guests

[ronparise]

Ive been a non owner for a while now but am advising a friend regarding a purchase. Her primary use will be for her own vacations, but she hopes to do some rentals to offset some of her fees her fees. In a perfect world she will own 50000 credits and make 3 reservations (30000 credits) for rent. leaving 20000 credits for herself. Hopefully the 3 rentals will generate enough income to cover the fees on all 50000 credits... Thats where I come in

So my question goes to how the new guest certificate rules work

Do I have this right.

1) no guest cert is needed for the owners reservation (when she will occupy the unit) and if there was a second owner on the account a duplicate or overlapping reservation can be made for the second owner. In either or both cases the owners have to check in

2) additional duplicate or overlapping reservations require a guest certificate at the time the reservation is made

3) each account gets 1 "free" guest certificate for every 10000 credits (or fraction thereof) additional guest certificates cost $99 (online) more with a phone call

4) a guests name can be changed right up to check in, but a new guest means another guest certificate


So in my friends case if she made one 20000 credit reservations for herself and three 10000 credit reservations for guests, she has enough "free" guest certificates to do that, (with two left over) and if she needs to change the names on three of her rentals she can do that with the 2 guest certificates she has left and $99 for the third one



and if I was back in business doing 50 Mardi Gras reservations with my 500000 credits. I could make the reservations and add 50 guests names (made up names) at no cost then when I get a paying customer I could add their name for $99. And if I was to change my business model and make one (and only one) reservation for every week of the season at Seaside, I could leave my name on the reservations until my advertising found a customer, and then add their name using one of my free guest certs.


Do I have this thing right, or an I missing something

 

[Marathoner]

You have it mostly right. The comment about needing 50 fake names for your 50 Mardi Gras reservation is not correct. They can all be under your name until the day before checkin (theoretically). So you can save your 50 guest certificates until you actually have a real renter as long as it is before the check-in day.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

 

[Marathoner]

Ron - question for you. When you had 50 (or 30 or 20) Mardi Gras reservations in the Worldmark system, did the VCs and owner care reps give you a high quality and non-judgmental level of service when you called them for some need that you had (put in a wait list, add days to your reservation). Just curious if the reps said anything to you about renting units at such scale.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

 

[vacationhopeful]

Marathoner .. You are NOT a Wyndham owner, right? Wyndham "rule of the universe" is NO overlapping reservations in the same inbound guest's name. NOT by one day, NOT at different resorts, etc. They cancel them and if less that 15 days from checkin, YOU lose the points.

Oh, and Guest Certificates are $99 online EACH time you change a name after you made a reservation.

Choice #1 .. have 10 co-owners who travel with you on your membership.
Choice #2 .. use one GC with a 'fake name' for $99 and add the guest's real name for another $99.

 

[ronparise]

You have it mostly right. The comment about needing 50 fake names for your 50 Mardi Gras reservation is not correct. They can all be under your name until the day before checkin (theoretically). So you can save your 50 guest certificates until you actually have a real renter as long as it is before the check-in day.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

I understood that an owner could only check into one unit at a time So with a one owner account a guests name had to be on the "excess" reservations

 

[ronparise]

Marathoner .. You are NOT a Wyndham owner, right? Wyndham "rule of the universe" is NO overlapping reservations in the same inbound guest's name. NOT by one day, NOT at different resorts, etc. They cancel them and if less that 15 days from checkin, YOU lose the points.

Oh, and Guest Certificates are $99 online EACH time you change a name after you made a reservation.

Choice #1 .. have 10 co-owners who travel with you on your membership.
Choice #2 .. use one GC with a 'fake name' for $99 and add the guest's real name for another $99.

and are you a worldmark owner now? I dont think you can put more than 2 owners on a worldmark account.. and I dont think the fake names would cost anything because with worldmark you get 1 gc for every 10000 credits

 

[Marathoner]

Marathoner .. You are NOT a Wyndham owner, right? Wyndham "rule of the universe" is NO overlapping reservations in the same inbound guest's name. NOT by one day, NOT at different resorts, etc. They cancel them and if less that 15 days from checkin, YOU lose the points.

Oh, and Guest Certificates are $99 online EACH time you change a name after you made a reservation.

Choice #1 .. have 10 co-owners who travel with you on your membership.
Choice #2 .. use one GC with a 'fake name' for $99 and add the guest's real name for another $99.

Yes, I am a WM owner and not a Wyndham owner. I thought Ron was asking about Worldmark ownership. If not, apologies for the mix up.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

 

[Marathoner]

I understood that an owner could only check into one unit at a time So with a one owner account a guests name had to be on the "excess" reservations

That is correct, each owner can only check in once in Worldmark. But before checkin, you can have multiple overlapping reservations. So you don't need to use any guest certificates until you have a real renter.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

 

[ronparise]

Ron - question for you. When you had 50 (or 30 or 20) Mardi Gras reservations in the Worldmark system, did the VCs and owner care reps give you a high quality and non-judgmental level of service when you called them for some need that you had (put in a wait list, add days to your reservation). Just curious if the reps said anything to you about renting units at such scale.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

The VCs and owner care reps gave me great service>. With Wyndham I had my own senior owner care rep, ( I met her at an annual meeting and got a hug) The wyndham VCs were good to me, (On Jan 2 I would put all my new points into the credit pool... These were 2 hour calls and it always got done with no complaints) and I owned a bunch of weeks at Avenue Plaza.. I had my own VC there too

But Wyndham wasnt your question, worldmark was. They were good to me too but I used them very little, I did most everything online. The exception was adding guests,

And the question you didnt ask... How did they treat me and my guests at Avenue Plaza and La Belle Maison at Mardi Gras and Essence Music Fest??.. (i had as many as 40 guest for that weekend too) And the answer is....exactly the same as every other guest

 

[ronparise]

That is correct, each owner can only check in once in Worldmark. But before checkin, you can have multiple overlapping reservations. So you don't need to use any guest certificates until you have a real renter.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

WOW I thought the guest policy was changed to generate revenue and to put some controls on the mega renters....
It looks like its not gonna do either one

 

[chemteach]

WOW I thought the guest policy was changed to generate revenue and to put some controls on the mega renters....
It looks like its not gonna do either one

From all I have been reading about Worldmark in the forums, the recent changes should have no effect on megarenters other than having only 4 allowed requests. The guest certificate fees seem to be more of a way to generate additional income, rather than to impact megarenters.

 

[ecwinch]

WOW I thought the guest policy was changed to generate revenue and to put some controls on the mega renters....
It looks like its not gonna do either one

Ron - as you know well, commercial renting has many facets.

So while it is true that this rule will have little impact on those whose rent out reservations that have to booked 10-13 months out (as you did), it will have an impact on those AirBnb hosts that rent out short-stay reservations of 1-3 days. What I call the "on-demand" hosts, who do not make reservations in advance, but instead make the reservation when they receive booking requests. Adding $100 to the cost of those reservations prices some of them out of the price-competitive short stay AirBnb market.

As I have said many times, there is not one rule change that has no impact on average owners but will kill commercial renting. The ban on overlapping reservations in a single name is likely not far behind.

 

[ronparise]

Ron - as you know well, commercial renting has many facets.

So while it is true that this rule will have little impact on those whose rent out reservations that have to booked 10-13 months out (as you did), it will have an impact on those AirBnb hosts that rent out short-stay reservations of 1-3 days. What I call the "on-demand" hosts, who do not make reservations in advance, but instead make the reservation when they receive booking requests. Adding $100 to the cost of those reservations prices some of them out of the price-competitive short stay AirBnb market.

As I have said many times, there is not one rule change that has no impact on average owners but will kill commercial renting. The ban on overlapping reservations in a single name is likely not far behind.

It will add $100 to all the reservations made with rented credits too

I understand what i did (grabbing half of the rooms at one resort for one weekend is upsetting to most owners but I don’t understand why anyone would be upset at what you describe as the “on demand” hosts. They are taking one reservation at a time not taking half (or all) of a resort 13 months in advance

The only reason an extra cost of $100 for some of my reservations wouldn’t have been too much for me to absorb is that I could charge a ton for Mardi Gras ie The profit margin was pretty good

I think you are right , the regular weeks can’t absorb too much more cost

So what does that mean? I think the folks that rent for a living will move to the highest of the high demand reservations and leave the rest for everyone else

The hard to get reservations will get harder

 

[ecwinch]

So what does that mean? I think the folks that rent for a living will move to the highest of the high demand reservations and leave the rest for everyone else

The hard to get reservations will get harder

That is possible. But I would think if they were motivated to do that and more importantly - if they were willing to buy and tie up enough credits to compete in that market - they would already be doing that because of the higher margins.

But instead they are competing in the on-demand market where they can operate with a small account and use cash booking options to secure reservations. In long run I would say the "explosion" of ads like that over on AirBnb is just as great of a problem. Consider this data point - the number of listings on AirBnb for just one resort (Windsor). And with just a few clicks you will find similar activity at other resorts.

https://www.airbnb.com/s/homes?refinement_paths[]=/homes&adults=1&children=0&infants=0&toddlers=0&query=Windsor--CA&place_id=ChIJiSEmjAAXhIARwpUhUn9m_lg&amenities[]=9&amenities[]=25&amenities[]=15&amenities[]=7

Well over 250+ ads with the vast majority being for the WM resort (since I set the filter to be units with free parking, hot tub, gym, and pool). When I first started monitoring AirBnb last year, the number was about half.

ps. And if we apply your logic to crime, it is like suggesting that the police should allow petty theft to prevent petty criminals from becoming bank robbers.

 

[ronparise]

That is possible. But I would think if they were motivated to do that and more importantly - if they were willing to buy and tie up enough credits to compete in that market - they would already be doing that because of the higher margins.

But instead they are competing in the on-demand market where they can operate with a small account and use cash booking options to secure reservations. In long run I would say the "explosion" of ads like that over on AirBnb is just as great of a problem. Consider this data point - the number of listings on AirBnb for just one resort (Windsor). And with just a few clicks you will find similar activity at other resorts.

https://www.airbnb.com/s/homes?refinement_paths[]=/homes&adults=1&children=0&infants=0&toddlers=0&query=Windsor--CA&place_id=ChIJiSEmjAAXhIARwpUhUn9m_lg&amenities[]=9&amenities[]=25&amenities[]=15&amenities[]=7

Well over 250+ ads with the vast majority being for the WM resort (since I set the filter to be units with free parking, hot tub, gym, and pool). When I first started monitoring AirBnb last year, the number was about half.

ps. And if we apply your logic to crime, it is like suggesting that the police should allow petty theft to prevent petty criminals from becoming bank robbers.

But its not a crime.. My point is, its not a problem either, I understand that when i locked up half the units at avenue plaza at 13 months; that could be seen as a problem, but when someone grabs one reservation inside 10 months, where is the problem there?

and applying your logic to crime, its like suggesting we arrest the petty criminals and leave the bank robbers alone

 

[ronparise]

This probably dosent belong here but i started the thread so I can hijack it too

There are still reservations available at Avenue Plaza for Mardi Gras 2020. so maybe I was right... I only made reservations that no one else wanted

 

[ecwinch]

That's funny - only because I just came over here with the same intent (to hijack the thread).

I would suggest that availability at Avenue Plaza certainly debunks the theory that mega-renters dont harm the Club. In years past (as you know) the week covering Madri Gras was almost never available this late in the 13th month booking window - because you were always reserving available inventory.

And the self-rationalization you are engaging in now ("where is the harm")... just revives the same discussion we always have had on this topic.

Clearly the Club benefits on many levels when it provides the greatest value to the largest number of individual owners. So 50 WM owners being able to enjoy Madri Gras in 2020 is better for the Club, than 1 owner being able to make $$$ hosting 49 guests. That is just common sense, and you are smart enough to know that. So either the sense of denial has overwhelmed you, or you are just trying to stir the pot.

 

[geist1223]

Ron loves to stir the pot.

 

[CO skier]

Ron loves to stir the pot.

At this point, he is largely irrelevant.

 

[markb53]

That's funny - only because I just came over here with the same intent (to hijack the thread).

I would suggest that availability at Avenue Plaza certainly debunks the theory that mega-renters dont harm the Club. In years past (as you know) the week covering Madri Gras was almost never available this late in the 13th month booking window - because you were always reserving available inventory.

And the self-rationalization you are engaging in now ("where is the harm")... just revives the same discussion we always have had on this topic.

Clearly the Club benefits on many levels when it provides the greatest value to the largest number of individual owners. So 50 WM owners being able to enjoy Madri Gras in 2020 is better for the Club, than 1 owner being able to make $$$ hosting 49 guests. That is just common sense, and you are smart enough to know that. So either the sense of denial has overwhelmed you, or you are just trying to stir the pot.

Ron could only make reservations one at a time, right, just like all other owners. So if 50 owners, including Ron, wanted Mardi Gras, they could book right at 13 months and each owner would get one reservation, assuming there were 50 available. Or did Ron have a way of locking up multiple reservations at once.

 

[Jan M.]

Ron could only make reservations one at a time, right, just like all other owners. So if 50 owners, including Ron, wanted Mardi Gras, they could book right at 13 months and each owner would get one reservation, assuming there were 50 available. Or did Ron have a way of locking up multiple reservations at once.

No he didn't.

I'm not a Worldmark owner just Wyndham but since OP are hijacking the thread I'm going to add my comment. The two year mark for the new Wyndham website is fast approaching. What I've observed is exactly what Ron P. said would happen and I stated back then that I agreed with him. The people who remained who booked and rented the coveted reservations would learn to adapt and survive. And that others would and did step in to join the game.

 

[ecwinch]

Ron could only make reservations one at a time, right, just like all other owners. So if 50 owners, including Ron, wanted Mardi Gras, they could book right at 13 months and each owner would get one reservation, assuming there were 50 available. Or did Ron have a way of locking up multiple reservations at once.

This is somewhat like saying a Pop Warner football team has the same chance of winning in a game with the New England Patriots. Size/scale does afford advantages. Large account holders can control and manipulate inventory in a variety of ways.... just like they did in the cancel/rebook days on the Wyndham side. On the WM side, the techniques tend to be more nuanced... for instance walking a reservation forward, or using multiple accounts and/or engaging in waitlist manipulation. Ron can comment if he was just incredible lucky on grabbing those reservations..

But the broader point is that we are members of a “timeshare” program. I place the emphasis on “sharing”, but I can appreciate that some have a different perspective... much like being in a long line of traffic... and having someone shoot by on the open lane and expect to be able to cut into the line ahead of me... because there is civility and order in life that is lost when people focus exclusively on what is best for them.

 

[ronparise]

No I wasn’t lucky. Neither did I manipulate the rules with my big account

What I wanted was 5 day reservations, checking in on Friday. As we know the rules specify 7 day reservations. So my goal became 7 day reservations checking in on Wednesday

So what I did was to make 10 day reservations 13 monthsin advance. I made them one at a time as mark says in his post above. I was able to make the 25 or so reservations in an hour or so. And when I was done there would always be units available. Which leads me to the conclusion that I only made reservations that no one else wanted

Then the next day if there was availability, I would make 9 day reservations and cancel the 10 days and again and if possible, again

I usually ended up with 8 and 9 day reservations

I was out last year. Interesting that you say this was the first year that there was availability this late. So what happened last year. Everything was booked way in advance From what I could see someone used the same technique we see at West Yellowstone. ie book long reservations , waitlist, cancel and rebook through the waitlist. He walked reservations into “white space” on the calendar. He canceled and rebooked. I booked then cancelled

This year that guy didn’t make Mardi Gras reservations. I wonder why

Bottom line; that there is still availability makes my point. I didn’t take anything from anyone no one wants this stuff bad enough to make a reservation for more than 7 days or bad enough to set their alarms for 6 an 13 months in advance

 

[ronparise]

Ron - as you know well, commercial renting has many facets.

So while it is true that this rule will have little impact on those whose rent out reservations that have to booked 10-13 months out (as you did), it will have an impact on those AirBnb hosts that rent out short-stay reservations of 1-3 days. What I call the "on-demand" hosts, who do not make reservations in advance, but instead make the reservation when they receive booking requests. Adding $100 to the cost of those reservations prices some of them out of the price-competitive short stay AirBnb market.

As I have said many times, there is not one rule change that has no impact on average owners but will kill commercial renting. The ban on overlapping reservations in a single name is likely not far behind.

Commercial renting has many facets, but unqualified renting is permitted by the declaration. I think its really important that renting is permitted in the "things prohibited" section of the declaration.... They could have just not mentioned renting, but thats not what they did.. they specifically allowed renting and didnt qualify it in any way. Neither commercial renting or any other facet is memtioned...just renting and its allowed

But make no mistake Wyndham feels the same way you do.. Commercial renting must be stopped and Im more convinced than ever (with good reason that I cant disclose) that Wyndham is going to do with worldmark megarenters what they did on the club wyndham side and that is they will just end it and dare the megarenters to sue

 

[ronparise]

At this point, he is largely irrelevant.

completely irrelevant now and then, Nothing has changed