[2013] Unit Placement Discussion [orig "Homeless In Paradise ..."]

[Saintsfanfl]

good morning

David raises a good point.. It is another "skim" I get an OF unit from II deposited by an OF owner. MVCD or the resort makes it MV or IV when I arrive. Why??? This unit is being skimmed as it works thru system!!!!!

The view cannot be changed at the whim of MVC. It is based on the individual resort policy. It is specified at the resort level. Ocean Pointe for example has a blanket policy that prohibits upgrading or downgrading an II exchange. Barony on the other hand routinely downgrades exchanges and upgrades owners, although I was the recent recipient of an exchange upgrade at Barony.

 

[puckmanfl]

good morning....

This thread is not about enrolled DC members such as myself... We are clearly exchangers...

The OP started this to represent the views of the TRUST owners... Despite the protestations of the majority on this thread (Legacy weeks owners). They are owners too!!!

 

[SueDonJ]

The view cannot be changed at the whim of MVC. It is based on the individual resort policy. It is specified at the resort level. Ocean Pointe for example has a blanket policy that prohibits upgrading or downgrading an II exchange. Barony on the other hand routinely downgrades exchanges and upgrades owners, although I was the recent recipient of an exchange upgrade at Barony.

To be clear, Barony does not "upgrade owners" when they're staying at the resort on their owned Weeks. Owners using their own Weeks are always placed into the unit/view type that they purchased. (As well, DC Points users are always placed into what they reserved.)

Any downgrades/upgrades at Barony happen with only non-ownership/membership stays. I'm sure this is what you meant but am commenting just in case someone reads it as Owners/Members getting placed into something different than their usage rights warrant. I know the thought of it happening at any of the resorts makes me blow a gasket.

 

[Quilter]

I've gone back through the thread to find out what was the first point FT was making and how the thread got turned towards room assignment priority. FT's first points were made directly towards the notation on all his reservations as being a MVC Exchange. Then Superchief and GregT asked about room assignments. Superchief said "In my experience, my villa assignments on DC points have been similar to my owned weeks: some good, some ok."

So what's broken??? This has been a 7 page thread trying to fix something that's not broken.

Who cares what the reservation says? The turn that this thread took has pointed towards is an importance of room location. The supposition is that if I get my preferred room I am being recognized as a valued customer. FT has not made a case that his room assignments are a severe hardship because of his DC usage.

I have NOT received the same level of priority for villa assignments using my Trust points or DC point reservations (about 20 so far).

As an example, I just wrapped up my Father’s day weekend stay at Ocean Point using DC points. I was assigned Pompano building 4th floor. Not what I was expecting. When I asked at check-in, they simply stated that better units in upper floors were available but reserved for owners and that I was exchanging so that was the best they could do for me. I had reserved at 3-BR Oceanfront. I also think that my length of stay 2 nights had something to do with it as well. I would not expect them to give a worse unit preference to an owner for a 7-night stay just to accomodate my 2-night request.
Spoke to two GM's on the subject over the weekend and both sang the same song. Owners occupying their owners week(s) have the highest priority period.

FT

I own 4 weeks at OP and the 4th floor oceanfront is one of my preferred locations because that's the limit I give myself for using the stairs to come and go. The stairs door is conveniently located right by the pool area. I'm winded after 3 flights but pushing the extra floor gives me just a bit more mandatory exercise for my stay. The view is decent.

The view from the 4th floor isn't the same as the 7th but it sure isn't a hardship. Try the 1st floor and then tell me the 4th floor is a hardship.

We just left Crystal Shores on a DC points stay. I booked at the 10 month mark for a 5 night, Sun - Thursday stay. I booked Gulf Side and was placed in unit 607. Beautiful unobstructed view of the Gulf. For what I learned, the 07 and 09 units on the north side of the build facing the Hilton are considered Gulf Side, with the 07 units being the closest to the water (corner unit). I called during the preference request period and asked to be placed in the best unit in the view category. They advised my of the 07 units (they didn't reference it by unit number but said they would try to get me in one of the corner units. They delivered. . . .

I know for Crystal Shores, its now "off season" and maybe thats why we were placed in a very nice unit. But boy the resort was filled with many families. Maybe most of the owners that purchased there didn''t buy the summer weeks and purchased the winter weeks.

Prime time is an individual perception. My Prime Time on HHI is Spring. For others it's Summer (oh gag!). I don't know if FT's 20 reservations are all made in what the demand charts deem as "Prime Time". It's hard for everyone, even owners, during Prime Time. Sue's rotation memo will attest to that.

Facts, I want facts. Dates, room locations, welcome at check-in, time the reservation was made. The front desk begins their room allocations about 2 weeks before check-ins. If you make a last minute DC reservation because of the discounted rate on points do you really expect them to rearrange the whole process to suit your expectations? Really?

good afternoon...


This whole thing is getting kind of twisted....

Yes, too many missing facts. Too many "I thinks". Too many "reports here on TUG".

Checked in to MFC 3-BR earlier today around 5PM. DC points stay for 8 days.

Assigned one of the worst rooms in the property. Crown Bldg. 3rd floor right under check-in. Manager said Owners have higher level priority than DC points reservations.

With only 9 3-BR units at MFC and 3 of them in the Crown Bldg. there is a 33% chance to land here. Not good odds.

FT

As noted in the last sentence, the chance of receiving your perceived "good room" is very limited. Maybe the front desk did the best they could.

Ocean Pointe still lists online and follows the original priority list that was put in place just prior to the sell-out. This priority list predates anything related to the DC. Since the only terms used in the list are "single-week" and "multiple-week" owners it is anyone's guess as to how a DC only member is placed on that list. It is however extremely doubtful that they are considered a weeks owner at any resort and the reports of poor unit placement confirms this. If I had to guess I would say they are placed next to last in the list. It might be more fair to classify them as "Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International resort" but I do not believe this is happening.

• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners occupying their ownership weeks ("in
season")
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners occupying their ownership week ("in season")
• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners exchanging through Interval International
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners exchanging through Interval International
• Multiple-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International
• Single-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International
• Guests visiting Ocean Pointe on a Sales Preview Package
• Ocean Pointe Owners that are renting a guest room or villa
• Marriott Reward Members that are visiting Ocean Pointe on Marriott Reward
point redemption
• Guests that are renting a guest room or villa
• Owners of resorts outside Marriott Vacation Club International exchanging into
Ocean Pointe through Interval International

Oh thank you, thank you Saintsfanfl. Something in writing. Something to cling to. Now that's what I want. . .facts.

It's a fact that my complete ownership has been considered when we've checked in. What I can't control is the fact that someone with equal or even less status has already gotten the corner room on the 5th floor. My stay just didn't fit conveniently in the rotation of the reservations for that room. So I get another room. Sometimes they're in a super location (my perception). Sometimes they're not. That's some of the limitation with a flotation system. I noted early on that this Club has it's limitations.

 

[RBERR1]

To be clear, Barony does not "upgrade owners" when they're staying at the resort on their owned Weeks. Owners using their own Weeks are always placed into the unit/view type that they purchased. (As well, DC Points users are always placed into what they reserved.)

Any downgrades/upgrades at Barony happen with only non-ownership/membership stays. I'm sure this is what you meant but am commenting just in case someone reads it as Owners/Members getting placed into something different than their usage rights warrant. I know the thought of it happening at any of the resorts makes me blow a gasket.

That is not exactly true though Sue. I was at Barony on a week where there happened to be a lot of II exchanges and I was upgraded view to OF when using my week. Doubt it happens during Platinum season but it did happen the week before it switched from Gold to Platinum.

 

[SueDonJ]

That is not exactly true though Sue. I was at Barony on a week where there happened to be a lot of II exchanges and I was upgraded view to OF when using my week. Doubt it happens during Platinum season but it did happen the week before it switched from Gold to Platinum.

GRRRRRR!!! I hate that. Really, hate it.

Sure, it'd be nice to be upgraded when using an owned Week, but it goes against every usage rule in the governing documents. If Marriott takes it upon themselves to counter one facet of the docs, what's to stop them from doing it with any facets? How accepting will we be when they do something counter to the docs that negatively impacts our ownership instead of improves it?

 

[Saintsfanfl]

GRRRRRR!!! I hate that. Really, hate it.

Sure, it'd be nice to be upgraded when using an owned Week, but it goes against every usage rule in the governing documents. If Marriott takes it upon themselves to counter one facet of the docs, what's to stop them from doing it with any facets? How accepting will we be when they do something counter to the docs that negatively impacts our ownership instead of improves it?

That doesn't make sense unless I am missing something. Barony has an open policy of placing all exchangers into the Garden View buildings even if II shows as Courtyard or Ocean View. If all (or almost all) exchangers are downgraded, wouldn't others have to be upgraded? Are you saying marriott.com "takes" the upgraded views? I doubt that.

I am not a Barony owner so I expected to be downgraded from the exchange Courtyard View to the Garden View. Sure enough it was changed immediately on Marriott.com. The funny thing is that when they assigned units shortly before check-in they gave me an Ocean Front unit instead. If they upgraded me then I am sure they would upgrade an owner.

 

[taffy19]

GRRRRRR!!! I hate that. Really, hate it.

Sure, it'd be nice to be upgraded when using an owned Week, but it goes against every usage rule in the governing documents. If Marriott takes it upon themselves to counter one facet of the docs, what's to stop them from doing it with any facets? How accepting will we be when they do something counter to the docs that negatively impacts our ownership instead of improves it?

Would they do it when all owners have been taken care of and are satisfied? Why let an oceanfront condo stand empty?

We stayed at an expensive hotel chain (Starwood) and didn't book ocean view because of the high price and were only staying there two nights en route to another destination resort. When we were checking in, we asked if there was a possibility to upgrade us and he did. We got a high floor ocean view and appreciated it very much. This was also a few days before high season kicked in.

 

[SueDonJ]

I've gone back through the thread to find out what was the first point FT was making and how the thread got turned towards room assignment priority. FT's first points were made directly towards the notation on all his reservations as being a MVC Exchange. Then Superchief and GregT asked about room assignments. Superchief said "In my experience, my villa assignments on DC points have been similar to my owned weeks: some good, some ok."

So what's broken??? This has been a 7 page thread trying to fix something that's not broken.

Who cares what the reservation says? The turn that this thread took has pointed towards is an importance of room location. The supposition is that if I get my preferred room I am being recognized as a valued customer. FT has not made a case that his room assignments are a severe hardship because of his DC usage.




I own 4 weeks at OP and the 4th floor oceanfront is one of my preferred locations because that's the limit I give myself for using the stairs to come and go. The stairs door is conveniently located right by the pool area. I'm winded after 3 flights but pushing the extra floor gives me just a bit more mandatory exercise for my stay. The view is decent.

The view from the 4th floor isn't the same as the 7th but it sure isn't a hardship. Try the 1st floor and then tell me the 4th floor is a hardship.




Prime time is an individual perception. My Prime Time on HHI is Spring. For others it's Summer (oh gag!). I don't know if FT's 20 reservations are all made in what the demand charts deem as "Prime Time". It's hard for everyone, even owners, during Prime Time. Sue's rotation memo will attest to that.

Facts, I want facts. Dates, room locations, welcome at check-in, time the reservation was made. The front desk begins their room allocations about 2 weeks before check-ins. If you make a last minute DC reservation because of the discounted rate on points do you really expect them to rearrange the whole process to suit your expectations? Really?



Yes, too many missing facts. Too many "I thinks". Too many "reports here on TUG".



As noted in the last sentence, the chance of receiving your perceived "good room" is very limited. Maybe the front desk did the best they could.



Oh thank you, thank you Saintsfanfl. Something in writing. Something to cling to. Now that's what I want. . .facts.

It's a fact that my complete ownership has been considered when we've checked in. What I can't control is the fact that someone with equal or even less status has already gotten the corner room on the 5th floor. My stay just didn't fit conveniently in the rotation of the reservations for that room. So I get another room. Sometimes they're in a super location (my perception). Sometimes they're not. That's some of the limitation with a flotation system. I noted early on that this Club has it's limitations.

Honestly, it's like we're reading two different threads!

FT's very first post in this thread, the title of the thread even!, refers to him being, "homeless in the Trust since no MVCI property recognizes me as an owner!" He even bolded it so as to make his point more clear than he'd already done in a number of posts that he's made to TUG since the DC inception! Maybe you didn't see all of his prior posts about the subject but for many of us participating here, this thread has been a natural progression of all his others to that one point, that as a DC Trust Member when it comes to unit placement he hasn't been considered to be a Marriott owner!

All the stuff about how DC reservations are notated, and which resorts have which placement systems, and how each owner/member has a different idea of what constitutes the "best" unit within a resort, and why certain units may not be available on any certain check-in day, and which placements other DC Members have had, and and and ... all that was offered to try to figure out if FT's placement woes could be explained by something other than his main point.

I can't say if there's enough info here to prove anything; not sure how you or anyone else can. But one thing I do know is that no one here has introduced definitive proof that DC Members have been integrated into any of the existing placement systems. Only FT can say after all that's been posted if he still believes, as he's been told which is why he feels it's important enough to discuss, that his DC Membership puts him at a very low level in whatever priority systems exist.

Not for nothing, Quilter, but I don't understand the objections to, "reports to TUG" and "I think" opinions offered by those of us participating here. That's how a discussion works, folks offer related info and their thoughts to help flesh out a discussion. We're not trying to take over the world here by legally parsing every single comment that's introduced. We're just trying to help FT validate, or not, the frustration he's been made to feel.

Oh thank you, thank you Saintsfanfl. Something in writing. Something to cling to. Now that's what I want. . .facts.

I pulled this out separately because I have to say that I'm really disappointed in you for this snarkiness. Other info was quoted in this thread, too, info from official Marriott sources which you easily discarded because it doesn't support your position in this discussion. Like you asked about something else - "REALLY?"

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Would they do it when all owners have been taken care of and are satisfied? Why let an oceanfront condo stand empty?

I can tell you with certainty that Ocean Pointe will never change the unit. It is a a policy at the resort and there are no exceptions, even if the units sit empty.

Barony is different because they openly change exchangers. Exchangers are owned and paid for units, so if one is changed, then something else has to change as well. Certaintly the HOA would not put up with marriott taking the better views for themselves to rent out.

My case, now that I think about it, could possibly be different. It was a Marriott deposit so perhaps that gives Marriott the right to upgrade it? They still do not do that at Ocean Pointe so it still has to be resort specific.

 

[SueDonJ]

That doesn't make sense unless I am missing something. Barony has an open policy of placing all exchangers into the Garden View buildings even if II shows as Courtyard or Ocean View. If all (or almost all) exchangers are downgraded, wouldn't others have to be upgraded? Are you saying marriott.com "takes" the upgraded views? I doubt that.

I am not a Barony owner so I expected to be downgraded from the exchange Courtyard View to the Garden View. Sure enough it was changed immediately on Marriott.com. The funny thing is that when they assigned units shortly before check-in they gave me an Ocean Front unit instead. If they upgraded me then I am sure they would upgrade an owner.

I think that's why there's always a chance of an exchanger being placed into something other than gardenside despite their warning that it's the most likely placement. They take all the exchangers and prioritize within that list (Barony owner exchanging back in, other Marriott owner exchanging in, other II exchangers,) then work backwards beginning at the bottom of the list with available (not being used by owners) gardenside units and moving to the other sections as needed. So what's on the II confirmation doesn't matter one bit.

That's how it's been explained to me, anyway. Does it make sense?

Would they do it when all owners have been taken care of and are satisfied? Why let an oceanfront condo stand empty?

We stayed at an expensive hotel chain (Starwood) and didn't book ocean view because of the high price and were only staying there two nights en route to another destination resort. When we were checking in, we asked if there was a possibility to upgrade us and he did. We got a high floor ocean view and appreciated it very much. This was also a few days before high season kicked in.

With hotel stays, or even cash stays at the timeshare resorts, they're not constrained by ownership rules that supposedly prohibit placement into something other than what is entitled. I want Marriott to follow the rules with my timeshares.

 

[SueDonJ]

I can tell you with certainty that Ocean Pointe will never change the unit. It is a a policy at the resort and there are no exceptions, even if the units sit empty.

Barony is different because they openly change exchangers. Exchangers are owned and paid for units, so if one is changed, then something else has to change as well. Certaintly the HOA would not put up with marriott taking the better views for themselves to rent out.

My case, now that I think about it, could possibly be different. It was a Marriott deposit so perhaps that gives Marriott the right to upgrade it? They still do not do that at Ocean Pointe so it still has to be resort specific.

Be careful when saying, "Ocean Pointe will never change the unit ... even if the units sit empty." I thought the same thing about owners using their own Weeks at Barony until about fifteen minutes ago. :annoyed:

 

[Fasttr]

I know there are not many pure points owners on Tug, but I am one of them. I really don't hang my vacation enjoyment on what exact room I get, so where I am exactly at in the pecking order is not that big of a deal for me, but in order to potentially help in the understanding of the process (if there is one), I offer the following.... When I book a reservation using my trust points, in the reservation Preferences Summary under Not Guaranteed, it always says the following: "MVC Points Owner (O5)". I am assuming that is some attempt to tell somebody where I am in in some pecking order, either real or imagined. Then again, perhaps when you book with Legacy points, your reservations say the same thing. I only know what mine always say. Knowing there are not a lot of pure trust'ers out there, I figured I would offer that up.

 

[SueDonJ]

I know there are not many pure points owners on Tug, but I am one of them. I really don't hang my vacation enjoyment on what exact room I get, so where I am exactly at in the pecking order is not that big of a deal for me, but in order to potentially help in the understanding of the process (if there is one), I offer the following.... When I book a reservation using my trust points, in the reservation Preferences Summary under Not Guaranteed, it always says the following: "MVC Points Owner (O5)". I am assuming that is some attempt to tell somebody where I am in in some pecking order, either real or imagined. Then again, perhaps when you book with Legacy points, your reservations say the same thing. I only know what mine always say. Knowing there are not a lot of pure trust'ers out there, I figured I would offer that up.

Good info. All of my upcoming reservations are for Owned Weeks; I'm enrolled and don't own Trust Points. This is on all my reservations: "MVCI Premier Pls Pts Owner." I believe the same thing has been on past DC reservations.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

I think that's why there's always a chance of an exchanger being placed into something other than gardenside despite their warning that it's the most likely placement. They take all the exchangers and prioritize within that list (Barony owner exchanging back in, other Marriott owner exchanging in, other II exchangers,) then work backwards beginning at the bottom of the list with gardenside units and moving to the other sections as needed. So what's on the II confirmation doesn't matter one bit.

That's how it's been explained to me, anyway. Does it make sense?

That definitely makes sense.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Be careful when saying, "Ocean Pointe will never change the unit ... even if the units sit empty." I thought the same thing about owners using their own Weeks at Barony until about fifteen minutes ago. :annoyed:

I should have said "never have that I am aware of". Things definitely could change especially with the gradual increase of trust units and Marriott's HOA voting power.

 

[RBERR1]

Back to the original question:

In a perfect world, there would be two sets of properties. One which is owned by the trust and one by Legacy. The exchange company would bring together people to either cross trade within the legacy bucket or between trust and legacy. That is what Marriott said they were doing. It would be easy in the perfect world as trust owners would have priority in trust properties and legacy would have priority in the legacy bucket.

The problem for FT and others in the same situation is that there is almost no properties that either that are fully or nearly in that trust bucket. The trust owns pieces of all of the properties in the legacy bucket.

The other thing that is interesting is what the trust actually owns and how it fits in. Usually the weeks that the trust owns in the legacy properties are not prime weeks ( Not all but most).

Let's say a person buys and then uses 5000 pts to book a platinum week for Barony. Let's say for argument sakes that Barony weeks are in the trust and the points were sold based on the deposit of 5 Bronze Barony weeks worth 1000 pts. The person is clearly an exchanger. However if a Barony platinum week were the only weeks deposited in the trust then person is clearly the same as another owner.

Should it make a difference what the trust actually owns vs. what the person is requesting in terms of season to determine whether the person is considered an owner or a exchanger? Not saying the answer should be yes or no but it is an dimension which has not been discussed.

Interesting thread.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Let's say a person buys and then uses 5000 pts to book a platinum week for Barony. Let's say for argument sakes that Barony weeks are in the trust and the points were sold based on the deposit of 5 Bronze Barony weeks worth 1000 pts. The person is clearly an exchanger. However if a Barony platinum week were the only weeks deposited in the trust then person is clearly the same as another owner.

In your first example wouldn't a platinum reservation be impossible (unless Marriott does an actual exchange, which maybe is your point)?.

In your second example you definitely have a point, but it is hypothetical. In reality what needs to occur is the recognition of a trust owned week reserved is an owned week. BUT, if Marriott is jumping on II and snagging weeks for trust reservations this might be difficult. Another wrinkle is partial stays. Since the priority at many resorts is based on the number of weeks occupied, a single night stay would be at the bottom of the list.

 

[dioxide45]

good morning....

This thread is not about enrolled DC members such as myself... We are clearly exchangers...

The OP started this to represent the views of the TRUST owners... Despite the protestations of the majority on this thread (Legacy weeks owners). They are owners too!!!

The problem truly is that many reservations that are made with pure trust points are still being facilitated through the MVC Exchange Company. There is really no transparency when making the reservation. It may look at smell like a pure trust reservation, but the inventory may have passed through the Exchange Company and then it now becomes an exchange. This seems to be what is happening with all of FTs DC reservations.

We know that MVCI is dumping a lot of Kauai Lagoons inventory in to the exchange company at the 13 month mark. That inventory from that point forward can never be booked as a trust reservation.

 

[Quilter]

Honestly, it's like we're reading two different threads!

FT's very first post in this thread, the title of the thread even!, refers to him being, "homeless in the Trust since no MVCI property recognizes me as an owner!" out a discussion. We're not trying to take over the world here by legally parsing every single comment that's introduced. We're just trying to help FT validate, or not, the frustration he's been made to feel.

No, we're reading the same thread.

Sometimes people make themselves feel frustrated because they're not getting what they expect.

It is important to clarify what kind of owner he wants recognition for.

When visiting a property where FT is not an owner, there is no reason for that property to consider him an owner. His MVC ownership is, however, taken into consideration. How do I know this? Today I talked with people who work with room reservations at two resorts where we own: Ocean Pointe and Grande Ocean. Their reports complemented each other. Both properties do their best to take care of their owners first. Using the guidelines below:

• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners occupying their ownership weeks ("in
season")
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners occupying their ownership week ("in season")
• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners exchanging through Interval International
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners exchanging through Interval International

Here's about where DC users would fit. I was told that total ownership is also considered. He would come before an exchanger from another MVCI property.


• Multiple-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International
• Single-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International
• Guests visiting Ocean Pointe on a Sales Preview Package
• Ocean Pointe Owners that are renting a guest room or villa
• Marriott Reward Members that are visiting Ocean Pointe on Marriott Reward
point redemption
• Guests that are renting a guest room or villa
• Owners of resorts outside Marriott Vacation Club International exchanging into
Ocean Pointe through Interval International

When you get the form asking for your room preference you have to prioritize and decide what is most important to you. Do you want high floor, sunny balcony, convenience to amenities. You can't expect it all. Sometimes you get lucky and get it all, but you can't expect it. You can make yourself sick with frustration that you can't have it all. You can post on TUG that you are being treated unfairly.

That is the same with using DC points. In the 2 examples FT used, Ocean Pointe and Frenchman's Cove, he capitalized on Flexibility. Both of the reservations went out of the norm of 7 nights so he prioritized that Flexibility was most important to him. We don't know what other Flexible features of the DC he utilized. He could have made the reservations 13 months out. He could have made them at the last minute with a discounted rate of points. There was a time before the DC owners were dreaming of such Flexibility, longing for 2 night stays without wasting 5. Now we have it. What we forfeited is the place in line that recognizes us as owners occupying our owners week. If we're not at our home resort then we won't be considered a home resort owner. Makes perfect sense.

We will still be recognized as MVCI customers. Our total ownership will be taken into consideration.

As for that rotation memo referred to in other posts. It doesn't stand on it's own. It is in conjunction with the above guidelines. As mentioned above, the resorts use the above guidelines. They try to accommodate owners first. If it comes to a draw between a couple owners then the rotation guideline come in to play.

Sue, I had to look up snarkiness. Honestly, I'm not trying to be snarky. I am very serious in my stand on this issue. Remember when FT took a lot of heat for being suspected as a mole? From the beginning I've appreciated his steadiness. He doesn't get frazzled and bluster. I like that. I like how he and his buddies tell about their many adventures utilizing the Flexibility in the DC. He seems very knowledgeable about the system. But on this issue he is mistaken. I am surprised how 3 years with the DC and it's not clear that "vacations" were the product. I am surprised that the limitations of the system were missed because when it was rolled out the DC was put under the microscope.

Sue, what other information are you referring to which you say I easily discarded because it doesn't support my position. Show me. Don't just refer to it. Show me. How can you say I easily discarded it? You don't know that.


Don't expect me to read too much further into a post that begins "I think" or "I feel" or "They say" or "it's been reported".

 

[dioxide45]

What it boils down to is MVCIs greed has led us to this point. The real root cause is that many units were given a view category that they never should have had.

Beach Place Towers - Should have had two views, Ocean View and Intercoastal.
Newport Coast - Should have two views, Ocean View, and Courtyard View
Ocean Point - Those low floors should be Garden View
Waiohai - There are some rally bad Ocean Views that probably should have been Island View.
Frenchman's Cove - Should they all have really been Ocean View?
Aruba Ocean Club - Those upper floor Spyglass Garden View units really should have been Ocean View.

It is because of the huge view disparages within like views that there is huge competition for the better villa locations. Marriott decided to maximize profit than to give villas the true view that the unit should have had.

 

[puckmanfl]

good evening....

Bingo...Dioxide...

next thing you know ol' Jeb's a millionaire!!! (beverly Hillbillies)

Dioxide's accurate assessment ends this thread for me!!!

 

[Quilter]

Let's say a person buys and then uses 5000 pts to book a platinum week for Barony. Let's say for argument sakes that Barony weeks are in the trust and the points were sold based on the deposit of 5 Bronze Barony weeks worth 1000 pts. The person is clearly an exchanger. However if a Barony platinum week were the only weeks deposited in the trust then person is clearly the same as another owner.

If you want the Trust owner to have roaming ownership then their total points should be spread over the 53 properties with just a percentage of ownership at each resort.

Last night I was trying to figure out how to determine that percentage. In post #141 I came up with something but after considering the math I've come up with something different.

For my example I'm going to use my Grande Ocean week. My Gold Oceanfront ownership is valued at 3850 DC points. This is for 7 nights. One night would have 550 DC points value.

In order for a Trust owner to be deemed equal they would have to have 3850 x 53 = 204,050 Trust points. But, that's not very likely. Let's say they have a good number of Trust points, enough to give them Premier Plus status. Let's give them 30,000 Trust points. 30,000/53 = 566.037. That's their percentage of ownership at each resort. How does it compare to the one week owner? Well it puts them somewhere below the 1 week owner. They have .147% of a week's ownership. Their priority for room preference should be reflected by that. It would be below a 1 week owner. That they fall under the 1 week owner who has exchanged back into the resort is just natural because you can't ignore the fact that they only have enough for 1 night and the rest of the points for their stay would be exchanged from their other 52 resorts. As the number of resorts grows, their percentage at each will diminish.

In the guideline chart in post #170 that is where DC Trust owners are placed. They come in somewhere under a 1 week owner exchanging back into their resort.

The system isn't broken.

 

[SueDonJ]

... How do I know this? Today I talked with people who work with room reservations at two resorts where we own: Ocean Pointe and Grande Ocean. Their reports complemented each other. Both properties do their best to take care of their owners first. ...

Great. So because you're familiar with the policy in place at two Marriott resorts, you think that the policy can be applied to every Marriott resort. Does it make any difference at all that people have shared in this thread and in others on TUG that not all resorts use a placement system and/or that where one is used, it might be completely different from any other placement policy in the network?

When you get the form asking for your room preference you have to prioritize and decide what is most important to you. Do you want high floor, sunny balcony, convenience to amenities. You can't expect it all. Sometimes you get lucky and get it all, but you can't expect it. You can make yourself sick with frustration that you can't have it all. You can post on TUG that you are being treated unfairly. ...

I don't see where anyone has said that they're entitled to "it all." FT has shared that he feels he's being treated unfairly when it comes to unit placements. He based it on being told by a Marriott rep after a consistent pattern of poor unit placements that his DC Trust Membership is not considered to be ownership, despite the fact that over the last three years he's been told by other reps/execs that he most certainly IS an owner. I agree with him, he's being treated unfairly. Certainly Marriott hasn't officially supported or dismissed his feeling - what makes any of our opinions more valid than others when none of us has any idea what Marriott thinks?

That is the same with using DC points. ... We will still be recognized as MVCI customers. Our total ownership will be taken into consideration. ...

Will it? Obviously it's what you think but again, that hasn't been FT's experience. It's funny that you talked to Marriott reps at two of the resorts where he's had DC stays, and they've explained things to you in far greater detail than what was ever explained to him. Seems to me, it's my opinion, that the reps with whom you spoke could have been pacifying you as easily as the ones with whom FT has spoken could have been trying to pacify him. The fact is, none of us can count on what's been told to us by Marriott reps because there's nothing in the Weeks or DC governing documents that support any priority placement system.

As for that rotation memo referred to in other posts. It doesn't stand on it's own. It is in conjunction with the above guidelines. ...

Again, that's what you think. As I said, prior to the GM using the info that I quoted as the sum total of Barony's placement system, it used to be that the resort's placement system was similar to the hierarchy lists you posted for those two resorts. But they do not publish such a list anymore, they publish only the facts related to unit types and locations, and which requests are made more often and how they rotate all owners among all the units within unit/view type. Whether you consider it valid information or not, I can tell you that my placement experience the last few years has been one week in a high floor unit in one building, the next in a low floor unit in another, the next in a middle floor, etc. Requesting any certain placement appears to make absolutely no difference - they rotate owners according to the info they published. There is no longer a hierarchy. Or if there is an unwritten one somewhere, I haven't seen any evidence that they use it for unit placement. (Which I like, by the way, even as someone whose ownership ranks at the top of the hierarchy you're attributing system-wide.)

... But on this issue he is mistaken. I am surprised how 3 years with the DC and it's not clear that "vacations" were the product....

You mean, in your opinion, "he's mistaken." It's very clear what the product is - Points which represent ownership interests in a Trust to which Marriott Vacation Club Weeks have been conveyed. What's unclear is why Marriott reps are so inconsistent with when they attribute "ownership" to DC Trust Members and when they don't. What's also unclear is why you think that you know exactly how all this works while the rest of us are floundering around trying to figure it all out with absolutely no clear direction from Marriott reps/execs.

Don't expect me to read too much further into a post that begins "I think" or "I feel" or "They say" or "it's been reported".

Well, that's an odd way to limit a discussion but sure. I hope you don't mind the favor being returned.

 

[SueDonJ]

I know there are not many pure points owners on Tug, but I am one of them. I really don't hang my vacation enjoyment on what exact room I get, so where I am exactly at in the pecking order is not that big of a deal for me, but in order to potentially help in the understanding of the process (if there is one), I offer the following.... When I book a reservation using my trust points, in the reservation Preferences Summary under Not Guaranteed, it always says the following: "MVC Points Owner (O5)". I am assuming that is some attempt to tell somebody where I am in in some pecking order, either real or imagined. Then again, perhaps when you book with Legacy points, your reservations say the same thing. I only know what mine always say. Knowing there are not a lot of pure trust'ers out there, I figured I would offer that up.

Good info. All of my upcoming reservations are for Owned Weeks; I'm enrolled and don't own Trust Points. This is on all my reservations: "MVCI Premier Pls Pts Owner." I believe the same thing has been on past DC reservations.

It occurs to me, maybe the notation field can be useful! I think we all pretty much agree that the resort personnel have a difficult time enough with all the variables for unit placement, without adding the unknown factor of whether a DC Points user reserved inventory direct from the Trust or through the DC Exchange Company.

I don't think the resort personnel need that much detail to incorporate DC Members into any hierarchy lists. I think that the simple solution dioxide posted pages back in this thread, based on type of DC ownership and not type of interval, is doable:

1. Put Premier Plus Owners on par with Multi Week owners staying on their owned week.
2. Put Premier Owners on par with single week owners staying on their owned week.
3. Put Standard Owners on par with MVCI owners exchanging in.

Obviously Marriott uses notations in the Reservation Details of Weeks and DC Points stays that verifies DC ownership (and notably, by using the actual word, "owner.") All they'd have to do is a minor change to that field indicating whether the owner is a DC Trust Member or a DC Exchange Member (the legal terms in the docs used to define us DC Members.)

Hmmmmmm.