Marriott Vacations Worldwide to Acquire ILG to Create a Leading Global Provider of Premier Vacation

[DannyTS]

Perhaps more of the fixed week owners are electing to utilize their fixed week reservations?

Also, @DannyTS you're definitely interested in timeshares and have been a prolific poster for the past six weeks. I invite you to become a TUG Member and support this forum that way also....

i did sign up back in March when i became interested in TS and started to buy weeks. i see i have a BBS code... do you happen to know where to add it here?

 

[dioxide45]

i did sign up back in March when i became interested in TS and started to buy weeks. i see i have a BBS code... do you happen to know where to add it here?

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...g-the-bbs-member-code-in-your-bbs-profile.53/

 

[DannyTS]

https://tugbbs.com/forums/index.php...g-the-bbs-member-code-in-your-bbs-profile.53/

thank you, i put the code word. It is still showing me as guest but i understand it takes a bit

 

[Helios]

But at 60 days before check-in, Vistana can hoover up any unreserved reservations, put them in their own inventory, rent them, and put the proceeds in their pocket.

Is this written somewhere?

 

[dioxide45]

Is this written somewhere?

It would be in the individual resort CCRs. Marriott has similar written in to their condo docs. The actual time frame varies based on the resort.

 

[VacationForever]

I doubt the numbers will all be that even. Marriott currently assigns odd values (xx25 and xx75 DPs) to some ownerships so that they cannot be traded for xx00 units without breakage...points that Marriott often pockets when folks can't use their leftover small increments. Sounds like another form of skim, no?

Not really. You can bank them for free and the leftovers can be banked, or you can borrow.

 

[VacationForever]

Some owners complained that in the last 2-3 years it has been much more difficult to book 51 and 52 at Lagunamar. Is there an explanation for that? Since i understand that there is no one looking over their shoulder, is it impossible that they "save" 30 apartments and release them 60 days before check in through Expedia ( or Hotwire, even better since you don't even know the hotel in advance) ?

Do not forget that, besides the (alleged) possible direct profit, they would have another motive to do it: a fresh crop o prospects.

I believe 50 percent of Phase 1 and 100 percent of Phase 2 for W 51 and 52 were sold as fixed weeks. Owners of these weeks can rent them out for big bucks. Not many left for floating weeks owners to book.

 

[DannyTS]

I believe 50 percent of Phase 1 and 100 percent of Phase 2 for W 51 and 52 were sold as fixed weeks. Owners of these weeks can rent them out for big bucks. Not many left for floating weeks owners to book.

i understand that but were they sold in the last 2 years? people complain that it was much easier before

 

[BLUE AYES]

I am not sure of the reason, but I can confirm from my own experience that this is true. I own in LagunaMar since pre-build. With my floating Platinum, I have always been able to book week 51 at precisely one year out. I have been closed out of every possible week 51 or week 52 scenario, all calling at one year out for years 2017 and 2018. One of my good friends who also owns floating Platinum has had the same result.

 

[BLUE AYES]

The previous poster is correct, for weeks 51 and 52, 50% of phase one was sold as event week and 100% of phase 2 was sold as event week. Additionally, although all the weekd 51/52 are completely sold out, every year we run into people renting the units from SPG as hotel rooms.

 

[DannyTS]

although all the weekd 51/52 are completely sold out, every year we run into people renting the units from SPG as hotel rooms.

Let's assume that Vistana owns 20% of the platinum floating weeks. If they do not spread their weeks more or less evenly, they can just keep for themselves ALL the 51-52 weeks that are not owned as fixed.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Yes and no: Until 60 days before check-in, they are only supposed to rent weeks that they own, or weeks that the owner has converted to Starpoints, etc. But at 60 days before check-in, Vistana can hoover up any unreserved reservations, put them in their own inventory, rent them, and put the proceeds in their pocket.

Vistana also owns VOIs - a while ago it was about 10% of WKORV/N and WSJ-VGV. They can do anything they like with these - including holding optimal renting weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DannyTS]

Vistana also owns VOIs - a while ago it was about 10% of WKORV/N and WSJ-VGV. They can do anything they like with these - including holding optimal renting weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Owners have bough based on a certain chart. Removing certain weeks (in practice) is wrong. The problem is not that they are competing with the owners for those weeks but rather that they just take them away. They leave one or 2 spots to create the appearance of availability.

1) selling based on a chart that is not real is deceptive and potentially illegal.
2) they create 2 classes of ownership, Vistana on one side and the rest of the owners on the other side. This fact was not known during the selling process. The legal documents have no EXPLICIT mentioning of this. You have to be an expert in TS to guess that this is what is happening.

By doing this they actually reduce the value of the individual ownership arbitrarily and abusively i think since they are the ones that operate the system and they are supposed to enforce the rules. The flip of the coin is that their rental revenue keeps on going up. Unjust enrichment? Is it just me who sees it this way?

 

[DeniseM]

Vistana also owns VOIs - a while ago it was about 10% of WKORV/N and WSJ-VGV. They can do anything they like with these - including holding optimal renting weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed - that’s why I wrote “weeks they own.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DannyTS]

Agreed - that’s why I wrote “weeks they own.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What does BO

Vistana also owns VOIs - a while ago it was about 10% of WKORV/N and WSJ-VGV. They can do anything they like with these - including holding optimal renting weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So in a floating system, with 10% of the inventory they can completely block the best 5 weeks of the year. This does not seem ok to me. Since they control the system there should be some checks and balances and they should not be able to book more than X% of any given week. By the way, theoretically speaking they can continue to acquire weeks and block even more of the best weeks in the future.

 

[DavidnRobin]

Agreed - that’s why I wrote “weeks they own.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry - missed that - small screen syndrome.
Go Giants!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DavidnRobin]

What does BO


So in a floating system, with 10% of the inventory they can completely block the best 5 weeks of the year. This does not seem ok to me. Since they control the system there should be some checks and balances and they should not be able to book more than X% of any given week. By the way, theoretically speaking they can continue to acquire weeks and block even more of the best weeks in the future.

The point was about lack of transparency and not that they do.

I haven’t had an issue with HR reservations and received great locations, but reserve at window opening and rarely travel high season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[duke]

The issue here is not Vistana as management company. If the Board of Directors (which has a Fiduciary responsibility) allowed the Management Company to "Hoover" up all the good dates then you would have a great lawsuit etc.

 

[DannyTS]

The issue here is not Vistana as management company. If the Board of Directors (which has a Fiduciary responsibility) allowed the Management Company to "Hoover" up all the good dates then you would have a great lawsuit etc.

You are making an excellent point. Yet I am not sure though that Vistana is off the hook

 

[Ken555]

So in a floating system, with 10% of the inventory they can completely block the best 5 weeks of the year. This does not seem ok to me. Since they control the system there should be some checks and balances and they should not be able to book more than X% of any given week. By the way, theoretically speaking they can continue to acquire weeks and block even more of the best weeks in the future.

Yup. Hate to say it, but we’ve been discussing this exact issue for over 10 years on TUG. It hasn’t really changed in all that time, nor would I expect it to in the future.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DannyTS]

Yup. Hate to say it, but we’ve been discussing this exact issue for over 10 years on TUG. It hasn’t really changed in all that time, nor would I expect it to in the future.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Was any action taken? Unless a formal procedure is followed, they will not bulge since status quo means millions of dollars in their pockets. They will not change just because of a few angry phone calls.

 

[Ken555]

Was any action taken? Unless a formal procedure is followed, they will not bulge since status quo means millions of dollars in their pockets. They will not change just because of a few angry phone calls.

Not sure of your point. I have zero interest in fighting this battle, and many here likely have a similar opinion. It’s easy to get upset about these issues, it’s another matter to do something about it. Welcome to TUG.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[controller1]

Owners have bough based on a certain chart. Removing certain weeks (in practice) is wrong. The problem is not that they are competing with the owners for those weeks but rather that they just take them away. They leave one or 2 spots to create the appearance of availability.

1) selling based on a chart that is not real is deceptive and potentially illegal.
2) they create 2 classes of ownership, Vistana on one side and the rest of the owners on the other side. This fact was not known during the selling process. The legal documents have no EXPLICIT mentioning of this. You have to be an expert in TS to guess that this is what is happening.

By doing this they actually reduce the value of the individual ownership arbitrarily and abusively i think since they are the ones that operate the system and they are supposed to enforce the rules. The flip of the coin is that their rental revenue keeps on going up. Unjust enrichment? Is it just me who sees it this way?

However, by doing this they actually increase the value of the individual ownership of those owners who purchased fixed weeks 51 or 52.

 

[DannyTS]

Was any action taken? Unless a formal procedure is followed, they will not bulge since status quo means millions of dollars in their pockets. They will not change just because of a few angry phone calls.

Not sure of your point. I have zero interest in fighting this battle, and many here likely have a similar opinion. It’s easy to get upset about these issues, it’s another matter to do something about it. Welcome to TUG.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

However, by doing this they actually increase the value of the individual ownership of those owners who purchased fixed weeks 51 or 52.

Not really since Vistana is selling those weeks so they are still on the market. In the last 5-7 years Christmas and New Year;s eve have had big price increases at any other hotels.

Besides, this is not how it supposed to work. I rob Peter, Paul, John and Sandy, i keep the lion's share and give some to Mary. Also, if they do it for those 2 weeks what keeps them from doing it with other prime weeks?

The fact remains the same, everyone seems to believe that they are lining their pockets unjustly and this is the real issue.

I do not see it as a battle but things have to be discussed at an official level. Inaction invites abuse. The timing may also be good, before the acquisition they will certainly not want the waters to be muddied.

 

[GregT]

The fact remains the same, everyone seems to believe that they are lining their pockets unjustly and this is the real issue.

I don’t believe they are lining their pockets unjustly. I would love more transparency but that’s different from unethical behavior, which I do not believe is occurring.