# 13-Month Maui Reservation Experience



## BocaBoy (Dec 30, 2010)

I want to report on my experience yesterday in attempting to reserve my Hawaii legacy weeks at the 13-month window for four weeks beginning on Saturday, January 28.  First the facts: We own one Ko Olina 2BR ocean view lock-off week and two Maui 2BR lock-off weeks in Lahaina/Napili Towers.  We wanted to reserve as follows:

Jan.28--Ko Olina 1BR (lock-off)
Feb. 4--Maui Guest Room (lock-off)
Feb. 11--Maui 2 BR
Feb. 18--Maui 1BR (lock-off)

The Ko Olina week was no problem two days after the 13-month window opened up.  That was no surprise.  

There were no guest rooms available in Maui for Feb.4 even though it was farther out than 13 months.  That was a surprise.  We got a 1 BR.

There were NO ROOMS OF ANY KIND AVAILABLE FOR MAUI for Feb. 11. That was a shock!  So we booked a Ko Olina Guest Room.

We had no problems with Maui for Feb. 18, so we booked a 2BR.  On Feb. 11 when the 12-month window opens for Feb. 11, I will try to book a Maui guest room and droop the Ko Olina guest room.

I am very surprised.  I have always been able to book 13 months ahead for Maui at this time of year.  And this year, for the first time, I was not starting with Maui but was actually looking for Maui weeks that were still more than 13 months away.  Of particular concern is the fact that nothing was available in Maui on the entire weekend of February 11.  No one could have yet booked that week unless they had also booked at least the two weeks before that.  So if this is true, a full 50% of the rooms in Maui's new towers had already been booked by people who had to be in at least their third consecutive week in Hawaii.

What do you think is going on?  Could it possibly be that  a large number of Maui owners have traded for points and that Marriott has grabbed all of their weeks from the prime February season (and Valentine's week in particular) to offer to points people?  That does not seem likely, but it seems impossible that enough owners have booked three or more consecutive weeks in Hawaii to have filled up half of the resort almost three weeks before the 13-month window opens.

I would appreciate any ideas.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 30, 2010)

Is it possible that they are holding some of the inventory back for the actual 13 month mark? Try calling back for the regular 13 month window for the actual week of the 11th. You may find they have something available.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 30, 2010)

What explanation did you get from Owner Services (I'd ask for a manager...)?


----------



## thinze3 (Dec 30, 2010)

I wonder how many Maui weeks were unsold and converted to points. I thought Lahaina was virtually sold out while Napili still had plenty of unsold inventory.??

Those unsold weeks were probably available to be reserved in past years, because Marriott wouldn't have put those weeks up for rent until a couple of months later.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Dec 31, 2010)

I didn't know you could even split weeks to extend a reservation run so you taught me something. I wish I wanted to split my weeks or I'd be doing the same thing but I don't so I can only run my string so far.

I'm looking for Feb 11 Aruba, then my Maui weeks for Feb 18. I hope it works out for you and I hope it works out for me as well.


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 31, 2010)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I didn't know you could even split weeks to extend a reservation run so you taught me something. I wish I wanted to split my weeks or I'd be doing the same thing but I don't so I can only run my string so far.


You can split weeks as long as the string includes more than one owned week.  For example, you cannot split a single week and stay two weeks, but you can take the master suite from one week and the guest room from another week and stay two weeks.


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 31, 2010)

thinze3 said:


> I wonder how many Maui weeks were unsold and converted to points. I thought Lahaina was virtually sold out while Napili still had plenty of unsold inventory.??
> 
> Those unsold weeks were probably available to be reserved in past years, because Marriott wouldn't have put those weeks up for rent until a couple of months later.



Lahaina was completely sold out, except maybe for a handful of fixed week, fixed units.  Napili was mostly sold out, but had some inventory left.  That could have made some difference in the past.


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 31, 2010)

dioxide45 said:


> Is it possible that they are holding some of the inventory back for the actual 13 month mark? Try calling back for the regular 13 month window for the actual week of the 11th. You may find they have something available.


They say no, but I will call anyway at the 13 month mark.  It cannot hurt.  Thanks for the idea.


----------



## BocaBoy (Dec 31, 2010)

DanCali said:


> What explanation did you get from Owner Services (I'd ask for a manager...)?



The representative seemed surprised that there was no availability, but explained that a lot of Maui owners own multiple weeks and stay for several weeks.  That is true, but I don't think it can be the whole explanation, especially with the guest rooms for the first weekend in February already gone, but not the master suites.  Guest rooms are usually the last to sell out.  I will call back and speak to a manager.

By the way, I was on the phone with the VOA for over an hour after being on hold for 59 minutes waiting for someone to be free to answer my call.


----------



## Luckybee (Dec 31, 2010)

Interesting Boca
 see my post here on a similiar issue re: Aruba

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137248


----------



## OutAndAbout (Dec 31, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> I have always been able to book 13 months ahead for Maui at this time of year.
> 
> Of particular concern is the fact that nothing was available in Maui on the entire weekend of February 11.


Just to recap to make sure we understand:

*Dates wanted/available*
Jan. 28--MKO 1br / MKO 1br
Feb.  4--MMO studio / MMO 1br (no studios)
Feb. 11--MMO 2br / No MMO available (no studio, 1br or 2br)
Feb. 18--MMO 1br / MMO 2br (all room types availabe) 

*What marriott tells us:*
*50% of inventory is released for 13+ month reservation
*50% of inventory is released for 12 month reservations
*Marriott does not tell us where they are in the cue for developer weeks, marriott owned weeks or Destination Club weeks.

*Variables that have changed since last year* (i'm not sure how many years prior BocaBoy has booked Valentines day at MMO):
*Consumers are spending more money and traveling more than the previous 2 years
*Marriott introduced Destination Club points

As BocaBoy pointed out, in the past there's rarely been an issue bookings made over 13 months out (Feb 4 is 13 months + 1 week & Feb 11th is 13 months + 2 weeks).  Although not impossible, i find it hard to believe that consumers can be the main driver of bookings made *over *13 months out (espeically if there wasn't an issue in 2007, when consumers were spending more than today).  Which only leaves Destination Club points...

..."when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Technically Marriott owned weeks and DC club weeks are "owners" and pay maintenance fees for the weeks that they own.  If Marriott/DC follows the rules for owners they can start 14+ months out booking just one villa for each week then book multiple villas for Feb 11th up to the 50% of inventory available.

*A few questions:*
(a) Did they check availability around your dates (Feb 3/4/5 & 10/11/12)?
(b) I'm not that familiar with the DC program, but if you can book DC more than 13 months out it would be interesting if there's DC inventory.


----------



## m61376 (Dec 31, 2010)

I would HOPE that Marriott is being good to its word and only allocating a fair share of each reservation period to each pool of users, as they stipulated they would be doing. That said, another possibility is that given the relatively high point allocation, new DC users may be playing in points this year and trying other places, so it could be that there were a disproportionately high number of point deposits and that, coupled with developer inventory being allocated to the points pool, may be tipping the scale so that the impact of multiple week owners who stay for 4+ weeks is first being felt. If there are a lot of 3 week owners who lock-off to stay 6 weeks that would explain Bocaboy's difficulties, esp. since he didn't call at the 13 month mark but a few days later.

Keep in mind that Maui owners, and Ko'Olina owners to a lesser degree, felt almost compelled to use their units so as not to trade down. The DC program is good for them in that respect, so I can see more Maui owners esp. (given the point allocations) depositing their units for points and going elsewhere, despite the skim, because they'd still benefit from most point exchanges. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Maui tightens up a bit because of this, at least initially.


----------



## windje2000 (Dec 31, 2010)

m61376 said:


> I would HOPE that Marriott is being good to its word and only allocating a fair share of each reservation period to each pool of users, as they stipulated they would be doing. *That said, another possibility is that given the relatively high point allocation, new DC users may be playing in points this year and trying other places, so it could be that there were a disproportionately high number of point deposits and that, coupled with developer inventory being allocated to the points pool, may be tipping the scale so that the impact of multiple week owners who stay for 4+ weeks is first being felt.* If there are a lot of 3 week owners who lock-off to stay 6 weeks that would explain Bocaboy's difficulties, esp. since he didn't call at the 13 month mark but a few days later.
> 
> Keep in mind that Maui owners, and Ko'Olina owners to a lesser degree, felt almost compelled to use their units so as not to trade down. The DC program is good for them in that respect, so I can see more Maui owners esp. (given the point allocations) depositing their units for points and going elsewhere, despite the skim, because they'd still benefit from most point exchanges. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Maui tightens up a bit because of this, at least initially.



That's probably right on target.  Owners of 'high priced' weeks with the high point allocations may well come to view DClub as a two edged sword.  Good for trading, but less good for reservations at the home resort.  

I too wonder if the occupancy Boca had hoped to reserve is available for points.


----------



## Dewnay (Dec 31, 2010)

I was able to extend my vacation in Hawaii next summer by booking a prime week at the Maui Ocean Club Lahaina Villas using destination points. I am an owner at MOC and had no luck with my 2011 week. On a whim last week, I checked with a VOA and he said there was availability on the DC side for the exact dates I needed during week 26.


----------



## hotcoffee (Dec 31, 2010)

Okay.  I don't feel like thinking yet this morning.  So, I will comment without thinking this through.  Since all unsold weeks at the MOC were dumped into the Trust, and since weeks controlled by Marriott that were obtained through other means might now be withheld for the DC Exchange inventory, is it possible that some of those weeks that were usually available for reservatons were weeks that Marriott had controlled?


----------



## GregT (Dec 31, 2010)

I called the VOA to see if BocaBoy's weeks were available thru Destination Club, but the lines were full -- it wouldn't even let me hold, it told me to call back later.

I will try again, because it's puzzling that he couldn't get MM1 13+ months in advance.

Best,

Greg


----------



## Superchief (Dec 31, 2010)

According to DC Points T&C, DC reservations cannot be made prior to 13 months in advance. I don't think that the consecutive week reservations beyond the 13 month window are possible with points. Therefore, DC reservations for Feb 11 should not yet be possible.

However, additional inventory for that week may be on hold for DC reservations, reducing availability for legacy owners.


----------



## GregT (Dec 31, 2010)

Superchief said:


> According to DC Points T&C, DC reservations cannot be made prior to 13 months in advance. I don't think that the consecutive week reservations beyond the 13 month window are possible with points. Therefore, DC reservations for Feb 11 should not yet be possible.
> 
> However, additional inventory for that week may be on hold for DC reservations, reducing availability for legacy owners.




Agreed and understood -- if I get thru, I'll ask them for an extended (21 nights?) stay beginning on Jan 28th and crosses the Feb 11th week.  That will be an interesting experiment by itself. 

Best,

Greg


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Dec 31, 2010)

GregT said:


> I called the VOA to see if BocaBoy's weeks were available thru Destination Club, but the lines were full -- it wouldn't even let me hold, it told me to call back later.
> 
> I will try again, because it's puzzling that he couldn't get MM1 13+ months in advance.
> 
> ...






Greg:  I think the telephones lines will be extremely busy today until midnight because many "week" owners believe this is the last day to jump into the Destination Club.   Additionally, today IS the last day you can convert your 2011 use into Marriott Reward Points.   And, I believe maintenance fees are due for many resorts today....

NOT A GOOD DAY TO CALL MARRIOTT 

Happy New Year to all 


.


----------



## GregT (Dec 31, 2010)

I did get thru and asked them about an extended stay in a 2BR, I asked for Jan 29th or 30th check-in and check-out on Feb 16th, which would have crossed BocaBoy's request.

No inventory was available at all, not even 7 days.   She made the comment that they are still waiting for owners to put in the weeks and that 13 months out inventory was spotty.  

Best,

Greg


----------



## taffy19 (Dec 31, 2010)

hotcoffee said:


> Okay.  I don't feel like thinking yet this morning.  So, I will comment without thinking this through.  Since all unsold weeks at the MOC were dumped into the Trust, and since weeks controlled by Marriott that were obtained through other means might now be withheld for the DC Exchange inventory, is it possible that some of those weeks that were usually available for reservatons were weeks that Marriott had controlled?



This is exactly what is happening at the MOC new towers but the oceanfront units were not in the trust at the Lahaina tower and some were not sold yet so Marriott still owns them.  I don't remember if I checked the Napili tower because I am not familiar with the oceanfront condo numbers there but  assume that it is the same story.

I was late locking off last year but was confirmed within 24 hours and I was late with a request first again this year and am still waiting.  Marriott recommended to belong to the DC because they would be able to help me but I don't like the skim of over 1,000 points but the oceanfront units were not in the trust when I first checked.  Are they now?

I am curious what GregT will find out about getting confirmed with DC points.


----------



## hotcoffee (Dec 31, 2010)

Superchief said:


> According to DC Points T&C, DC reservations cannot be made prior to 13 months in advance. I don't think that the consecutive week reservations beyond the 13 month window are possible with points. Therefore, DC reservations for Feb 11 should not yet be possible.
> 
> However, additional inventory for that week may be on hold for DC reservations, reducing availability for legacy owners.



My assumption is that an equivalent number of weeks to what Marriott controls are no longer available for regular weeks reservations at any time due to their being reserved for the DC inventory.  Plus, a percentage of the weeks equal to the percentage of DC enrollees at the resort is unavailable due to the same reason.

That still leaves a lot of weeks available for regular reservations; but for peak time periods, it might result in a noticeable reduction of available weeks to reserve.


----------



## hotcoffee (Dec 31, 2010)

iconnections said:


> This is exactly what is happening at the MOC new towers but the oceanfront units were not in the trust at the Lahaina tower and some were not sold yet so Marriott still owns them.  I don't remember if I checked the Napili tower because I am not familiar with the oceanfront condo numbers there but  assume that it is the same story.
> 
> I was late locking off last year but was confirmed within 24 hours and I was late with a request first again this year and am still waiting.  Marriott recommended to belong to the DC because they would be able to help me but I don't like the skim of over 1,000 points but the oceanfront units were not in the trust when I first checked.  Are they now?
> 
> I am curious what GregT will find out about getting confirmed with DC points.



I was able to get an ocean front reservation at the Napili tower with DC points.  So, some are getting into the DC program.  They could be getting there via MRP trades, DC enrollments, delinquencies, etc.


----------



## taffy19 (Dec 31, 2010)

GregT said:


> I did get thru and asked them about an extended stay in a 2BR, I asked for Jan 29th or 30th check-in and check-out on Feb 16th, which would have crossed BocaBoy's request.
> 
> No inventory was available at all, not even 7 days.   She made the comment that they are still waiting for owners to put in the weeks and that 13 months out inventory was spotty.
> 
> ...


Does that mean that Marriott still owns the oceanfront units and they are not in the trust or dumped into II?  That will make locking off a lot harder to do.  How many new buyers were sold on this concept at the new towers because of the high maintenance fees?  They will be pretty upset when they find out that it is a lot harder to do than last year. 

Am I glad that we didn't enroll.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 31, 2010)

hotcoffee said:


> My assumption is that an equivalent number of weeks to what Marriott controls are no longer available for regular weeks reservations at any time due to their being reserved for the DC inventory.



Marriott weeks are Marriott weeks. Why do you think they were ever available for weeks reservations? Marriott would just reserve high demand weeks for itself, no?




m61376 said:


> I would HOPE that Marriott is being good to its word and only allocating a fair share of each reservation period to each pool of users, as they stipulated they would be doing.



Unlike the 13 month rule inventory, their "word" on this particular issue was never in writing, and that may be for a good reason...

If they are not good to their word on this, wouldn't this be the most obvious explanation?


----------



## wof45 (Dec 31, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Marriott weeks are Marriott weeks. Why do you think they were ever available for weeks reservations? Marriott would just reserve high demand weeks for itself, no?
> 
> Unlike the 13 month rule inventory, their "word" on this particular issue was never in writing, and that may be for a good reason...
> 
> If they are not good to their word on this, wouldn't this be the most obvious explanation?



I don't think there is enough real evidence yet to know just what the problem is.

It could be a simple as the weeks are not available at legacy resorts because owners cannot yet turn in their 2012 weeks for points, so there is no DC points inventory available.  And that if we are looking for trades, enough legacy owners have not reserved weeks and deposited them for exchanges.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 31, 2010)

wof45 said:


> I don't think there is enough real evidence yet to know just what the problem is.



If Marriott is messing with the 13 month inventory contrary to what was told (verbally) to some tuggers, you will never get hard evidence for that.

Given the enrollment rates and human nature, I find it hard to believe that most of the few who enrolled already converted 2012 weeks to points and that is causing availability issues.

What seems more likely to me, is that you can expect some of weeks at the 13 months mark for weeks inventory, but not for the same number of weeks for every week in your season...


----------



## GregT (Dec 31, 2010)

wof45 said:


> It could be a simple as the weeks are not available at legacy resorts because owners cannot yet turn in their 2012 weeks for points, so there is no DC points inventory available.  And that if we are looking for trades, enough legacy owners have not reserved weeks and deposited them for exchanges.



Agreed -- but it is interesting.   One of the significant unknowns about the new system is how robust the inventory is in general, and how reliably accessible the trust inventory is to legacy point owners.

We know from other threads that there is a reasonable quantity of Lahaina/Napili weeks in the Trust.   But, I couldn't get to it when I attempted this long 18 night reservation.  I couldn't even get 7 nights.

_This is the paradox of the Marriott points exchange system -- we (the rightful owners of the weeks, for 25 years running) own the actual inventory that Marriott needs in order to have a robust points exchange._

What an interesting situation -- here I am a Premier Plus, or whatever they title it, I call at 13 months out, and I can't get the reservation. 

What if I had pulled out my checkbook, and wrote a check for $190,000, so that I owned the 19,000 Trust points that were needed to book my 18 night Maui Ocean Club OF reservation, at exactly 13 months out?

Then I would be accessing the Trust inventory -- and maybe the reservation gets made.   We may find there is minimal value in being a Premier Plus (legacy point) owner, until they institute a wait list.

This points exchange is still in its infancy, and Marriott has years to debug it.  But they need our weeks to have a fully robust inventory.   And it's a shame that the system wasn't designed in a manner where the weeks owners were eager to join, and felt like an valued customer to Marriott.

Best to all,

Greg


----------



## Superchief (Dec 31, 2010)

GregT said:


> ...  But they need our weeks to have a fully robust inventory.   And it's a shame that the system wasn't designed in a manner were the weeks owners were eager to join, and felt like an valued customer to Marriott.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## wof45 (Dec 31, 2010)

we too are premier plus after 23 years, and will be after a 10-night reservation next week.  I hope it has better DC inventory than the one you asked about. 

I hope Marriott can shake out the difficulties with the multiple pools of points, so that we can count on exchanges working for us in the future.  In theory, the mid-week check-ins and daily point values will work out well.


----------



## hotcoffee (Dec 31, 2010)

GregT said:


> . . . We know from other threads that there is a reasonable quantity of Lahaina/Napili weeks in the Trust.   But, I couldn't get to it when I attempted this long 18 night reservation.  I couldn't even get 7 nights.
> 
> _This is the paradox of the Marriott points exchange system -- we (the rightful owners of the weeks, for 25 years running) own the actual inventory that Marriott needs in order to have a robust points exchange._
> 
> ...



If they follow the pro-rata idea that was implied they will be using, they will hold back from weeks owner reservations at every resort an amount equal to the percentage of enrolled owners' weeks at the resort + Marriott controlled weeks at the resort + weeks at the resort held by the Trust.  That could result in a reduction of available inventory for high demand weeks.  However, it does not mean that an enrolled owner can get a high demand week from the DC inventory either because an applicable week still might not be in the exchange pool.  More than one applicable week might be sitting in limbo in the Trust.  In that case, no one can get them (except, of course, Trust owners) until Marriott decides to dump them into the DC exchange inventory, and they surely are not going to do that at 13 months out.  I assume that if Marriott had control of an applicable week at 13 months, they would have made it available.  I doubt they are holding anything back from anyone.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 31, 2010)

hotcoffee said:


> If they follow the pro-rata idea that was implied they will be using, they will hold back from weeks owner reservations at every resort an amount equal to the percentage of enrolled owners' weeks at the resort + Marriott controlled weeks at the resort + weeks at the resort held by the Trust.  That could result in a reduction of available inventory for high demand weeks.  However, it does not mean that an enrolled owner can get a high demand week from the DC inventory either because an applicable week still might not be in the exchange pool.  More than one applicable week might be sitting in limbo in the Trust.  In that case, no one can get them (except, of course, Trust owners) until Marriott decides to dump them into the DC exchange inventory, and they surely are not going to do that at 13 months out.  I assume that if Marriott had control of an applicable week at 13 months, they would have made it available.  I doubt they are holding anything back from anyone.



OK - so let's go with the pro-rata idea and assume it's all above water. The general agreements is that Marriott separates those weeks based on enrollments, not conversions, right?

Boca Boy is an enrolled owner, but did not convert his 2012 weeks to points. You are saying there should be an inventory pool weeks for enrolled weeks (say it's 10% for MOC for each week). For some reason, it has not been made available for reservation or is already taken at 13.5 months out (I doubt the latter).

I wonder if an unenrolled owner (different pool of weeks) trying the same reservaton at 13.5 months out can get it.

This could mean that Marriott is not messing with unenrolled weeks, but may be withholding enrolled weeks availability for weeks reservations (perhaps to get those people to use points?).


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 31, 2010)

DanCali said:


> OK - so let's go with the pro-rata idea and assume it's all above water. The general agreements is that Marriott separates those weeks based on enrollments, not conversions, right?
> 
> Boca Boy is an enrolled owner, but did not convert his 2012 weeks to points. You are saying there should be an inventory pool weeks for enrolled weeks (say it's 10% for MOC for each week). For some reason, it has not been made available for reservation or is already taken at 13.5 months out (I doubt the latter).
> 
> ...



A) Do they base the pro-rata allocation for reservations based on enrollments or point conversions? If they base it on conversions, do they try to predict the number of conversions and hold back inventory based on expected conversions?

B) Does Marriott instead actually move a physical week from the weeks based system in to the exchange company like how II works. So for example, when a HHI platinum owner converts to points, Marriott takes a specific July week from the legacy reservation pool and deposits it in the exchange company, so then the only inventory available to point reservations is that actual week.

What is detailed in item B) is how an exchange company works. An exchange company takes in physical inventory and gives out physical inventory. It does not just give the the ability to make a reservation of shared inventory. It would be interesting to know what Marriott is actually doing here but we will never know as there is no transparency in the program.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 1, 2011)

OutAndAbout said:


> Just to recap to make sure we understand:
> 
> *Dates wanted/available*
> Jan. 28--MKO 1br / MKO 1br
> ...



The answer to this question is yes.  There was no studio available for any of the three check-in dates Feb 3/4/5, and there was nothing at all available for any of the three check-in dates Feb 10/11/12.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 1, 2011)

Thank you everyone for your posts.  This continues to be a very interesting and troublesome issue.


----------



## m61376 (Jan 1, 2011)

DanCali said:


> Marriott weeks are Marriott weeks. Why do you think they were ever available for weeks reservations? Marriott would just reserve high demand weeks for itself, no?
> 
> 
> Unlike the 13 month rule inventory, their "word" on this particular issue was never in writing, and that may be for a good reason...
> ...


True, but I would guess that if they did it might be blurring the legal lines. I don't think we should jump to conclusions here; the decreased inventory may be explained by the absence of Marriott developer weeks now and a high multi-week usage pattern. Since they are not available for points either, that lends credence to it being a usage phenomena rather than Marriott shenanigans.


----------



## m61376 (Jan 1, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> A) Do they base the pro-rata allocation for reservations based on enrollments or point conversions? If they base it on conversions, do they try to predict the number of conversions and hold back inventory based on expected conversions?
> 
> B) Does Marriott instead actually move a physical week from the weeks based system in to the exchange company like how II works. So for example, when a HHI platinum owner converts to points, Marriott takes a specific July week from the legacy reservation pool and deposits it in the exchange company, so then the only inventory available to point reservations is that actual week.
> 
> What is detailed in item B) is how an exchange company works. An exchange company takes in physical inventory and gives out physical inventory. It does not just give the the ability to make a reservation of shared inventory. It would be interesting to know what Marriott is actually doing here but we will never know as there is no transparency in the program.


I don't know about "b" but was assured that the allocation for weeks was the percentage of week owners + legacy week owners using their weeks; those legacy weeks, whether enrolled or not, only count in the points pool allocation for the years that owners elect to convert to points. This was from the director of customer advocacy.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 1, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> A) Do they base the pro-rata allocation for reservations based on enrollments or point conversions? If they base it on conversions, do they try to predict the number of conversions and hold back inventory based on expected conversions?
> 
> B) Does Marriott instead actually move a physical week from the weeks based system in to the exchange company like how II works. So for example, when a HHI platinum owner converts to points, Marriott takes a specific July week from the legacy reservation pool and deposits it in the exchange company, so then the only inventory available to point reservations is that actual week.
> 
> What is detailed in item B) is how an exchange company works. An exchange company takes in physical inventory and gives out physical inventory. It does not just give the the ability to make a reservation of shared inventory. It would be interesting to know what Marriott is actually doing here but we will never know as there is no transparency in the program.





m61376 said:


> True, but I would guess that if they did it might be blurring the legal lines. I don't think we should jump to conclusions here; the decreased inventory may be explained by the absence of Marriott developer weeks now and a high multi-week usage pattern. Since they are not available for points either, that lends credence to it being a usage phenomena rather than Marriott shenanigans.





DanCali said:


> OK - so let's go with the pro-rata idea and assume it's all above water.
> 
> *The general agreements is that Marriott separates those weeks based on enrollments, not conversions, right?*
> 
> ...



I took another quick look at the documents.  These are the only paragraphs I found which may be pertinent.


From the Exchange Procedures Document



> VII.  MISCELLANEOUS
> 
> C. Amendments. These Exchange Procedures may be amended by Exchange Company from time to time in accordance with applicable law, which amendments may include, but are not limited to, the items set forth in this Section VII.C. Amendments may be adopted by Exchange Company in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion for purposes of:
> 
> (27)  *adding fixed week reservation preferences, priorities, or rights*;





> III.  PROGRAM OPERATION AND EXCHANGE POINTS
> 
> J.  *Affiliate Program Reservation System Operations.* Exchange Company will, from time to time, operate and manage reservation systems or exchange programs for other vacation ownership programs and facilitate usage by members of such programs, in addition to operation of the exchange facilities and related services in the Program.
> 
> ...



Commercially reasonable?  Does this perhaps mean that if Starwood or some other timeshare business follows this procedure, that opens the door for Marriott to do the same thing?




> IV.  PROCEDURES FOR RESERVING USAGE
> 
> *Exchange Company reserves the right to create alternative confirmation periods with regard to Components which may in the future become a part of a program. Additionally, there may be different methods by which interests and allocations are assigned within a particular Component. **Exchange Company has the specific right to implement procedures which will facilitate reciprocal, exchange, or similar uses by and among the Components affiliated with the Program offered by Exchange Company.* (emphasis added - this is the third paragraph of Item 2. C. from page 7)



Alternative confirmation periods?  Alternative to what?  

Facilitate reciprocal exchange or similar uses by and among components?  Did someone get 'facilitated' at the expense of BocaBoy?


*Definitions:  All from Schedule 1 of the Exchange Agreement*



> *Affiliate Program* means a program of benefits and services, as they may exist from time to time, the operator of which has entered into an agreement with Exchange Company through which the Affiliate Program’s members participate in the Program.
> 
> Participation in the Program is made available on a voluntary basis to Members of an Affiliate Program in accordance with the terms and conditions established by Exchange Company from time to time, in its sole and absolute discretion. Members have the right to reserve and use the Accommodations, facilities, services, and experiences that are a part of the Members’ Affiliate Program in accordance with the Affiliate Program Reservation System for that Member’s Affiliate Program.
> 
> If a Member desires to use the Accommodations, facilities, services, and experiences that are a part of another Affiliate Program, the Member may voluntarily participate in the Program described in these Exchange Procedures.






> *Affiliate Program Reservation System* means the method, means or system by which Members of a particular Affiliate Program are required to compete against other members of that Affiliate Program in order to reserve the use of any Accommodations, facilities, services, and experiences of a particular Affiliate Program pursuant to the applicable Affiliate Program Documents.






> *Component* means the location containing Accommodation(s) of a site or resort that is part of the Program or an Affiliate Program. Exchange Company retains the right to determine what constitutes a Component, in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion from time to time.




I have more questions than answers.

Has Marriott given itself the right to 'adjust' reservation procedures if you enroll?  

Is this suggesting that the enrolled weeks (whether points conversion is elected or not) become part of a pool available for reservation to all premium plus DClub members at thirteen months, including those trust members. . .  who own no specific resort? 

If the 12 and 13 reservation inventory pools are separate based on 'enrollments' rather than 'conversions/elections', can there be any question that legacy enrollees have transferred some ability to reserve inventory at their home resort to the members of the DClub entity?  If so, that can only have the effect of reducing one's ability to obtain the week one prefers in one's season.




So, if a trust member of DClub can compete . . . 

with a deeded owner at a sold out resort . . . 

for a reservation . . . 

at 13 months . . . 

simply because the legacy owner enrolled his or her week in DClub, 

has Marriott effectively sold the same week twice?  


And is this the reason Boca can't get his deeded weeks reserved at thirteen and a half months out?



A few phone calls to determine the reason for the lack of availability of inventory at 13.5 months may be in order here.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 1, 2011)

the comments about affiliate programs in the future, allows MVCI to tie to other exchange systems.  For example, MVCI could buy another program and connect them.  It only says that they can connect the systems, not that they can change the rights existing in any of the systems -- much as the DC program is an add-on to what legacy owners could already do.

I believe the problem seen with the 13 month reservations is reserving time at other than the home resort.  It looks to me that the problem is that if no-one at the other resort has released their week, then a week is not available to reserve.

If this is true, it means that MVCI is actually holding the weeks for legacy owners at the resort, which , I believe, is what you want them to do.


----------



## dan_hoog (Jan 1, 2011)

To maintain agreements and structure for deeded weeks, It seems to me that at any point in time, a given potential use week is either legacy or  trust / exchanged into DC exchange inventory.  By legacy, I mean available for week assignment under the old rules, including use, trade, owner rent, etc. 

Anything at Marriotts discretion, unsold, delinquent, mrp exchange, would all likely get preferential treatment for DC. It also seems the timeframes to elect dc points could be a factor, as the moment a week is elected, marriotts algorithms are trying to shift the best possible week for their dc use. I find it possible, but unlikely, they string single weeks together to claim 13 month preference. If they have done so, a key sales claim for multi week owner preference has been compromised. It would definitely result in lawsuits. 

If they are diverting more than warranted by trust, dc conversion, and Marriott discretion, from any legacy pool, it will effect hundreds of thousands of owners and eventually result in legal action and extensive discovery. Marriott would not be able to hide such a change and would know that from the outset. They may treat and position legacy owners as a new steerage class, but I doubt they'd play with actual deeded unit availability.  The possibility that a nuance in enrolled DC memberships seems plausible to me though. If they could legally skim the best legacy inventory, it seems they might do so. 

I suspect the changes are 1) market demand - people vacationing again; 2) Marriott discretionary inventory is less available in legacy pools for week selection or week exchanges; 3) sampling bias - everyone here is watching for anomalies.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 1, 2011)

windje2000 said:


> So, if a trust member of DClub can compete . . .
> 
> with a deeded owner at a sold out resort . . .
> 
> ...



I think if Marriott is making inventory available to DClub based on enrollments vs conversions, this is a bad thing for all owners. I think actual point conversions will be a small percentage of overall enrollments, at least in the first few years.

Perhaps a deeper delve in to those revised reservation procedures is in order?


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 1, 2011)

m61376 said:


> ....the decreased inventory may be explained by the absence of Marriott developer weeks now and a high multi-week usage pattern. Since they are not available for points either, that lends credence to it being a usage phenomena rather than Marriott shenanigans.



Do not forget two things:

1/  The oceanfront units Lahaina Tower were 100% sold out and only a small minority of the oceanfront units in Napili Tower were unsold as of June 20.  The vast majority of the Maui weeks in question are owned by legacy owners.  Trust availability is much greater in Ko Olina than in Maui, and I had no trouble reserving the week of January 28 in Ko Olina (that week was also unavailable in Maui) a couple days after its 13-week window opened.

2)  To book three consecutive weeks using DC points in a 2BR unit costs over 25,000 points.  If the master suites and guest rooms are booked separately, three weeks for the combined unit would be almost 29,000 points.  It seems likely that almost no one has yet booked a week 13 1/2 months out (such as February 11) by using DC points, but even so there is no points inventory available for the February 11 week. 

The only explanation that seems mathematically possible is that many more than normal multi-week Maui owners all decided to spend three or more weeks in Maui ending with the week of February 11.  That could be plausible if February was the clear highest season in Maui, but some summer weeks are even more in demand and reservations don't generally get easier until the last four months of the year (Thanksgiving excluded).  No one with school age children can spend a three week family vacation in February, and a lot of families go to Maui.


----------



## molemay (Jan 1, 2011)

Could it be that they just don't want to split up the 2 bedroom units unless they can get reservations for both the 1 bedroom and the studio sides.  Just going for a studio leaves the 1 bedroom unoccupied and breaks up a 2 bedroom.

Just a thought.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 1, 2011)

wof45 said:


> I believe the problem seen with the 13 month reservations is reserving time at other than the home resort.  It looks to me that the problem is that if no-one at the other resort has released their week, then a week is not available to reserve.
> 
> If this is true, it means that MVCI is actually holding the weeks for legacy owners at the resort, which , I believe, is what you want them to do.



I do not understand what you are saying.  I am a legacy owner trying to reserve my deeded weeks at my own home resorts.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 1, 2011)

molemay said:


> Could it be that they just don't want to split up the 2 bedroom units unless they can get reservations for both the 1 bedroom and the studio sides.  Just going for a studio leaves the 1 bedroom unoccupied and breaks up a 2 bedroom.
> 
> Just a thought.



For February 11 I first asked for a 2 BR, but none were available for that whole weekend check-in.  No studios or master suites were available either.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 1, 2011)

speaking as an older owner, we like multiple weeks weeks in February since it is when it is coldest at home.  we also want multiple weeks for distant locations, such as Hawaiii.  we also take a somewhat different view of family vacation -- we have four children with families, and plan places that will hold an extra family and let the kids decide when they want to fit into the weeks -- we already know that both daughters like to take just a long weekend, so we don't get upset if we are the only ones there part of the time.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 1, 2011)

This may have been brought up already, which perhaps is why I am thinking about it. But we have been told that Marriott is allocating inventory on a pro-rata basis. Perhaps they have three groups of weeks based pro-rata inventory. One for enrolled owners, one for unenrolled owners, and the last for Marriott/Trust owned invetory. If x% of owners are enrolled, they make x% of weeks in a given week available to enrolled owners and the remainder is available to non-enrolled owners. When enrolled owners convert to points, they move the inventory from their pro-rata share to the exchange company.

The problem with this for enrolled members is that there is now a much smaller pool of inventory to pull from for weeks based reservations. Since enrollments are only at about 10%, enrolled owners would only have access to 10% of the inventory for each week. If enrolled owners tend to be those more savvy and booking 13+ months out, then that could explain why Boca is having trouble making the reservation.

The only way to validate my theory would be for a non-enrolled owner to attempt the same reservation that Boca was trying to make.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 1, 2011)

wof45 said:


> *the comments about affiliate programs in the future, allows MVCI to tie to other exchange systems.  For example, MVCI could buy another program and connect them.*  It only says that they can connect the systems, not that they can change the rights existing in any of the systems -- much as the DC program is an add-on to what legacy owners could already do.
> 
> I believe the problem seen with the 13 month reservations is reserving time at other than the home resort.  It looks to me that the problem is that if no-one at the other resort has released their week, then a week is not available to reserve.
> 
> If this is true, it means that MVCI is actually holding the weeks for legacy owners at the resort, which , I believe, is what you want them to do.




Keep in mind this document governs the operation of DClub Exchange Company.  From *its* perspective, MVCI, the legal entity that manages reservations for MVCI  and the individual resorts are _Affiliates_ . . . each of which operates _Affiliate Programs_.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 1, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I think if Marriott is making inventory available to DClub based on enrollments vs conversions, this is a bad thing for all owners. I think actual point conversions will be a small percentage of overall enrollments, at least in the first few years.
> 
> *Perhaps a deeper delve in to those revised reservation procedures is in order?*



I would think the Boards of the ORAs of each resort would (or at least should) be aware of any changes like this.

It also make me wonder if this is one of the reasons for the much discussed voting clause, and/or one of the reasons for this clause in the T&C.



> 12. In the event Owner's Resort Association does not cooperate with MVCEC or the Program, Owner acknowledges and agrees that for the remainder of the then-current term Owner will use Owner's best efforts to take any and all reasonable actions requested by MVCEC so that Exchange Members, Members, or persons who hold a reservation(s) through the Program for use week(s) associated with Owner's Timeshare Interest will continue to have access to such use week(s).



Certainly if reservation procedures result in deeded owners getting 'bumped' out of their own resorts, the Board's fiduciary responsibilities are placed in tension with Marriott's wants.

Interesting they removed the language in this clause potentially requiring an owner to obtain a guest certificate at his/her own expense.  Maybe they believe that falls within the definition of a 'reasonable action.'

EDITED TO ADD:

It used to read like this 



> 12. In the event Owner’s Resort Association does not cooperate with MVCEC or the Program, Owner acknowledges and agrees that for the remainder of the then-current term Owner will use Owner’s best efforts to take any and all reasonable actions requested by MVCEC and/or Resort Association so that Exchange Members, Members, or persons who hold a reservation(s) through the Program for use week(s) associated with Owner’s Timeshare Interest will continue to have access to such use week(s). Owner further agrees and acknowledges that *Owner may be required to take certain actions in order to facilitate the use of the use week(s) associated with Owner’s Timeshare Interest at Owner’s sole reasonable cost and expense, including, but not limited to, the purchase of a guest certificate(s).*


----------



## pharmgirl (Jan 1, 2011)

another interesting development - we usually extend our weeks by using points to 'rent' a few days before and after.  Have been looking but very few Hawaiian dates are available for points.  This is very different from past years
we were after much searching able to get another day at KoOlina, ocean 

But other Hawaiian TSs are few if any


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 1, 2011)

I'm wondering if the OP's problem originates from the fact that he has split and is only looking for a segment of a full unit. 

That has to complicate the process in some way although I'm honestly not sure how they allocate units when they are split.

I'll be going for my usual string soon so we'll see if its easier to do so with full units


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 1, 2011)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I'm wondering if the OP's problem originates from the fact that he has split and is only looking for a segment of a full unit.



That is not the problem.  There were no full 2 BR units available in Maui (Lahaina/Napili Towers ocean front) for any of the check-in dates on any of the three weekends from January 27 through February 12, 2012.  The earliest availability for such a 2BR unit was the weekend of February 17-19, 2012.


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 1, 2011)

BocaBoy said:


> That is not the problem.  There were no full 2 BR units available in Maui (Lahaina/Napili Towers ocean front) for any of the check-in dates on any of the three weekends from January 27 through February 12, 2012.  The earliest availability for such a 2BR unit was the weekend of February 17-19, 2012.



Okay.  You have now had time to ponder the issue, and lots of others have offered explanations.  What is your best theory about why there was no availability?


----------



## Rene McDaniel (Jan 1, 2011)

Do you think the increasing number of owner rentals could be a factor?  Owners who are renting their weeks either to pay for their maintenance fees or circumvent the exchange companies by getting cash for their week, then renting where they want to go?

There are currently 134 rental listings for Marriott Maui Ocean Club right now on redweek.com, and 4 already listed for 2012.  It just seems like the number of owner rentals these days continues to grow, and increases owner demand for President's week, when a lot of schools are out for the week.

2012 Weeks already up for rent on redweek:

*Marriott's Maui Ocean Club*
01/08/12 - 01/15/12 	7 	$1,050 ($150/nt) 	Oceanfront 	1/ 1 	4 	View
	01/08/12 - 01/15/12 	7 	$2,600 ($371/nt) 	Oceanfront 	2/ 3 	8 	View
	01/08/12 - 01/15/12 	7 	$1,750 ($250/nt) 	Oceanfront 	2/ 2 	6 	View
	02/18/12 - 02/25/12 	7 	$2,000 ($286/nt) 	Oceanfront 	1/ 2 	4 	View


----------



## janna1 (Jan 1, 2011)

*Does it always require to book MMO 13/12 months out?*

Sorry to interrupt. 

I am not an owner yet. I am considing buying one week of Marritto Maui Ocean Clue from resale. I don't plan to exchange and mostly will use in summer weeks (Jun - Aug). Does it alwasy require 13/12 months out to book? How much chance is there to get 1 or 2 bdr in 10 or 8 months out? I don't want to end up in a situation that I can't find any availablities for the time that I can travel.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 1, 2011)

janna1 said:


> Sorry to interrupt.
> 
> I am not an owner yet. I am considering buying one week of Marriott Maui Ocean Club from resale. I don't plan to exchange and mostly will use in summer weeks (Jun - Aug). Does it always require 13/12 months out to book? How much chance is there to get 1 or 2 bdr in 10 or 8 months out? I don't want to end up in a situation that I can't find any availabilities for the time that I can travel.



I have never failed at 13 months before, so this is why 2012 is so strange.  In the past it has usually required almost 13 months ahead for the first 8 months of the year if you are trying to get consecutive weeks with the 13-month priority, but half the inventory is held until 12 months.  You will need to reserve right away at the 12 month mark to get a summer week, but September through Week 50 can easily be gotten at 12 months or less, often the 8-10 months ahead that you asked about.  Also, my problems are with the new towers, so I cannot speak to whether a similar 2012 problem exists in the older section of the resort.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 1, 2011)

hotcoffee said:


> Okay.  You have now had time to ponder the issue, and lots of others have offered explanations.  What is your best theory about why there was no availability?



I really wish I had a good theory, but I don't.  Marriott grabbing a large number of prime February weeks for the points program was one of my early theories, but someone posted that the February 11 week was also not available using points, which seems to discredit that theory.  Maybe it is true that at least half the units for the week of February 11, 2012 have been reserved as the third or later week in reservation strings at least 3 weeks long.  I can't disprove that and it is the only explanation I can think of if Marriott is playing it straight.  It still seems hard to believe, however.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 1, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> This may have been brought up already, which perhaps is why I am thinking about it. But we have been told that Marriott is allocating inventory on a pro-rata basis. Perhaps they have three groups of weeks based pro-rata inventory. One for enrolled owners, one for unenrolled owners, and the last for Marriott/Trust owned invetory. If x% of owners are enrolled, they make x% of weeks in a given week available to enrolled owners and the remainder is available to non-enrolled owners. When enrolled owners convert to points, they move the inventory from their pro-rata share to the exchange company.
> 
> The problem with this for enrolled members is that there is now a much smaller pool of inventory to pull from for weeks based reservations. Since enrollments are only at about 10%, enrolled owners would only have access to 10% of the inventory for each week. If enrolled owners tend to be those more savvy and booking 13+ months out, then that could explain why Boca is having trouble making the reservation.
> 
> The only way to validate my theory would be for a non-enrolled owner to attempt the same reservation that Boca was trying to make.



I also brought this up earlier in the thread.

*Perhaps a multi week non-enrolled MOC owner can test this theory out...?*


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 1, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> This may have been brought up already, which perhaps is why I am thinking about it. But we have been told that Marriott is allocating inventory on a pro-rata basis. Perhaps they have three groups of weeks based pro-rata inventory. One for enrolled owners, one for unenrolled owners, and the last for Marriott/Trust owned invetory. If x% of owners are enrolled, they make x% of weeks in a given week available to enrolled owners and the remainder is available to non-enrolled owners. When enrolled owners convert to points, they move the inventory from their pro-rata share to the exchange company.
> 
> The problem with this for enrolled members is that there is now a much smaller pool of inventory to pull from for weeks based reservations. Since enrollments are only at about 10%, enrolled owners would only have access to 10% of the inventory for each week. If enrolled owners tend to be those more savvy and booking 13+ months out, then that could explain why Boca is having trouble making the reservation.
> 
> The only way to validate my theory would be for a non-enrolled owner to attempt the same reservation that Boca was trying to make.



I don't see how this would account for there not being anything available at 13 months out.  Suppose there are only 2 enrolled platinum owners at resort X, that should guarantee 2 enrolled platinum slots will be available for the use year.  So, unless an awfully lot of non-enrolled owners got in early at 13 months out and made reservations for exactly the desired weeks, there should be at least one week available for each of the 2 enrolled owners at 13 months.  It seems pretty farfetched to believe that unusally large numbers of any one enrollment category would be vying for exactly the same weeks at 13 months out.  Am I missing something?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 1, 2011)

hotcoffee said:


> I don't see how this would account for there not being anything available at 13 months out.  Suppose there are only 2 enrolled platinum owners at resort X, that should guarantee 2 enrolled platinum slots will be available for the use year.  So, unless an awfully lot of non-enrolled owners got in early at 13 months out and made reservations for exactly the desired weeks, there should be at least one week available for each of the 2 enrolled owners at 13 months.  It seems pretty farfetched to believe that unusally large numbers of any one enrollment category would be vieing for exactly the same weeks at 13 months out.  Am I missing something?



Say there are 12 weeks in a season at a resort that has 100 units. That means there there are 1200 owners. Say 10% are enrolled in DC, 85% are not, and 5% are trust owned weeks. That means there are 10 units for each week that are available to DC members, 90 units are not. Only 5 units are available at 13 months. It is probably safe to say that enrolled owners are more likely to be multi week owners than no-enrolled owners. This means that a high percentage of those 120 owners are trying to reserve a small number of weeks at 13 months.


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 1, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> Say there are 12 weeks in a season at a resort that has 100 units. That means there there are 1200 owners. Say 10% are enrolled in DC, 85% are not, and 5% are trust owned weeks. That means there are 10 units for each week that are available to DC members, 90 units are not. Only 5 units are available at 13 months. It is probably safe to say that enrolled owners are more likely to be multi week owners than no-enrolled owners. This means that a high percentage of those 120 owners are trying to reserve a small number of weeks at 13 months.



This scenerio would put enrolled owners at a disadvantage at their own resort.  I think it is farfetched to believe that none of the desired weeks were available when BocaBoy requested them due to their already having being reserved by other enrolled owners.  

Also, I thought that the pro-rata idea was to protect owners from having exchangers come in and grab the most desireable weeks, not owners from being able reserve weeks at their own resort.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 1, 2011)

hotcoffee said:


> This scenerio would put enrolled owners at a disadvantage at their own resort.  I think it is farfetched to believe that none of the desired weeks were available when BocaBoy requested them due to their already having being reserved by other enrolled owners.
> 
> Also, I thought that the pro-rata idea was to protect owners from having exchangers come in and grab the most desireable weeks, not owners from being able reserve weeks at their own resort.



WE really don't know how it works, all theory.


----------



## taffy19 (Jan 1, 2011)

Rene McDaniel said:


> Do you think the increasing number of owner rentals could be a factor?  Owners who are renting their weeks either to pay for their maintenance fees or circumvent the exchange companies by getting cash for their week, then renting where they want to go?
> 
> There are currently 134 rental listings for Marriott Maui Ocean Club right now on redweek.com, and 4 already listed for 2012.  It just seems like the number of owner rentals these days continues to grow, and increases owner demand for President's week, when a lot of schools are out for the week.
> 
> ...


This is exactly what we will do if we are not getting our "request first" filled this year.  We are not going to mess with the Marriott by enrolling in this new program or with II either.  If all fails, we will use the 2 BR fixed week/unit ourselves and enjoy the two balconies.  One is better for the view of the mountains as well as the ocean and the other one is better for protection against the trade winds that we feel on the corner balcony.  We may even try to do a direct exchange through TUG or www.ownertrades.com.

Since we own  a fixed week/unit, we don't have problems reserving our week but how is this for other people who own a floating week?  They cannot deny this to anyone who bought a week from the Marriott at a certain season.  From what I understand, the problem is mainly with making an exchange to another Marriott resort, I hope.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 2, 2011)

hotcoffee said:


> I don't see how this would account for there not being anything available at 13 months out.  Suppose there are only 2 enrolled platinum owners at resort X, that should guarantee 2 enrolled platinum slots will be available for the use year.  So, unless an awfully lot of non-enrolled owners got in early at 13 months out and made reservations for exactly the desired weeks, there should be at least one week available for each of the 2 enrolled owners at 13 months.  It seems pretty farfetched to believe that unusally large numbers of any one enrollment category would be vying for exactly the same weeks at 13 months out.
> 
> *Am I missing something?*



There are a couple of things you may be missing with your scenario above.

First let's assume without loss of generality there are actually 50 enrolled owners. IF there is a different pool of weeks for enrolled owners and it is allocated fairly, Marriott should have one of each of weeks 1-50 on this pool (I assume 51 and 52 are outside the float season and were sold as fixed weeks). In this case, it is enough that one other enrolled owner beat BocaBoy to that reservation and he will not see availability.

Moreover, IF Marriott makes all the weeks inventory from enrolled owners available to all enrolled and trust owners at 13 and subsequently at 12 months out, a Trust owner or maybe another weeks owner with PP status may have taken that week from BocaBoy. Since we don't know much about the reservation procedures and the inventory pools (it's not like this critical documentation was given to enrollees), there is nothing to say this can't be the case.

To all this one may say:



hotcoffee said:


> This scenerio would put enrolled owners at a disadvantage at their own resort.



To which I answer:

Sure it would... 

The big lingering question since June 20 is why is Marriott pushing enrollments with "fee savings" as an excuse to enroll? What is the "cost" for those who enrolled to "save on fees" but never plan to use points? If the inventory of those enrolled owners is made available to everyone who can use points, that is both (i) a reason to push enrollments for "fee savings" and (ii) a hidden cost for those enrolled owners who now compete for weeks reservations with everyone enrolled from their home resort and everyone else who is enrolled and everyone who bought points. This also accomplishes the goal of "nudging" those who couldn't get home resort reservations with weeks, to exchange to points and get skimmed...

This is all, of course, currently in the realm of speculation, but *the "enrollment to save on fees" cannot possibly be a free lunch. There has got to be a big hidden cost to it or Marriott would not have done it - they did not go through all this effort just to subsidize II exchanges. We just need to figure out what that hidden cost is it is...*

Is what I am saying above far-fetched? Maybe... but I don't really buy other explanations I've seen so far. MOC is a desirable resort but it's not Harborside. And I can tell you from experiences I've read on the Starwood board that someone calling at 9am 12 months out gets their reservation (the problem is points exchanges at 8 months out). I can't imagine MOC would be worse at 13.5 months out...


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 2, 2011)

DanCali said:


> The big lingering question since June 20 is why is Marriott pushing enrollments with "fee savings" as an excuse to enroll?....the "enrollment to save on fees" cannot possibly be a free lunch.


It made sense to me before: get them to enroll as the first step; then work on them to induce them to exchange for points.  Now, however, I am not so sure.  There may be more to it that that.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 2, 2011)

BocaBoy said:


> It made sense to me before: get them to enroll as the first step; then work on them to induce them to exchange for points.  Now, however, I am not so sure.  There may be more to it that that.



Do you feel "induced" yet?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 2, 2011)

*I tried searching*

Does anyone have a link to the information that DaveM provided from Marriott that spoke about the pro-rata allocation of inventory?

I tried searching, and searching, and searching, but it proved futile. Those few weeks after the launch of DC the board was running on overdrive.


----------



## GregT (Jan 2, 2011)

DanCali said:


> This is all, of course, currently in the realm of speculation, *but the "enrollment to save on fees" cannot possibly be a free lunch. There has got to be a big hidden cost to it or Marriott would not have done it - they did not go through all this effort just to subsidize II exchanges. We just need to figure out what that hidden cost is it is*...



Dan,

I don't believe it is a hidden cost (to us), I believe it is a hidden benefit (to the DClub).

I believe that enrolling in DClub and then making trades thru II gives DClub a first pass to make your requested trade, giving Marriott the option to keep your week for the DClub instead of passing it along to Interval and to some random Marriott owner.

I've used this example before -- and if it doesn't work this way, Marriott missed a major opportunity to snag prime weeks.

Let's say that I want to trade my 3BR MOC week for a 3BR at Ko Olina.  I call my Marriott VOA and say that I want to make this trade.  

Marriott Trust has tons of 3 BR Ko Olina units in it -- I believe they would make that trade using Trust Inventory and take my MOC week into the Exchange Pool.   Or maybe, they make a second trade simultaneously with Interval International providing the desired 3BR Ko Olina week, and then Interval has agreed to trade my 3BR MOC back to Marriott. 

If they didn't, is Marriott really going to let the 3BR MOC go into II's inventory and just sit there?

So, I believe a major reason for the free II trades is to give Marriott a first look (Right of First Refusal concept) at inventory before it gets deposited into II.

I posted this theory before and it was criticized as too manual and labor intensive -- but I believe criteria could be established to make it very very simple -- ie, any 2BR or larger at a TDI property greater than 130 and the unit never makes it to II.

I would be very surprised if Marriott hadn't implemented something like this, but I have no evidence that the arrangement actually exists.

Best to all,

Greg


----------



## wof45 (Jan 2, 2011)

I don't see the cost here that is being passed on.

With the DC, Marriott is taking fees away from II, not from owners.  They negotiated a new deal with II, that must give it either low fees for trades or a fixed payment for all Marriott trades, and this is covered by the yearly fee to belong to the club.  II wold go along because it is better to have a large bulk contract than to have Marriott develop its own system or move to RCI.

I agree with Greg that if Marriott is not now grabbing good weeks for the DC, it will in the future.  Any argument about being labor intensive doesn't hold water since Marriott is working on a system to support the DC, and whatever they are doing will be automated.

Actually, I wonder if they don't already have a system, but it is limited to the advisors to shake out any problems and to keep DC members talking on-line to make sure they understand what they are doing.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 2, 2011)

wof45 said:


> I don't see the cost here that is being passed on.
> 
> With the DC, Marriott is taking fees away from II, not from owners.  They negotiated a new deal with II, that must give it either low fees for trades or a fixed payment for all Marriott trades, and this is covered by the yearly fee to belong to the club.  II wold go along because it is better to have a large bulk contract than to have Marriott develop its own system or move to RCI.



My bet is that a very high percentage of that $165/$199 fee goes to II. Marriott already gets an owner services fee in every MF payment, so the VOA and phone system are already paid for. Their only additional costs are in infrastructure to support the point system.



> I agree with Greg that if Marriott is not now grabbing good weeks for the DC, it will in the future.  Any argument about being labor intensive doesn't hold water since Marriott is working on a system to support the DC, and whatever they are doing will be automated.



I have argued this point from Greg several times and I don't remember labor intensive being one of the major arguments. The fact remains that Marriott has nothing built in to their exchange procedures that permit week for week based exchanges. Exchange companies in Florida are a regulated and audited business. One can't just be making exchanges willy nilly at will. Marriott built and disclosed a points based exchange system. They are bound to those disclosures and procedures until such time they amend them.



> Actually, I wonder if they don't already have a system, but it is limited to the advisors to shake out any problems and to keep DC members talking on-line to make sure they understand what they are doing.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 2, 2011)

GregT said:


> I believe that enrolling in DClub and then making trades thru II gives DClub a first pass to make your requested trade, giving Marriott the option to keep your week for the DClub instead of passing it along to Interval and to some random Marriott owner.



I don't know if this is true or not. If it is, it can coexist with my theory too.

The theory I raised though is also a possible explanation to the OPs problem because it claims enrolled weeks are a separate weeks pool accessible by other DC members even before those weeks owners convert to points. If true, I believe most weeks owners would view it as a hidden cost (although it could be painted by Marriott as a DC benefit). I have seen nothing in the documents about which weeks go into which pool...

This should be testable if an enrolled an unenrolled owner from the same resort do an inventory check for high demand weeks at 13 months and get a different result (but if they both get availability it doesn't disprove my theory).


----------



## Fredm (Jan 2, 2011)

wof45 said:


> I don't see the cost here that is being passed on.
> 
> With the DC, Marriott is taking fees away from II, not from owners.  They negotiated a new deal with II, that must give it either low fees for trades or a fixed payment for all Marriott trades, and this is covered by the yearly fee to belong to the club.  II wold go along because it is better to have a large bulk contract than to have Marriott develop its own system or move to RCI.



Exactly.....


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 2, 2011)

GregT said:


> I believe that enrolling in DClub and then making trades thru II gives DClub a first pass to make your requested trade, giving Marriott the option to keep your week for the DClub instead of passing it along to Interval and to some random Marriott owner.
> 
> Let's say that I want to trade my 3BR MOC week for a 3BR at Ko Olina.  I call my Marriott VOA and say that I want to make this trade.
> 
> ...



This would also be consistent with what I heard last month at a Manor Club owners' meeting--namely, that Marriott is now handling Marriott-to-Marriott trades internally.  (Not technically correct if the bolded language above is correct, but an accurate statement in non-technical terms.)

That would not seem to have any bearing on my 13-month reservation problem, however.


----------



## m61376 (Jan 2, 2011)

To address Dioxide's concerns- according to DaveM's prior posts, and consistent with what I was told unequivocally- there re two reservation pools, so to speak- one consisting of legacy weeks that have not enrolled + enrolled legacy weeks reserving weeks, and the other consisting of points owners and legacy weeks that have converted to points in any given year, with each reservation opportunity allocated their fair share (the proportionate share of weeks according to the percentage in each pool).

Although I personally agree with Greg that enrolling legacy week owners in the program whether or not they trade in points could conceivably give Marriott first dibs on making those trades within their exchange program and outside of II, I have been told that this is NOT what is happening, and that all trades of weeks will be in II, despite what Boca and others have been told at the various presentations. It seems that these theories are filtering from the bottom up, yet the upper echelon at Marriott contends that is not the way the system is working. For me, that would be the most cogent reason to join, IF that was the case; the Marirott heirachy is denying it, though.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 2, 2011)

m61376 said:


> To address Dioxide's concerns- according to DaveM's prior posts, and consistent with what I was told unequivocally- there re two reservation pools, so to speak- one consisting of legacy weeks that have not enrolled + enrolled legacy weeks reserving weeks, and the other consisting of points owners and legacy weeks that have converted to points in any given year, with each reservation opportunity allocated their fair share (the proportionate share of weeks according to the percentage in each pool)



Thanks. Though I am looking for a link to the post, not what we remember it said or our interpretation of it. I believe Dave included Marriott's actual language in response to his inquiry, that is what I want to see.

Did it specifically indicate points pools for converted or trust owners, or just enrollments? Of course what was said and what Marriott is in fact doing could be two different things.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 2, 2011)

GregT said:


> Dan,
> 
> I don't believe it is a hidden cost (to us), I believe it is a hidden benefit (to the DClub).
> 
> ...



I agree that one Marriott objective with respect to the II account is to get 'first pass' although I've never seen it in writing. 

What your hypothetical transaction goes on to describe is a request first trade - if you don't get it . . . there's no downside for you.  

But what you describe as a Marriott 'first look' or ROFR concept is a lot like the Marriott owner preference or advantage in II.  

That 'first look' represents an option on the week you surrender in favor of the members of DClub . . . to the exclusion of the other members of II who are Marriott owners.  

Options have value.  

The 'hidden benefit' you describe must have a 'hidden cost' to those who give that option to Dclub, the legacy owners who enroll.  They got paid nothing for writing that option and, in fact  had to pay to join DClub.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 2, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> Thanks. Though I am looking for a link to the post, not what we remember it said or our interpretation of it. I believe Dave included Marriott's actual language in response to his inquiry, that is what I want to see.
> 
> Did it specifically indicate points pools for converted or trust owners, or just enrollments? Of course what was said and what Marriott is in fact doing could be two different things.



Is this the one you're thinking of?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 2, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Is this the one you're thinking of?



I found that post in my extensive search and also thought that it may have been THE post.

That post was part of the "No access to trust pool" thread. It discussed which specific inventory was available to enrolled owners and confirmed what many believe, that enrolled owners can't directly book trust inventory unless it gets deposited in to the exchange company.

The post I am/was looking for relates more to pro-rata allocation of reservations on a week for week basis. I know it is out there is the mass of posts post 6/20.


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 2, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Is this the one you're thinking of?



I think that is one of the links that are pertinent.  I think there was also a thread or discussion about a pro-rata allocation for each week at each resort.  

Unfortunately, the supplied link does not really address the question of whether an enrolled owner who does not elect points competes with just other enrolled owners or all owners for reservations.  I think it might infer that there is only one weeks pool at each resort rather than two (i.e., enrolled and non-enrolled) but it does not really address that question.


----------



## pharmgirl (Jan 2, 2011)

Just looked to see availability for our weeks [own 2 weeks].  Surprise!  stated no availability for KoOlina - couldn't be correct

Kept clicking and a points calendar came up to give dates when reservations are available for points owners - another surprise- they are working on developing an online calendar for weeks owners!!!!  One of the things i liked about marriott compared to Starwood was being able to make our reservations using the online calendar.  It was already available and I have used it for at least 3 years, now it is 'under development'???

what a mess Marriott has made


----------



## sparty (Jan 3, 2011)

Just got back today from MOC, stayed in Napili.  The thing that surprised me was the amount of sales traffic.  Out of all the resorts I've been to, MOC by far had the most sales traffic.  To me it seemed like people were buying points.

I didn't go to a sales presentation since last week I went to Kauai Lagoons presentation.  Maybe sales are up at MOC and Marriott is  booking people in for next year? Pure speculation..


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 3, 2011)

sparty said:


> Just got back today from MOC, stayed in Napili.  The thing that surprised me was the amount of sales traffic.  Out of all the resorts I've been to, MOC by far had the most sales traffic.  To me it seemed like people were buying points.
> 
> I didn't go to a sales presentation since last week I went to Kauai Lagoons presentation.  Maybe sales are up at MOC and Marriott is  booking people in for next year? Pure speculation..



Maui has always had a very good sales office.  It does not surprise me if they are selling a lot of points.  And they are pretty straight shooters, unlike some of the other sales offices.  I will be in Maui next week and plan to attend a sales presentation to see how they are pitching points.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jan 3, 2011)

pharmgirl said:


> Just looked to see availability for our weeks [own 2 weeks].  Surprise!  stated no availability for KoOlina - couldn't be correct.



What weeks were you trying to book?  Last year there was availability at Ko Olina for most weeks well past the 12-month window.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 3, 2011)

pharmgirl said:


> Just looked to see availability for our weeks [own 2 weeks].  Surprise!  stated no availability for KoOlina - couldn't be correct
> 
> Kept clicking and a points calendar came up to give dates when reservations are available for points owners - another surprise- they are working on developing an online calendar for weeks owners!!!!  One of the things i liked about marriott compared to Starwood was being able to make our reservations using the online calendar.  It was already available and I have used it for at least 3 years, now it is 'under development'???
> 
> what a mess Marriott has made



Did you check online or call Owner Services? One has never been able to check 13 month availability online.


----------



## pharmgirl (Jan 3, 2011)

that is the point - reservations seem not available online for weeks owner - I tried for this week for 2012, I think this is an error as I have no doubt there is availability

and the issue is no online calendar reservation for weeks owner when this has been available for at least 3 years


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 3, 2011)

*13 month rule worked for MOC*

I was seeking the highly sought after President's week for my Maui Units. I didn't want to split anything but all this talk about not getting Maui weeks has gotten me very nervous so i decided to see what i could do.

This morning I split my Aruba Surf and made the following run

Aruba Surf Studio- Sunday Feb 5th
Aruba Surf 1BDRM- Saturday Feb 11th
Maui Original 2 BDRM OV Saturday Feb 18th
Maui Original 2 BDRM OV Saturday Feb 18th
Maui Original 2 BDRM OF Sunday Feb 19th

Don't like splitting my Aruba but was told I can try at 12 month window to combine although I will lose the $75 split fee.

All in all I'm happy to get the Maui weeks right because that is our next big trip for us so I really needed that school holiday week.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 3, 2011)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I was seeking the highly sought after President's week for my Maui Units. I didn't want to split anything but all this talk about not getting Maui weeks has gotten me very nervous so i decided to see what i could do.
> 
> This morning I split my Aruba Surf and made the following run
> 
> ...



Joe,

Since the OP was having trouble booking any type of room Maui for Feb 11 (and studios for Feb 4) and I have this 2 inventory bucket theory for weeks owners (enrolled and not enrolled) I was wondering if you knew more about the availability at Maui for the week of Feb 11? If you, as an unenrolled owner, can book that week and the OP, who is enrolled, cannot that must mean you are not pulling from the same buckets...


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jan 3, 2011)

DanCali said:


> Joe,
> 
> Since the OP was having trouble booking any type of room Maui for Feb 11 (and studios for Feb 4) and I have this 2 inventory bucket theory for weeks owners (enrolled and not enrolled) I was wondering if you knew more about the availability at Maui for the week of Feb 11? If you, as an unenrolled owner, can book that week and the OP, who is enrolled, cannot that must mean you are not pulling from the same buckets...



First off I'm talking the original section and OP is dealing with the new wings, so its totally different from that perpsective. However that being noted there was inventory for Feb 11th in MOC, I just didn't want it.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 3, 2011)

MOXJO7282 said:


> First off I'm talking the original section and OP is dealing with the new wings, so its totally different from that perpsective. However that being noted there was inventory for Feb 11th in MOC, I just didn't want it.



Joe - thanks for this info.

Not directly comparable due to the different phases, but an interesting datapoint nevertheless.


----------

