# Are the Destination Points Charts a Fraud? [Minimum Stay Booking Requirements]



## bobpark56 (Apr 26, 2018)

New to the DP program here. Looking to book a 4-night stay. I'm finding that quite a number of resorts require a minimum 7-night stay...something the sales folks never informed us about. They told us we could book midweek stays and never mentioned any restrictions. Is there something here I do not understand? Or were we misled?


----------



## davidvel (Apr 26, 2018)

bobpark56 said:


> New to the DP program here. Looking to book a 4-night stay. I'm finding that quite a number of resorts require a minimum 7-night stay...something the sales folks never informed us about. They told us we could book midweek stays and never mentioned any restrictions. Is there something here I do not understand? Or were we misled?


It's late so I'll give it my best try. If you can rescind, do it today.

Your title asks if the points charts are a fraud. As far as I know the charts and the numbers needed as shown on them are not, and no one has asserted that they are a fraud. 

As for your question, there are restrictions as to when you can book less than 7 days out. I'm unaware of minimum 7 day stays otherwise. Many others will describe this in more detail as I never bought DC points.

 If you were told you could book these partial weeks, and no one told you there were restrictions, you could have a claim for fraudulent inducement depending on where you live, despite any language in the contract. But you will be fighting Marriott. You should consult a reputable attorney on this issue.


----------



## nicolass (Apr 26, 2018)

bobpark56 said:


> New to the DP program here. Looking to book a 4-night stay. I'm finding that quite a number of resorts require a minimum 7-night stay...something the sales folks never informed us about. They told us we could book midweek stays and never mentioned any restrictions. Is there something here I do not understand? Or were we misled?



In which resorts do you experience this?


----------



## bazzap (Apr 26, 2018)

At the Owner and Select levels, i.e with less than 7,000 DC points, you can only book less than 7 nights within 10 months of required check in date.
If you have more than 7,000 DC Points, you can book less than 7 nights up to 13 months out.
(I would have attached the link to the “Owner Benefits at a Glance” chart which shows this, but the MVC websites are going through yet another update and my previous link no longer works!)


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 26, 2018)

bazzap said:


> At the Owner and Select levels, i.e with less than 7,000 DC points, you can only book less than 7 nights within 10 months of required check in date.
> If you have more than 7,000 DC Points, you can book less than 7 nights up to 13 months out.
> (I would have attached the link to the “Owner Benefits at a Glance” chart which shows this, but the MVC websites are going through yet another update and my previous link no longer works!)


Here is the new link....  https://www.marriottvacationsworldw...rshipLevelsResources/benefits_at_a_glance.pdf


----------



## catharsis (Apr 26, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Here is the new link....  https://www.marriottvacationsworldw...rshipLevelsResources/benefits_at_a_glance.pdf


But as mentioned in other threads it is now becoming quite a regular occurrence to find that individual resorts are placing minimum stay restrictions in place which override the owner benefit levels and require up to 7 night minimum stays ... Even when booking under 60 days out.

So the OP has a point.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 26, 2018)

Breakage happens for short stays ... plus higher cost to the resort for resets units multiple times when everything at the resort was reset ONLY once a week on a particular day of the week in "ancient" times.

But the modern total universe did change AS did vacations .. no more 2 week plant shut downs for 'retooling' or fixed seasonal closing for stores or plants ... to enjoy the holiday or plant the fields. A trip via car to FL is now an short flight .... days of travel into hours. Once is a lifetime is now every year or so.

Reverting back to ONLY a 7 night stay ... if that is happening, might be trying to minimize operating costs as to increase profits, higher owner satisfaction OR my favorite, the resort got sued.


----------



## catharsis (Apr 26, 2018)

vacationhopeful said:


> Breakage happens for short stays ... plus higher cost to the resort for resets units multiple times when everything at the resort was reset ONLY once a week on a particular day of the week in "ancient" times.
> 
> But the modern total universe did change AS did vacations .. no more 2 week plant shut downs for 'retooling' or fixed seasonal closing for stores or plants ... to enjoy the holiday or plant the fields. A trip via car to FL is now an short flight .... days of travel into hours. Once is a lifetime is now every year or so.
> 
> Reverting back to ONLY a 7 night stay ... if that is happening, might be trying to minimize operating costs as to increase profits, higher owner satisfaction OR my favorite, the resort got sued.


Except the justification for the 'skim' was to cover the cost of said breakage, so breakage cannot be used as a justification for restrictions on points

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## icydog (Apr 26, 2018)

vacationhopeful said:


> Breakage happens for short stays ... plus higher cost to the resort for resets units multiple times when everything at the resort was reset ONLY once a week on a particular day of the week in "ancient" times.
> 
> But the modern total universe did change AS did vacations .. no more 2 week plant shut downs for 'retooling' or fixed seasonal closing for stores or plants ... to enjoy the holiday or plant the fields. A trip via car to FL is now an short flight .... days of travel into hours. Once is a lifetime is now every year or so.
> 
> Reverting back to ONLY a 7 night stay ... if that is happening, might be trying to minimize operating costs as to increase profits, higher owner satisfaction OR my favorite, the resort got sued.


I don't know how this could be happening since the benefit for Chairman's Club is that you can book 13 months out for 1+ nights. I think this is a rumor and I do not see it happening.


----------



## bobpark56 (Apr 26, 2018)

bazzap said:


> At the Owner and Select levels, i.e with less than 7,000 DC points, you can only book less than 7 nights within 10 months of required check in date.
> If you have more than 7,000 DC Points, you can book less than 7 nights up to 13 months out.
> (I would have attached the link to the “Owner Benefits at a Glance” chart which shows this, but the MVC websites are going through yet another update and my previous link no longer works!)


Thanks. That 10-month window explains what I was seeing. It's interesting that the sales rep did not tell us about this. Newbies won't know unless someone tells them.


----------



## catharsis (Apr 26, 2018)

I have posted specific live examples a number if times in last few weeks expressly so that anyone who wanted could verify for themselves.
[edited to add] I thought some live screenshots might help








I did this so that there could no longer be any basis to suggest this was only a rumor


----------



## bobpark56 (Apr 26, 2018)

davidvel said:


> It's late so I'll give it my best try. If you can rescind, do it today. <snip>


No need to rescind. It was a free enrollment...and they gave us $75.
I have just been trying to figure out how to use our new options. I was not aware of the 10-month window for booking short stays. Now that a responder or 2 has pointed that out, I understand what I am seeing.


----------



## kds4 (Apr 26, 2018)

catharsis said:


> I have posted specific live examples a number if times in last few weeks expressly so that anyone who wanted could verify for themselves.
> [edited to add] I thought some live screenshots might help
> 
> 
> ...



Having seen the proof you provided, I don't see a way for MVCI to deny this is happening and it is clearly contrary to the advertised ability to book 1+ night intervals. While this has not happened to me yet, as soon as it does I will be raising it with MVCI.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 26, 2018)

Perhaps it would be good to ask MVCI what is causing this apparent anomaly to be seen, rather than immediately assuming nefarious motives?  I don't know if there is an innocent explanation or not, but I would surely want to find out before drawing battle lines.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Apr 26, 2018)

catharsis said:


> I have posted specific live examples a number if times in last few weeks expressly so that anyone who wanted could verify for themselves.
> [edited to add] I thought some live screenshots might help
> 
> I did this so that there could no longer be any basis to suggest this was only a rumor



Even today, Sabal Palms, an example you had posted, June 8 via points, 1 night, not available. 7 nights, available.


----------



## catharsis (Apr 26, 2018)

BocaBoy said:


> Perhaps it would be good to ask MVCI what is causing this apparent anomaly to be seen, rather than immediately assuming nefarious motives?  I don't know if there is an innocent explanation or not, but I would surely want to find out before drawing battle lines.


Just to be clear I'm not drawing battle lines and one can work around it as mentioned in other threads simply by booking lots of nights and then cancelling the ones one doesn't want.

OTOH it's becoming fairly commonplace in my experience, so while I'm not suggesting a nefarious motive nor would it be  reasonable to call it an anomaly since it is not 'unusual' or 'out of the ordinary' which I would consider to be the usual meaning of anomaly.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 26, 2018)

catharsis said:


> Just to be clear I'm not drawing battle lines and one can work around it as mentioned in other threads simply by booking lots of nights and then cancelling the ones one doesn't want.
> 
> OTOH it's becoming fairly commonplace in my experience, so while I'm not suggesting a nefarious motive nor would it be  reasonable to call it an anomaly since it is not 'unusual' or 'out of the ordinary' which I would consider to be the usual meaning of anomaly.


I also discover the same issue when booking at Newport Coast for 3 days vs 5 days vs. 7 days in Sep.


----------



## kds4 (Apr 26, 2018)

catharsis said:


> Just to be clear I'm not drawing battle lines and one can work around it as mentioned in other threads simply by booking lots of nights and then cancelling the ones one doesn't want.
> 
> OTOH it's becoming fairly commonplace in my experience, so while I'm not suggesting a nefarious motive nor would it be  reasonable to call it an anomaly since it is not 'unusual' or 'out of the ordinary' which I would consider to be the usual meaning of anomaly.



I'm glad there is a 'work-around', but should an owner have to resort to a work around to exercise their ownership? I'm guessing everyone would agree that this should not be necessary.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 26, 2018)

As I recall, the Reservations Procedures do give MVC some leeway in establishing minimum stay requirements during certain holiday periods and other high demand periods, although I think they may require that those limitations be disclosed in the points schedule. Not 100% sure on all that though.

Our recent stay at Grande Ocean, which concluded last weekend, was an indirect result of such a minimum stay anomaly. Last September, I had first reserved Barony Beach Club for a three-night stay (Fri, Sat, Sun) for the weekend of the RBC Heritage golf tournament after first checking Grande Ocean and finding that Grande Ocean was not available for those three nights. But after looking some more, I found Grande Ocean WAS available for those same three nights if booked as part of a full week Fri-Fri booking. After thinking about it, we decided we could go for the full week, so I cancelled the three nights at Barony and booked GO for the full 7 night Fri-Fri stay.


----------



## CA Richard (Apr 26, 2018)

I recently ran into the same thing last month booking Desert Springs for next March. I’m Chairman’s Club. I was initially looking for a 1BR for a Sunday to Friday five night stay to take advantage of the lower points on Sunday through Thursday nights. No availability in March. Then I put in a 7 night stay and the same week was available! It did not make sense that the same week was available for 7 nights but not 5. I thought about calling reservations but decided it would be easier to drive home on Sunday morning rather than Friday anyway so I booked the whole week. But it did cause me to pause and wonder what is going on.


----------



## catharsis (Apr 26, 2018)

in the last 40 minutes we've confirmed it's a practice in Sabal Palms, Ko Olina (based upon a previous post of mine) NCV, DSV and Grand Ocean.

That's not an anomaly....


----------



## kds4 (Apr 26, 2018)

I agree, this sounds less and less like an anomaly. I think it may be time to review the ownership documents to see where it says this is an allowable practice...


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 26, 2018)

kds4 said:


> I agree, this sounds less and less like an anomaly. I think it may be time to review the ownership documents to see where it says this is an allowable practice...


Excerpts from the Exchange Docs, Schedule "2", sections A, B and C....as more fully documented at this link...  https://www.my-vacationclub.com/common/vc/en-us/pdfs/enrollment_legal_docs/exchange_procedures.pdf

...Except as otherwise provided in these Exchange Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule, there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Members, Presidential Members and Chairman’s Club Members during the Priority 1 Period.

...Except as otherwise provided in these Exchange Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule, there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Members, Presidential Members and Chairman’s Club Members during the Priority 2 Period.

...Except as otherwise provided in these Exchange Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum durations of stay for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule, there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods during the Priority 3 Period.

The only section that I could find that speaks to ressie limits is this footnote to the chart in Schedule "2"
6 Use Periods in The Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas may be subject to a three night minimum stay, as determined by Exchange Company in its sole discretion.


----------



## kds4 (Apr 26, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Excerpts from the Exchange Docs, Schedule "2", sections A, B and C....as more fully documented at this link...  https://www.my-vacationclub.com/common/vc/en-us/pdfs/enrollment_legal_docs/exchange_procedures.pdf
> 
> ...Except as otherwise provided in these Exchange Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule, there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Members, Presidential Members and Chairman’s Club Members during the Priority 1 Period.
> 
> ...



So, it appears that unless the resorts that have been reported to be doing this appear on the Exchange Point Schedule or are named elsewhere in the owner documents, there would be no basis to enable MVCI resorts to enact any minimum duration of stays ... and the only known possibility is the Ritz St. Thomas.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Apr 26, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> ...Except as otherwise provided in these Exchange Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule, there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Members, Presidential Members and Chairman’s Club Members during the Priority 1 Period.
> 
> The only section that I could find that speaks to ressie limits is this footnote to the chart in Schedule "2"
> 6 Use Periods in The Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas may be subject to a three night minimum stay, as determined by Exchange Company in its sole discretion.



The way I read this, and I admit to reading things differently than most people, is, this is speaking to me the customer having no minimum stay requirement. So, in other words, if the date is valid and shows up, and, I am of the required status, far enough in advance, etc., then, I could stay one day. I don't see where this speaks to a specific date being able to be listed as available or not? I do not see this as saying anything at all about what is available or not.


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 26, 2018)

kds4 said:


> So, it appears that unless the resorts that have been reported to be doing this appear on the Exchange Point Schedule or are named elsewhere in the owner documents, there would appear to be no basis to enable MVCI resorts to enact any minimum duration of stays ... and the only known possibility is the Ritz St. Thomas.


Seemingly


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 26, 2018)

Steve Fatula said:


> The way I read this, and I admit to reading things differently than most people, is, this is speaking to me the customer having no minimum stay requirement. So, in other words, if the date is valid and shows up, and, I am of the required status, far enough in advance, etc., then, I could stay one day. I don't see where this speaks to a specific date being able to be listed as available or not? I do not see this as saying anything at all about what is available or not.


Would your reading of the excerpt change if you knew it said this right before the excerpt?

In the event a Member or Select Member requests a Use Period during the Priority 1 Period and Exchange Company is only able to confirm a portion of such requested Use Period because less than seven (7) consecutive evenings are available, Exchange Company may, upon Program Member’s request, confirm such reservation in Exchange Company’s sole discretion.

It certainly seems to me the docs are referring to restrictions of less than 7 nights.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Apr 26, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Would your reading of the excerpt change if you knew it said this right before the excerpt?
> 
> In the event a Member or Select Member requests a Use Period during the Priority 1 Period and Exchange Company is only able to confirm a portion of such requested Use Period because less than seven (7) consecutive evenings are available, Exchange Company may, upon Program Member’s request, confirm such reservation in Exchange Company’s sole discretion.



No, it would not change my reading, why should it? This is speaking to a different case. The case where I actually want a week and a week is not available. I don't see the connection you are trying to make?

Essentially, I am saying if a given date shows, say June 8, as available for a specific set of search criteria, I can indeed every time reserve 1 night, never seen a case where this is not true. In the examples shown, you change the search criteria and it shows different dates. I don't see anything in what has been posted that addresses this. You guys are talking about the conditions of showing what is available. To me, a different question and issue.

That being said, understand I am curious about why it is working the way it is. I have my suspicions. And I wish it were not that way. But nothing I have read says under what conditions Marriott must show a date as available or not.


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 26, 2018)

Steve Fatula said:


> No, it would not change my reading, why should it? This is speaking to a different case. The case where I actually want a week and a week is not available. I don't see the connection you are trying to make?
> 
> Essentially, I am saying if a given date shows, say June 8, as available for a specific set of search criteria, I can indeed every time reserve 1 night, never seen a case where this is not true. In the examples shown, you change the search criteria and it shows different dates. I don't see anything in what has been posted that addresses this. You guys are talking about the conditions of showing what is available. To me, a different question and issue.
> 
> That being said, understand I am curious about why it is working the way it is. I have my suspicions. And I wish it were not that way. But nothing I have read says under what conditions Marriott must show a date as available or not.


Sorry, I am not understanding what you are saying.  Your comments in post #15 seems to contradict this statement from your post above....

I am saying if a given date shows, say June 8, as available for a specific set of search criteria, I can indeed every time reserve 1 night, never seen a case where this is not true.

Yet in post #15 you said this....
Even today, Sabal Palms, an example you had posted, June 8 via points, 1 night, not available. 7 nights, available.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 27, 2018)

bobpark56 said:


> No need to rescind. It was a free enrollment...and they gave us $75.
> I have just been trying to figure out how to use our new options. I was not aware of the 10-month window for booking short stays. Now that a responder or 2 has pointed that out, I understand what I am seeing.


Good to hear. I thought you bought points. 
Enrolling is great. You can now rent points for about the same or less MF that you would pay with NO huge upfront cost. Or convert, although I've found splitting and exchanging has 2-3x value of converting to DC points.


----------



## catharsis (Apr 27, 2018)

Steve Fatula said:


> Essentially, I am saying if a given date shows, say June 8, as available for a specific set of search criteria, I can indeed every time reserve 1 night, never seen a case where this is not true.
> [snip] But nothing I have read says under what conditions Marriott must show a date as available or not.



I find the suggestion in a few posts that 'shows as available' is in some way different from 'available' confusiing.

Is there ANYTHING in the docs to define such a thing as 'shows as available'?   "Available" is pretty straightforward to interpret and I strongly suspect is the term used in the documents.  I think introducing the concept of 'shows as available/ merely muddies the water - there is no such concept in the documents, and as I have referenced in another thread the dates are also ONLY available to book for 7 nights or more if calling in, so it would not be possible to describe this as a website-related issue as the policies and restrictions are also applied to the agents working the phone lines including the Chairmans Club lines.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Apr 27, 2018)

catharsis said:


> I find the suggestion in a few posts that 'shows as available' is in some way different from 'available' confusiing.
> 
> Is there ANYTHING in the docs to define such a thing as 'shows as available'?   "Available" is pretty straightforward to interpret and I strongly suspect is the term used in the documents.  I think introducing the concept of 'shows as available/ merely muddies the water - there is no such concept in the documents, and as I have referenced in another thread the dates are also ONLY available to book for 7 nights or more if calling in, so it would not be possible to describe this as a website-related issue as the policies and restrictions are also applied to the agents working the phone lines including the Chairmans Club lines.



I am not trying to defend Marriott, just so we are clear....

Hmm, that's just a term to explain what I mean, not a term I think that means anything in the documents. Let me rephrase for you. If a date is available on the screen, is that better? So, if a date can be clicked on, you can reserve 1 day, right? If it cannot be clicked on, you can't right? So, clearly, Marriott is saying it is not available for booking in one case, but not the other based on some unknown or arbitrary reasoning or policy. Nothing in the document shown thus far says what they must consider available under what conditions. If it is displaying an X, it can't be booked for the search criteria used. 

Whether or not it is a website issue is trivial to decide. One merely calls and tries to reserve, which I believe you or someone else said they did and it was still not possible. So, this would say indeed, it's not a website artifact.

So, if someone can find a basis for the claim we want, which is Marriott not showing availability correctly, then we might be able to get somewhere. If it isn't there, then, sure, we can discuss and complain, but, there is no basis for it with Marriott. Unless a document says Marriott must shown allow a reservation if there is a un-reserved room or something like that... Hotels have always used interesting techniques to keep rooms off the record for booking. I've stayed at several hotels where there were no more rooms. Where there are no more rooms, yet I still stay there, clearly there were and clearly they were considered unavailable for booking for reasons known only to the hotel. We know in MVCI case, for example, that some inventory is reserved for weeks vs points. In that case, it's clear that it may show as not available however, one could reserve their week for the same date. I suspect some inventory is reserved for longer stays. The question is, does this violate anything in the governing documents. It violates nothing posted yet.


----------



## kds4 (Apr 27, 2018)

Steve Fatula said:


> I am not trying to defend Marriott, just so we are clear....
> 
> Hmm, that's just a term to explain what I mean, not a term I think that means anything in the documents. Let me rephrase for you. If a date is available on the screen, is that better? So, if a date can be clicked on, you can reserve 1 day, right? If it cannot be clicked on, you can't right? So, clearly, Marriott is saying it is not available for booking in one case, but not the other based on some unknown or arbitrary reasoning or policy. Nothing in the document shown thus far says what they must consider available under what conditions. If it is displaying an X, it can't be booked for the search criteria used.
> 
> ...



I see what you are getting at. MVCI cannot create minimum stay requirements except as outlined in the exchange procedures (and those procedures seem to exclude all but 1 property that we know of at this point). However, we know MVCI holds back some inventory for certain purposes such as release dates (and presumably not to operate a minimum stay requirement). My thought is that if I can see a unit is available for 7 days, Sunday through Saturday then I should hypothetically be able to make as many as 7 single night reservations with that same week (IAW with my ownership status). 

The problem is we know from examples already provided that MVCI is preventing this in at least some cases (and I don't think it is a 'just holding back some inventory' issue). If the inventory were just being held back, I should not be able to see it at all. The fact that we can see it as available for 7 nights but not 1 or 2 'smells' like a constructive minimum stay requirement.

It it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ... well, quack.


----------



## catharsis (Apr 27, 2018)

kds4 said:


> I see what you are getting at. MVCI cannot create minimum stay requirements except as outlined in the exchange procedures (and those procedures seem to exclude all but 1 property that we know of at this point).
> 
> The fact that we can see it as available for 7 nights but not 1 or 2 'smells' like a constructive minimum stay requirement.


I did just want to add that I was expressly told by a rep on the Chairmans club line (after speaking to a supervisor) that I was only able to book 7 nights and not 1 due to a minimum stay requirement imposed by the resort.

I don't think Marriott are hiding this in any way.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Apr 27, 2018)

kds4 said:


> I see what you are getting at. MVCI cannot create minimum stay requirements except as outlined in the exchange procedures (and those procedures seem to exclude all but 1 property that we know of at this point). However, we know MVCI holds back some inventory for certain purposes such as release dates (and presumably not to operate a minimum stay requirement). My thought is that if I can see a unit is available for 7 days, Sunday through Saturday then I should hypothetically be able to make as many as 7 single night reservations with that same week (IAW with my ownership status).
> 
> The problem is we know from examples already provided that MVCI is preventing this in at least some cases (and I don't think it is a 'just holding back some inventory' issue). If the inventory were just being held back, I should not be able to see it at all. The fact that we can see it as available for 7 nights but not 1 or 2 'smells' like a constructive minimum stay requirement.
> 
> It it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ... well, quack.



Sure, and that undoubtedly is the case. But, there is nothing that I have read that says they can't impose a resort minimum stay requirement for certain dates. If you can find that in the documents, you have a case, otherwise, not sure what can be done.


----------



## gblotter (Apr 27, 2018)

catharsis said:


> I did just want to add that I was expressly told by a rep on the Chairmans club line (after speaking to a supervisor) that I was only able to book 7 nights and not 1 due to a minimum stay requirement imposed by the resort. I don't think Marriott are hiding this in any way.


So Marriott has crafted contract language that allows them to arbitrarily change the terms whenever they feel like it?


catharsis said:


> one can work around it as mentioned in other threads simply by booking lots of nights and then cancelling the ones one doesn't want.


So if I book a full week and then later call to cancel the unwanted nights, is the Chairman's Club rep going to tell me I can't do that?


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 27, 2018)

catharsis said:


> I did just want to add that I was expressly told by a rep on the Chairmans club line (after speaking to a supervisor) that I was only able to book 7 nights and not 1 due to a minimum stay requirement imposed by the resort.
> 
> I don't think Marriott are hiding this in any way.





Steve Fatula said:


> Sure, and that undoubtedly is the case. But, there is nothing that I have read that says they can't impose a resort minimum stay requirement for certain dates. If you can find that in the documents, you have a case, otherwise, not sure what can be done.




Below is what I found in the Trust Reservation Procedures, basically it's what Fasttr posted earlier. It gives them the right to establish minimum stays, but as I read it, it sounds like that has to be disclosed in the "Points Schedule." I've also included their definition of "Points Schedule".




> Except as otherwise provided in these Reservation Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum durations of stay for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Point Schedule, there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Owners, Presidential Owners and Chairman’s Club Owners during the Priority 1 Period.
> ...
> 
> Point Schedule means the annual schedule(s) promulgated by the Association Delegee which identifies the pertinent information for the Trust Reservation System in a given year including setting forth the number of Points for Use required to reserve Use Periods, all as amended by the Association Delegee from time to time.  If Single Use Points are used to make a reservation, additional fees may be required to complete the reservation in order to offset any applicable taxes.



As best as I can find, there is no disclosure of minimum stay requirements in the schedules that are shown on the Owners Website or in the printed points book that the sales offices sometimes give out.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Apr 27, 2018)

"there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods *reserved by* Executive Owners, Presidential Owners and Chairman’s Club Owners during the Priority 1 Period."

That means literally that when I make a reservation, which obviously has to be on available dates, I can make one for 1 night, i.e., no minimum. That does *not* say the exchange company can't determine what is available! Please tell me why I am reading this wrong. In no way shape or form IMHO does this say anything about what is determined to be available or not. Also, this is not an issue of the resort having a 3 day minimum, it is merely an issue of sometimes, a given date can't be reserved for 1 night. Other dates can be, so, it's not the same as resort wide minimums


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 27, 2018)

I also just found this language:



> Trust Manager and Program Manager shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservation and use of the Accommodations of the Trust Plan and are authorized to reasonably demand balance, reserve, deposit, or rent the Accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Accommodations or other benefits made available to Trust Owners through the Trust Plan or an Exchange Program.
> 
> Program Manager has the right to establish priority lists, lottery systems, or other alternative methods of reserving Accommodations in an effort to ensure the fair and equitable reservation and use of Accommodations during holidays, events, and other high demand periods. If implemented, access to certain Use Periods by a Trust Owner may be restricted in a given year based upon the Trust Owner’s ranking in a lottery or some other allocation methodology established by Program Manager. Program Manager may establish an administrative fee for this service. Program Manager may restrict the number of weeks or days that may be reserved by a Trust Owner during holidays, events, or other high demand periods and Program Manager may create alternate reservation procedures and the Point Schedule may be revised on a Market-specific or Component-by-Component basis to account for discrepancies in Markets, legal structures, travel patterns, or other factors as determined by Program Manager from time to time in its sole discretion.



There was also this:



> Program Manager may apply additional weekend reservation restrictions on a Market-specific or Component-by-Component basis and may restrict the number of Accommodations that may be reserved by a Trust Owner for weekend-only reservations at any one time.



While I don't read this language to *specifically* address the question being debated, it does seem to give MVC considerable latitude to manage the inventory in whatever way they want for the "fair and equitable" use of the Accommodations. I would think if they were ever challenged on this, they would likely point to this kind of language as the language giving them the freedom to do what they are doing. There may be other relevant language that we haven't found yet.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 27, 2018)

Steve Fatula said:


> "there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods *reserved by* Executive Owners, Presidential Owners and Chairman’s Club Owners during the Priority 1 Period."
> 
> That means literally that when I make a reservation, which obviously has to be on available dates, I can make one for 1 night, i.e., no minimum. That does *not* say the exchange company can't determine what is available! Please tell me why I am reading this wrong. In no way shape or form IMHO does this say anything about what is determined to be available or not. Also, this is not an issue of the resort having a 3 day minimum, it is merely an issue of sometimes, a given date can't be reserved for 1 night. Other dates can be, so, it's not the same as resort wide minimums



I see how it could be read that way. Not sure how it was intended.


----------



## kds4 (Apr 27, 2018)

So, if MVCI can do what they are doing in regards to imposing minimum stay requirements owners are left with resorting to the 'work around' when/where required to be able to stay less than the resort minimum ...


----------



## Steve Fatula (Apr 27, 2018)

kds4 said:


> So, if MVCI can do what they are doing in regards to imposing minimum stay requirements owners are left with resorting to the 'work around' when/where required to be able to stay less than the resort minimum ...



The examples are not a resort minimum, they are a specific date minimum, other dates at the same resort appear unaffected, at least the ones I looked at. But, within those confines, yes, that would be a workaround if you simply must have that date. What they are likely trying to do is achieve a higher level of occupancy, which is good for more people. Bad for those who wanted that exact date for whatever reason.


----------



## catharsis (Apr 27, 2018)

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at.

Would you mind telling me whether you consider June 8th in Sabal Palms to be available or not in your definition of 'available' ... Or is your point essentially that. ...

"One is always eligible to book a single night if the night is available to be booked for a single night"

Is available really subjective?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## answeeney (Apr 27, 2018)

This does seem to come down to sophistry.

Marriott: You can book a day, several days, whatever we have available, and we have a whole week available for you to choose from.

Customer (after signing up): Can I book those three days please?

Marriott: No sorry we only have a whole week available.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 27, 2018)

Steve Fatula said:


> The examples are not a resort minimum, they are a specific date minimum, other dates at the same resort appear unaffected, at least the ones I looked at. But, within those confines, yes, that would be a workaround if you simply must have that date. What they are likely trying to do is achieve a higher level of occupancy, *which is good for more people. Bad for those who wanted that exact date for whatever reason.*


I have not studied the documents on this point, nor do I have any interest in doing so, but the language I have highlighted above in bold is why I have a hard time getting excited about this issue.  I don't see any nefarious motives in this, and it does not appear to affect MVCI's profit either way.  I have noticed this a few times when trying to book off season nights on Hilton Head island and never gave it a second thought.  That is just the way I look at  it.


----------



## answeeney (Apr 27, 2018)

I guess this is the eternal political conflict: Should we respect all rights or should we give a shrug to some where there is a greater good at stake? In this particular case is higher occupancy at resorts a greater good that trumps buyers rights?


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 27, 2018)

BocaBoy said:


> I have not studied the documents on this point, nor do I have any interest in doing so, but the language I have highlighted above in bold is why I have a hard time getting excited about this issue.  I don't see any nefarious motives in this, and it does not appear to affect MVCI's profit either way.  I have noticed this a few times when trying to book off season nights on Hilton Head island and never gave it a second thought.  That is just the way I look at  it.



I tend to agree with this line of thinking. While it can be frustrating not to be able to book a shorter stay for any date from an individual owner's perspective, I can see where if this practice were allowed to happen with no moderation or regulation by MVC, so many weeks could be "broken" by Executive and higher level owners so as to make booking longer stays and full weeks more difficult for everyone, thus damaging the integrity of the entire points booking/exchanging system. It benefits no one to have a myriad of orphan nights scattered around the system, making it difficult for owners to string together 7-night or longer stays.

Just because you can't book a single night or a three night stay over a weekend, but can book a full week, does not mean that there were no units that could have had their weeks broken. It could be as simple as if a hypothetical resort had 100 units in a given view category/unit size for a given week, MVC may decide they will only allow some % of those 100 unit/weeks to be broken into shorter blocks, thus ensuring that there will be some number of units available for full week bookings. As I read the language I posted above, I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to give MVC the leeway to do things like that to protect the integrity of the overall system.



answeeney said:


> I guess this is the eternal political conflict: Should we respect all rights or should we give a shrug to some where there is a greater good at stake? In this particular case is higher occupancy at resorts a greater good that trumps buyers rights?



I don't see the conflict/issue as buyer/owner rights versus higher occupancy per se. The competing rights would seem to be the rights of owners who want to book individual nights or weekend stays versus the rights of those who want to book full weeks. By limiting to some extent the amount of "breakage" they will allow, MVC could simply be trying to offer a balance between the rights of those two groups of owners/buyers. I have no issue with that, and I say that as someone who sees one of the main benefits of the DC Points system as being able to book shorter than 7 night stays. We have used that option frequently in our four years as owners, even though we have to wait until 10 months to do so.

It's sorta like I have a right to do certain things with or on my property, until it starts impacting the way you use or enjoy your property. That's why we have laws and ordinances that set ground rules for how we as citizens of a neighborhood, town, state, or country impact each other. MVC may just be trying to balance the rights of those who want to stay for a week versus those who want to stay for a weekend.


----------



## answeeney (Apr 27, 2018)

As has been pointed out higher up the thread, the breakage is supposed to be covered by the skim. Anyway, whilst I am not averse to the greater good, I do expect to know the rules before I buy in. The point here is that Marriott appear to have made the rules as obscure as they possibly could.


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 27, 2018)

answeeney said:


> As has been pointed out higher up the thread, the breakage is supposed to be covered by the skim. Anyway, whilst I am not averse to the greater good, I do expect to know the rules before I buy in. The point here is that Marriott appear to have made the rules as obscure as they possibly could.



Yes, the skim covers breakage, but the amount of skim they take only covers a certain amount of breakage. If breakage were allowed to "run wild", then the skim would no longer be adequate to cover it. Keeping the breakage to a level that can be covered by the existing skim, could easily be construed as a necessary management tool to preserve system integrity. I don't think anyone would be happy if they doubled the skim % to account for higher breakage.


----------



## answeeney (Apr 27, 2018)

Mmm...maybe you’re right, but this seems to follow a familiar pattern. Buyers think they are getting something of significant value (think the option to convert to MRPs) only to have that value gradually but remorselessly eroded.


----------



## Superchief (Apr 27, 2018)

Individual resorts appear to have a lot of control over how inventory is made available for VC points reservation. As a Chairman member, I should be able to reserve at any resort at 13 months. However, I discovered several patterns at Hilton Head resorts and Canyon Villas when I was checking availability.
Surf Watch only released 3BR at 13 months. I checked every date in Jan and Feb 13 months in advance and only 3 BR were available for any checkin date. Similarly, Canyon Villas only had studios available in March at 13 months (I checked every March check-in date). I was requesting 6-7 day stays.The smaller HH resorts had no availability until the 12 Month mark. These requests were for the lowest season. It is obvious that each resort is playing their own games, and this just isn't ethical.


----------



## Ewiike (Apr 27, 2018)

This is why I say that Sheraton's point system is much better. No restrictions , you can book whenever and whatever you want if the unit available...
I don't understand why Marriott likes to keep up this complicated system?


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 27, 2018)

Seems to me this is yet another good line to use at sales presentations for those who MVC is attempting to sell up in ownership status to be able to book 1+ nights.  "I'm sorry Mr. MVC sales rep, but folks on TUG have shown on many occasions where 7 nights is available, but 1 night is not, so why should I purchase more points for the privileged to be frustrated that I cannot book the <7 nights that I desire.  Thanks but no thanks....now where do I collect my incentive for attending the presentation?"


----------



## catharsis (Apr 27, 2018)

Superchief said:


> Individual resorts appear to have a lot of control over how inventory is made available for VC points reservation. As a Chairman member, I should be able to reserve at any resort at 13 months. However, I discovered several patterns at Hilton Head resorts and Canyon Villas when I was checking availability.
> Surf Watch only released 3BR at 13 months. I checked every date in Jan and Feb 13 months in advance and only 3 BR were available for any checkin date. Similarly, Canyon Villas only had studios available in March at 13 months (I checked every March check-in date). I was requesting 6-7 day stays.The smaller HH resorts had no availability until the 12 Month mark. These requests were for the lowest season. It is obvious that each resort is playing their own games, and this just isn't ethical.



In fairness I'm not 100% sure that's the same issue.   It's important to recall that for non trust resorts like those you mention that the only inventory which can be made available for points reservation is inventory which Marriott trust actually owns or which has already been elected over 13 months in advance.  (Maybe they only *own* 3 beds in HHI?)

So while frustrating and inconvenient I'm not sure what you suggest is unjustifiable.

Specifying(and placing a price on)  an ability to book one night at a time and then arbitrarily removing that right is different in nature.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## JIMinNC (Apr 27, 2018)

The opaque nature of the "black box" MVC inventory management process has always been a frustration for many of us on TUG who delve into the weeds on that kind of thing, and I'll count myself in that camp, but when you try to think about it objectively, trying to manage this process in a way that accommodates the desires and wishes of owners who want to stay for a week *and *owners who want to stay for a few days, while minimizing breakage, has to be an incredibly complex process. With points, it is so much more complicated than the old simple days of weeks-based ownership where certain units were designated as Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, check-in units and everyone stayed for 7 nights. I think they have to manage things now more like a hotel would than a traditional timeshare.

In reality, all travel companies now have very complex systems that drive their inventory allocation. We're all familiar with the complex seat and fare allocation algorithms the airlines use to maximize the seat occupancy and fare yields. Hotels also have to balance the same types of issues as points-based timeshares with regard to demand balancing, since they have to accommodate an even wider variety of stay lengths than a timeshare would. Last night, for example, I was on the phone with Hilton to book a single free weekend hotel night on the back end of our early 2019 Hawaii trip so we could fly home on a day with significantly cheaper air fares. Our first choice property was available for a three night weekend stay (with one of them free), but not just a single night. I had to book at another location to get the single night. (Interestingly, the "second choice location" was at the same property - the Hilton Waikoloa Village - but apparently they now consider the Ocean Tower building there a separate hotel property from the other two towers, even though Ocean Tower shares the same check-in desk and amenities as the other two buildings. It now shows up as a separate hotel on Hilton.com, but at the same address as the rest of the resort. The other two buildings required a three-night minimum for that specific weekend in mid-March, but the Ocean Tower could be booked as a single night.)


----------



## Superchief (Apr 27, 2018)

catharsis said:


> In fairness I'm not 100% sure that's the same issue.   It's important to recall that for non trust resorts like those you mention that the only inventory which can be made available for points reservation is inventory which Marriott trust actually owns or which has already been elected over 13 months in advance.  (Maybe they only *own* 3 beds in HHI?)
> 
> So while frustrating and inconvenient I'm not sure what you suggest is unjustifiable.
> 
> ...


Since I own both trust and enrolled points, I find it very difficult to believe that Surfwatch has no 2BR availability in the lowest demand season at the 13 month mark. I think anyone who checks availability on a regular basis will find some concerning inventory availability patterns in the inventory released for specific resorts. The new website search feature makes it much easier to spot these restriction patterns, 

When I was checking Canyon Villas, I also checked DSV1. I would think that DSV1 would have lower trust ownership than CV. CV only had studios while DSV1 had all villa types available for points reservations at 13 months. There is a lot of 'black box' going on at MVC right now.


----------



## kds4 (Apr 27, 2018)

With such a variety of ways in which inventory is being restricted property to property (minimum nights, unit sizes, etc.), it makes one wonder how much of this is central control versus individual property GM? Are these GMs educated about the ownership documents and intelligently managing inventory or acting as if they are hotel managers (with the corresponding flexibility to do with their inventory as they will). Is MVCI corporate 'aware' of what is happening (and again just trying to be responsible stewards) or could MVCI consider it preferable to maintain a 'see no evil, hear no evil' position until this becomes an elephant in the room (that ultimately poops on someone, sorta like the recent cruise settlement debacle) ...


----------



## GregT (Apr 27, 2018)

Interesting to see these findings (but I wish we could change the title of this thread).

I don't think there is fraud here, but even now Marriott is trying to figure out how to make the system work.  They didn't have the inventory, so needed to be able to access it (ie, enrolling weeks).  Now they have the inventory (Trust and enrolled weeks) and they have to figure out how to make it available.  They knew breakage would be a problem, but their initial effort to address it (skim) missed, as they skimmed properties that are always full (MOC), and missed on other properties where there is more availability than anticipated (Orlando?).

I do not think this is nefarious by Marriott (nor is it a desire to help the greater good).  Maybe they want to make sure that someone who only wants 2 nights is forced to take 3?  That's one less empty night.  Maybe they see too many waitlists that they can't fill because of these breaks?

I do think that this change, plus the 60 day discounted reservations, are ways they are trying to avoid having empty rooms.  But I appreciate the sightings noted so we can understand the current reservations experience.

Best,

Greg


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Apr 27, 2018)

.

Maybe I am wrong, but if I want one night using DC Points and am told I can have that one night but must take an additional six nights then why wouldn't I take those 7 nights and then call back and cancel the 6 that I didn't want?

Why wouldn't that scenario work?

Also, as an alternative, Marriott Reward Points are "sometimes" a viable option to obtain one or two nights.




.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 27, 2018)

I have made many 1-5 night reservations at different resorts, most often on Hilton head island.  I have encountered this situation a few times, but it never bothered me and was never something where a minor adjustment on my part could not solve it.  When I read this thread, it could seem that this is a big problem with overall availability, but I am sure it is only a very tiny % of available nights or weeks that are impacted.  And this thread has revealed a work around in the rare case when having that precise night is critical and this situation (absent the work around) prevents it.  I am also struck by the eagerness of some to attribute nefarious motives to MVCI where there is no evidence or motive on their part to suggest that.  In truth, I think I would have to give Marriott an A for their management of the point system.

On a side point, I don't think the skim was intended to cover breakage from an availability standpoint, which is what this thread is about.  Rather, I believe the skim was intended to pay for the extra costs incurred by allowing short reservations.  I have never had a problem with the skim, which seems reasonable to me.


----------



## alexadeparis (Apr 27, 2018)

None of the other major point systems operate with a skim, and they all work just fine, I call bullshit. This is pure Marriott greed and trickery. They think they are being slick, and they are right in the sense that they have been getting away with it for how long?


----------



## GregT (Apr 27, 2018)

BocaBoy said:


> I believe the skim was intended to pay for the extra costs incurred by allowing short reservations. I have never had a problem with the skim, which seems reasonable to me.



It's a tough call - my skim is 13.3% - or approx $400/week from a MF perspective. Or it's 1,575 in skimmed points, which is worth $1,000 in rental value.  And there is Zero availability for 3BR weeks at MOC.

I agree with @alexadeparis -- it's bullshit.

But I did agree with your other comments.

Best,

Greg


----------



## davidvel (Apr 28, 2018)

This is what everyone warned about in 2010, and has commented upon since. Everyone knew this was simply a way to sell a new dream with less restrictions on Marriott, and more chances to fudge in their favor.

Just like with using computer algorithms to automatically reserve weeks for the DC, while legacy owners have to use the crappy web services they build or god forbid call in and wait on hold just to find out all the best intervals have been reserved. People justify this because its "fair" or necessary for Marriott to run its D Club. Of course, only Marriott and the Club get to decide what's fair for them and legacy weeks owners. 

Once you allow them to be in control and violate the CC&Rs in favor of their Club, with rules that they can change on a whim to their advantage, its a quick ride downhill.


----------



## Dean (Apr 28, 2018)

alexadeparis said:


> None of the other major point systems operate with a skim, and they all work just fine, I call bullshit. This is pure Marriott greed and trickery. They think they are being slick, and they are right in the sense that they have been getting away with it for how long?


I don't disagree that it's not ideal, I would point out that many of the other systems were either created as a points system or have grown up with a points system.  Thus any "skim" would be built in.  I'd also point out that the skim for some is created by the fact that the points are not the same for each and every interval during a given weeks season.  The true skim would be the difference in sum of the points generated for owners for a resort (or trust component) compared to the points required to reserve for the year adjusted by a reasonable number of points for maintenance and lost days due to the operation of the points system.  Points systems account for the variables with less points sold, weeks systems by not selling all units for all weeks, normally off season weeks are the ones held back. 

Let's say a platinum season is 10 weeks long (25-34) with the cost for weeks 25-29 being 5000 points per villa and 30-34 being 4000.  Giving 4500 per Platinum week owned would be a 100% return even if one normally stayed successfully during one of those higher cost weeks under the weeks system.  Given 4000 points would be a 10% skim in this example even if it cost 20% more to reserve the higher cost week.  You can adjust for view types easily.

Lastly, this has no direct affect on anyone unless they chose for it to.  If they are a weeks owners, even if enrolled, they can still use just like they always did with no loss technically.  Now they have the potential to use with more flexibility and can decide if the additional cost is worth it to them.  Trust members bought in and either knew or should have know the costs before they were past their cancelation deadline.  

IMO a roughly 4% "skim" would be neutral.  The difference for MGO for Platinum is 6.7% for OS & 9.3% for OF I believe.  And we still talk about buying hybrid options as a better and cheaper alternative to the Trust purchase in many cases.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Doesn't Marriott's absolute voting control over the DC Trust permit it to "vote" to change the reservation rules?

Wasn't that disclosed by Marriott when the DC points were sold (disclosed somewhere in the fine print or in the recorded documents)?

Isn't this what everyone is always worried about in *any* kind of points or trust arrangement -- that ownership rights can be modified by a third party?


----------



## Dean (Apr 28, 2018)

vacationtime1 said:


> Doesn't Marriott's absolute voting control over the DC Trust permit it to "vote" to change the reservation rules?
> 
> Wasn't that disclosed by Marriott when the DC points were sold (disclosed somewhere in the fine print or in the recorded documents)?
> 
> Isn't this what everyone is always worried about in *any* kind of points or trust arrangement -- that ownership rights can be modified by a third party?


This is the nature of points systems IMO.  They do have a fiduciary responsibility to mange it appropriately but I'm sure there are opportunities for abuse.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Dean said:


> This is the nature of points systems IMO.  They do have a fiduciary responsibility to mange it appropriately but I'm sure there are opportunities for abuse.



The trustees could credibly argue that they are properly exercising their fiduciary duties by changing the reservation rules to reduce "breakage" for the benefit of all trust beneficiaries.

I agree that this is the nature of points systems; points are fundamentally different than deeded interests in real property.


----------



## SeaDoc (Apr 28, 2018)

To address your question specifically:  The only property of the 72 currently available is RC-St. Thomas which requires a 3 night stay.  Your ability to book less than 7 nights is based on your ownership level.  If you are Executive or higher (7000+), you have a full 13 month 1 day at a time reservation opportunity.  If however, you have less than that, you must book at least 7 nights minimum from 13 months out to 10 months out.  Less than 10 months out, you can book one day at a time.  That is true for all of the 72 villa properties, and that may be your reason for the question.  Hope that helps.




bobpark56 said:


> New to the DP program here. Looking to book a 4-night stay. I'm finding that quite a number of resorts require a minimum 7-night stay...something the sales folks never informed us about. They told us we could book midweek stays and never mentioned any restrictions. Is there something here I do not understand? Or were we misled?


----------



## CA Richard (Apr 28, 2018)

BocaBoy said:


> I have made many 1-5 night reservations at different resorts, most often on Hilton head island.  I have encountered this situation a few times, but it never bothered me and was never something where a minor adjustment on my part could not solve it.  When I read this thread, it could seem that this is a big problem with overall availability, but I am sure it is only a very tiny % of available nights or weeks that are impacted.  And this thread has revealed a work around in the rare case when having that precise night is critical and this situation (absent the work around) prevents it.  I am also struck by the eagerness of some to attribute nefarious motives to MVCI where there is no evidence or motive on their part to suggest that.  In truth, I think I would have to give Marriott an A for their management of the point system.
> 
> On a side point, I don't think the skim was intended to cover breakage from an availability standpoint, which is what this thread is about.  Rather, I believe the skim was intended to pay for the extra costs incurred by allowing short reservations.  I have never had a problem with the skim, which seems reasonable to me.


Well said BocaBoy. I’m Chairman’s Club and also have booked numerous short stays at many resorts. But I also understand that there is a need for Marriott to not allow too many broken weeks or it could become extremely difficult for people to get full weeks when they want them, so I am happy to live with the restrictions. It was actually one of my concerns when the point system came into being. Think about it, especially for places one might fly to for a week or two like Hawaii, where I would assume the majority of people are looking for full week vacations, it would be a shame if it became difficult to get full weeks because there were too many broken weeks. So if I run into having to book a full week instead of 5 days at DSI in March as indicated in my post early in this thread, I really don’t have a problem with that as I recognize it’s to my benefit the next time I want a full week in a high demand resort/week.


----------



## Steve Fatula (Apr 28, 2018)

CA Richard said:


> Well said BocaBoy. I’m Chairman’s Club and also have booked numerous short stays at many resorts. But I also understand that there is a need for Marriott to not allow too many broken weeks or it could become extremely difficult for people to get full weeks when they want them, so I am happy to live with the restrictions. It was actually one of my concerns when the point system came into being. Think about it, especially for places one might fly to for a week or two like Hawaii, where I would assume the majority of people are looking for full week vacations, it would be a shame if it became difficult to get full weeks because there were too many broken weeks. So if I run into having to book a full week instead of 5 days at DSI in March as indicated in my post early in this thread, I really don’t have a problem with that as I recognize it’s to my benefit the next time I want a full week in a high demand resort/week.



Totally agree. I don't see how a thread that put the word Fraud in the title, of which there is zero evidence of and should be changed, has degraded into a bunch of complaints about a program many people are loving and using, and, then, exaggerating to a huge extent a "problem" that is really minor in nature and has a number of workarounds. I definitely see the need to not breakup too many weeks or longer stays. People would definitely complain about that, and that would be a much larger problem than this issue is. I'd far rather have access to longer than 1 night stays than accommodate too many 1 night stays. 1 night stays should have lower priority the way I look at it, to fill in nights here and there where a mismatch of checkin dates occurred. To put 1 night stays on equal status with longer stays just isn't wise, it would hurt more than it benefits since less nights per year would be able to be booked, hurting more than helping. I would consider 1 night stays as a hotel stay of sorts, not a vacation. This is a vacation club. I think that Marriott therefore is doing the right thing here.


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 28, 2018)

SeaDoc said:


> To address your question specifically:  The only property of the 72 currently available is RC-St. Thomas which requires a 3 night stay.  Your ability to book less than 7 nights is based on your ownership level.  If you are Executive or higher (7000+), you have a full 13 month 1 day at a time reservation opportunity.  If however, you have less than that, you must book at least 7 nights minimum from 13 months out to 10 months out.  Less than 10 months out, you can book one day at a time.  That is true for all of the 72 villa properties, and that may be your reason for the question.  Hope that helps.


OP figured that out in his post #10.  That said, since you have insider information, do you care to comment on some of the other posts (post 11 as an example) that have seen instances where there appear to be minimum nights required in certain instances at other resorts than Ritz ST.


----------



## SeaDoc (Apr 28, 2018)

I would be happy to, as I am speaking only as a CC member of this program.  In the 5 years I have booked online I have NEVER come across the issues that many of you are experiencing.  Being on the west coast, I have confined myself to this region - west of the Mississippi.  Perhaps, there is a regionality involved in preventing single day usage over longer stays to minimize costs of frequent check-ins, increased maid service involvement, etc.  If someone could screen shot these issues, it might be of benefit to all of us.  



Fasttr said:


> OP figured that out in his post #10.  That said, since you have insider information, do you care to comment on some of the other posts (post 11 as an example) that have seen instances where, based on their ownership level, they should have been able to book 1 night, but the system was only showing 7 nights as available.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Apr 28, 2018)

I love democracy and capitalism but I do believe it's biggest flaws is the "caveat emptor" element that too many businesses get away with. I do believe Marrriott TSs and DP Corp programs do have an element of that.  It shouldn't be that salesman should be able to lie as long as it's not in writing or stretch the truth and I see this happening in many sales scenerios.  

Look at almost every "as seen on TV product".  I'd have to say 90%  that I've seen is practically worthless but they make the products seem like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and when you get it home it's a piece of garbage. These companies make millions pushing these garbage products.  

Now Marriott is not a bad product, of course I think it's a great product that has given my family so much enjoyment and much more but I do think they manipulate the truth or omit important details to make a sale as is the case with the OP and many many others.  

The ironic thing for me is this type of salesmanship is what got me going with Marriott when I fell for the "why buy Maui when you can buy Orlando and trade into Maui?"  The salesman knew I wanted president's week in Maui and didn't think I could afford Maui so he pushed me to something I could afford a gold Grande Vista to make the sale, insisting I could trade into Maui for in the winter.  Now is that technically possible? Yes it is. Is it likely. no not at all.   This just happens too much for me and I wish there was a higher level of transparency and accountability.


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 28, 2018)

SeaDoc said:


> I would be happy to, as I am speaking only as a CC member of this program.  In the 5 years I have booked online I have NEVER come across the issues that many of you are experiencing.  Being on the west coast, I have confined myself to this region - west of the Mississippi.  Perhaps, there is a regionality involved in preventing single day usage over longer stays to minimize costs of frequent check-ins, increased maid service involvement, etc.  If someone could screen shot these issues, it might be of benefit to all of us.


Screen shots are in post 11 that I mentioned.  Check it out.

Also in full disclosure, I had modified my post a bit after you had apparently grabbed it for your reply.  Please read my edited post as it may make more sense when comparing to post 11 screen shots.


----------



## Bunk (Apr 28, 2018)

Marriott also has a fiduciary duty to the weeks owners.  In developing its algorithm, it is appropriate for Marriott to set aside a sufficient number of units that can be reserved for 7 days by the weeks owners.  If all of the "elites" can break apart weeks whenever they want, what will be left for the "non-elites".


----------



## SeaDoc (Apr 28, 2018)

It would be nice to see when you pick the specific dates, what is the result?  Screen shot those results - you have piqued my curiosity.



catharsis said:


> I have posted specific live examples a number if times in last few weeks expressly so that anyone who wanted could verify for themselves.
> [edited to add] I thought some live screenshots might help
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 28, 2018)

SeaDoc said:


> It would be nice to see when you pick the specific dates, what is the result?  Screen shot those results - you have piqued my curiosity.


Go play for yourself.  I just replicated the situation.  Just entered Sabal Palms, July 2018, 3 nights, 4 people, no other restrictions, and availability is just like shown in the screen shots.  Redid using 2 nights, everything else the same, and just like the screen shots, no availability during first couple weeks.  They certainly have a 3 night minimum during that "holiday" time.  Why not disclose it  in the points chart.


----------



## SeaDoc (Apr 28, 2018)

I just was able to book 3 nights over the 4th of July 2018 at Sabal Palms, so don't understand what you are all experiencing...


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 28, 2018)

SeaDoc said:


> I just was able to book 3 nights over the 4th of July 2018 at Sabal Palms, so don't understand what you are all experiencing...


Read post 77.  Look at the screen shots you quoted above.  It allows 3.  Does not allow 2.  Appears to be a 3 night minimum.


----------



## SeaDoc (Apr 28, 2018)

Ok, I get it now - 2 day non-available, so 3 day minimums for certain properties - it may be resort specific, especially high turnover properties, like Orlando based, and Hilton Head to minimize costs of upkeep of the properties.  I agree that these issues should be more forthcoming, so good to know.  It will be interesting at 60 days out, whether they loosen this 3 day restriction.  I will check it out then, out of curiosity.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Bunk said:


> Marriott also has a fiduciary duty to the weeks owners.  In developing its algorithm, it is appropriate for Marriott to set aside a sufficient number of units that can be reserved for 7 days by the weeks owners.  If all of the "elites" can break apart weeks whenever they want, what will be left for the "non-elites".



My understanding is that the "weeks" inventory pool has always been managed separately from the trust points pool; there are sufficient weeks in the "weeks" pool such that every weeks owner has a seven day week available to reserve.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Marriott's 2019 points chart -- http://vacationpointexchange.com/pointschart/points_charts_2019.pdf -- shows the "price" of some weeks at some resorts as full weeks only without any breakdown for individual days.


----------



## Bunk (Apr 28, 2018)

vacationtime1 said:


> My understanding is that the "weeks" inventory pool has always been managed separately from the trust points pool; there are sufficient weeks in the "weeks" pool such that every weeks owner has a seven day week available to reserve.


 
The rights of the Trust as opposed to the week owners are hazy to me.  I may be incorrect, but:

1.     To the extent that the Trust is a week owner at a resort, doesn't it have the right to take a week that have been deposited by another week owner and break that week apart so they can allow it to be rented for a period of less than 7 days. 

2.      When a week owner deposits a week with Interval, doesn't the Trust have the right to take that week before the other week owners can reserve it and replace it with another week at a location and time of its choice.


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 28, 2018)

vacationtime1 said:


> Marriott's 2019 points chart -- http://vacationpointexchange.com/pointschart/points_charts_2019.pdf -- shows the "price" of some weeks at some resorts as full weeks only without any breakdown for individual days.


Not really sure where Steven got that, because if you go online and look at any individual resorts 2019 chart, its not shown that way.  Not sure if his is an Asia-Pacific produced chart (appears that it may be) or what, but its certainly different from the charts via MVC online for 2019.


----------



## BocaBoy (Apr 28, 2018)

alexadeparis said:


> None of the other major point systems operate with a skim, and they all work just fine, I call bullshit. This is pure Marriott greed and trickery. They think they are being slick, and they are right in the sense that they have been getting away with it for how long?


But don't some of these systems have fees for transactions that are included in the Marriott DC membership annual fee (which is much less than the cost of the "free" elements combined?  I am not in any other systems so i don't know details, but I believe I have read of fess in the Hilton system, for example, that we do not have.  The skim is a more streamlined approach to covering those costs.  This is why I say the skim seems very reasonable to me.


----------



## SeaDoc (Apr 28, 2018)

Those are daily rates for specific days noted, as well as points total for 7 days. I do see a new change for 2019, certain properties are restricting holiday periods to 7 night stays.  I'm sure this minimizes turnover and resulting higher maintenance costs for the property.  I remain curious whether these 7 day restrictions are no longer applicable at 60 days prior to the reservation.  Something for me to do in 2019 as an experiment...

I just tried it out for early 2019 and have no problem booking 5 nights in Waikoloa or Ko'Olina for that 'week only' period in early January 2019. 



vacationtime1 said:


> Marriott's 2019 points chart -- http://vacationpointexchange.com/pointschart/points_charts_2019.pdf -- shows the "price" of some weeks at some resorts as full weeks only without any breakdown for individual days.


----------



## Superchief (Apr 28, 2018)

To me, the biggest problem is that MVC is actively promoting benefits that they know truly aren't necessarily available, and aren't disclosing what the restrictions are. I really wouldn't have a problem with 3 day minimum at vacation resorts during prime time, as long as it is clearly disclosed. If searching for availability at a specific resort, MVC can clearly post minimum requirements on the resort reservation page. There should also be policies regarding the percentage of weeks per year that can be restricted.

As a Chairman member, I am particularly annoyed by the inventory restrictions at 13 months that some resorts are enforcing. Sales people are actively selling points to achieve this 13 month access, but several are not releasing available inventory at that time. Most resorts have sufficient trust inventory as well as enrolled weeks that have been converted to VC points, so there should be some availability. In the Surfwatch example I posted earlier, I searched every day for any check in date in Jan or Feb at 13 months and only 3BR villas were available. However, all had availability for 2BR all views at the 12 month date. These were all for 5-6 night stays. Canyon Villas had the same situation for 1 or 2BR for March 2019.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 28, 2018)

SeaDoc said:


> Ok, I get it now - 2 day non-available, so 3 day minimums for certain properties - it may be resort specific, especially high turnover properties, like Orlando based, and Hilton Head to minimize costs of upkeep of the properties.  I agree that these issues should be more forthcoming, so good to know.  It will be interesting at 60 days out, whether they loosen this 3 day restriction.  I will check it out then, out of curiosity.


Not just should be more forthcoming, but required if you don't  want to commit fraud. 

When one the specific things you are selling, and as an inducement to get people to pay thousands more dollars, is the ability to reserve *single *days, including in your sales pitch and in writing, it is fraud not to disclose the highly material fact that you cannot reserve single days in many instances as a rule (not simply due to unavailability.)


----------



## Fasttr (Apr 28, 2018)

Superchief said:


> To me, the biggest problem is that MVC is actively promoting benefits that they know truly aren't necessarily available, and aren't disclosing what the restrictions are. I really wouldn't have a problem with 3 day minimum at vacation resorts during prime time, as long as it is clearly disclosed. If searching for availability at a specific resort, MVC can clearly post minimum requirements on the resort reservation page. There should also be policies regarding the percentage of weeks per year that can be restricted.


Agreed.  Disclosure vs secrecy is the difference maker.


----------



## SeaDoc (Apr 28, 2018)

Several companies, remained unnamed, charge housekeeping fees for daily stays.  Would you like MVC to do that to satisfy your daily usage pattern, or would you want to limit overnight stays so as to keep maintenance fee increases as minimal as possible for the rest of us who have a longer stay usage pattern?  This is the trade-off.

I just had a lengthy chat with one of the Vacation Owner Advisors regarding this issue, which truly has been illuminating as I had never experienced it, nor seen it in print until I looked at the 2019 point charts.  The 13 months 1 day at a time for those owning 7000 points or more (except for RC St. Thomas with a 3 day minimum) had been the mainstay of this program.  It now appears that each site can restrict the minimum stays, as they so choose, from year-to-year as the situation dictates, especially in holiday seasons.  There is no written documentation, other than the point books which are guidelines, and it is the actual reservation that can determine any restrictions.  This is the excerpt of our chat:

VOA: The Ritz-Carlton St Thomas has a set 3 night requirement while the other Vacation Clubs have the right to choose a minimum night requirement for the dates they would like, which is normally the holidays. 
ME : How does one know the specifics of each property, if there is no information available?
VOA: We will only know when we go to check for availability if there is a minimum night requirement. 
ME: You can see this presents a lack of transparency in booking - I would appreciate it if you could forward this issue to the higher ups as being a chairman's club owner (7K+), 13 months 1 day at a time, has been the watchword benefit in this program - this is no longer the case. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. 
VOA: I would be happy to do that, thank you for your feedback. Thank you, you as well!

This has been a very illuminating discussion and a great learning experience.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Not really sure where Steven got that, because if you go online and look at any individual resorts 2019 chart, its not shown that way.  Not sure if his is an Asian Pacific produced chart or what, but its certainly different from the charts via MVC online for 2019.



Thanks; didn't realize that.  Is it possible that the Asia/Pacific trust has different rules on short stays (I know nothing about it because it has had no relevance to anything I have ever done until the last two posts)?


----------



## davidvel (Apr 28, 2018)

SeaDoc said:


> Several companies, remained unnamed, charge housekeeping fees for daily stays.  Would you like MVC to do that to satisfy your daily usage pattern, or would you want to limit overnight stays so as to keep maintenance fee increases as minimal as possible for the rest of us who have a longer stay usage pattern?  This is the trade-off.


As long as the DC is paying the HOA for those added costs, I don't care if they charge club members or not. But then, I don't own DC points, so I don't care what the MF are for points.


----------



## Dean (Apr 28, 2018)

vacationtime1 said:


> My understanding is that the "weeks" inventory pool has always been managed separately from the trust points pool; there are sufficient weeks in the "weeks" pool such that every weeks owner has a seven day week available to reserve.


Weeks and the trust are completely independent, actually 2 different timeshares systems.  All they really have in common is that they may reside at the same physical location and that they have a crossover option to the extent there is availability to do so.



Superchief said:


> To me, the biggest problem is that MVC is actively promoting benefits that they know truly aren't necessarily available, and aren't disclosing what the restrictions are. I really wouldn't have a problem with 3 day minimum at vacation resorts during prime time, as long as it is clearly disclosed. If searching for availability at a specific resort, MVC can clearly post minimum requirements on the resort reservation page. There should also be policies regarding the percentage of weeks per year that can be restricted.
> 
> As a Chairman member, I am particularly annoyed by the inventory restrictions at 13 months that some resorts are enforcing. Sales people are actively selling points to achieve this 13 month access, but several are not releasing available inventory at that time. Most resorts have sufficient trust inventory as well as enrolled weeks that have been converted to VC points, so there should be some availability. In the Surfwatch example I posted earlier, I searched every day for any check in date in Jan or Feb at 13 months and only 3BR villas were available. However, all had availability for 2BR all views at the 12 month date. These were all for 5-6 night stays. Canyon Villas had the same situation for 1 or 2BR for March 2019.


I'm very comfortable separating the system from the sales speak.  IMO it is buyer beware on that end.  For this to be fraud, they'd have to be actually telling untruths, not just skipping over the rest of the story.  



SeaDoc said:


> Several companies, remained unnamed, charge housekeeping fees for daily stays.  Would you like MVC to do that to satisfy your daily usage pattern, or would you want to limit overnight stays so as to keep maintenance fee increases as minimal as possible for the rest of us who have a longer stay usage pattern?  This is the trade-off.


MVC is actually charging us for those costs, it's just not spelled out as such.  The same for II, cancelations, rebooking, etc.  There's the club dues and there's the gradient between what you get and what a week actually costs that we're calling the skim.  By my estimation they're pocketing roughly 5-6% based on the skim which is around the difference what's needed to fit reservations together based on orphaned days plus downtime for maintenance/refurbishment.  I get the required % for those items from other points systems based on what they don't sell of the potential points available, esp DVC.  In reality the skim may be a little higher because it's very likely that orphaned days are a smaller % of the total for MVC than DVC plus the resorts tend to be more seasonal than is DVC.  


davidvel said:


> As long as the DC is paying the HOA for those added costs, I don't care if they charge club members or not. But then, I don't own DC points, so I don't care what the MF are for points.


While we may not care what a given cost is that doesn't affect us, we should all care if MVC is behaving reasonably and appropriately.


----------



## kds4 (Apr 28, 2018)

SeaDoc said:


> Several companies, remained unnamed, charge housekeeping fees for daily stays.  Would you like MVC to do that to satisfy your daily usage pattern, or would you want to limit overnight stays so as to keep maintenance fee increases as minimal as possible for the rest of us who have a longer stay usage pattern?  This is the trade-off.
> 
> I just had a lengthy chat with one of the Vacation Owner Advisors regarding this issue, which truly has been illuminating as I had never experienced it, nor seen it in print until I looked at the 2019 point charts.  The 13 months 1 day at a time for those owning 7000 points or more (except for RC St. Thomas with a 3 day minimum) had been the mainstay of this program.  It now appears that each site can restrict the minimum stays, as they so choose, from year-to-year as the situation dictates, especially in holiday seasons.  There is no written documentation, other than the point books which are guidelines, and it is the actual reservation that can determine any restrictions.  This is the excerpt of our chat:
> 
> ...



This would seem to support my earlier post questioning whether GMs are acting like hotel managers and treating their inventory like it is that type of product. From your chat, it appears to be that way with no real central control by MVCI.


----------



## SMB1 (Apr 28, 2018)

BocaBoy said:


> But don't some of these systems have fees for transactions that are included in the Marriott DC membership annual fee (which is much less than the cost of the "free" elements combined?  I am not in any other systems so i don't know details, but I believe I have read of fess in the Hilton system, for example, that we do not have.  The skim is a more streamlined approach to covering those costs.  This is why I say the skim seems very reasonable to me.



This is a good point.  The only other system that I am familiar with is Wyndham, which nickel and dimes one for a number of services.  An owner has a limited number of reservation transactions, housekeeping credits, and guest certificates per number of points owned.  It is enough for an owner to book a week and perhaps use excess points for a second reservation without additional costs.  However, if an owner wanted to use his/her points to book a bunch or 1 or 2 night reservation, he would have to pay a fee for each additional reservation transaction, each additional house keeping at checkout, and any more than 1 guest certificate.  I'd prefer the skim.


----------



## SMB1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Superchief said:


> To me, the biggest problem is that MVC is actively promoting benefits that they know truly aren't necessarily available, and aren't disclosing what the restrictions are. I really wouldn't have a problem with 3 day minimum at vacation resorts during prime time, as long as it is clearly disclosed. If searching for availability at a specific resort, MVC can clearly post minimum requirements on the resort reservation page. There should also be policies regarding the percentage of weeks per year that can be restricted.



Again, with Wyndham, they just recently eliminated many of the reservation restrictions they used to impose.  It is much more like Marriott now.  I would not want to see a minimum 3 night reservation during prime time.


----------



## bazzap (Apr 29, 2018)

SMB1 said:


> Again, with Wyndham, they just recently eliminated many of the reservation restrictions they used to impose.  It is much more like Marriott now.  I would not want to see a minimum 3 night reservation during prime time.


As a non US resident, needing long haul flights to get to almost all MVC resorts, if it were a choice between absolute flexibility (but with “breakage” making it noticeably more difficult to book full week stays using points) v having a minimum 3 night say reservation - I would definitely prefer a minimum reservation period.


----------



## Wei339 (Apr 29, 2018)

As far as the points holiday weeks not showing a breakdown of the points requirements for individual days, you can phone the MVC associates for the breakdown.  The points for the week that I inquired about had a 3 session split instead of the usual Sun-Thurs and Fri-Sat with only slightly more points required.


----------



## Fasttr (May 20, 2018)

SeaDoc said:


> Ok, I get it now - 2 day non-available, so 3 day minimums for certain properties - it may be resort specific, especially high turnover properties, like Orlando based, and Hilton Head to minimize costs of upkeep of the properties.  I agree that these issues should be more forthcoming, so good to know.  *It will be interesting at 60 days out, whether they loosen this 3 day restriction*.  I will check it out then, out of curiosity.


So, out of curiosity, since we are inside of 60 days now, I checked out the same Sabal Palms July 4th, 2018 week and the 3 night minimum still holds as of today, with availability for 3 nights, but not for 2 or 1 nights.  So certainly MVC (or the resort) is not softening the minimum nights requirement even at this late date, well within the 60 day window. 

I also just checked and there are NO Destination Escapes listings for Sabal Palms either, so they are not even offering these 3 days up as Escapes.  

So at some point, does MVC pull these from the MVC DC availability and decide to rent these nights out on marriott.com for $$$ (serving themselves and not DC members), or will they just keep the 3 night minimum even if they go to waste and are never booked at all (serving nobody)?


----------



## VacationForever (May 20, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> So, out of curiosity, since we are inside of 60 days now, I checked out the same Sabal Palms July 4th, 2018 week and the 3 night minimum still holds as of today, with availability for 3 nights, but not for 2 or 1 nights.  So certainly MVC (or the resort) is not softening the minimum nights requirement even at this late date, well within the 60 day window.
> 
> I also just checked and there are NO Destination Escapes listings for Sabal Palms either, so they are not even offering these 3 days up as Escapes.
> 
> So at some point, does MVC pull these from the MVC DC availability and decide to rent these nights out on marriott.com for $$$ (serving themselves and not DC members), or will they just keep the 3 night minimum even if they go to waste and are never booked at all (serving nobody)?


Can you book 3 days and ask agent to cancel 2 within the 60 days window and allow the cancelled points to go into your holding account?


----------



## GregT (May 20, 2018)

VacationForever said:


> Can you book 3 days and ask agent to cancel 2 within the 60 days window and allow the cancelled points to go into your holding account?


I have some holding points to play with (still left from the Ritz STT debacle) so I booked the 3 night reservation at Sabal Palms, checking in on July 3.  I just tried to cancel the subsequent two nights but the Chat agent wasn't able to do it and told me to call in tomorrow to the VOA.  

I will report back with the results.

Best,

Greg


----------



## VacationForever (May 20, 2018)

GregT said:


> I have some holding points to play with (still left from the Ritz STT debacle) so I booked the 3 night reservation at Sabal Palms, checking in on July 3.  I just tried to cancel the subsequent two nights but the Chat agent wasn't able to do it and told me to call in tomorrow to the VOA.
> 
> I will report back with the results.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## GregT (May 21, 2018)

Yes, they were able to shorten the reservation to a single day. It required technical support to do so, but it was not a problem. 

Best, 

Greg


----------



## Fasttr (May 21, 2018)

GregT said:


> Yes, they were able to shorten the reservation to a single day. It required technical support to do so, but it was not a problem.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Greg


Good to know there is a workaround.  So in the future....if only wanting 1 or 2 days, and the system tells you its not available, always check 3 days (or more) to see if available, if it is, book it, then call and be placed on hold until VOA can get technical support to cancel the days you don't want.  Sounds like a stupid way to run a business if in the end, you allow a 1 day ressie, why not just let the customer book a 1 day ressie online.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 21, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Good to know there is a workaround.  So in the future....if only wanting 1 or 2 days, and the system tells you its not available, always check 3 days (or more) to see if available, if it is, book it, then call and be placed on hold until VOA can get technical support to cancel the days you don't want.  Sounds like a stupid way to run a business if in the end, you allow a 1 day ressie, why not just let the customer book a 1 day ressie online.


Most people probably won't know about the work around, or won't bother to check for a three day or longer reservation and just give up.


----------



## Fasttr (May 21, 2018)

dioxide45 said:


> Most people probably won't know about the work around, or won't bother to check for a three day or longer reservation and just give up.


You are probably right....which leads me back to my question several posts back.....

So at some point, does MVC pull these from the MVC DC availability and decide to rent these nights out on marriott.com for $$$ (serving themselves and not DC members), or will they just keep the 3 night minimum even if they go to waste and are never booked at all (serving nobody)?


----------



## StevenTing (May 21, 2018)

Fasttr said:


> Not really sure where Steven got that, because if you go online and look at any individual resorts 2019 chart, its not shown that way.  Not sure if his is an Asia-Pacific produced chart (appears that it may be) or what, but its certainly different from the charts via MVC online for 2019.



Sorry I'm late to this.  I found this chart from the AP club.  Didn't realize it didn't have the break down of the days.  I'm working to rebuild the 2019 chart from the individuals PDF's as Marriott says they no longer have the full PDF, which I don't believe.

Edit:  The 2019 Point chart has been updated to reflect the detail for daily usage rather than just for the full week.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 21, 2018)

A most interesting discussion. You're looking at another aspect of the difference between a timeshare organization and a vacation club organization.

The rules of a vacation club allows one day reservations. However, the inventory that the vacation club owns (timeshares) does not (some of the time). Hence, conflict.

The vacation club would point out that they are not restricting 1 day reservations at the vacation club level. The restrictions are occurring and the individual timeshare organization level (which they would claim they do not own.) Now if the vacation club actually owned an entire timeshare entity (like Grand Vista, or DSV, or MOC, ect.), that claim would go away. You would then have a hotel like structure.

Unfortunately, you are dealing with a hybrid situation, with MVCI in an inherent conflict of interest situation. This is merely one of the conflicts.


----------



## catharsis (May 21, 2018)

I'll add a fun example

I have a 2 night booking (existing)  I see that I can book a 3 night booking but not a 2 night booking.  at t-60 I cancel the 2 night booking,  the situation does not change, and the 3 nights minimum stay policy which was applied after I booked my 2 nights stay once MVC changed the rules and started allowing properties to do this on a wholesale basis (sometime in the last 6 months I think) still applies, preventing me form making a 2 night booking to replace the 2 night booking I had just cancelled.

So I go ahead and make the 3 night booking, and then cancel the first night.   BTW I challenged the agent as to why the minimum night restriction was in place and she said it was because it was a holiday/peak travel season - late July in Hawaii is not any peak I recognise!!

This is just absurd.


----------



## GregT (May 21, 2018)

catharsis said:


> I'll add a fun example
> 
> I have a 2 night booking (existing)  I see that I can book a 3 night booking but not a 2 night booking.  at t-60 I cancel the 2 night booking,  the situation does not change, and the 3 nights minimum stay policy which was applied after I booked my 2 nights stay once MVC changed the rules and started allowing properties to do this on a wholesale basis (sometime in the last 6 months I think) still applies, preventing me form making a 2 night booking to replace the 2 night booking I had just cancelled.
> 
> ...



Sorry, just to be clear, you've found this same phenomenon (can only book three nights) in Hawaii in late July?   That's interesting if so.

Please confirm and thank you!

Best,

Greg


----------



## Dean (May 21, 2018)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> A most interesting discussion. You're looking at another aspect of the difference between a timeshare organization and a vacation club organization.
> 
> The rules of a vacation club allows one day reservations. However, the inventory that the vacation club owns (timeshares) does not (some of the time). Hence, conflict.
> 
> ...


I'll point out that a "vacation club" such as Marriott or Disney is simply a timeshare with a different label.  There are just all types of timeshares.  



catharsis said:


> I'll add a fun example
> 
> I have a 2 night booking (existing)  I see that I can book a 3 night booking but not a 2 night booking.  at t-60 I cancel the 2 night booking,  the situation does not change, and the 3 nights minimum stay policy which was applied after I booked my 2 nights stay once MVC changed the rules and started allowing properties to do this on a wholesale basis (sometime in the last 6 months I think) still applies, preventing me form making a 2 night booking to replace the 2 night booking I had just cancelled.
> 
> ...


I think HI in late July is peak compared to most of the club, it's just not the very peak for HI.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 22, 2018)

Dean, I respectfully disagree. With a time share I own a fractional interest in a particular piece of real estate.

With a vacation club (any vacation club) I own access to a pool of vacations. The underlying vacations may be timeshares (or other properties), but I don't own any of the underlying properties. Just access. The club has to right to change what properties it owns, you have no control over that.

Similar results, but different animals. . . (Sort of like comparing a bat to a bird. Both fly, but they are not that closely related.)


----------



## Dean (May 22, 2018)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Dean, I respectfully disagree. With a time share I own a fractional interest in a particular piece of real estate.
> 
> With a vacation club (any vacation club) I own access to a pool of vacations. The underlying vacations may be timeshares (or other properties), but I don't own any of the underlying properties. Just access. The club has to right to change what properties it owns, you have no control over that.
> 
> Similar results, but different animals. . . (Sort of like comparing a bat to a bird. Both fly, but they are not that closely related.)


My view is that vacation club simply means timeshare, no more and no less.  I bet you could ask ten different members here to give you a definition of a vacation club and you'd get 11 answers.  It's all hype and marketing with no real basis.  For example, Marriott was a vacation club when you didn't have access to other resorts other than through II.  And there are, or at least have been in the past "vacation clubs" where you owned nothing and simply had the right to attempt to make a reservation.  And there are timeshares labeled as vacation clubs where you don't own a tangible interest, again with Marriott trust points you're not really based in a hard asset.  Probably about the only thing we would all likely agree on is that a vacation club has more than one resort until one name whether one had true access of not.  One of the biggest mistakes that some make in timeshares is buying the hype of the vacation club while forgetting or not realizing it's a timeshare.  I've seen this commonly with DVC for example.


----------



## bazzap (May 23, 2018)

I am having somewhat of a challenge following this whole thread exchange on Vacation Club v Timeshare in the context of MVC.
Apart from the well understood issue of Weeks ownership and what that offers through home resort benefits / limitations v DC Points ownership and what that offers through all resort portfolio benefits / limitations, I am not clear what the debate is?


----------



## dioxide45 (May 23, 2018)

bazzap said:


> I am having somewhat of a challenge following this whole thread exchange on Vacation Club v Timeshare in the context of MVC.
> Apart from the well understood issue of Weeks ownership and what that offers through home resort benefits / limitations v DC Points ownership and what that offers through all resort portfolio benefits / limitations, I am not clear what the debate is?


The whole debate is regarding minimum stay booking requirements when booking with points. Executive and above owners have the ability to book 1+ nights at 13 months. However, some properties and dates are requiring at least a three night stay. People are up in arms. It is how the TUG world goes round...

eta: Looks like I missed what you were specifically referring to, timeshare vs vacation club.

All the major timeshare companies like to call their programs "Vacation Clubs" because timeshare for years, and perhaps still does, has a bad name. So by calling them vacation clubs was pure marketing. Nothing else. For practical purposes. What Marriott sells is timeshare. You own a slice of time at a resort or group of resorts. It isn't by true definition, a vacation club. They want to call it a vacation club because it sounds better than timeshare. The more traditional definition of a vacation club is buying in to a program where you have the rights to book reservations but you don't own real estate or a share of real estate. There are vacation clubs out there that you can pay $10,000 to buy in to where you can simply book excess RCI inventory. Marriott weeks and points are deeded interest in real estate, so it is more closely defined as timeshare.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 23, 2018)

Bazzap, I'm merely pointing out that MVC DC is a separate "layer" on top of a "layer" in timeshare structure.

Let me give a hypothetical. . . 

Say the DC club decided to remove a timeshare location from its portfolio. We'll just call it location X, for convenience.The DC sells all the weeks in its portfolio for X, and then you can't make a reservation for X thereafter. As a points owner, you have no control over the portfolio. If going to X was why you bought the points, "too bad, so sad".

On the other hand, if you had bought a week at X, you own that week, for good or bad, even if the management company changed. You might lose extra frills, like access to the vacation club from the previous manager, (or maybe not), but you still have your week.

These are not identical propositions. It's not that one is better than the other, but they are different. I think that potential owners should understand the difference.

Furthermore, having both propositions at a single timeshare location, under the same management company, causes that company to have a conflict of interest in allocation availability of units.


----------



## bazzap (May 23, 2018)

OK thank you both, I recall now the earlier issues raised in this thread.
(I can understand it better as Weeks v Points, rather than Vacation Club v Timeshare)
Personally, I have never had a problem booking odd day(s) with DC Points and I only own enrolled Weeks anyway.
As for multiple propositions, in Thailand we have Weeks owners, Asia Pacific (AP) Points owners, Weeks owners who have “overlayed” their Weeks in to AP Points, Weeks owners who have enrolled their Weeks in to DC Points, Weeks owners who had “overlayed” their Weeks in to AP Points but have now switched those Weeks to be enrolled in DC Points... so it almost makes the US options seem simple haha!


----------



## Fasttr (May 23, 2018)

Actually this thread has taken many turns.  Started out with a simple post of somebody unaware that, based on their ownership level, they could not book less than a 7 nights stay until the 10 month mark.  Then it morphed into the realization that at some resorts during some time periods, resorts were putting non published (unlike Ritz St. Thomas which is published) minimum stay restrictions (an example would be a 3 night minimum during 4th of July week).  Then it morphed into the Timeshare vs Vacation Club debate.

Isn't it amazing what TUGgers can do inside one simple thread  ;-)


----------



## Dean (May 23, 2018)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> Bazzap, I'm merely pointing out that MVC DC is a separate "layer" on top of a "layer" in timeshare structure.
> 
> Let me give a hypothetical. . .
> 
> ...


Timeshares come in all different flavors, each system is somewhat unique though at the end of the day they usually share some common focus.  There are resorts that share 2 to 4 totally different timeshares, there are resorts with wholly owned condo's and timeshares and each points system has differences whether it be in the ownership model or the usage model (or both).  Marriott (Trust and DC) don't have a home resort, neither does Bluegreen but you do have the option of taking your owned week with BG.  Wyndham, DVC and Hilton have a home resort priority, I can't speak to others.  Technically and legally the Marriott product is 2 separate systems with a crossover but share certain management components.  IMO 2 of the biggest mistakes people make with timeshares is forgetting that X is a timeshare with it's inherent risks and costs and assuming they're buying into options that they are not like Marriott Trust points for resorts with little trust inventory.  It could all go away tomorrow.


----------



## davidvel (May 23, 2018)

SeaDoc said:


> Several companies, remained unnamed, charge housekeeping fees for daily stays.  Would you like MVC to do that to satisfy your daily usage pattern, or would you want to limit overnight stays so as to keep maintenance fee increases as minimal as possible for the rest of us who have a longer stay usage pattern?  This is the trade-off.
> 
> I just had a lengthy chat with one of the Vacation Owner Advisors regarding this issue, which truly has been illuminating as I had never experienced it, nor seen it in print until I looked at the 2019 point charts.  The 13 months 1 day at a time for those owning 7000 points or more (except for RC St. Thomas with a 3 day minimum) had been the mainstay of this program.  It now appears that each site can restrict the minimum stays, as they so choose, from year-to-year as the situation dictates, especially in holiday seasons.  There is no written documentation, other than the point books which are guidelines, and it is the actual reservation that can determine any restrictions.  This is the excerpt of our chat:
> 
> ...


Illuminating indeed. That's quite an admission against Marriott's sales practices.  Marriott doesn't inform its own salespeople about this restriction to the mainstay of the program so this material information can be communicated to buyers as part of their decision making process. 

Meanwhile these salespeople are taking tens of thousands of dollars from customers after making the pitch, "you can get incredible flexibility of reserving single days 13 months out, ahead of all the other shmucks that can't afford this great new level of benefits!"

In defense they'll say we told you in the tiny print that no particular reservation is guaranteed and we reserve the right to implement practices and procedures as we wish.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 23, 2018)

Dean said:


> Technically and legally the Marriott product is 2 separate systems with a crossover but share certain management components


For legal purposes, that little fine print you see at the bottom of every ad, Marriott refers to their product as timeshare. It is governed by timeshare laws. Vacation Club is just a marketing term, nothing else really.


----------

