# How the Public Rates Westgate



## JLB

In order to not further detract from others' threads, I have started a new one.  We frequently go this way when Westgate comes up, the way of focusing on those who post, rather than on the topic.  

Perhaps it is peculiar to this website and perhaps it is commonplace on all Internet forums, the need to restate facts until the focus is on the facts, rather that the messengers.

Again, the purveyors of fact have been pointed at, as if a couple grumpy old dudes   have created discontent with a resort, based on distant, isolated incidences.

In others' vernacular, to take the blame that the _basher bashers _have attempted to place on the _bashers_, I wish to submit the facts, what the public has to say about this subject.

Really, and I mean this sincerely as someone who hitched his wagon to Westgate many years ago, based on the promises made to us, and then continued to dump money into the cash cow for 14 years, that a company as prominent as CFI is in the Central Florida area, and, now, throughout the timeshare world, does not seem to be able to get the message, to fix a few things to make the vacation experience better for their guests.

Really, after dumping thousands of dollars into something, do you think we looked forward to or took lightly the decision that we just had to get out, and at a substantial loss?

Clearly, something is up at Westgate, something that, despite similar, even better, facilities and amenities than other resorts, turns people off.  Debate this with the pubic, for they have spoken.

The following is from one of the most popular travel-rating sites on the Internet, Tripadvisor.

The public rates the original, Westgate Vacation Villas, in the bottom half in it’s category- - - #22 of 34 specialty lodging in Kissimmee - - -
- - - - - -
In Kissimmee, here are the timeshares that the public rates higher than the highest rated Westgate resort, and where the public rates Kissimmee Westgate resorts:

Wyndham Cypress Palms:  # 8 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee 
Vacation Village at Parkway  # 13 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee
Silver Lake Resort # 17 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee
Orange Lake:  #18 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee
Polynesian Isles # 20 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee
Orbit One Vacation Villas # 23 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee
Fantasy World Club Villas # 25 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee 
Oak Plantation Resort # 26 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee
Barefoot’n in the Keys # 27 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee 
Star Island Resort and Club # 31 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee  
High Point World Resort # 32 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee 
Villages at Mango Key # 33 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee 
Celebration World Resort # 36 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee
Villas at Fortune Place # 42 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee 
*Westgate Town Center: #45 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee*
. . . . .
*Westgate Towers: # 87 of 162 hotels in Kissimmee*
- - - - - - 

In Orlando, there are many timeshares that the public rates higher than Westgate resorts.  Here’s a few, and where the public rates Orlando Westgate Resorts:

Horizons by Marriott: # 4 of 292 hotels in Orlando 
Marriott’s Cypress Harbour: # 7 of 292 hotels in Orlando 
HGVC on International:  # 11 of 292 hotels in Orlando
Marriott’s Grande Vista: # 18 of 292 hotels in Orlando
Sheraton Vistana Villages:  #23 of 292 hotels in Orlando
Wyndham Bonnett Creek: # 24 of 292 hotels in Orlando 
HGVC at Seaworld:  # 42 of 292 hotels in Orlando 
Disney’s Boardwalk Villas: # 44 of 292 hotels in Orlando 
Disney’s Old Key West Resort: # 47 of 292 hotels in Orlando 
The Fountains:  # 48 of 292 hotels in Orlando 
Disney’s Beach Club Villas: # 65 of 292 hotels in Orlando 
. . .
. . . 
*Westgate Palace: # 118 of 292 hotels in Orlando* 
. . . 
. . . 
*Westgate Lakes:  #162 of 292 hotels in Orlando*


----------



## frenchieinme

*Some people do not always see the same thing...*



JLB said:


> In order to not further detract from others' threads, I have started a new one.  We frequently go this way when Westgate comes up, the way of focusing on those who post, rather than on the topic.
> 
> Perhaps it is peculiar to this website and perhaps it is commonplace on all Internet forums, the need to restate facts until the focus is on the facts, rather that the messengers.
> 
> =
> 
> The following is from one of the most popular travel-rating sites on the Internet, Tripadvisor.
> 
> [/B]




Let's look at what one of the most popular travel-rating sites on the Internet, Tripadvisor has to say on Westgate Lakes for the postings for the month of January 2008.  There were 9 of them.  The ratings were from 1 (worse) to 5 (best).  Here is how the posters rated it:

Jan 27---2 out of 5 stars
Jan 27---5 out of 5 stars
Jan 25---5 out of 5 stars
Jan 22---4 out of 5
Jan 10---1 out of 5
Jan 08---1 out of 5
Jan 02---4 out of 5
Jan 02---1 out of 5
Jan 01---5 out of 5

Of the 9 Jan postings, 5 of the 9 rated it 4 or 5 whereas the other 4 rated it a 1 or a 2 experience.  From Jan's posts, a little more than 50% of the people rated the Westgate Resort a 4 or a 5.  What did these people experience that the other 4 did not or expressed in reverse, what did the 4 not experience that the 5 did?  One of the people giving it a 1 started the post with how beautiful, well layed out, place the resort was with its spacious units.  Why a 1?  It further states they were subjected to a high pressure tour.  Why didn't they simply walk out because from the post they made the rest of the experience was good but the post is a 1 because of the tour?

People with the disposition of the 5 will tend to rate it accordsingly and people with the disposition of the 4 will do likewise and people on TUG will continue to be like in the political arean either red posters or blue posters.

Again, I can't speak for Westgate Villas or other Westgate Resorts but I have tried to limit my input to Westgate Lakes because that is the one I have experience with.  I have rented my units on many occasions and none of my renters remotely experienced what the 4 Jan Tripadvisor reviewers experienced.  That is all I am trying to bring out here.

People need to assess for themselves and based on how they view things will assess and give a review accordingly based on what they perceived.  To brand the place Wastegate deprives people of an experience (such as the 5 Jan Tripadvisors had) which others feel they should not even have considered in the first place.

frenchieinme


----------



## AwayWeGo

*WestGate, Shmesttgait.*




JLB said:


> Again, the purveyors of fact have been pointed at, as if a couple grumpy old dudes   have created discontent with a resort, based on distant, isolated incidences.


I never knock the grumpy old dudes.  Shux, every time I take a shave I see a grumpy old dude in the mirror. 

However that may be, our exposure to WestGate (so far) is strictly through high-pressure sales tours of their timeshares -- for freebies.  That's not apt to change, in that (a) we won't be buying WestGate, & (b) WestGate timeshares mainly exchange through I-I (not that there's anything wrong with I-I) & we are strictly RCI (not that there's anything wrong with RCI, either). 

In fairness, I have to concede that the WestGate timeshare tours are far from the worst we've been exposed to.  Top spot on that list bar none goes to Club de Soleil out in Las Vegas a few years ago.  Sheesh. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Steamboat Bill

JLB - thanks for posting this fantastic research.

Here are a few of my comments:

1. I love Tripadvisor, but I am surprised that Horizons and HGVC beats out every DVC property....something is very fishy here.

2. I can't comment on any Westgate in Orlando as I have never visited one, but I am an owner at Westgate Park City and that place is awesome, but it is rated #24/54 for Park City.


----------



## talkamotta

*Nothing new*

duplicate post


----------



## talkamotta

*Nothing new*

I have been a member of Westgate for 11 years now.  VVA11 for those of you who know the resort.  Yes, I bought it from the developer.  1st year, they sold me an EOY for $5K then the next year I went to EY for an additional $1K and they changed my account to 0% interest.  The salesman kept in touch with me over the years.  If he knew I was visiting he would pop in and say hello, without any sales pitches.  I was very lucky and he was the top sales person for a couple of years.  Ive lost touch with him but Im glad I bought.  I wont argue that it wasnt one of my best purchases.  Can buy Westgate 2 bedrooms w/lofts alot cheaper than $6K.  I have received some great trades and good memories because of this resort.   So I would be a 4.5 rating.  

Over the years, when I have stayed at Westgate.  The first 3 years were great. The 5th year, I was invited to a maintenance meeting, yeah right, I was madder than hell for the dishonesty of this sales tactic.  I rather made a spectical of myself in the meeting with all the people around.  I made a few comments of why would I want to buy another resort here for x amount of dollars when I can buy it on ebay for under $1K.  The meeting ended shortly after.  I wanted certain things in my unit fixed and thats why I came to this meeting.  I saw the property maintenance go down.  

In 2004, I made a call to the reservation agent and booked 2 years for Thanksgiving in 2005.  The agent was very professional only charge me one trading fee and I received loft units next to each other.  In 2005, the customer service was exceptional.  We asked for extra pans for turkey dinner.  Play pen.  High chairs.  Dryer needed to be fixed in one unit.  They were there promptly and fixed it.  The unit could use some new paint and the birds need to go but the leather couches, beds were in great shape.  They were painting the outside of the units while we were there.  

The sales staff tried to book me for a meeting, I told them I didnt know if I would be available but we could book it for Friday (day before I left).  I was busy and forgot, they didnt bother me any other time.   

I dont usually go to timeshare sales meetings.  I wouldnt go to a Westgate one for sure.   Ive only been to Westgate Vacation Villas, Westgate Lakes, Westgate Canyons and Westgate Flamingo in Vegas.  All have been very nice resorts.  Only my home resort has asked me to attend a sales presentation.  The others never approached me in person.

By the way, my kids liked Westgate better than the Marriot.


----------



## Transit

Tripadvisor reports tend to vary so wildly i'ts sometimes hard to get a good read on weather a resort is right for me.I stayed at Westgate Lakes last summer and had no complaints.We had a very nice vacation and Westgate was very responsive to anthing we needed.I wasn't bothered by the preveiws because it was my cousins unit. The rooms (3 bed) were average ,but well kept.I'd give 3 out of 5 stars.


----------



## bnoble

I'm not sure these are "ratings".   It's a "popularity index", and lord only knows what that actually means.  It's certainly not average rating: MGV is ranked #18, with an average rating of 4 "little dots".  The StayBridge suties is ranked #19, but has an average rating of 4.5 "little dots".

I don't know what it _does_ mean, though; I can't find a description of it anywhere on the site.

That's not to say that Westgate resorts are generally highly ranked, and I have to admit I have no stake in the argument---I don't own Westgate, never have, and other than driving through WVV/WTC, have never even visited, let alone stayed there.

But I think the TUG rankings are probably more meaningful than the "popularity index".


----------



## merc

Interesting how no one seems to acknowledge Westgate management on doing a pretty fine job on keeping very nice resorts functioning and usually improving over many years, for not going bankrupt, for not levying special assessments for unfunded maintenance, or for not jacking up maintenance fees in unexpected leaps.  I have always been impressed with Westgate's ability to maintain and grow when most other firms don't or can't.  What other proof is there needed than two decades of performing well in obviously the majority of transactions?   Many other timeshare companies have folded or deteriorated, probably because they have never quite understood what the resort business takes.  Go on some realty websites and check out how many hotels and resorts are for sale, and perhaps get a bargain and show Westgate how to operate.


----------



## JLB

About on track, at least the focus is on the pluses and minuses of CFI resorts.

Sure, almost all owners are satisfied enough to keep paying, as opposed to the other option, losing just about everything they have in it.  As is evidenced here, even unhappy owners keep paying.

But, when *only 35%* (WVV) and *44%* (WL) of the public (who care to respond) look favorably on those resorts, and much more favorably on many more resorts, as owners does that not at least make you curious, wanting to know why, or uneasy, or a little upset?

Let me speak as an owner, putting that hat back on.  What made me/us feel uneasy when we arrived at WVV is that the first thing you see, the most prominent thing, is the sales big parking lot and sales center on the right.  Our first emotion was not an ooh or an ahh, we're home, it was a cringe.  Even though WVV is supposedly turned over to independent associations of owners, CFI is still there with an overbearing presence on _my_ resort, using _my_ facilities, to put more money in their pockets, and the first thing I have to see is that.

We bought vacation time in order to vacation.

Yeah, CFI Management has kept the place running (not that still being around is a great measuring stick, as thousands of other resorts are, while relatively few have folded), but at what cost to public relations, and is CFI Management really not just Mr. Siegel.   

Could they not just tweak a few things and improve that public relations situation?  Or, as owners, do you deny that a problem exists?


----------



## JLB

Any explanation for why the former Grandvista Branson resorts that were Gold Crowns under Grandvista, are not under WG?  The primary one, the former Cedar Ridge, has no RCI rating at all?

What does that say about WG?

And how is that good for the owners?



merc said:


> Interesting how no one seems to acknowledge Westgate management on doing a pretty fine job on keeping very nice resorts functioning and usually improving over many years


----------



## frenchieinme

*Let's look at it another way...*



JLB said:


> Sure, almost all owners are satisified enough to keep paying, as opposed to the other option, losing just about everything they have in it.  As is evidence here, even unhappy owners keep paying.
> 
> But, when *only 35%* (WVV) and *44%* (WL) of the public look favorably on those resorts, and much more favorably on many more resorts, as owners does that not at least make you curious, wanting to know why, or uneasy, or a little upset?



As a present owner I am satisfied not because the alternative is selling but because I have been and continue to be treated fairly and well.  My whole extended family feels that way.  I just received a tel call from the daughter in Nashville informing me she will not only be there in March during her spring break (as planned) but also Th thru Sun of Presidents' week (unplanned) because Southwest is making it affordable with below $100 fares and Westgate Lakes keeps making her and her daughter's vacation there memorable and enjoyable.  It is not unhappy owners as they are referred to but happy ones that keep paying. 

There is a mention of 44% of the public rates Westgate Lakes favorably.  Even if this figure is accurate, it does not phase me as much as if the figure were 44% of the owners.  The owners are what is important to me.  The owners I keep talking to yearly while vacationing to WGL have a high 90% approval rating from my experiences there.  Non-owners may tend to be more critical and may have unfair expectations.  Keeping this in mind, I went back to Tripadvisor and looked up more past ratings.  The negative ratings are mainly from non-owners.  That should indicate something to you.  Owners, regardless of where they own, appear to have a greater tolerance and liking for their resort.  That seems to make sense.  

This kind of reminds me in a way to friend of mine who built himself and his wife a 30 X 80 ranch which cost him over $300,000 some 10 years ago.  My friend was telling me the wife of an acquaintance after having been given a personal tour of the new house said "I really do not like this house.  It is too big. "   I wondered if this woman had visited a Westgate Resort and given a bad review because what was seen was opposite of what the owners there were seeing.  I guess beauty is really in the eyes of the beholder.

frenchienme


----------



## dougp26364

JLB said:


> Any explanation for why the former Grandvista Branson resorts that were Gold Crowns under Grandvista, are not under WG?  The primary one, the former Cedar Ridge, has no RCI rating at all?
> 
> What does that say about WG?
> 
> And how is that good for the owners?




I prefer to think about it as, what does that say about RCI?

You know I'm not a big Westgate fan or supporter but, considering the other resorts that RCI ranks this clearly shows the politics of RCI and should not be considered a reflection of resort quality with Westgate. Westgate Branson Woods is still a 5* or Gold Crown quality resort that just happens to be managed by Westgate.

Tripadvisor is a poor measuring tool for Timeshares. Many people rent expecting hotel services only to find they have to make their own beds each day, take out their own trash and wash their own dishes. For many this is not their idea of a vacation. No matter how large the unit might be. No matter how great the resort amenities might be. If there's not someone making their bed, providing turn down service and bringing them clean glasses every day they'll still consider it a dump.


----------



## timeos2

*Wastegate. The bottom of a very, very low pit.*



frenchieinme said:


> As a present owner I am satisfied not because the alternative is selling but because I have been and continue to be treated fairly and well.



As a long time owner, thankfully at resale so my purchase cost exposure is minimal, I find Wastegate to be a poster child for everything bad about timeshare and especially heavy handed control freak developer/management. 

The resorts are, at best, OK - they are not as beautiful or well maintained as they were when we wanted to buy in as the focus was, is and apparently always will be to build more more more, sell sell sell and make money for #1 - the developer. There are too many units so they don't have a good resale or trade value. There are too many so the maintenance is always lacking. The total focus of management is helping sales - not proper operation of resorts or good experience for owners/guests so that experience also suffers.

As for operations and fees they "find" $100/year to pay for the unwanted (by majority of owners) maid services but not to improve the units which is desperately needed. They have held on to control for nearly a decade after it should have been turned over to the individual owners. They have high handedly imposed ARDA fees and "donations"  to bogus, developer run "charities" without owner approval or oversight.  They play games with ROFR and other impediments to resales they have no business sticking their weasel like noses into. 

This is a ham fisted, megalomaniac group that cares zero for anything but sales income and their own pocketbooks. That owners have to be tolerated and actually appear at the desk expecting to enjoy a carefree vacation is only accepted by Wastegate because they use every trick and obnoxious irritation in the book to attempt to sell them even more over priced time that they do their best to devalue at every opportunity.

This group is below pond scum and deserves nothing but total scorn by owners, guests and the public. A zero rating is FAR too high for them.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Why Keep On Punishing Yourself ?*




timeos2 said:


> As a long time owner, thankfully at resale so my purchase cost exposure is minimal, I find Wastegate to be a poster child for everything bad about timeshare and especially heavy handed control freak developer/management.
> 
> The resorts are, at best, OK - they are not as beautiful or well maintained as they were when we wanted to buy in as the focus was, is and apparently always will be to build more more more, sell sell sell and make money for #1 - the developer.


I think if I found myself in that spot -- owing a timeshare I loved to hate -- I would dump it pronto via eBay then (also via eBay) buy another resale timeshare I actually like & approve of.  

Life it too short to mess with any timeshare I dislike & disrespect. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2

*Wastegate ain't no Disney or Marriott - they're worse. That isn't easy to do*



AwayWeGo said:


> I think if I found myself in that spot -- owing a timeshare I loved to hate -- I would dump it pronto via eBay then (also via eBay) buy another resale timeshare I actually like & approve of.
> 
> Life it too short to mess with any timeshare I dislike & disrespect.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



While to some degree it is self flagellation I suppose I do manage to get fair, if not great, value out of my annual fees by using some combination of RCI/RCI Points with my annual Wastegate week. Since RCI doesn't get many deposits from the waste pit while II is buried in them the value is much higher with RCI. As I said I didn't pay much to get in but even then I'd have a hard time getting out for even that small amount thanks to the actions of this obnoxious group. 

Then there is the fact that once you get out of a resort - even a bad deal - but continue to comment on that resort/group it leads to accusations of sour grapes, etc.  Just look at the DVC or Marriott threads - places we dumped for  reasons of disillusionment and/or bad management policies - now we're considered "outsiders" despite having had first hand experience with those groups. Since we continue to get value from Wastegate and it means we can speak from an owners perspective, we continue to hang in there. But like JLB there will come a day I'm sure when the slime at Wastegate will finally push us too far with another outrageous move and then, reluctantly, we will foist the steaming pile known as Wastegate ownership off on some unsuspecting purchaser. Even that action makes me cringe as I already feel sorry for the poor slob that takes it.    Fortunately except for one annual payment, after excising the bogus "donations" tacked on by the management slime, and posts like this we really don't have to deal with Wastegate much anymore.  And I enjoy stopping by the weasel den now and then with my owners pass to get some free popcorn and listen to the never ending lies and pressure of the sales force. Free entertainment on a rainy day in Orlando.


----------



## JLB

Thanks, Doug, for providing the obvious reply, which moves us back to the cruxt of the problem, that WG conducts business in such a manner as to alienate people and organizations that a timeshare resort (especially cosidering its owners) would be better off not alienating.  

In the case of RCI, they were rubbed the wrong way so hard that more than 15 years later WG owners are still suffering the consequences of abrasive business tactics.

As you likely know, this is still a 2-way street, with WG employees still firing broadsides at RCI every chance they get, in a manner making it clear that they are trained to do so.  How does that help the situation, or the owners?

So, whether its owners, guests, sales prospects, or exchange companies, WG clearly is consistent in creating animosity, so much so that the sour taste lasts for years.
- - - - - -
As to your point that tripadvisor is not a good barometer because folks tend to compare a timeshare resort with traditional accomodations:

1.  I said that in one of the other current WG threads.
2.  I attempted to negate that bias by showing where other TS resorts stand in the eyes of tripadvisor respondents, and many do much better despite the bias.
3.  It doesn't say much about timesharing, that a substantial number of respondents would prefer a motel, and some not all that great, over an expensive vacation alternative like timesharing.
- - - - - -
What is the focus of CFI when it comes to WG resorts?  Is it that they are places to provide an exceptional vacation experience?  Is it that they are places to showcase the ego of one man?  Is it that they are stages, paid for by others (the owners), for a small number of people to acquire wealth?

What is the focus of management?




dougp26364 said:


> I prefer to think about it as, what does that say about RCI?
> 
> You know I'm not a big Westgate fan or supporter but, considering the other resorts that RCI ranks this clearly shows the politics of RCI and should not be considered a reflection of resort quality with Westgate. Westgate Branson Woods is still a 5* or Gold Crown quality resort that just happens to be managed by Westgate.
> 
> Tripadvisor is a poor measuring tool for Timeshares. Many people rent expecting hotel services only to find they have to make their own beds each day, take out their own trash and wash their own dishes. For many this is not their idea of a vacation. No matter how large the unit might be. No matter how great the resort amenities might be. If there's not someone making their bed, providing turn down service and bringing them clean glasses every day they'll still consider it a dump.


----------



## JLB

Wow!  _Deja vu._ 

Don't you know that DW and I had exactly the same sentiment.  Although we were taking a huge loss, we did not want to just dump it on someone, perhaps someone really nice.

As it turned out, it was someone really nice, a preacher from Alabama with a _special_ child.  It just so happened that the weeks we owned were his vacation weeks from the church, and that he had a friend in Orlando who went by the resort to check out the pools and stuff like that, before they bought.

We felt a little better that it went that way.  Had it not, we felt we would not have been much better than the folks who misled us in the first place, and continued to, except of course, that we were not lining our pockets.



timeos2 said:


> there will come a day I'm sure when the slime at Wastegate will finally push us too far with another outrageous move and then, reluctantly, we will foist the steaming pile known as Wastegate ownership off on some unsuspecting purchaser. Even that action makes me cringe as I already feel sorry for the poor slob that takes it.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Expensive, Shmeckzpensive.*




JLB said:


> It doesn't say much about timesharing, that a substantial number of respondents would prefer a motel, and some not all that great, over an expensive vacation alternative like timesharing.


We wouldn't be into timeshare if we couldn't rig it so that we get to stay in luxury timeshare accommodations for roughly Motel 6 & Super 8 rates. 

Sometimes that works, sometimes not.  In any case, it practically always takes some finagling to achieve that result.  No problem -- getting there is 1/2 the fun. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## dougp26364

JLB said:


> Thanks, Doug, for providing the obvious reply, which moves us back to the cruxt of the problem, that WG conducts business in such a manner as to alienate people and organizations that a timeshare resort (especially cosidering its owners) would be better off not alienating.
> 
> In the case of RCI, they were rubbed the wrong way so hard that more than 15 years later WG owners are still suffering the consequences of abrasive business tactics.
> 
> As you likely know, this is still a 2-way street, with WG employees still firing broadsides at RCI every chance they get, in a manner making it clear that they are trained to do so.  How does that help the situation, or the owners?
> 
> So, whether its owners, guests, sales prospects, or exchange companies, WG clearly is consistent in creating animosity, so much so that the sour taste lasts for years.
> - - - - - -
> As to your point that tripadvisor is not a good barometer because folks tend to compare a timeshare resort with traditional accomodations:
> 
> 1.  I said that in one of the other current WG threads.
> 2.  I attempted to negate that bias by showing where other TS resorts stand in the eyes of tripadvisor respondents, and many do much better despite the bias.
> 3.  It doesn't say much about timesharing, that a substantial number of respondents would prefer a motel, and some not all that great, over an expensive vacation alternative like timesharing.
> - - - - - -
> What is the focus of CFI when it comes to WG resorts?  Is it that they are places to provide an exceptional vacation experience?  Is it that they are places to showcase the ego of one man?  Is it that they are stages, paid for by others (the owners), for a small number of people to acquire wealth?
> 
> What is the focus of management?



Valid points. 

As I've been on vacation, I had not read the other thread. I just stumbled into this one. 

As you may know, Westgate is not my favorite resort chain and certainly not one I'd ever want to own with for many of the reasons posted above. I agree with the assessment that Westgate is more focused on sales than current customer satisfaction. But so is almost every other developer. It's just appears that Westgate takes it to extremes. 

On the other hand, we just returned from a stay at a Westin resort. We had messages on our phone daily up until the end that we needed to stop by the concierge for our "welcome package." By the end of the stay I was feeling hounded by Westin to stop by so they could take a shot at roping me into a tour. The thought crossed my mind that they were about as bad as Westgate. For that matter, they were actually worse about this than our last stay at a Westgate resort. 

But, that's just my opinion. I can find fault with every developer where I own. Fortunately it's just not to the extent of how I feel Westgate handles their business.


----------



## JLB

Since RCI has been brought up, I suspect that my feelings, and John's, and others, is not all that different than RCI's, and when all put together, almost overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that something is up, not right, different, in the way CFI conducts business.  Are we all wrong, just imagining things?

There may not be an end game to this discussion, but if there was, it would be nice if it were to be that some owners become pro-active in affecting change in that M.O.  Do you think that is possible, to suggest to CFI management how the owners would like things done?

Maybe start with something simple, something like a Do Not Call list, so that guests can state upfront that they do not wish to be contacted in any way about buying something while they are there, and they don't want to be bothered at home because they stayed there.  Of course, then everyone would have to find their own units, without the golf cart escort.  And maintenance would have to do whatever they do without the infamous maintenance survey.   

Another thing that strikes me is the repeated comments about how nice the resorts are . . . awesome even . . . suggesting that the physical things that furnish a resort are not inadequate, lesser than other resorts, but that it is something else about the resort experience that is turning people off.


----------



## FlyKaesan

I was at WestGate last week and stayed a week while doing the tour.

It seems like they are giving exchangers different unit than the owners unit.  I can see people can give different reviews since I have asked for newer unit but they gave me older unit.  There were plenty new units available.
When I took the tour, it was newer unit with different lock off.  Better kitchen and better systems.
There are so many constructions going on.  They said they will be building water park within the resorts at WestGate Villas.
I really liked all the free activities that was available.  One thing I didn't like was that WestGate wants you to pay for the internet.  I am at Star Island now and they offer free wireless internet.


----------



## talkamotta

If I stay at a resort that I dont own..... I wouldnt expect to have priority.  

Of course out of the 5  trades with WGV,  1. Marriott Grande Ocean - garden view  2. Royal Mayan - street and lagoon view 3.  Marriott - Mountain view  
4. Westgate Canyons - great view 5. Westgate Flamingo Vegas wonderful resort, cant remember if there was a view. 

The difference in reviews is not limited to Westgate.  Try Pahio Ka Eo Kai, if you stay in Phase 2 not so good Phase 3  always a 8.5 or higher.  I made sure I bought in Phase III because of the reviews.   At WGV I own in the VVA (3 letter group)  I have never been to a v11 or such,  again Im happy.  The one year I wasnt happy it was because of thier sales staff.  I did write some letters and the next couple of years I didnt go there but was very happy with the trades I got.  

One of my resorts I own is at Myrtle Beach.  Clean but very plain (Im sure a converted motel)  and I probably wont go there again.  Its right on the beach so I get good trades and I get an AC with II.  So even though I dont care for the resort it serves me well for now.  If it didnt serve me well I would sell it, give it away, donate it.  If I hated WGV or is it just CFI as much as some hate WGV I would get rid of it for sure, anyway I could.  If you have hatred for something, it will just eat at you and makes you sick.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Timeshare Exchange Guest Should Get Same Priority As Timeshare Owner.*




talkamotta said:


> If I stay at a resort that I dont own..... I wouldnt expect to have priority.


If I stay at a resort where I'm not an owner but I'm checking in as an _exchange_ guest*,* I expect to be treated just the same as the owner would be treated.  

Everything the owner was entitled to via owning & paying for that week goes with it when the owner deposits it with the timeshare exchange company. 

Whoever takes that deposited week via exchange should get exactly what the depositing owner would have got -- no more, no less, no exceptions.  Same priority, same courtesy, same everything -- bar none. 

Anything deviation from that & it's not really an exchange. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## frenchieinme

*In specific response to misinformation being spread...*



timeos2 said:


> The resorts are, at best, OK - they are not as beautiful or well maintained as they were when we wanted to buy in as the focus was, is and apparently always will be to build more more more, sell sell sell and make money for #1 - the developer. There are too many units so they don't have a good resale or trade value. There are too many so the maintenance is always lacking. The total focus of management is helping sales - not proper operation of resorts or good experience for owners/guests so that experience also suffers.
> 
> As for operations and fees they "find" $100/year to pay for the unwanted (by majority of owners) maid services but not to improve the units which is desperately needed. They have held on to control for nearly a decade after it should have been turned over to the individual owners. They have high handedly imposed ARDA fees and "donations"  to bogus, developer run "charities" without owner approval or oversight.  They play games with ROFR and other impediments to resales they have no business sticking their weasel like noses into.
> 
> 
> This group is below pond scum and deserves nothing but total scorn by owners, guests and the public. A zero rating is FAR too high for them.



1st paragraph.  Again, I can not speak for other Westgate resorts other than Westgate Lakes, WGL was and continues to be well maintained and actually beautiful with all the well tended colorful flowers, the men on the roofs power washing them clean, other men always seemingly painting every day, every week,...It makes me wonder when was the last time some people who are critical actually went to Westgate Lakes and saw for themselves.  WGL is in continuous upkeep.

2nd paragraph.  Maid service is optional.  If you want it you pay for it otherwise you get a complimentary mid week maid service which comprises of changing the bed linens, washing the bathrooms and replenishing the kitchen supplies such as paper towels, soap, wash clothes, etc...  As for having maid service at the expense of maintaining the property, our 3BR/3BA was completely gone over in 2006 (new carpets, new tile, new appliances, new patio furniture, etc...) and our 4BR/4BA was likewise completely gone over in 2007,  The bldgs escrow account takes into consideration a 10 year cycle of improvements.  Gosh, what more could one ask for as I think this is pretty darn good.  So improving the units at WGL is and continues to be a clearly identifiable and demonstrated activity.  Saying they are not is spreading misinformation.  One should not paint reality with one swipe of the same brush which appears to be happening here.

3rd paragraph.  Calling this group below pond scum seems to be a tad unjustified here based on what I have brought to light as basically factual based on what has been and continues to be happening at WGL.  Let's get our facts straight here and not shoot from the hips.

frenchieinme


----------



## Carl D

AwayWeGo said:


> If I stay at a resort where I'm not an owner but I'm checking in as an _exchange_ guest*,* I expect to be treated just the same as the owner would be treated.
> 
> Everything the owner was entitled to via owning & paying for that week goes with it when the owner deposits it with the timeshare exchange company.
> 
> Whoever takes that deposited week via exchange should get exactly what the depositing owner would have got -- no more, no less, no exceptions.  Same priority, same courtesy, same everything -- bar none.
> 
> Anything deviation from that & it's not really an exchange.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


You may believe that, but that doesn't make it so.
Many resorts do extra things for the owners. 
I don't have a problem with that, as an owner or if I chose to exchange into a resort that has benies for the owners.

I thought CPR had some sort of benefit for owners..??


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Not Ethical To Treat Timeshare Exchange Guests As 2nd Class Citz.*




Carl D said:


> You may believe that, but that doesn't make it so.


I not only believe it, I unequivocally assert it & declare it.  Treating exchangers as 2nd class citz. is _wrong-wrong-wrong_.  That's not to say exchangers don't get raw deals at some timeshares.  Just because that's the way it is at some timeshares doesn't make it right or ethical. 


> Many resorts do extra things for the owners.


If there are owner benefits beyond what happens between check-in & check-out, I'm OK with that. 


> I don't have a problem with that, as an owner or if I chose to exchange into a resort that has benies for the owners.


Me neither if that's what I knowingly choose.  If I know ahead of time that exchangers get the short end, then I'm unlikely to take the exchange in the 1st place. 





> I thought CPR had some sort of benefit for owners..??


At Cypress Pointe I & II, owners get to go on _Owner Updates_ instead of _Timeshare Tours_ -- not sure how big an advantage _that_ is. 

Cypress Pointe I & II are both managed by VRI (Vacation Resorts International), which offers owners rental discounts off rack rates.  Click here for details.  That's the only advantage I'm aware of that Cypress Pointe I & II owners get.  Exchangers into Cypress Pointe I & II are supposed to get equal treatment with owners checking in, as far as I know.  If anybody's exchange experience at Cypress Pointe I or II is different from that, I'd appreciate knowing about it.  

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## dougp26364

AwayWeGo said:


> I not only believe it, I unequivocally assert it & declare it.  Treating exchangers as 2nd class citz. is _wrong-wrong-wrong_.  That's not to say exchangers don't get raw deals at some timeshares.  Just because that's the way it is at some timeshares doesn't make it right or ethical.
> If there are owner benefits beyond what happens between check-in & check-out, I'm OK with that.
> Me neither if that's what I knowingly choose.  If I know ahead of time that exchangers get the short end, then I'm unlikely to take the exchange in the 1st place. At Cypress Pointe I & II, owners get to go on _Owner Updates_ instead of _Timeshare Tours_ -- not sure how big an advantage _that_ is.
> 
> Cypress Pointe I & II are both managed by VRI (Vacation Resorts International), which offers owners rental discounts off rack rates.  Click here for details.  That's the only advantage I'm aware of that Cypress Pointe I & II owners get.  Exchangers into Cypress Pointe I & II are supposed to get equal treatment with owners checking in, as far as I know.  If anybody's exchange experience at Cypress Pointe I or II is different from that, I'd appreciate knowing about it.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



I agree that you can believe or assert all you want but, the developer is always going to treat those that purchased from them and paid the price better than those that use another developers week to exchange into their resort. 

Unit location is just one way that this shows itself. As an owner staying at my resort on my time that I paid for, you can darn sure bet that they had better give me preference over someone who did not buy at that resort, does not vote for that resorts HOA/BOD and does not pay the MF's of that resort for upkeep of that resort. 

Yes exchangers pay MF's for the resort they own at and I know that. But the MF's I paid for the resort I own at were not for the maintenance of the resort I exchanged into and it may be higher or lower than that resorts fee's. 

Exchangers as a general rule are not treated as well as owners and may not have all the perks of owners. The Westgate in Gatlinburg may be a good example as exchangers pay a fee to use the indoor waterpark. I believe that Westgate exchangers pay a small fee and exchangers from outside the Westgate system pay an larger fee. Of course, if you're an exchanger it is optional and not mandatory. 

Another inequity that probably doesn't apply here is European resorts that charge for utilities. I pay MF's that include utilities like electricity yet, when I exchanged into a Scottish resort they read the meter before and after our stay and charged us for the electricity we used. Fare? Probably not but that's the way it was done at this particular resort.


----------



## timeos2

*A week is a week in those systems that trade that way. No exceptions*



dougp26364 said:


> I agree that you can believe or assert all you want but, the developer is always going to treat those that purchased from them and paid the price better than those that use another developers week to exchange into their resort.



Thats why developers have ZERO business running resorts over 5-7 years old.  Sales considerations have zero place in any type of resort operational decisions. And if an owner doesn't pay a fee then an exchange guest - the owner in a different body for that week - shouldn't pay it either.  If an owner WOULD pay then it is fair game to also charge the exchange guest.  

Anything else flies in the face of the idea of week for week exchange and is expressly in conflict with the written contracts with both RCI & II (although both groups have since either made exception to those agreements OR written new ones that don't ban such charges as we all know of resorts that do now tack on those unfair charges both in II which started it and now RCI).  

There is no way to justify charges to exchange guests that are NOT paid by owners as that means the base fees, paid by the owner that gave up the week for trade, already covered those costs. Any additional payment is extortion and totally unfair. Remember kiddies - downgrade any resort/group that pulls that across the board and tell them in every category why.  When they end up as an unranked resort maybe they will get the message that you can't be that arrogant.


----------



## Carl D

AwayWeGo said:


> I not only believe it, I unequivocally assert it & declare it.  Treating exchangers as 2nd class citz. is _wrong-wrong-wrong_.  That's not to say exchangers don't get raw deals at some timeshares.  Just because that's the way it is at some timeshares doesn't make it right or ethical.
> If there are owner benefits beyond what happens between check-in & check-out, I'm OK with that.
> Me neither if that's what I knowingly choose.  If I know ahead of time that exchangers get the short end, then I'm unlikely to take the exchange in the 1st place. At Cypress Pointe I & II, owners get to go on _Owner Updates_ instead of _Timeshare Tours_ -- not sure how big an advantage _that_ is.
> 
> Cypress Pointe I & II are both managed by VRI (Vacation Resorts International), which offers owners rental discounts off rack rates.  Click here for details.  That's the only advantage I'm aware of that Cypress Pointe I & II owners get.  Exchangers into Cypress Pointe I & II are supposed to get equal treatment with owners checking in, as far as I know.  If anybody's exchange experience at Cypress Pointe I or II is different from that, I'd appreciate knowing about it.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



You can declare it all you want. The fact is, that is not the case. 
.. Nor should it be IMO. I believe if you want first dibs on the ocean front view, boardwalk view, first floor, or any other choice, than you should purchase there. 
Does CPR not give that courtesy to owners?

Why are you okay with owner benefits between check-in & check-out? That does seem inconsistent.
I thought CPR owners got some sort of discount on movies or something at the gift shop, but I am probably wrong about that.


----------



## timeos2

*Everyone is an owner from an exchange company (not applicable to renters of course)*



Carl D said:


> You can declare it all you want. The fact is, that is not the case.
> .. Nor should it be IMO. I believe if you want first dibs on the ocean front view, boardwalk view, first floor, or any other choice, than you should purchase there.
> Does CPR not give that courtesy to owners?



If the owner has a FIXED WEEK with a view then the incoming guest should get that unit. Why? Because the trade value was based on what that owner gave up - both owners.  If one gives up everything but then gets less than the second gave up  - or has to pay again for what that owner already paid - it is no longer the trade agreed to.  

At CPR / CPGV there are no fixed weeks/units. All guests - owners or not - get assigned the units that are available that day. No favorites, no unfair fees. 



Carl D said:


> Why are you okay with owner benefits between check-in & check-out? That does seem inconsistent.
> I thought CPR owners got some sort of discount on movies or something at the gift shop, but I am probably wrong about that.



What goes on outside of the actual week used has nothing whatsoever to do with trades or fair exchange values. We're talking about things like discounted rates or a discount at the gift shop (and, yes, both owners AND exchange guest do get the discount).  You cannot justify fees or lesser opportunities to exchange guests as if you do then your owners should also be shortcharged and/or charged when they show up at another resort. Is that what you want or feel is fair?


----------



## Carl D

timeos2 said:


> If the owner has a FIXED WEEK with a view then the incoming guest should get that unit. Why? Because the trade value was based on what that owner gave up - both owners.  If one gives up everything but then gets less than the second gave up  - or has to pay again for what that owner already paid - it is no longer the trade agreed to.
> 
> At CPR / CPGV there are no fixed weeks/units. All guests - owners or not - get assigned the units that are available that day. No favorites, no unfair fees.
> 
> 
> 
> What goes on outside of the actual week used has nothing whatsoever to do with trades or fair exchange values. We're talking about things like discounted rates or a discount at the gift shop (and, yes, both owners AND exchange guest do get the discount).  You cannot justify fees or lesser opportunities to exchange guests as if you do then your owners should also be shortcharged and/or charged when they show up at another resort. Is that what you want or feel is fair?



Okay. I guesss CPR is one that gives absolutely zero benefits to owners vs exchangers.

I have no problem with that either if that's the way management wants it, and it's known to both exchangers and owners.


----------



## timeos2

Carl D said:


> Okay. I guesss CPR is one that gives absolutely zero benefits to owners vs exchangers.
> 
> I have no problem with that either if that's the way management wants it, and it's known to both exchangers and owners.



It was the owners who decided (thats the way a non-developer controlled resort is operated - owners wishes take priority).  How can we expect to get good ratings if we make it a policy to somehow shortchange the very RCI/II whatever exchange guest coming in that will place the numbers on the ratings card?  What do we expect our owners to get at another resort once word gets out that we discriminate at our resort? Fair is fair. We do our very best to make every unit exactly alike as much as possible. We do our best to give each guest/owner the view/unit they want but can only offer whats in the pool available at that time.  We're not going to move an exchange guest out of the pool view they got on Friday because an owner wants it on Sunday or the reverse. It's all anyone can ask. 

Now renters, as they really have no claim to anything except a unit, do not get the same consideration. Owners and renters will always come first over them.


----------



## Carl D

John, am I mistaken that owners had priority on the rehabed rooms at CPR when the resort was only partially done??


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Just Talking Timeshare Exchange Here -- Not Year-Round Timeshare Ownership.*




Carl D said:


> Why are you okay with owner benefits between check-in & check-out? That does seem inconsistent.


Inconsistency ? 

Not at all. 

Anything before check-in & after check-out has nothing to do with exchange. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carl D

AwayWeGo said:


> Inconsistency ?
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Anything before check-in & after check-out has nothing to do with exchange.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


Are you talking about day benefits?

PS- I love your font and all the fancy stuff, but it is a pain in the rear to edit quotes, and at times hard to read.


----------



## timeos2

Carl D said:


> John, am I mistaken that owners had priority on the rehabed rooms at CPR when the resort was only partially done??



Actually that was debated (hotly) at the time. And the eventual outcome was we assigned rooms as they were available without preference to either group. Same question had come up. We were trying to get our scores up (and we did) so how could we give the RCI people the un-renovated units? But the owners were picking up the tab so how could we not give the units to them?  Answer - as they showed up at the front desk assign the rooms that were ready. Pay no attention to renovated or not - owner or not. But put all renters in the un-renovated units.  

It was only a problem for 9 months as we had only 1/3 of the resort upgraded. After that 2/3 was renovated so we could more or less give both groups a new unit.


----------



## Carl D

timeos2 said:


> Actually that was debated (hotly) at the time. And the eventual outcome was we assigned rooms as they were available without preference to either group. Same question had come up. We were trying to get our scores up (and we did) so how could we give the RCI people the un-renovated units? But the owners were picking up the tab so how could we not give the units to them?  Answer - as they showed up at the front desk assign the rooms that were ready. Pay no attention to renovated or not - owner or not. But put all renters in the un-renovated units.
> 
> It was only a problem for 9 months as we had only 1/3 of the resort upgraded. After that 2/3 was renovated so we could more or less give both groups a new unit.


I thought I read that here, more than once, but I guess I'm remembering incorrectly. Wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## talkamotta

I dont know if the person that is using my exchange at Westgate was able to stay in my unit.  I dont know if the Marriott Grande Ocean unit I stayed in was the owners unit.  I guess we just dont know for sure.  If there isnt a unit on your II confirmation, I think its determined by that reservation/check in person. 

I didnt feel that I was being treated as a 2nd rate exchanger.  Take for example Marriott Grande Ocean.  I didnt pay the amount of money the owner paid for that resort.  For the $6K I paid for WGV you couldnt buy Marriott Grande Ocean for that amount, especially if you bought from Marriott.  

At WGV they have bikes, paddle boats, swimming pools, miniature golf.  Westgate isnt the only resort that charges exchangers an extra fee for the use of the extras.   On this point I would have to agree with your.  Everyone should get use of the extras at the same cost of the owners.  Why because all the owners paid equally in mf''s.  Thats my opinion and you might think its a double standard.


----------



## AwayWeGo

Carl D said:


> Are you talking about day benefits?


I'm just talking about what owners & exchange guests get during the time that they're checked in. 

At Cypress Pointe I & II, the pools, mini-golf, work-out room, etc., are for use of people staying at the resort(s).  Owners not actually checked in don't get to use that stuff. 

There's a reason for that.  Carrying capacity of all the resort amenities was designed to accommodate the number of people actually checked in.  Day use by owners just any old time might well overload or at least overcrowd the facilities, which would be unfair to those checked in at the resort.  So it goes.





> PS- I love your font and all the fancy stuff, but it is a pain in the rear to edit quotes, and at times hard to read.


Press < crtl >< + > (depending on your browser program -- e.g., FireFox) to increase the font size that's showing on the screen -- might be a tad easier to read that way, I don't know.  

I got in the habit of using _Comic Sans MS_ because it's _comic_ -- get it? -- which fits right in with the purpose of timeshares & of TUG-BBS (i.e., having fun).  I've been doing it that way so long that by now it's practically a trademark.  Also, the "comic" font is a signal not to take the TUG-BBS entry too seriously.  I figure it's OK to use the fonts/sizes feature or it would have been ordered disabled by the Grand Pro.  

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Timeshare Renters Are 2nd Class Citz. ?*




> (not applicable to renters of course)





> Now renters, as they really have no claim to anything except a unit, do not get the same consideration. Owners and renters will always come first over them.


Hold on -- when I rent out my timeshare, shouldn't the renters receive the same treatment, same priority, etc., that I would have got if I showed up in person & used my time myself instead of renting it out? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## gjw007

Interesting discussion on the notion that exchangers should get the same benefits as owners but the reality is that it just isn't so.  A clear example of this would be DVC.  For a II exchange, there is an additional $95 charge that exchangers have to pay that DVC members don't pay.  In addition, one of the benefits of DVC membership is pool hopping; that is the ability to use any pool, within restrictions, at WDW.  Exchangers don't have this privilege (hotel quests don't either).  In addition, DVC members can choose the type of view or rooms that they like (Savannah view, pool view, Boardwalk view, etc.), exchangers have the units that are left over.

I would agree that if a resort only assigns units when the guest/owner checks in, then everyone should have equal opportunities.  But for resorts that assign units before the guests arrive, the owners preferences should be considered before the exchangers.

Other than Summer Bay (the person that I saw during their sales pitch told me the resort treated owners better), I've never been in a resort where I felt that the resort had a policy of treating exchangers as second class citizens although I know a number of people have said that about the resorts that I have stayed at.  Of course, the argument that I own at such-and-such resort gives me preference over the owners is also heard and as a whole, it seems these are the people who I hear the comments about being second class citizens when they can't get what they demand.


----------



## timeos2

AwayWeGo said:


> Hold on -- when I rent out my timeshare, shouldn't the renters receive the same treatment, same priority, etc., that I would have got if I showed up in person & used my time myself instead of renting it out?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



If you rent your paid for time then that is you checking in disguised as a renter. They do get treated as an owner would. 

Renters for this discussion are the people coming in through Internet wholesalers or advertisements or walk ins at the front desk.  They are taking delinquent time . They get no priority of any type.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Cannot Agree With Making Exchangers 2nd Class Citz.*




gjw007 said:


> I would agree that if a resort only assigns units when the guest/owner checks in, then everyone should have equal opportunities.  But for resorts that assign units before the guests arrive, the owners preferences should be considered before the exchangers.


Shux, exchange guests are stand-ins for the actual owners who merely swapped out their units instead of using'm themselves.  Nothing that's been put forth (so far) by the timeshares or by the TUG-BBS folks justifies unequal treatment of exchange guests vis-a-vis owners staying at the timeshares.  Disney's doing it doesn't make it right.

What's so hard to grasp about the concept of _exchange_ ?   When you get to go to my timeshare on exchange, you're to get what I would have got if I'd gone there myself. That's what's meant by _exchange_.

I get it that exchangers aren't always treated that way.  What I don't get is timeshare owners & exchangers -- & specially TUG members -- taking it lying down. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2

gjw007 said:


> Interesting discussion on the notion that exchangers should get the same benefits as owners but the reality is that it just isn't so.  A clear example of this would be DVC.  For a II exchange, there is an additional $95 charge that exchangers have to pay that DVC members don't pay.  In addition, one of the benefits of DVC membership is pool hopping; that is the ability to use any pool, within restrictions, at WDW.  Exchangers don't have this privilege (hotel quests don't either).  In addition, DVC members can choose the type of view or rooms that they like (Savannah view, pool view, Boardwalk view, etc.), exchangers have the units that are left over.



But that is the prime example of what shouldn't occur!  It was an under the table deal with the ever-so-happy to pander to developers II that allowed DVC to tack on that "exchange penalty". it does nothing for anyone except to add $95 to the bottom line of the Disney Corporation. The long term renters of DVC get no benefit (your fees don't go down by $95 because of that ripoff).  It is the poster child for unfair and useless charges imposed simply "because they can" not because of any need or reason.  Bad example. Now resorts like Manhattan Club have followed that idea - and their scores have dropped now as well. RCI used to prohibit that type of fee but, thanks to II & DVC, apparently the door has been opened.  Another reason why week for week trades are heading toward extinction.  

Of course any DVC member that travels to a non-DVC resort on an exchange should (and hopefully will) be charged a $95 or higher exchange penalty to offset the fee paid by any owner from that resort trading into DVC.  Lets hope that is occurring. And when that exchange guest rates DVC it had better be all "1's" due to the unfair fee.  Too bad as otherwise the DVC resorts really aren't that bad - smaller units than most but hardly deserving of a "1" rating. That fee really ruins the experience and the scores.  But what does DVC care - they are in it for the money not the buyers that pay their fees or the guests that exchange in.  Simple answer is don't trade into DVC rent it - it's far easier than trades anyway.  And no bogus fees. 

The idea of week for week trades were one for one. Owner to owner. Of course it got all screwed up as few weeks are truly equal which is why week for week is dying and points or mini-systems - which do balance the value - are the choice now.


----------



## Polly Metallic

Wow, I just logged on last night and found this thread. I hadn’t been on in about a week, since posting a reply to an inquiry about Westgate Palace, in which I simply said that last I knew the responses on TripAdvisor had been generally favorable. Actually, many I had read had been very enthusiastic. People seem to like that resort better than some of the other Westgate Orlando resorts, perhaps because the units are quite new. A couple years ago, when they had still been remodeling the Palace, there had been a LOT of negative reviews because people were getting pre-renovated units. I was pleased to see that the overall tone of the reviews had changed.

As I mentioned once before, the bulk of Westgate’s negative TripAdvisor reviews is due to the fact that Westgate runs a HUGE amount of promo tours in which the beneficiaries stay for next to nothing, and must sit through a sales presentation. The majority of negative reviews come from people who sat through a longer than 90 minute presentation, and got a heavy does of high-pressure sales tactics. Another large percentage comes from renters who book through Travelocity etc. and are not told that this is not a hotel, so they are expecting daily cleaning and maid service and are appalled when they don’t get that. Other resorts rent, too, but not NEARLY to the extent that Westgate does due to Westgate’s size, consequently Westgate gets several times more hostile maid-deprived complaining occupants! 

I have no problem with TUGgers sharing their negative opinions about Westgate, particularly if the things they note are items likely to be experienced by the average vacationer. A shortcoming in any resorts’ amenities, parking, customer service, furnishings, etc. are logical things to point out, as it is likely that many other vacationers will share those same objections. Intangible things such as management’s attitudes or beliefs and the one’s own emotional reactions to random experiences that occurred, however, are highly subjective, and much less likely to be experienced by typical vacationers. I am not saying that subjective views are inappropriate. They do have their place. I don’t think, however, that it’s necessary or appropriate to use bitter, venomous insults and name calling. 

I have stayed at and toured resorts affiliated with most every resort chain from Marriott, to Hilton, to Wyndham, Diamond (Sunterra), Bluegreen, Pahio etc. In many cases, I have experienced just as much sales pressure and lies/stretched truth from touring these resorts as at Westgate. I have also had incidents occur that I could find fault with, but no matter how unpleasant, it is not in my nature to start a vendetta against that chain, since that goes beyond offering helpful opinions. To me, that is unfairly attempting to turn a host of potential vacationers against a resort. And aside from that, I would never in the world want to hurt and insult fellow TUG members on a continual basis who own at the resort in question and are happy and proud of their resort. 

Westgate Villas is rated in the top 40% of Orlando resorts based on the TUG review numbers. There are many newer hotel chain resorts by Marriott, Sheraton, Hilton etc. that have fancier pools, and more elaborate facilities and justly receive higher ratings. The other 60% of the resorts on the list receive lower ratings. Considering that Orlando is known to be one of the capitals of plush, glamorous resorts, even being in the top 40% is nothing to be ashamed of. A rating in the high 7s to mid 8s on TUG is quite respectable for any location. Furthermore, SFX accepts Westgate resorts, and if the resorts were so awful and they got a lot of complaints from exchangers, they would not accept Westgate. SFX accepts only a few resorts that are not top tier, and those resorts are in areas where there is not much availability and there is high demand. I think it is safe to say that Orlando does not fit that category. 

I feel badly when I see a long time TUG reader/lurker finally post, feeling hurt and offended, because he sees the constant waging of a vendetta and he wants to defend his resort. This seems to prove that the insults and name calling have gone a bit too far. I think most of us have a thick enough skin to shrug it off when everyone does not love the resorts at which we own. We expect that not everyone will. But, when it goes beyond calmly pointing out objections to a resort, and becomes a bitter, scathing, insulting, name-calling affair, then I think it’s inappropriate.


----------



## timeos2

*Wastegate. The cesspool of timeshares sales and operations*



Polly Metallic said:


> As I mentioned once before, the bulk of Westgate’s negative TripAdvisor reviews is due to the fact that Westgate runs a HUGE amount of promo tours in which the beneficiaries stay for next to nothing, and must sit through a sales presentation. The majority of negative reviews come from people who sat through a longer than 90 minute presentation, and got a heavy does of high-pressure sales tactics. Another large percentage comes from renters who book through Travelocity etc. and are not told that this is not a hotel, so they are expecting daily cleaning and maid service and are appalled when they don’t get that. Other resorts rent, too, but not NEARLY to the extent that Westgate does due to Westgate’s size, consequently Westgate gets several times more hostile maid-deprived complaining occupants!



At Wastegate Villas in 2005 the King instituted daily maid service - raising annual fees nearly $100/unit to cover it - while the vast majority of owners who appear on the various timeshare discussion boards were adamantly opposed to the idea. But, as you point out, the massive influx of sales based, low cost renters expected maid service so, naturally, the King imposes it on tens of thousands of unwilling owners. 

Now if they followed FL statutes and turned over control of the Associations to the owners as required my bet is that $100 would be put toward something useful and beneficial to owners such as a larger reserve fund or better unit maintenance/furnishings (those old vinyl 1990's sofas are looking pretty ragged now).  But not in the Kings world. Force owners to pay for unwanted services for sales and let the units get even more run down. Thats the Wastegate way. 

There is no excuse for the way Wastegate operates and tramples owners rights. I continue to raise my one small voice, along with a few others, in the hope that at some point the actual owners will get control and run the King and his corrupt management out of Wastegate, get a real management in that cares for owners not sales and make Wastegate back into the beautiful resort it was when built rather than a mecca of sales excess and pressure.  

In the meantime anyone who wants to visit there will find an OK resort - not what it once was or should be - but they must take steps to minimize any exposure to the sales weasels if you are to enjoy a nice vacation. Until that need changes all owners and guests cannot be warned enough about the everyday operational tactics of the worst timeshare organization in existence today.


----------



## Polly Metallic

To the best of my knowledge, the Villas do not have daily maid service. I believe that change was temporary, as none of the current reviews say they are receiving maid service. The maintenance fees did go up a great deal over a couple year period of time a few years back, but increases had been minimal prior to that, and it appears they were playing catch up. 

As you know, the units receive redecorating and new furnishings periodically. Our unit was done about 1 1/2 years ago and we have not been back since then to see it, but we'll be going this November. BTW, the couches are leather, not vinyl, and leather holds up better generally than fabric upholstery. The grounds appear well maintained, and recent comments from people who have been there more recently than we have, bear this out. The units have new tile roofs, and have all been repainted on the exterior with a new attractive color scheme. They finally built a new much-needed check-in facility, which was another well-justified source of complaints, as there were too many people being funneled through too small a facility. 

The new shopping area and movie theatre are also nice additions. It seems to me they are doing a lot of worthwhile improvements that benefit the owner. I will grant you that these improvements typically take longer to come about than promised, nevertheless, Westgate has come through. We have never had special assessments for any of the propjects, and I hope this trend continues. As far as the maintenance fees are concerned, they appear quite typical for Orlando resorts with a similar level of amenities.


----------



## JLB

Wow, I clicked on Page 2 and thought the link was broken, that it took me to another thread.  But, the last 3 posts came back to the OP.   

Here's another log on the fire:

http://www.timeshareforums.com/foru...-rci-devalues-branson-resorts.html#post200834


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Do You Suppose Disney Sees It That Way Too?  (Just Asking Hypothetically.)*




timeos2 said:


> If you rent your paid for time then that is you checking in disguised as a renter. They do get treated as an owner would.


OK -- glad to hear that.  That's as it should be. 

But just for the sake of exploration & discussion, do you suppose the Disney timeshare officials have that same view of renters checking in?  Or is it more like . . .

_"Oh, so you're not the actual Disney Vacation Club resort owner? You're just -- ah, um -- renting from the people who really own here?  I see.  Well, in that case, that will be $95, please, for transportation & resort service fees.  Will that be cash or credit card?  (No checks, please.) "_

Just wondering. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## FlyKaesan

Just Curious.....

Do Marriott TS treat exchangers/renters second class compared to actual owners?  Such as  Marriott's Cypress Harbour • MCP?  Or Grande Vista?

Can you request for certain views/unit before check in?


----------



## JLB

The Marriott board would be a good place to ask that, since there are always Merryotters there.   



FlyKaesan said:


> Just Curious.....
> 
> Do Marriott TS treat exchangers/renters second class compared to actual owners?  Such as  Marriott's Cypress Harbour • MCP?  Or Grande Vista?
> 
> Can you request for certain views/unit before check in?


----------



## dougp26364

FlyKaesan said:


> Just Curious.....
> 
> Do Marriott TS treat exchangers/renters second class compared to actual owners?  Such as  Marriott's Cypress Harbour • MCP?  Or Grande Vista?
> 
> Can you request for certain views/unit before check in?



Marriott has a definate pecking order as to who is assigned what/where at most of their resorts. I believe that the final decision on how room assignments work is up to the individual HOA's.

Most seem to follow the pecking order of owners staying on their assigned time, owners staying off their time (exchange one season for another or into a different year), Marriott exchangers from other Marriott resorts and then all other exchangers. Renters who have rented a particular room type and/or view will be assigned what they have rented (high floor, ocean view, ocean front et....).

Now, having said that if one pays attention and knows the resort unit layouts it is possible to exchange into a certain view or location. For instance, Marriott's Grand Chatuea has three different one bedroom layouts. One is the LO portion of the 3 bedroom units. This particular one bedroom unit is unique in that the bathroom has a tub/shower combination rather than a seperate bath tub and shower. If making a reservation online and you see tub/shower rather than bathtub shower you could reasonably assume you'd be assigned one of those units and those units are all at the end of the hallway or the end of the tower. 

What you wouldn't know is what view you would get. Grand Chateau will eventually have 4 towers and some of those particular 1 bedroom units will not have Las Vegas Blv. view. Marriott sends out a pre-check in "wish list" for owners staying on their time. This wish list askes where the owner would like to be placed in floor (low, mid or high) and view. Owners aren't guarenteed those requests but Marriott tries to grant owners requests before deciding where to place exchangers.

Ocean Pointe is another of Marriott's resorts where certain room types can give you a hint as to what view you might/will have. For instance, all the 3 bedroom units are ocean front. So if you snag an exchange into this resort you will have an ocean front unit. You might be on the first floor and not actually be able to see the ocean but it is an ocean front (facing) unit. 

Likewise the two bedroom LO at Ocean Pointe has a distinguishing charachteristic in that it is listed with I.I. as 6/6 rather than 6/8. 6/8 units are the ocean view LO two bedroom units. Furthermore the 6/6 will list the second bedroom as having two single beds rather than a king size bed and it doesn't list the mini-kitchen. So, in theory if you exchange for a 6/6 two bedroom unit at Marriott's Ocean Point your room location should be the same as if you exchanged for a 3 bedroom unit. But, as with the 3 bedroom units owners will get their preference of location (floor and/or building) before exchangers.

As of this posting I have an outside exchange into Ocean Pointe for a 2 bedroom 6/6 unit (should be an ocean front unit). I'll have to wait until November of this year to see if they do assign the ocean front unit I reserved on exchange or if they substitute the ocean side/view unit instead, giving the ocean front unit to an owner staying on their time. My bet right now, from personal experience in seeing how Marriott operates from an owners point of view, is that we will get the ocean front 2 bedroom unit. I do anticipate getting a low floor (1 through 3) as most owners want the higher floors. 

Now, is this treating exhangers as second class citizens? I don't think so. I purchased a week at Ocean Pointe for the view and unit location of the 3 bedroom units. If I'm staying there on my time and I'm the one that purchased that style unit I expect to be treated well by my HOA and the developer by getting preferential treatment as to what I would like as far as building and floor. Sorry if that upsets others that like to exchange but that's the way I feel it should be since it's my money paying to maintain that resort and I bought that resort specifically for personal use.


----------



## FlyKaesan

How about treating you differently since you bought resale instead from developers and they want you to either upgrade or buy new unit from developer so you can be treated better.


----------



## dougp26364

FlyKaesan said:


> How about treating you differently since you bought resale instead from developers and they want you to either upgrade or buy new unit from developer so you can be treated better.



I have never read where Marriott has treated resale buyers differently than those that purchased directly from the developer.

There has been a rather nasty rumor that, sometime in the future, all resale purchasers will be restricted to making reservations only 6 months in advance. Rumor has it that resale purchases before they change the rules would be grandfathered in and would not be affected.

Marriott corporate has flately denied these rumors and it seems to be impossible to track down where it started. IMO, it's just another salesmans lies that have grown out of control.


----------



## pgnewarkboy

*Westgate, Marriott, etc*



AwayWeGo said:


> If I stay at a resort where I'm not an owner but I'm checking in as an _exchange_ guest*,* I expect to be treated just the same as the owner would be treated.
> 
> Everything the owner was entitled to via owning & paying for that week goes with it when the owner deposits it with the timeshare exchange company.
> 
> Whoever takes that deposited week via exchange should get exactly what the depositing owner would have got -- no more, no less, no exceptions.  Same priority, same courtesy, same everything -- bar none.
> 
> Anything deviation from that & it's not really an exchange.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​




Marriott, as a matter of policy, does NOT give you all the privileges of an owner.  You are segregated into an area with a lesser view and do not have all the rights and privileges of owners.  I have experienced that numerous time.

As far as Westgate is concerned we just returned from South Beach.  The resort was nice enough but did not have night maintenance crews.  Consequently, we were in real trouble when we had a problem with our toilet.  For that reason alone, I could not recommend westgate in south beach.

We were not hassled to buy a timeshare.


----------



## jdb0822

Well, here's what turned me off on Westgate.  Back in 2001, I took a trip down to orlando.  Stopped by one of those "ticket booths" and signed up for a breakfast and 2 free tickets to disney in exchange for the sales pitch.  So, we went, ate the breakfast and sat thru the sales pitch. It was the typical sales pitch, you know the one where the cycle different salesmen to you.  I was expecting, so it wasn't a problem.  Although I did love that when someone bought a unit, they used a microphone and announced those people as new owners and wanted everyone to clap.  Funny, I have never heard clapping at a funeral.  Anyways, thats just a tactic to make other people in the room want to be recognized.  Nope, we didn't fall for it.  All in all, we could tolerate the sales pitch.  At the end of the pitch, the sales guy dissappeared for nearly 30 mins.  We decided we had enough, and I walked over to the area where the "managers" we hanging out, and said we wanted to leave.  They were overly upset that I walked into "their area" and told me to wait for the salesman to return.  We instead just headed to the "gifting" area and told them the situation and they gave us the tickets without a problem.

Now, what turned me off on the resort was this.  They took us on a tour of the resort and brought us to one of the pools.  There in the pool was a bunch of kids swimming and all around the pool, there must have been about 10-15 other couples with "tour guides" looking at the pool.

Now why would I want to go to a place where a bunch of strangers are gonna stand around and watch me and my kids swim in a pool?   I felt very uncomfortable for those people in the pool.  It was obvious sales was more important than guest relations.


----------



## labguides

We have stayed in 2 Westgates.
Westgate Gatlinburg. we enjoyed it, but it was not on par with Marriotts.
Westgate Park City -- we have stayed there 3x and love. We like it much better than the Marriotts in Park City.


----------

