13-Month Maui Reservation Experience

[wof45]

Marriott weeks are Marriott weeks. Why do you think they were ever available for weeks reservations? Marriott would just reserve high demand weeks for itself, no?

Unlike the 13 month rule inventory, their "word" on this particular issue was never in writing, and that may be for a good reason...

If they are not good to their word on this, wouldn't this be the most obvious explanation?

I don't think there is enough real evidence yet to know just what the problem is.

It could be a simple as the weeks are not available at legacy resorts because owners cannot yet turn in their 2012 weeks for points, so there is no DC points inventory available. And that if we are looking for trades, enough legacy owners have not reserved weeks and deposited them for exchanges.

 

[DanCali]

I don't think there is enough real evidence yet to know just what the problem is.

If Marriott is messing with the 13 month inventory contrary to what was told (verbally) to some tuggers, you will never get hard evidence for that.

Given the enrollment rates and human nature, I find it hard to believe that most of the few who enrolled already converted 2012 weeks to points and that is causing availability issues.

What seems more likely to me, is that you can expect some of weeks at the 13 months mark for weeks inventory, but not for the same number of weeks for every week in your season...

 

[GregT]

It could be a simple as the weeks are not available at legacy resorts because owners cannot yet turn in their 2012 weeks for points, so there is no DC points inventory available. And that if we are looking for trades, enough legacy owners have not reserved weeks and deposited them for exchanges.

Agreed -- but it is interesting. One of the significant unknowns about the new system is how robust the inventory is in general, and how reliably accessible the trust inventory is to legacy point owners.

We know from other threads that there is a reasonable quantity of Lahaina/Napili weeks in the Trust. But, I couldn't get to it when I attempted this long 18 night reservation. I couldn't even get 7 nights.

This is the paradox of the Marriott points exchange system -- we (the rightful owners of the weeks, for 25 years running) own the actual inventory that Marriott needs in order to have a robust points exchange.

What an interesting situation -- here I am a Premier Plus, or whatever they title it, I call at 13 months out, and I can't get the reservation.

What if I had pulled out my checkbook, and wrote a check for $190,000, so that I owned the 19,000 Trust points that were needed to book my 18 night Maui Ocean Club OF reservation, at exactly 13 months out?

Then I would be accessing the Trust inventory -- and maybe the reservation gets made. We may find there is minimal value in being a Premier Plus (legacy point) owner, until they institute a wait list.

This points exchange is still in its infancy, and Marriott has years to debug it. But they need our weeks to have a fully robust inventory. And it's a shame that the system wasn't designed in a manner where the weeks owners were eager to join, and felt like an valued customer to Marriott.

Best to all,

Greg

 

[Superchief]

... But they need our weeks to have a fully robust inventory. And it's a shame that the system wasn't designed in a manner were the weeks owners were eager to join, and felt like an valued customer to Marriott.

/QUOTE]

Greg,
I think you hit the nail on the head. I am also a long-term multiple-week MVC owner and lifetime platinum MR member. I, like many others, joined the new program primarily because I felt my vacation options would be diminished if I didn't. I doubt that many legacy owners enrolled because they were attracted to major elements of the program. Marriott really missed a golden opportunity to enhance MVC customer loyalty. Instead, 'loyal' customers are only loyal because we are 'hostages'. Although the program has some appealing features, I feel betrayal regarding how it was implemented.

Many airlines followed a similar approach over the past few years enabling Southwest to become a preferred airline for many business travelers. I was a loyal Delta flier for over 25 years, but quit flying them when it became obvious that I was only a 'hostage' to them.

 

[wof45]

we too are premier plus after 23 years, and will be after a 10-night reservation next week. I hope it has better DC inventory than the one you asked about.

I hope Marriott can shake out the difficulties with the multiple pools of points, so that we can count on exchanges working for us in the future. In theory, the mid-week check-ins and daily point values will work out well.

 

[hotcoffee]

. . . We know from other threads that there is a reasonable quantity of Lahaina/Napili weeks in the Trust. But, I couldn't get to it when I attempted this long 18 night reservation. I couldn't even get 7 nights.

This is the paradox of the Marriott points exchange system -- we (the rightful owners of the weeks, for 25 years running) own the actual inventory that Marriott needs in order to have a robust points exchange.

What an interesting situation -- here I am a Premier Plus, or whatever they title it, I call at 13 months out, and I can't get the reservation.
. . .

If they follow the pro-rata idea that was implied they will be using, they will hold back from weeks owner reservations at every resort an amount equal to the percentage of enrolled owners' weeks at the resort + Marriott controlled weeks at the resort + weeks at the resort held by the Trust. That could result in a reduction of available inventory for high demand weeks. However, it does not mean that an enrolled owner can get a high demand week from the DC inventory either because an applicable week still might not be in the exchange pool. More than one applicable week might be sitting in limbo in the Trust. In that case, no one can get them (except, of course, Trust owners) until Marriott decides to dump them into the DC exchange inventory, and they surely are not going to do that at 13 months out. I assume that if Marriott had control of an applicable week at 13 months, they would have made it available. I doubt they are holding anything back from anyone.

 

[DanCali]

If they follow the pro-rata idea that was implied they will be using, they will hold back from weeks owner reservations at every resort an amount equal to the percentage of enrolled owners' weeks at the resort + Marriott controlled weeks at the resort + weeks at the resort held by the Trust. That could result in a reduction of available inventory for high demand weeks. However, it does not mean that an enrolled owner can get a high demand week from the DC inventory either because an applicable week still might not be in the exchange pool. More than one applicable week might be sitting in limbo in the Trust. In that case, no one can get them (except, of course, Trust owners) until Marriott decides to dump them into the DC exchange inventory, and they surely are not going to do that at 13 months out. I assume that if Marriott had control of an applicable week at 13 months, they would have made it available. I doubt they are holding anything back from anyone.

OK - so let's go with the pro-rata idea and assume it's all above water. The general agreements is that Marriott separates those weeks based on enrollments, not conversions, right?

Boca Boy is an enrolled owner, but did not convert his 2012 weeks to points. You are saying there should be an inventory pool weeks for enrolled weeks (say it's 10% for MOC for each week). For some reason, it has not been made available for reservation or is already taken at 13.5 months out (I doubt the latter).

I wonder if an unenrolled owner (different pool of weeks) trying the same reservaton at 13.5 months out can get it.

This could mean that Marriott is not messing with unenrolled weeks, but may be withholding enrolled weeks availability for weeks reservations (perhaps to get those people to use points?).

 

[dioxide45]

OK - so let's go with the pro-rata idea and assume it's all above water. The general agreements is that Marriott separates those weeks based on enrollments, not conversions, right?

Boca Boy is an enrolled owner, but did not convert his 2012 weeks to points. You are saying there should be an inventory pool weeks for enrolled weeks (say it's 10% for MOC for each week). For some reason, it has not been made available for reservation or is already taken at 13.5 months out (I doubt the latter).

I wonder if an unenrolled owner (different pool of weeks) trying the same reservaton at 13.5 months out can get it.

This could mean that Marriott is not messing with unenrolled weeks, but may be withholding enrolled weeks availability for weeks reservations (perhaps to get those people to use points?).

A) Do they base the pro-rata allocation for reservations based on enrollments or point conversions? If they base it on conversions, do they try to predict the number of conversions and hold back inventory based on expected conversions?

B) Does Marriott instead actually move a physical week from the weeks based system in to the exchange company like how II works. So for example, when a HHI platinum owner converts to points, Marriott takes a specific July week from the legacy reservation pool and deposits it in the exchange company, so then the only inventory available to point reservations is that actual week.

What is detailed in item B) is how an exchange company works. An exchange company takes in physical inventory and gives out physical inventory. It does not just give the the ability to make a reservation of shared inventory. It would be interesting to know what Marriott is actually doing here but we will never know as there is no transparency in the program.

 

[BocaBoy]

Just to recap to make sure we understand:

Dates wanted/available
Jan. 28--MKO 1br / MKO 1br
Feb. 4--MMO studio / MMO 1br (no studios)
Feb. 11--MMO 2br / No MMO available (no studio, 1br or 2br)
Feb. 18--MMO 1br / MMO 2br (all room types availabe)

A few questions:
(a) Did they check availability around your dates (Feb 3/4/5 & 10/11/12)?

The answer to this question is yes. There was no studio available for any of the three check-in dates Feb 3/4/5, and there was nothing at all available for any of the three check-in dates Feb 10/11/12.

 

[BocaBoy]

Thank you everyone for your posts. This continues to be a very interesting and troublesome issue.

 

[m61376]

Marriott weeks are Marriott weeks. Why do you think they were ever available for weeks reservations? Marriott would just reserve high demand weeks for itself, no?


Unlike the 13 month rule inventory, their "word" on this particular issue was never in writing, and that may be for a good reason...

If they are not good to their word on this, wouldn't this be the most obvious explanation?

True, but I would guess that if they did it might be blurring the legal lines. I don't think we should jump to conclusions here; the decreased inventory may be explained by the absence of Marriott developer weeks now and a high multi-week usage pattern. Since they are not available for points either, that lends credence to it being a usage phenomena rather than Marriott shenanigans.

 

[m61376]

A) Do they base the pro-rata allocation for reservations based on enrollments or point conversions? If they base it on conversions, do they try to predict the number of conversions and hold back inventory based on expected conversions?

B) Does Marriott instead actually move a physical week from the weeks based system in to the exchange company like how II works. So for example, when a HHI platinum owner converts to points, Marriott takes a specific July week from the legacy reservation pool and deposits it in the exchange company, so then the only inventory available to point reservations is that actual week.

What is detailed in item B) is how an exchange company works. An exchange company takes in physical inventory and gives out physical inventory. It does not just give the the ability to make a reservation of shared inventory. It would be interesting to know what Marriott is actually doing here but we will never know as there is no transparency in the program.

I don't know about "b" but was assured that the allocation for weeks was the percentage of week owners + legacy week owners using their weeks; those legacy weeks, whether enrolled or not, only count in the points pool allocation for the years that owners elect to convert to points. This was from the director of customer advocacy.

 

[windje2000]

A) Do they base the pro-rata allocation for reservations based on enrollments or point conversions? If they base it on conversions, do they try to predict the number of conversions and hold back inventory based on expected conversions?

B) Does Marriott instead actually move a physical week from the weeks based system in to the exchange company like how II works. So for example, when a HHI platinum owner converts to points, Marriott takes a specific July week from the legacy reservation pool and deposits it in the exchange company, so then the only inventory available to point reservations is that actual week.

What is detailed in item B) is how an exchange company works. An exchange company takes in physical inventory and gives out physical inventory. It does not just give the the ability to make a reservation of shared inventory. It would be interesting to know what Marriott is actually doing here but we will never know as there is no transparency in the program.

True, but I would guess that if they did it might be blurring the legal lines. I don't think we should jump to conclusions here; the decreased inventory may be explained by the absence of Marriott developer weeks now and a high multi-week usage pattern. Since they are not available for points either, that lends credence to it being a usage phenomena rather than Marriott shenanigans.

OK - so let's go with the pro-rata idea and assume it's all above water.

The general agreements is that Marriott separates those weeks based on enrollments, not conversions, right?

Boca Boy is an enrolled owner, but did not convert his 2012 weeks to points. You are saying there should be an inventory pool weeks for enrolled weeks (say it's 10% for MOC for each week). For some reason, it has not been made available for reservation or is already taken at 13.5 months out (I doubt the latter).

I wonder if an unenrolled owner (different pool of weeks) trying the same reservaton at 13.5 months out can get it.

This could mean that Marriott is not messing with unenrolled weeks, but may be withholding enrolled weeks availability for weeks reservations (perhaps to get those people to use points?).

I took another quick look at the documents. These are the only paragraphs I found which may be pertinent.


From the Exchange Procedures Document

VII. MISCELLANEOUS

C. Amendments. These Exchange Procedures may be amended by Exchange Company from time to time in accordance with applicable law, which amendments may include, but are not limited to, the items set forth in this Section VII.C. Amendments may be adopted by Exchange Company in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion for purposes of:

(27) adding fixed week reservation preferences, priorities, or rights;

III. PROGRAM OPERATION AND EXCHANGE POINTS

J. Affiliate Program Reservation System Operations. Exchange Company will, from time to time, operate and manage reservation systems or exchange programs for other vacation ownership programs and facilitate usage by members of such programs, in addition to operation of the exchange facilities and related services in the Program.

When providing reservation services for another program, which is also an Affiliate Program, Exchange Company shall provide the reservation services and exchange services in a manner consistent with the applicable Affiliation Agreement and the applicable Affiliate Program Reservation Procedures.

The Affiliate Program Reservation Systems may vary and have priority windows or reservation restrictions that are different from those of the Program or other Affiliate Programs. In such cases, Exchange Company will use commercially reasonable efforts to integrate all Affiliate Programs into the Program.

(emphasis added)

Source: page 6 of Exchange Procedures

Defined terms are capitalized

Definitions may be found on Schedule 1.

Pertinent definitions are below

Commercially reasonable? Does this perhaps mean that if Starwood or some other timeshare business follows this procedure, that opens the door for Marriott to do the same thing?

IV. PROCEDURES FOR RESERVING USAGE

Exchange Company reserves the right to create alternative confirmation periods with regard to Components which may in the future become a part of a program. Additionally, there may be different methods by which interests and allocations are assigned within a particular Component. Exchange Company has the specific right to implement procedures which will facilitate reciprocal, exchange, or similar uses by and among the Components affiliated with the Program offered by Exchange Company. (emphasis added - this is the third paragraph of Item 2. C. from page 7)

Alternative confirmation periods? Alternative to what?

Facilitate reciprocal exchange or similar uses by and among components? Did someone get 'facilitated' at the expense of BocaBoy?


Definitions: All from Schedule 1 of the Exchange Agreement

Affiliate Program means a program of benefits and services, as they may exist from time to time, the operator of which has entered into an agreement with Exchange Company through which the Affiliate Program’s members participate in the Program.

Participation in the Program is made available on a voluntary basis to Members of an Affiliate Program in accordance with the terms and conditions established by Exchange Company from time to time, in its sole and absolute discretion. Members have the right to reserve and use the Accommodations, facilities, services, and experiences that are a part of the Members’ Affiliate Program in accordance with the Affiliate Program Reservation System for that Member’s Affiliate Program.

If a Member desires to use the Accommodations, facilities, services, and experiences that are a part of another Affiliate Program, the Member may voluntarily participate in the Program described in these Exchange Procedures.

Affiliate Program Reservation System means the method, means or system by which Members of a particular Affiliate Program are required to compete against other members of that Affiliate Program in order to reserve the use of any Accommodations, facilities, services, and experiences of a particular Affiliate Program pursuant to the applicable Affiliate Program Documents.

Component means the location containing Accommodation(s) of a site or resort that is part of the Program or an Affiliate Program. Exchange Company retains the right to determine what constitutes a Component, in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion from time to time.

I have more questions than answers.

Has Marriott given itself the right to 'adjust' reservation procedures if you enroll?

Is this suggesting that the enrolled weeks (whether points conversion is elected or not) become part of a pool available for reservation to all premium plus DClub members at thirteen months, including those trust members. . . who own no specific resort?

If the 12 and 13 reservation inventory pools are separate based on 'enrollments' rather than 'conversions/elections', can there be any question that legacy enrollees have transferred some ability to reserve inventory at their home resort to the members of the DClub entity? If so, that can only have the effect of reducing one's ability to obtain the week one prefers in one's season.




So, if a trust member of DClub can compete . . .

with a deeded owner at a sold out resort . . .

for a reservation . . .

at 13 months . . .

simply because the legacy owner enrolled his or her week in DClub,

has Marriott effectively sold the same week twice?


And is this the reason Boca can't get his deeded weeks reserved at thirteen and a half months out?



A few phone calls to determine the reason for the lack of availability of inventory at 13.5 months may be in order here.

 

[wof45]

the comments about affiliate programs in the future, allows MVCI to tie to other exchange systems. For example, MVCI could buy another program and connect them. It only says that they can connect the systems, not that they can change the rights existing in any of the systems -- much as the DC program is an add-on to what legacy owners could already do.

I believe the problem seen with the 13 month reservations is reserving time at other than the home resort. It looks to me that the problem is that if no-one at the other resort has released their week, then a week is not available to reserve.

If this is true, it means that MVCI is actually holding the weeks for legacy owners at the resort, which , I believe, is what you want them to do.

 

[dan_hoog]

To maintain agreements and structure for deeded weeks, It seems to me that at any point in time, a given potential use week is either legacy or trust / exchanged into DC exchange inventory. By legacy, I mean available for week assignment under the old rules, including use, trade, owner rent, etc.

Anything at Marriotts discretion, unsold, delinquent, mrp exchange, would all likely get preferential treatment for DC. It also seems the timeframes to elect dc points could be a factor, as the moment a week is elected, marriotts algorithms are trying to shift the best possible week for their dc use. I find it possible, but unlikely, they string single weeks together to claim 13 month preference. If they have done so, a key sales claim for multi week owner preference has been compromised. It would definitely result in lawsuits.

If they are diverting more than warranted by trust, dc conversion, and Marriott discretion, from any legacy pool, it will effect hundreds of thousands of owners and eventually result in legal action and extensive discovery. Marriott would not be able to hide such a change and would know that from the outset. They may treat and position legacy owners as a new steerage class, but I doubt they'd play with actual deeded unit availability. The possibility that a nuance in enrolled DC memberships seems plausible to me though. If they could legally skim the best legacy inventory, it seems they might do so.

I suspect the changes are 1) market demand - people vacationing again; 2) Marriott discretionary inventory is less available in legacy pools for week selection or week exchanges; 3) sampling bias - everyone here is watching for anomalies.

 

[dioxide45]

So, if a trust member of DClub can compete . . .

with a deeded owner at a sold out resort . . .

for a reservation . . .

at 13 months . . .

simply because the legacy owner enrolled his or her week in DClub,

has Marriott effectively sold the same week twice?


And is this the reason Boca can't get his deeded weeks reserved at thirteen and a half months out?



A few phone calls to determine the reason for the lack of availability of inventory at 13.5 months may be in order here.

I think if Marriott is making inventory available to DClub based on enrollments vs conversions, this is a bad thing for all owners. I think actual point conversions will be a small percentage of overall enrollments, at least in the first few years.

Perhaps a deeper delve in to those revised reservation procedures is in order?

 

[BocaBoy]

....the decreased inventory may be explained by the absence of Marriott developer weeks now and a high multi-week usage pattern. Since they are not available for points either, that lends credence to it being a usage phenomena rather than Marriott shenanigans.

Do not forget two things:

1/ The oceanfront units Lahaina Tower were 100% sold out and only a small minority of the oceanfront units in Napili Tower were unsold as of June 20. The vast majority of the Maui weeks in question are owned by legacy owners. Trust availability is much greater in Ko Olina than in Maui, and I had no trouble reserving the week of January 28 in Ko Olina (that week was also unavailable in Maui) a couple days after its 13-week window opened.

2) To book three consecutive weeks using DC points in a 2BR unit costs over 25,000 points. If the master suites and guest rooms are booked separately, three weeks for the combined unit would be almost 29,000 points. It seems likely that almost no one has yet booked a week 13 1/2 months out (such as February 11) by using DC points, but even so there is no points inventory available for the February 11 week.

The only explanation that seems mathematically possible is that many more than normal multi-week Maui owners all decided to spend three or more weeks in Maui ending with the week of February 11. That could be plausible if February was the clear highest season in Maui, but some summer weeks are even more in demand and reservations don't generally get easier until the last four months of the year (Thanksgiving excluded). No one with school age children can spend a three week family vacation in February, and a lot of families go to Maui.

 

[molemay]

Could it be that they just don't want to split up the 2 bedroom units unless they can get reservations for both the 1 bedroom and the studio sides. Just going for a studio leaves the 1 bedroom unoccupied and breaks up a 2 bedroom.

Just a thought.

 

[BocaBoy]

I believe the problem seen with the 13 month reservations is reserving time at other than the home resort. It looks to me that the problem is that if no-one at the other resort has released their week, then a week is not available to reserve.

If this is true, it means that MVCI is actually holding the weeks for legacy owners at the resort, which , I believe, is what you want them to do.

I do not understand what you are saying. I am a legacy owner trying to reserve my deeded weeks at my own home resorts.

 

[BocaBoy]

Could it be that they just don't want to split up the 2 bedroom units unless they can get reservations for both the 1 bedroom and the studio sides. Just going for a studio leaves the 1 bedroom unoccupied and breaks up a 2 bedroom.

Just a thought.

For February 11 I first asked for a 2 BR, but none were available for that whole weekend check-in. No studios or master suites were available either.

 

[wof45]

speaking as an older owner, we like multiple weeks weeks in February since it is when it is coldest at home. we also want multiple weeks for distant locations, such as Hawaiii. we also take a somewhat different view of family vacation -- we have four children with families, and plan places that will hold an extra family and let the kids decide when they want to fit into the weeks -- we already know that both daughters like to take just a long weekend, so we don't get upset if we are the only ones there part of the time.

 

[dioxide45]

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.

 

[windje2000]

the comments about affiliate programs in the future, allows MVCI to tie to other exchange systems. For example, MVCI could buy another program and connect them. It only says that they can connect the systems, not that they can change the rights existing in any of the systems -- much as the DC program is an add-on to what legacy owners could already do.

I believe the problem seen with the 13 month reservations is reserving time at other than the home resort. It looks to me that the problem is that if no-one at the other resort has released their week, then a week is not available to reserve.

If this is true, it means that MVCI is actually holding the weeks for legacy owners at the resort, which , I believe, is what you want them to do.

Keep in mind this document governs the operation of DClub Exchange Company. From its perspective, MVCI, the legal entity that manages reservations for MVCI and the individual resorts are Affiliates . . . each of which operates Affiliate Programs.

 

[windje2000]

I think if Marriott is making inventory available to DClub based on enrollments vs conversions, this is a bad thing for all owners. I think actual point conversions will be a small percentage of overall enrollments, at least in the first few years.

Perhaps a deeper delve in to those revised reservation procedures is in order?

I would think the Boards of the ORAs of each resort would (or at least should) be aware of any changes like this.

It also make me wonder if this is one of the reasons for the much discussed voting clause, and/or one of the reasons for this clause in the T&C.

12. In the event Owner's Resort Association does not cooperate with MVCEC or the Program, Owner acknowledges and agrees that for the remainder of the then-current term Owner will use Owner's best efforts to take any and all reasonable actions requested by MVCEC so that Exchange Members, Members, or persons who hold a reservation(s) through the Program for use week(s) associated with Owner's Timeshare Interest will continue to have access to such use week(s).

Certainly if reservation procedures result in deeded owners getting 'bumped' out of their own resorts, the Board's fiduciary responsibilities are placed in tension with Marriott's wants.

Interesting they removed the language in this clause potentially requiring an owner to obtain a guest certificate at his/her own expense. Maybe they believe that falls within the definition of a 'reasonable action.'

EDITED TO ADD:

It used to read like this

12. In the event Owner’s Resort Association does not cooperate with MVCEC or the Program, Owner acknowledges and agrees that for the remainder of the then-current term Owner will use Owner’s best efforts to take any and all reasonable actions requested by MVCEC and/or Resort Association so that Exchange Members, Members, or persons who hold a reservation(s) through the Program for use week(s) associated with Owner’s Timeshare Interest will continue to have access to such use week(s). Owner further agrees and acknowledges that Owner may be required to take certain actions in order to facilitate the use of the use week(s) associated with Owner’s Timeshare Interest at Owner’s sole reasonable cost and expense, including, but not limited to, the purchase of a guest certificate(s).

 

[pharmgirl]

another interesting development - we usually extend our weeks by using points to 'rent' a few days before and after. Have been looking but very few Hawaiian dates are available for points. This is very different from past years
we were after much searching able to get another day at KoOlina, ocean

But other Hawaiian TSs are few if any