before this time she used to say the view didn’t matter all that much to her. They asked to have the reservation date changed from our 13 month out reservation to a different date, losing around 7 months of priority in the process. I reminded her of what they may be giving up, but she didn’t seem to care. I remaindered her of the things she could do to optimize the suite they got. My parental admonitions went unheeded. When she arrived with their guests, they received an OF suite where one of the rooms were overlooking the garage which is adjacent to the Lahaina building. She complained to the front desk, but it was too late. I was less than sympathetic. They are now the wiser for it.

My continuing recommendation to all is, learn what the rules are and optimize what you can, which gives luck a much more fertile ground to take hold.


----------



## anibil (Jul 25, 2014)

*to: bobmcgraw*

We used to request this unit for years as it is the biggest with the biggest patio. When the whole family came it was terrific and it was a short walk down the stairs to the barbecue, instead of walking way to the elevator with your dinner on a platter. But as the trees grew, the view got worse and worse. Like you, we no longer appreciate it since with age we spend more time looking at the ocean and less time away from the unit, the pool or sight seeing. Our biggest joy there is in owning an Oceanfront and of course seeing the ocean.

When asked where you want to stay ask for an upper floor. That does not mean you will get it, but I have found the reservations personnel very obliging. I am surprised you did not find them helpful. When they send you a questionnaire regarding your preferences, ask for an upper floor. I think that is all you can do and hope for the best. I believe they really do try, but there are so many owners arriving on the same day, it keeps their computer hopping. I have always thought that perhaps it also depends on the time of day you arrive, or the day of arrival, with Friday being the best and Sunday the worst when it is all picked over. And by evening they have probably been juggling like mad all day to accommodate the early arrivals who were also not pleased with their unit. I could be wrong, but it may make a difference.

That is the beauty of the Lahaina and Napili towers where you can buy fixed time and fixed units. I think tho the next time you go there, you will get a floor above the trees. Just keep asking as there are also owners who prefer the lower floors so they can walk down easily. I understand there is an owner who always asks for the bottom floor, which I would not want. It definitely does not have a great ocean view, but certainly has easy access to everything. To each his own!! Good luck next time.


----------



## Chrispee (Jul 25, 2014)

As an exchanger with an ocean front unit booked for the end of August, this thread makes me excited that this is one of the worst views I could potentially get


----------



## pedro47 (Jul 25, 2014)

To the exchanger you will rec'd an ocean front view just not on a very high floor. Just sit back and enjoy your week.


----------

