[ Thread is unlocked ] Megarenter Rap Lawsuit

[HitchHiker71]

Yikes. If I am benefitting because others are failing to use what they purchased and are subsidizing me, I feel pretty horrible about that. Makes me feel like I am taking advantage of them. I guess I now need a shower to clean that dirty feeling away.

Why? I don't feel that way. Those who understand the system best - and utilize it best - will enjoy the system and benefit from it the most. That is a universally true statement for any complex system. As long as we stay within the intended uses of the complex system and don't use it for anything other than it's intended use, we are playing by the rules and are within our rights to enjoy any advantage over others using the same system due to our expertise in using said system.

 

[raygo123]

How do you figure existing owners now won't be able to use their ownership after these changes?

It is all about a steady income stream. CWA owners instead will be offered into a program a true club. A right to use. That's how Mexico handles it. Cancun it will be an affiliate of the affiliate. Lol

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

I really take exception to the old crew/new crew chatter. What defines Old? Age, Wyndham ownership time, TUG membership time, attitude, MR/everybody else, Wyndham only owner versus Hybrid/Resale owner? Perhaps you could define this as I take offense to the terminology since I don't really know where the line is drawn. I don't need a dissertation, just a quick statement as to the line.

I will PM you with an answer, since I don't want this type of chatter to foster any more division that it may already have done here.

 

[VacayKat]

Why? I don't feel that way. Those who understand the system best - and utilize it best - will enjoy the system and benefit from it the most. That is a universally true statement for any complex system. As long as we stay within the intended uses of the complex system and don't use it for anything other than it's intended use, we are playing by the rules and are within our rights to enjoy any advantage over others using the same system due to our expertise in using said system.

Quite simply because I do not believe I should profit at another’s expense.I find that to be a repulsive condition and avoid it at all costs.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Let me be straight- I am not in favor of megarenters as they have been described here on the forums. But Wyndham set up the system and allowed the behaviour, and essentially when it bothered them (or the got enough complaints) the decided to do something. Wyndham now saying that getting rid of these folks will be good for me is honestly something I can not buy. And if Wyndham wanted to work with me, I’d be super excited to do so because the changes they make after making me promises that the changes negate IS something that harms me. I wish Wyndham cared about me, and I wished that because I have a few resale points and a LOT of developer points I wasn’t vilified for the very few vip perks I got on them. Discounts and upgrades are far and few between, not the norm.

I wrote about this on the other thread in detail already, so please refer to my other posts on the other MR thread for details, but there's some responsibility on both sides. But long story short, my answer was: just because we can do something, does not mean we should. Just because you can game a system - doesn't mean you should. This usually breaks down into 10/80/10 buckets. 10% rulemakers (Wyndham). 80% rule folllowers (masses who use the system as intended), 10% rulebreakers (those who use the system as it was not intended). Unfortunately, IME, it is almost always the rule followers who pay the biggest price for the rulebreakers. That is what is happening here yes? You and I are paying a price for those who chose to game the system (the rulebreakers).

What I was indicating was that I do not believe megarenters are the CAUSE of the problems, that lies squarely at the feet of the company. I don’t think owners who rent here and there to use points or to cover some MF fees are the problem, Wyndham told them they could, and in many cases, showed them how. I think infighting amongst owners just makes Wyndham more resolved that they need to exert more control, give fewer perks and clamp down whenever and wherever they think they can or might have success with.
I guess the question to be posed is: are megarenters the problem who deserve all the anger and to be vilified, or would it be better directed at the company?

Let's ask a basic question then to get at your perspective/point. If the MRs/PMs did not exist in the first place - and the system was not gamed - who believes that Wyndham would be taking the steps they are taking today? I for one sincerely doubt these steps would be taken today were it not for the MRs/PMs. I suspect some will disagree - but my question to those folks would be why? Wyndham is likely taking these steps, because as @dgalati has said - there's a significant enough cost to the Sales & Marketing division that has to fund VIP benefits that they finally decided that the ROI is no longer there - which is a nice way of saying it's costing them more than they are making on VIP upsells. If that cost wasn't there, why would Wyndham expend the considerable amount of time and effort (read dollars) involved to do so? If we accept that argument, then, at least to some extent, we can place some responsbility and accountability at the feet of the MRs/PMs. Is Wyndham blameless? Nope, they share some blame too - but there are at least some here who want us to accept the premise that its "us vs them" with respect to Wyndham. It's both/and not either/or. This isn't a binary choice in other words. There is plenty of blame to go around if that's what we want to attempt to define here.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Quite simply because I do not believe I should profit at another’s expense.I find that to be a repulsive condition and avoid it at all costs.

Hmmm...that's another way of saying you want equal outcome and not just equal opportunity - at least if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly. I'm definitely not in the equal outcome camp to be sure, but that's just me, and we can agree to disagree.

 

[dgalati]

You couldn’t be more wrong! You don’t have a clue on my way of traveling.
Blackout list.
1.Are you in favor of families not being able to spend the holidays together at a resort? Doesn’t affect me but I think it’s hurting countless families this year!
2.Maybe an owner family had a new family move in the area lately & the kids have hit off with the parents now thinking of going somewhere for a weekend. Are you against that? Not effecting me at this time but I think it’s hurting a lot of families now.

No discounts & upgrades on GCs.
I’ve made rental reservations for friends in the 60 day window with discounts & upgrades. This does effect me but I can still see the big picture that maybe it should be changed.

Those are just a few examples of you not having a clue & not looking at the big picture. The negative points balance effects one that I know of, YOU. Now that’s the definition of wanting it 1 owners way!!

If I had it my way there would’ve been no rule changes, Wyndham should’ve pinpointed the problem owners & left the rest of us alone!!

Unfortunately we all just can't have our way. Some of the privileges we both paid for are gone. Some just paid more the others but it was posted to show you how silly your wish list is. What you want will affect other owners and their travel needs. Try to look at both sides of the coin and not be so self serving in your personal views. You have any sorrow for the count less owners that were sold up to VIP on the premise of renting to cover maintenance fees? Wyndham does have some culpability for the mega-renter mess.

 

[VacayKat]

Is Wyndham blameless? Nope, they share some blame too - but there are at least some here who want us to accept the premise that its "us vs them" with respect to Wyndham. It's both/and not either/or. This isn't a binary choice in other words. There is plenty of blame to go around if that's what we want to attempt to define here.

ok- you used words that I agree with. I am not saying those who abused the system are lacking culpability, but if you set up a system that promotes the loopholes and then complain when someone uses them, it’s the person/company who set up the situation that caused the abuse. [let’s just say I’ve been reading a lot of social psychology lately and all the research shows this to be the case]

 

[VacayKat]

Hmmm...that's another way of saying you want equal outcome and not just equal opportunity - at least if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly. I'm definitely not in the equal outcome camp to be sure, but that's just me, and we can agree to disagree.

Or more accurately, if someone pays for something I want them to use it. I don’t want anyone buying a timeshare who won’t book vacation and go on vacation. But I’m not popular with sales folks, lol!

 

[HitchHiker71]

They currently are, but do they have to? I agree that on principle they should be bound to the same blackout periods and that mostly they have held themselves to that so far, but is there a legal obligation for them to? I doubt it.

No, they do not have to - and that is why I indicated as such in my reply. Wyndham's system, Wyndham's rules. It's on the honor system right now - and we would be wise to use the old "trust but verify" method moving forward to test this theory on a fairly regular basis. Nothing wrong with keeping Wyndham honest to their claims where applicable - and they should expect nothing less from their loyal owners.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Let me ask all of you gurus a question. If Wyndham starts to sell yearly subscription's to travel would these be short term rentals? Or would these subscriptions (aka Discovery packages) be considered ownership?

It would simply be a termed ownership model as opposed to perpetual ownership model.

 

[HitchHiker71]

If that's truly the case, then bless their hearts. The concern it raises is the potential for a future Wyndham ELT to revert - what are they doing to make these changes permanent? A secondary concern is that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of recognition that they are causing collateral damage and do not appear to be doing much to address that for the folks that are effected. There's always the "you can just call owner resolution" but I don't need to speak to them to know the response I'll get - "look at the old program policies that were in effect before the ones that were when you bought, we're just restoring the old rules and your purchase under the then current rules should not matter."

Whatever Wyndham is doing for whatever strategic reasons - rest assured they are doing so because of metrics and decisions that on some level create more profits for the company, while also attempting to balance ownership concerns in the process. There is nothing preventing anything from occurring in the future with respect to enhancing profitability. Wyndham has a fiscal duty to it's shareholders and will always focus on doing what is in the best interests of the shareholders as long as it is a publicly held company. Remember - it's collateral damage to less than 1% of the collective ownership, that will have a net positive impact on the other 99% of the ownership base. How is that not good business practice? Wyndham is not restoring anything, they are finally enforcing rules that have always been in place according to the majority of available documentation. Granted, we can be unhappy about the timing - I know I'm not entirely happy about the when - but I get the why and I agree with it - and I have some quibbles with the how - I'd honestly have preferred Wyndham just repeated what they did in 2016 - but I recognize that if they only did that - the problem would just come back again over time - because there are always rulebreakers who will game the system. This time Wyndham is taking a both/and approach - changing the system to eliminate the loophole - and going after the MRs via cease and desist letters and corresponding GC reservation cancellation enforcements, likely with further action lying in wait for those who do not adhere to the cease and desist letters.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Bottom line for this is that it would be appropriate to magnify the negative perceptions on social media to as great an extent as is possible if you find this to be true. Many corporations do attempt to address concerns that are raised there, though it is likely that you would get a better response on Twitter, Facebook, or TikTok than you would on TUG since the users here seem to represent a minority of Wyndham owners. Perhaps they would respond if they were prodded elsewhere.

Wyndham already pays quite a bit of attention to the FB groups - and they have their own FB group as well where they field comments and complaints.

 

[dgalati]

It would simply be a termed ownership model as opposed to perpetual ownership model.

Would this be considered a form of flipping of deeds? Now when the subscription ends mid year does the subscription model impose a negative balance on the exiting owner if the owner has multiple subscriptions? Is this subscription model a arm or part of EH?

 

[HitchHiker71]

Or more accurately, if someone pays for something I want them to use it. I don’t want anyone buying a timeshare who won’t book vacation and go on vacation. But I’m not popular with sales folks, lol!

On that we can also agree - Wyndham does a miserable job of selling their product - and oftentimes sells timeshares to folks where it clearly is not a good match for their vacation styles. Lots of articles out there that outline how to evaluate whether timesharing is a good match - unfortunately you'll never see nor hear about these articles when attending any timeshare sales presentation. I wonder why that is...

 

[HitchHiker71]

Would this be considered a form of flipping of deeds? Now when the subscription ends mid year does the subscription model impose a negative balance on the exiting owner if the owner has multiple subscriptions? Is this subscription model a arm or part of EH?

If you consider the Discovery program that already exists today a deed flipping program - then I suppose you could. If not, then no, your logic doesn't hold water. I've not thought through the details of a subscription offering - but as others have stated - I doubt the timeshare arm will be where Wyndham chooses to introduce any subscription products - I think it will be under the T&L banner - apart from the timesharing banner - though on some level I think they will need to use current Wyndham timeshare locations for the subscription offerings - so am uncertain as to the details in this regard.

 

[Eric B]

Wyndham is not restoring anything, they are finally enforcing rules that have always been in place according to the majority of available documentation.

That is precisely the response I would expect to the concern that the rule did not exist in the Program Guidelines that were provided to me when I purchased with them, particularly since it's a supplemental benefit program that they reserve the right to change. I can live with it as I don't have that many resale points, but do find it to be a disturbing lack of fair treatment as one of the 1% that is being disadvantaged in order to support changes that might benefit the 99%. If it were me running the show, I would consider whether it would be appropriate to give the effected 1% some means of bringing the resale points into eligibility rather than just accepting the collateral damage as being inevitable. The lack of any indication that they are considering that is telling.

 

[paxsarah]

How do you figure existing owners now won't be able to use their ownership after these changes?

I don’t figure that.

 

[VacayKat]

That is precisely the response I would expect to the concern that the rule did not exist in the Program Guidelines that were provided to me when I purchased with them, particularly since it's a supplemental benefit program that they reserve the right to change. I can live with it as I don't have that many resale points, but do find it to be a disturbing lack of fair treatment as one of the 1% that is being disadvantaged in order to support changes that might benefit the 99%. If it were me running the show, I would consider whether it would be appropriate to give the effected 1% some means of bringing the resale points into eligibility rather than just accepting the collateral damage as being inevitable. The lack of any indication that they are considering that is telling.

TBH, I always think this sort of thing is about Wyndham getting the inventory back to resell. They don’t want to make the person who didn’t pay them the fee whole because well wyndhamdid not get their piece of the pie from the purchase. 1% inventory to resell is pretty good $$. Make using it untenable enough and folks will beg you to take it back, or even pay you.

 

[chapjim]

The Wyndham of old would have done exactly that. The current Wyndham ELT obviously wants to give the megarenters the opportunity to make a graceful exit prior to taking more punitive steps. For anyone who received a the letter in scope, you have been forewarned. The next steps taken IMHO will likely be similar to those taken in 2016 if Wyndham does not see cessation of the violation of commercial use clauses.

How should I take the fact that I've received neither email nor other correspondence from Wyndham?

The number of recent 1,0000,000+ points contracts recently listed on Ebay suggest that at least a few megarenters have already concluded that the answer to this question is, "no" or it will not be sufficently profitable to do so.

How many points is that?

 

[chapjim]

Yes - because the intent of a commercial business is very different than the intent of an individual owner booking vacations for personal use.

I think you're getting carried away with the intent thing. We don't all think that intent matters, despite your assurances that it does.

 

[Cyrus24]

How should I take the fact that I've received neither email nor other correspondence from Wyndham?

CONGRATS!!!! You are NOT a MegaRenter!!! At least, not today.

 

[chapjim]

Mega renters create a lot availability for THEMSELVES in the 60 day discount & upgrade window.
Anything not rented is cancelled but that doesn’t mean that they don’t try catching that availability coming back with discounts & upgrades.
By snatching that cancelled reservation they put a renter on it then go cancel a rented reservation trying to catch it when it comes. Repeat -repeat-repeat-etc.
A little different twist on the old cancel rebook, but don’t kid yourself it’s happening a lot.

It's happening as often as I can get it to work. It works very rarely for prime weeks. Works a lot when I'm bottom feeding. Those are the 2BR units that I list on LMR that someone complained were being priced too low!

If I cancel a 4BR Presidential for Easter Week at 60 days, I'll never see it again. It will be someone's upgrade but my experience is I won't see the 2BR or 3BR unit that it was upgraded from. What I might see is a 1BR Deluxe unit -- what is left after one or more upgrades. It's like entropy only in the timeshare business instead of thermodynamics.

The only thing I expect to get when I cancel the 4BR Presidential unit is a lot of points I can use to go bottom feeding later that spring and summer.

 

[chapjim]

CONGRATS!!!! You are NOT a MegaRenter!!! At least, not today.

Don't tell Dominic that. He thinks I am.

 

[Braindead]

Unfortunately we all just can't have our way.

OMG can you understand what you read at all? Evidently you need to read my post again, please notice the examples to help you understand.

You have any sorrow for the count less owners that were sold up to VIP on the premise of renting to cover maintenance fees?

I’m one of those so OMG again!! May not be the reason I bought up VIP-PR but I heard that sales pitch loud & clear
You need to suspend yourself for a month & read what you’ve been posting. Let it sink in on how ridiculous your post are