13-Month Maui Reservation Experience

[MOXJO7282]

I'm wondering if the OP's problem originates from the fact that he has split and is only looking for a segment of a full unit.

That has to complicate the process in some way although I'm honestly not sure how they allocate units when they are split.

I'll be going for my usual string soon so we'll see if its easier to do so with full units

 

[BocaBoy]

I'm wondering if the OP's problem originates from the fact that he has split and is only looking for a segment of a full unit.

That is not the problem. There were no full 2 BR units available in Maui (Lahaina/Napili Towers ocean front) for any of the check-in dates on any of the three weekends from January 27 through February 12, 2012. The earliest availability for such a 2BR unit was the weekend of February 17-19, 2012.

 

[hotcoffee]

That is not the problem. There were no full 2 BR units available in Maui (Lahaina/Napili Towers ocean front) for any of the check-in dates on any of the three weekends from January 27 through February 12, 2012. The earliest availability for such a 2BR unit was the weekend of February 17-19, 2012.

Okay. You have now had time to ponder the issue, and lots of others have offered explanations. What is your best theory about why there was no availability?

 

[Rene McDaniel]

Do you think the increasing number of owner rentals could be a factor? Owners who are renting their weeks either to pay for their maintenance fees or circumvent the exchange companies by getting cash for their week, then renting where they want to go?

There are currently 134 rental listings for Marriott Maui Ocean Club right now on redweek.com, and 4 already listed for 2012. It just seems like the number of owner rentals these days continues to grow, and increases owner demand for President's week, when a lot of schools are out for the week.

2012 Weeks already up for rent on redweek:

Marriott's Maui Ocean Club
01/08/12 - 01/15/12 7 $1,050 ($150/nt) Oceanfront 1/ 1 4 View
01/08/12 - 01/15/12 7 $2,600 ($371/nt) Oceanfront 2/ 3 8 View
01/08/12 - 01/15/12 7 $1,750 ($250/nt) Oceanfront 2/ 2 6 View
02/18/12 - 02/25/12 7 $2,000 ($286/nt) Oceanfront 1/ 2 4 View

 

[janna1]

Does it always require to book MMO 13/12 months out?

Sorry to interrupt.

I am not an owner yet. I am considing buying one week of Marritto Maui Ocean Clue from resale. I don't plan to exchange and mostly will use in summer weeks (Jun - Aug). Does it alwasy require 13/12 months out to book? How much chance is there to get 1 or 2 bdr in 10 or 8 months out? I don't want to end up in a situation that I can't find any availablities for the time that I can travel.

 

[BocaBoy]

Sorry to interrupt.

I am not an owner yet. I am considering buying one week of Marriott Maui Ocean Club from resale. I don't plan to exchange and mostly will use in summer weeks (Jun - Aug). Does it always require 13/12 months out to book? How much chance is there to get 1 or 2 bdr in 10 or 8 months out? I don't want to end up in a situation that I can't find any availabilities for the time that I can travel.

I have never failed at 13 months before, so this is why 2012 is so strange. In the past it has usually required almost 13 months ahead for the first 8 months of the year if you are trying to get consecutive weeks with the 13-month priority, but half the inventory is held until 12 months. You will need to reserve right away at the 12 month mark to get a summer week, but September through Week 50 can easily be gotten at 12 months or less, often the 8-10 months ahead that you asked about. Also, my problems are with the new towers, so I cannot speak to whether a similar 2012 problem exists in the older section of the resort.

 

[BocaBoy]

Okay. You have now had time to ponder the issue, and lots of others have offered explanations. What is your best theory about why there was no availability?

I really wish I had a good theory, but I don't. Marriott grabbing a large number of prime February weeks for the points program was one of my early theories, but someone posted that the February 11 week was also not available using points, which seems to discredit that theory. Maybe it is true that at least half the units for the week of February 11, 2012 have been reserved as the third or later week in reservation strings at least 3 weeks long. I can't disprove that and it is the only explanation I can think of if Marriott is playing it straight. It still seems hard to believe, however.

 

[DanCali]

This may have been brought up already, which perhaps is why I am thinking about it. But we have been told that Marriott is allocating inventory on a pro-rata basis. Perhaps they have three groups of weeks based pro-rata inventory. One for enrolled owners, one for unenrolled owners, and the last for Marriott/Trust owned invetory. If x% of owners are enrolled, they make x% of weeks in a given week available to enrolled owners and the remainder is available to non-enrolled owners. When enrolled owners convert to points, they move the inventory from their pro-rata share to the exchange company.

The problem with this for enrolled members is that there is now a much smaller pool of inventory to pull from for weeks based reservations. Since enrollments are only at about 10%, enrolled owners would only have access to 10% of the inventory for each week. If enrolled owners tend to be those more savvy and booking 13+ months out, then that could explain why Boca is having trouble making the reservation.

The only way to validate my theory would be for a non-enrolled owner to attempt the same reservation that Boca was trying to make.

I also brought this up earlier in the thread.

Perhaps a multi week non-enrolled MOC owner can test this theory out...?

 

[hotcoffee]

This may have been brought up already, which perhaps is why I am thinking about it. But we have been told that Marriott is allocating inventory on a pro-rata basis. Perhaps they have three groups of weeks based pro-rata inventory. One for enrolled owners, one for unenrolled owners, and the last for Marriott/Trust owned invetory. If x% of owners are enrolled, they make x% of weeks in a given week available to enrolled owners and the remainder is available to non-enrolled owners. When enrolled owners convert to points, they move the inventory from their pro-rata share to the exchange company.

The problem with this for enrolled members is that there is now a much smaller pool of inventory to pull from for weeks based reservations. Since enrollments are only at about 10%, enrolled owners would only have access to 10% of the inventory for each week. If enrolled owners tend to be those more savvy and booking 13+ months out, then that could explain why Boca is having trouble making the reservation.

The only way to validate my theory would be for a non-enrolled owner to attempt the same reservation that Boca was trying to make.

I don't see how this would account for there not being anything available at 13 months out. Suppose there are only 2 enrolled platinum owners at resort X, that should guarantee 2 enrolled platinum slots will be available for the use year. So, unless an awfully lot of non-enrolled owners got in early at 13 months out and made reservations for exactly the desired weeks, there should be at least one week available for each of the 2 enrolled owners at 13 months. It seems pretty farfetched to believe that unusally large numbers of any one enrollment category would be vying for exactly the same weeks at 13 months out. Am I missing something?

 

[dioxide45]

I don't see how this would account for there not being anything available at 13 months out. Suppose there are only 2 enrolled platinum owners at resort X, that should guarantee 2 enrolled platinum slots will be available for the use year. So, unless an awfully lot of non-enrolled owners got in early at 13 months out and made reservations for exactly the desired weeks, there should be at least one week available for each of the 2 enrolled owners at 13 months. It seems pretty farfetched to believe that unusally large numbers of any one enrollment category would be vieing for exactly the same weeks at 13 months out. Am I missing something?

Say there are 12 weeks in a season at a resort that has 100 units. That means there there are 1200 owners. Say 10% are enrolled in DC, 85% are not, and 5% are trust owned weeks. That means there are 10 units for each week that are available to DC members, 90 units are not. Only 5 units are available at 13 months. It is probably safe to say that enrolled owners are more likely to be multi week owners than no-enrolled owners. This means that a high percentage of those 120 owners are trying to reserve a small number of weeks at 13 months.

 

[hotcoffee]

Say there are 12 weeks in a season at a resort that has 100 units. That means there there are 1200 owners. Say 10% are enrolled in DC, 85% are not, and 5% are trust owned weeks. That means there are 10 units for each week that are available to DC members, 90 units are not. Only 5 units are available at 13 months. It is probably safe to say that enrolled owners are more likely to be multi week owners than no-enrolled owners. This means that a high percentage of those 120 owners are trying to reserve a small number of weeks at 13 months.

This scenerio would put enrolled owners at a disadvantage at their own resort. I think it is farfetched to believe that none of the desired weeks were available when BocaBoy requested them due to their already having being reserved by other enrolled owners.

Also, I thought that the pro-rata idea was to protect owners from having exchangers come in and grab the most desireable weeks, not owners from being able reserve weeks at their own resort.

 

[dioxide45]

This scenerio would put enrolled owners at a disadvantage at their own resort. I think it is farfetched to believe that none of the desired weeks were available when BocaBoy requested them due to their already having being reserved by other enrolled owners.

Also, I thought that the pro-rata idea was to protect owners from having exchangers come in and grab the most desireable weeks, not owners from being able reserve weeks at their own resort.

WE really don't know how it works, all theory.

 

[taffy19]

Do you think the increasing number of owner rentals could be a factor? Owners who are renting their weeks either to pay for their maintenance fees or circumvent the exchange companies by getting cash for their week, then renting where they want to go?

There are currently 134 rental listings for Marriott Maui Ocean Club right now on redweek.com, and 4 already listed for 2012. It just seems like the number of owner rentals these days continues to grow, and increases owner demand for President's week, when a lot of schools are out for the week.

2012 Weeks already up for rent on redweek:

Marriott's Maui Ocean Club
01/08/12 - 01/15/12 7 $1,050 ($150/nt) Oceanfront 1/ 1 4 View
01/08/12 - 01/15/12 7 $2,600 ($371/nt) Oceanfront 2/ 3 8 View
01/08/12 - 01/15/12 7 $1,750 ($250/nt) Oceanfront 2/ 2 6 View
02/18/12 - 02/25/12 7 $2,000 ($286/nt) Oceanfront 1/ 2 4 View

This is exactly what we will do if we are not getting our "request first" filled this year. We are not going to mess with the Marriott by enrolling in this new program or with II either. If all fails, we will use the 2 BR fixed week/unit ourselves and enjoy the two balconies. One is better for the view of the mountains as well as the ocean and the other one is better for protection against the trade winds that we feel on the corner balcony. We may even try to do a direct exchange through TUG or www.ownertrades.com.

Since we own a fixed week/unit, we don't have problems reserving our week but how is this for other people who own a floating week? They cannot deny this to anyone who bought a week from the Marriott at a certain season. From what I understand, the problem is mainly with making an exchange to another Marriott resort, I hope.

 

[DanCali]

I don't see how this would account for there not being anything available at 13 months out. Suppose there are only 2 enrolled platinum owners at resort X, that should guarantee 2 enrolled platinum slots will be available for the use year. So, unless an awfully lot of non-enrolled owners got in early at 13 months out and made reservations for exactly the desired weeks, there should be at least one week available for each of the 2 enrolled owners at 13 months. It seems pretty farfetched to believe that unusally large numbers of any one enrollment category would be vying for exactly the same weeks at 13 months out.

Am I missing something?

There are a couple of things you may be missing with your scenario above.

First let's assume without loss of generality there are actually 50 enrolled owners. IF there is a different pool of weeks for enrolled owners and it is allocated fairly, Marriott should have one of each of weeks 1-50 on this pool (I assume 51 and 52 are outside the float season and were sold as fixed weeks). In this case, it is enough that one other enrolled owner beat BocaBoy to that reservation and he will not see availability.

Moreover, IF Marriott makes all the weeks inventory from enrolled owners available to all enrolled and trust owners at 13 and subsequently at 12 months out, a Trust owner or maybe another weeks owner with PP status may have taken that week from BocaBoy. Since we don't know much about the reservation procedures and the inventory pools (it's not like this critical documentation was given to enrollees), there is nothing to say this can't be the case.

To all this one may say:

This scenerio would put enrolled owners at a disadvantage at their own resort.

To which I answer:

Sure it would...

The big lingering question since June 20 is why is Marriott pushing enrollments with "fee savings" as an excuse to enroll? What is the "cost" for those who enrolled to "save on fees" but never plan to use points? If the inventory of those enrolled owners is made available to everyone who can use points, that is both (i) a reason to push enrollments for "fee savings" and (ii) a hidden cost for those enrolled owners who now compete for weeks reservations with everyone enrolled from their home resort and everyone else who is enrolled and everyone who bought points. This also accomplishes the goal of "nudging" those who couldn't get home resort reservations with weeks, to exchange to points and get skimmed...

This is all, of course, currently in the realm of speculation, but the "enrollment to save on fees" cannot possibly be a free lunch. There has got to be a big hidden cost to it or Marriott would not have done it - they did not go through all this effort just to subsidize II exchanges. We just need to figure out what that hidden cost is it is...

Is what I am saying above far-fetched? Maybe... but I don't really buy other explanations I've seen so far. MOC is a desirable resort but it's not Harborside. And I can tell you from experiences I've read on the Starwood board that someone calling at 9am 12 months out gets their reservation (the problem is points exchanges at 8 months out). I can't imagine MOC would be worse at 13.5 months out...

 

[BocaBoy]

The big lingering question since June 20 is why is Marriott pushing enrollments with "fee savings" as an excuse to enroll?....the "enrollment to save on fees" cannot possibly be a free lunch.

It made sense to me before: get them to enroll as the first step; then work on them to induce them to exchange for points. Now, however, I am not so sure. There may be more to it that that.

 

[DanCali]

It made sense to me before: get them to enroll as the first step; then work on them to induce them to exchange for points. Now, however, I am not so sure. There may be more to it that that.

Do you feel "induced" yet?

 

[dioxide45]

I tried searching

Does anyone have a link to the information that DaveM provided from Marriott that spoke about the pro-rata allocation of inventory?

I tried searching, and searching, and searching, but it proved futile. Those few weeks after the launch of DC the board was running on overdrive.

 

[GregT]

This is all, of course, currently in the realm of speculation, but the "enrollment to save on fees" cannot possibly be a free lunch. There has got to be a big hidden cost to it or Marriott would not have done it - they did not go through all this effort just to subsidize II exchanges. We just need to figure out what that hidden cost is it is...

Dan,

I don't believe it is a hidden cost (to us), I believe it is a hidden benefit (to the DClub).

I believe that enrolling in DClub and then making trades thru II gives DClub a first pass to make your requested trade, giving Marriott the option to keep your week for the DClub instead of passing it along to Interval and to some random Marriott owner.

I've used this example before -- and if it doesn't work this way, Marriott missed a major opportunity to snag prime weeks.

Let's say that I want to trade my 3BR MOC week for a 3BR at Ko Olina. I call my Marriott VOA and say that I want to make this trade.

Marriott Trust has tons of 3 BR Ko Olina units in it -- I believe they would make that trade using Trust Inventory and take my MOC week into the Exchange Pool. Or maybe, they make a second trade simultaneously with Interval International providing the desired 3BR Ko Olina week, and then Interval has agreed to trade my 3BR MOC back to Marriott.

If they didn't, is Marriott really going to let the 3BR MOC go into II's inventory and just sit there?

So, I believe a major reason for the free II trades is to give Marriott a first look (Right of First Refusal concept) at inventory before it gets deposited into II.

I posted this theory before and it was criticized as too manual and labor intensive -- but I believe criteria could be established to make it very very simple -- ie, any 2BR or larger at a TDI property greater than 130 and the unit never makes it to II.

I would be very surprised if Marriott hadn't implemented something like this, but I have no evidence that the arrangement actually exists.

Best to all,

Greg

 

[wof45]

I don't see the cost here that is being passed on.

With the DC, Marriott is taking fees away from II, not from owners. They negotiated a new deal with II, that must give it either low fees for trades or a fixed payment for all Marriott trades, and this is covered by the yearly fee to belong to the club. II wold go along because it is better to have a large bulk contract than to have Marriott develop its own system or move to RCI.

I agree with Greg that if Marriott is not now grabbing good weeks for the DC, it will in the future. Any argument about being labor intensive doesn't hold water since Marriott is working on a system to support the DC, and whatever they are doing will be automated.

Actually, I wonder if they don't already have a system, but it is limited to the advisors to shake out any problems and to keep DC members talking on-line to make sure they understand what they are doing.

 

[dioxide45]

I don't see the cost here that is being passed on.

With the DC, Marriott is taking fees away from II, not from owners. They negotiated a new deal with II, that must give it either low fees for trades or a fixed payment for all Marriott trades, and this is covered by the yearly fee to belong to the club. II wold go along because it is better to have a large bulk contract than to have Marriott develop its own system or move to RCI.

My bet is that a very high percentage of that $165/$199 fee goes to II. Marriott already gets an owner services fee in every MF payment, so the VOA and phone system are already paid for. Their only additional costs are in infrastructure to support the point system.

I agree with Greg that if Marriott is not now grabbing good weeks for the DC, it will in the future. Any argument about being labor intensive doesn't hold water since Marriott is working on a system to support the DC, and whatever they are doing will be automated.

I have argued this point from Greg several times and I don't remember labor intensive being one of the major arguments. The fact remains that Marriott has nothing built in to their exchange procedures that permit week for week based exchanges. Exchange companies in Florida are a regulated and audited business. One can't just be making exchanges willy nilly at will. Marriott built and disclosed a points based exchange system. They are bound to those disclosures and procedures until such time they amend them.

Actually, I wonder if they don't already have a system, but it is limited to the advisors to shake out any problems and to keep DC members talking on-line to make sure they understand what they are doing.

 

[DanCali]

I believe that enrolling in DClub and then making trades thru II gives DClub a first pass to make your requested trade, giving Marriott the option to keep your week for the DClub instead of passing it along to Interval and to some random Marriott owner.

I don't know if this is true or not. If it is, it can coexist with my theory too.

The theory I raised though is also a possible explanation to the OPs problem because it claims enrolled weeks are a separate weeks pool accessible by other DC members even before those weeks owners convert to points. If true, I believe most weeks owners would view it as a hidden cost (although it could be painted by Marriott as a DC benefit). I have seen nothing in the documents about which weeks go into which pool...

This should be testable if an enrolled an unenrolled owner from the same resort do an inventory check for high demand weeks at 13 months and get a different result (but if they both get availability it doesn't disprove my theory).

 

[Fredm]

I don't see the cost here that is being passed on.

With the DC, Marriott is taking fees away from II, not from owners. They negotiated a new deal with II, that must give it either low fees for trades or a fixed payment for all Marriott trades, and this is covered by the yearly fee to belong to the club. II wold go along because it is better to have a large bulk contract than to have Marriott develop its own system or move to RCI.

Exactly.....

 

[BocaBoy]

I believe that enrolling in DClub and then making trades thru II gives DClub a first pass to make your requested trade, giving Marriott the option to keep your week for the DClub instead of passing it along to Interval and to some random Marriott owner.

Let's say that I want to trade my 3BR MOC week for a 3BR at Ko Olina. I call my Marriott VOA and say that I want to make this trade.

Marriott Trust has tons of 3 BR Ko Olina units in it -- I believe they would make that trade using Trust Inventory and take my MOC week into the Exchange Pool. Or maybe, they make a second trade simultaneously with Interval International providing the desired 3BR Ko Olina week, and then Interval has agreed to trade my 3BR MOC back to Marriott.
If they didn't, is Marriott really going to let the 3BR MOC go into II's inventory and just sit there?

So, I believe a major reason for the free II trades is to give Marriott a first look (Right of First Refusal concept) at inventory before it gets deposited into II.

This would also be consistent with what I heard last month at a Manor Club owners' meeting--namely, that Marriott is now handling Marriott-to-Marriott trades internally. (Not technically correct if the bolded language above is correct, but an accurate statement in non-technical terms.)

That would not seem to have any bearing on my 13-month reservation problem, however.

 

[m61376]

To address Dioxide's concerns- according to DaveM's prior posts, and consistent with what I was told unequivocally- there re two reservation pools, so to speak- one consisting of legacy weeks that have not enrolled + enrolled legacy weeks reserving weeks, and the other consisting of points owners and legacy weeks that have converted to points in any given year, with each reservation opportunity allocated their fair share (the proportionate share of weeks according to the percentage in each pool).

Although I personally agree with Greg that enrolling legacy week owners in the program whether or not they trade in points could conceivably give Marriott first dibs on making those trades within their exchange program and outside of II, I have been told that this is NOT what is happening, and that all trades of weeks will be in II, despite what Boca and others have been told at the various presentations. It seems that these theories are filtering from the bottom up, yet the upper echelon at Marriott contends that is not the way the system is working. For me, that would be the most cogent reason to join, IF that was the case; the Marirott heirachy is denying it, though.

 

[dioxide45]

To address Dioxide's concerns- according to DaveM's prior posts, and consistent with what I was told unequivocally- there re two reservation pools, so to speak- one consisting of legacy weeks that have not enrolled + enrolled legacy weeks reserving weeks, and the other consisting of points owners and legacy weeks that have converted to points in any given year, with each reservation opportunity allocated their fair share (the proportionate share of weeks according to the percentage in each pool)

Thanks. Though I am looking for a link to the post, not what we remember it said or our interpretation of it. I believe Dave included Marriott's actual language in response to his inquiry, that is what I want to see.

Did it specifically indicate points pools for converted or trust owners, or just enrollments? Of course what was said and what Marriott is in fact doing could be two different things.