That's the thing, though, Dean, it IS a big stretch to treat all HHI resorts as a single unit! I think you're giving MVW too much power here, not questioning enough whatever rights they actually have. It may be that they can move owners/guests among the resorts at will which I'm questioning because I don't see anything in the docs that support it. So if there's nothing to say that they have the right, there's also nothing to say that they must limit that right to only the HHI resorts, meaning nothing to say that they can't do it among the entire portfolio. As far as any of us know it's never been done before, and now they've proven themselves unwilling to explain the reasoning and process to Jim when he inquired. Simply, if MVW was in the right then they have nothing to hide but they sure didn't respond to Jim as if that's the case.
I'd be okay with the hierarchy that they established for this event if they'd enacted it within the individual resorts. It makes sense to me that they'd prioritize Weeks Owners, DC Trust Members and DC Exchange Members in that order as "internal users" because those reservations are confirmed directly through MVW. It makes sense that II exchangers (whether owners or not) are considered "external users" with the lowest priority if mass cancellations have to occur due to such events, because those reservations are confirmed through an external entity. It makes sense that Preview/Encore and Marriott Rewards stays are prioritized lower than Weeks Owners/DC Members but higher than II exchangers, because that inventory is MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory. What doesn't make sense to me, and what they're dancing all around without explaining, is why they implemented the hierarchy metric among the group of multiple resorts rather than within the individual resorts.
Sue, a couple thoughts just occurred to me while reading this post of yours...
1) In the case of the Preview/Encore packages that Fasttr learned were relocated from Monarch to Grande Ocean, since that inventory is indeed MVW-controlled and is supposed to be completely separate from owner/exchanger inventory, does that make their action of accommodating a displaced Monarch Encore package at Grande Ocean understandable
IF they only used MVW-controlled in-house inventory at Grande Ocean and did not put those people into units vacated by the II exchangers? Given their reluctance to explain, we have no way of knowing which inventory was used for what, but that explanation could be consistent with what Customer Advocacy told me -- that Encore packages use in-house inventory and therefore are prioritized ahead of exchangers since it is an entirely different inventory "bucket."
2) Along the same lines, what if the only reservations that were shifted from one resort to another that week in Hilton Head were Points reservations? Would that be less objectionable than a situation where a weeks owner from Monarch was accommodated at Grande Ocean? At least in that situation, a Points booking that was moved from Monarch to Grande Ocean would have presumably been just moving
within different DC Points ownership inventory, which based on the comments made to me, would be consistent with Marriott's view that DC Points inventory is "in-house" inventory that they control
. I haven't thought through this concept enough yet to express an opinion, but on the surface, it would seem that action would be doing what Superchief has commented on and re-apportioning inventory from the weeks/exchange system into the DC Points bucket. That would seem to not be fair to weeks/exchange owners because it would be moving inventory from the weeks bucket to the in-house/points bucket.
But, what if Marriott then transferred a number of weeks equal to the number of displaced II exchanges from the MVC/DC Exchange Company or MVC Trust into Interval to balance everything out? And what if one of those weeks is the "replacement week" that Interval provided to me?
Obviously, if MVW was more forthcoming with an explanation we wouldn't have to theorize, but in the absence of transparency, it's all we timeshare nerds can do.