[2013] Unit Placement Discussion [orig "Homeless In Paradise ..."]

[Superchief]

I believe the biggest issue making it difficult to get a 'preferred' villa location (regardless of whether a weeks or trust owner) is the dramatic increase in short stays. I sympathize with the resort villa assignment team who have to deal with the short stays, multiple check-in dates, long-term stays, back-to-back lockoff reservations, and other challenges created by the 'flexibility' in the program. I have had good and bad experiences as a weeks owner and premiere plus trust/legacy points member. Most resorts have tried to accommodate my requests, but often don't have much inventory to work with.

What happens when a multiple weeks (all resale) owner goes up against a premiere plus DC reservation? Corporate would support the DC redeemer while the resort needs to please their owners.

 

[SueDonJ]

No. You are completely mis-reading this language. It is describing that if you do not elect to turn your legacy week in for DC points you can use your week as you always have:

It does not say, "If you turn your week in for points, those points will have the same priority (and can be used exactly) as you had with your legacy week reservation."

I'm not commenting on how it should work, but just that the language you quoted does not support that proposition.

But I think the contention is that "using your Week as you always have," means being given the priority in the hierarchy that you've always been given. That's how I interpreted what Quilter said, anyway. Not that I agree, but that's how I read it.

 

[rpgriego]

How much does a DClub points owner pay towards Ko Olina when they stay Friday and Saturday nights vs the Sunday through Thursday deal vs a full week vs two weeks, etc.

Easy calculation...multiply the points requirements by $.43.

GREAT answer but where is it officially stated by the DClub program?

 

[Quilter]

I'll use color to show my responses as it's easiest.

I think I conceded earlier that DC Exchange (enrolled) Members are perhaps more equal with Weeks Owners exchanging into other non-owned Marriott resorts, not on par with Weeks Owners using their owned Weeks but above II exchangers and the rest.

But yes, I still believe that DC Trust Members ARE equal to Weeks Owners.

Sorry Sue, it doesn't matter what you concede or believe. Show me wording in a Marriott document that makes them equal. Give me facts, not conjecture.



I still am not seeing any contractual language that supports a placement hierarchy of any type.

With my Weeks ownership I haven't always been placed in the "best" of available units because my resorts use a rotational placement system that allows every owner to be placed in the "best," "worst" and every unit in-between. Owner Services reps AND execs have asserted to me that the rotational system is supposed to be followed at every resort, but obviously we know that's not what happens. In fact, based on TUG reports the whole Priority Placement thing seems to be a crapshoot.

"In fact" you are not really stating facts. This is more hearsay than fact.

If as you say Marriott is legally required, based on precedence, to follow the established Priority Placement System, which one are you saying should be followed? The one that exists now, where every resort makes up its own rules? Conjecture. The one at your resort(s) where you always get a priority for the "best" units? I said I get owner recognition for my room preference, not the best unit. I don't necessarily always ask for the best location as perceived by others. Sometimes my preference may be the 3rd or 4th floor (out of 7). I generally give many options in order to have a better chance at a satisfying location. I believe the room locator listens to my request and fills it accordingly. The one my resorts say they're following based on exec-level direction, which IME has been supported by statements from exec-level employees? Or what about the free-for-all that takes place at some resorts where it seems like guests are simply placed according to arrival order, but the folks who think they're better than everyone else complain loudly until the resort personnel cave in and give them the better placements? Again, too much conjecture.

What I said is I can build a legal argument founded on precedence and wording in material produced by Marriott. What you have stated above is a personal confusion (more like a personal control issue) about how well all the resorts follow a company directed Priority Placement System. With all the variables being assessed by humans you will never get the same results from resort to resort. The process is done manually. Case by case.



Exactly. The DC Trust OWNS Weeks. Why shouldn't the usage rights - both contractually-granted and set by precedent, if those count - follow the conveyance of those Weeks? You, we all!, SHOULD be competing with DC Trust Members using their DC Points to reserve those Weeks. (Not certain if "competing" is the best word use here but I'm pretty sure we understand each other.) The Trust owners own a vacation. They own usage. They cannot individually claim ownership of a particular Trust week they may be occupying because that week is legally owned by all the Trust. They have secured the use of the availability (a vacation) by exchanging their points.


IMO Marriott SHOULD be doing whatever it can to clarify the placement system for Owners, Members and resort personnel, incorporating usage of their new product. Of course it's always been a pipe dream that Marriott will ever have a consistent placement system across all resorts, and probably even more now that the DC exists, but I still like the idea of TUG being used to have the discussion. Maybe Marriott's watching. Here's where you should have started with your post. You want Marriott to be watching and you want them to adopt your placement agenda. The problem is your system seems just as confusing as you claim theirs is.

If Marriott is watching I want to declare that Trust members should never be equal to owners when it comes to room location preference. They were sold a vacation. The current system wide Priority Placement System is just fine.

 

[rpgriego]

The current system wide Priority Placement System is just fine.

Where has MVW published the Priority Placement System?

 

[Quilter]

No. You are completely mis-reading this language. It is describing that if you do not elect to turn your legacy week in for DC points you can use your week as you always have:

It does not say, "If you turn your week in for points, those points will have the same priority (and can be used exactly) as you had with your legacy week reservation."

I'm not commenting on how it should work, but just that the language you quoted does not support that proposition.

Yes it does.

When I have used my week as I always have I get treated like an owner for room preference. I am put in a group with other deeded owners of that property.

The next part I bolded was "your ownership will not change". It will change if Trust owners are included as part of the above group.

 

[puckmanfl]

good evening...

Weeks owners (such as myself), were also just sold a vacation. Why should we be ahead of Trust owners (for room placement)???

For that matter, Why should an II exchanger go to bottom of pool??? That unit was sold to an owner and deposited by an owner. The rights and priviliges should stay with the unit!!!!

 

[SueDonJ]

Where has MVW published the Priority Placement System?

Here's a quote from Barony's GM, taken from one of the annual updates sent to owners:

How Villa Requests are Honored
Our Owners have a tremendous sense of pride in Marriott’s Barony Beach Club. As a result, we enjoy a high Owner occupancy rate. However, because of the very high number of Owners we welcome each week, we are often challenged by specific villa location requests. While it is sometimes difficult to satisfy every request, we do strive to accommodate as many as possible. With a high number of requests falling into the same two categories—building and/or floor preferences—the history of the prior years' villa assignments is crucial. A rotational system helps provide a fair service to each of our Owners and guests. Please note that if you have requested, and received, a high floor during your previous stay, we may not be able to accommodate that request on your next visit.

Key Facts Regarding Villa Buildings
- The resort’s yearly occupancy averages 95% or higher
- The most requested building is Morning Glory
- Floors 3-5 are considered “high” floors. A “high” floor is one of the most frequent requests received.
- Oceanfront Villas are located in the Morning Glory and Sea Oat Buildings. An Oceanfront Owner may be assigned to either one of these buildings
- Oceanside Villas are located in the Bayberry, Live Oak, Morning Glory and Sea Oat Buildings. An Oceanside Owner may be assigned to one of these four buildings

I don't know if it's in writing anywhere that Marriott execs stipulate or support this policy but I have questioned a couple execs about the policy and they've said the same thing, that the policy being implemented by Barony is communicated to all of the resort GM's by Customer Advocacy execs. (For the record, I'm okay with my resorts' systems even knowing that on a regular basis my requests will not be honored despite being in the group that supposedly has highest priority. The reason I've asked for more detail related to placement is because TUG reports about what happens at other resorts obviously contradict what's quoted here.)

 

[davidvel]

Yes it does.

When I have used my week as I always have I get treated like an owner for room preference. I am put in a group with other deeded owners of that property.

The next part I bolded was "your ownership will not change". It will change if Trust owners are included as part of the above group.

My bad. I now see you were stating that by giving DC points users the same priority it will affect your legacy rights.

 

[SueDonJ]

My bad. I now see you were stating that by giving DC points users the same priority it will affect your legacy rights.

But is it a "right," specifically a contractual right, for owners to be placed in units according to a hierarchy? There isn't any language that supports such a thing. In fact the docs are chockfull of language that stipulates floating usage rights do not equate to any certain unit placements or certain methods of placement.

But, if it's a right based on the precedence that's supposedly been set by Marriott (which is questionable because not all resorts follow the same system,) then don't DC Trust Members have some claim to the right based on their ownership interests in the Trust that's comprised of Weeks to which those "rights" are granted?

 

[suzannesimon]

Here's a quote from Barony's GM, taken from one of the annual updates sent to owners:


I don't know if it's in writing anywhere that Marriott execs stipulate or support this policy but I have questioned a couple execs about the policy and they've said the same thing, that the policy being implemented by Barony is communicated to all of the resort GM's by Customer Advocacy execs. (For the record, I'm okay with my resorts' systems even knowing that on a regular basis my requests will not be honored despite being in the group that supposedly has highest priority. The reason I've asked for more detail related to placement is because TUG reports about what happens at other resorts obviously contradict what's quoted here.)

I actually like this - at least you know the policy and can operate accordingly. Since we only go to FC every other year, if this were the stated policy, I would stop requesting high floor for my tenants. It's all about managing expectations. I think publishing the policy would stop a lot of disappointment.

 

[SueDonJ]

I'll use color to show my responses as it's easiest.

Sorry Sue, it doesn't matter what you concede or believe. Show me wording in a Marriott document that makes them equal. Give me facts, not conjecture.

"In fact" you are not really stating facts. This is more hearsay than fact.

I said I get owner recognition for my room preference, not the best unit. I don't necessarily always ask for the best location as perceived by others. Sometimes my preference may be the 3rd or 4th floor (out of 7). I generally give many options in order to have a better chance at a satisfying location. I believe the room locator listens to my request and fills it accordingly.

Again, too much conjecture.

What I said is I can build a legal argument founded on precedence and wording in material produced by Marriott. What you have stated above is a personal confusion (more like a personal control issue) about how well all the resorts follow a company directed Priority Placement System. With all the variables being assessed by humans you will never get the same results from resort to resort. The process is done manually. Case by case.

The Trust owners own a vacation. They own usage. They cannot individually claim ownership of a particular Trust week they may be occupying because that week is legally owned by all the Trust. They have secured the use of the availability (a vacation) by exchanging their points.

Whoa. I didn't say anywhere that Marriott is supposed to be or is somehow contractually obligated to enforce any certain Placement System, the one I like or the one you like or any of the ones offered by anyone else participating in this thread. In fact I've said that the Weeks docs don't appear to support a priority/hierarchy system at all, but I think that now that Marriott has introduced a new product which is incorporated into their old system, then they should also incorporate the owners of the product into whatever hierarchy or placement system already exists. I think they should. And for what it's worth, my opinion has changed somewhat based on what others have contributed to this thread. But my thinking is no different than anyone else thinking that Marriott should or shouldn't do something, and counts for no more or less than anyone else's opinion.

As far as parsing each and every point, obviously you and I and the others in this thread all don't agree completely and we're not all looking at just the legal points. But if ever the time comes that I believe Marriott should be challenged legally over something, that's the day I'll sell my ownership. It could be that the owners will be correct to challenge but they can do it without me. Even if Marriott were to lose, I'm sure that in the process their expansive legal team will make it a very frustrating and expensive proposition for all involved. I'd want no part of any of it.

Here's where you should have started with your post. You want Marriott to be watching and you want them to adopt your placement agenda. The problem is your system seems just as confusing as you claim theirs is.

If Marriott is watching I want to declare that Trust members should never be equal to owners when it comes to room location preference. They were sold a vacation. The current system wide Priority Placement System is just fine.

Yep, I want Marriott to be watching. Always. TUG is a good way for them to keep their finger on the pulse of their ownership. ALL their owners. I don't think, actually, that they give any of us credit for what we think. But I hope anyway that they consider what all of us have to say, equally, and I'm glad you shared your opinion with the rest of us. Quite honestly, I'd be happy if they'd just address the issue of where DC Points users fit in any hierarchy one way or another instead of ignoring it as they've been doing for the last three-plus years.

 

[rpgriego]

Here's a quote from Barony's GM, taken from one of the annual updates sent to owners:


I don't know if it's in writing anywhere that Marriott execs stipulate or support this policy but I have questioned a couple execs about the policy and they've said the same thing, that the policy being implemented by Barony is communicated to all of the resort GM's by Customer Advocacy execs. (For the record, I'm okay with my resorts' systems even knowing that on a regular basis my requests will not be honored despite being in the group that supposedly has highest priority. The reason I've asked for more detail related to placement is because TUG reports about what happens at other resorts obviously contradict what's quoted here.)

So... their is no 'official policy'? As such, a fair and equitable policy for room placement does not exist. Thus, their is a strong possibility that owners working it, consistently get great room locations.

 

[csalter2]

Are we embarking on a civil war?

This has been an interesting conversation. Having been in the situation before, it makes me wonder. Both groups are owners and have the same rights in different categories. Enrolled owners are a combination of both. In any case, a points owner contributes towards maintenance fees just like a weeks owner. Regardless of how many days the points owner stays at resort(s), he has the same right to units as a weeks owner. Their status of premier or premier plus is irrelevant as it pertains to units.

I believe it's important that we do have a system that is documented so that we don't pit owner vs owner. We all have a stake in this.

 

[rpgriego]

I believe it's important that we do have a system that is documented so that we don't pit owner vs owner. We all have a stake in this.

documented= fact

don't pit owner vs owner= WISHFUL THINKING! lol... Based on NO official MVW Priority Placement System, every father will be out to secure the best villa for his family. You actually think someone's going to say... no really, you-- a stranger, should have the better villa?

 

[Quilter]

. . .I think that now that Marriott has introduced a new product which is incorporated into their old system, then they should also incorporate the owners of the product into whatever hierarchy or placement system already exists.

The way I understand room allocation priorities is that the Trust owners ARE incorporated in the placement system. They are somewhere after owners and somewhere before II exchangers.

Even if ownership was considered they can't claim property ownership at the same level as weeks owners. You would have to take their share of the Trust and divide it amongst all the different properties (since, as is claimed, they own all the properties). That would give each Trust owner such a minimal percent of ownership they would surely fall below multi-week owners and then even below 1 week owners. For example, if a Trust owner has 4500 Trust points and they visit Ocean Pointe, their percentage of ownership could be calculated 53/4500 = .0117 (or is that 4500/53, I can't remember and my keyboard doesn't have a divide sign).

I've been told my home resort ownership is first considered and then my total ownership is considered. These are just a couple pieces of the puzzle to weigh my request for the rooms available. I'm sure Trust ownership is being considered to some degree.

The below memo only goes to clarify why owners can't repeatedly expect the same favorite room year after year. It is not the list of criteria I have had front desks refer to when explaining room location priorities. While it says "Owners and guests" it appears to be directed specifically to Owners.

"How Villa Requests are Honored
Our Owners have a tremendous sense of pride in Marriott’s Barony Beach Club. As a result, we enjoy a high Owner occupancy rate. However, because of the very high number of Owners we welcome each week, we are often challenged by specific villa location requests. While it is sometimes difficult to satisfy every request, we do strive to accommodate as many as possible. With a high number of requests falling into the same two categories—building and/or floor preferences—the history of the prior years' villa assignments is crucial. A rotational system helps provide a fair service to each of our Owners and guests. Please note that if you have requested, and received, a high floor during your previous stay, we may not be able to accommodate that request on your next visit.

Key Facts Regarding Villa Buildings
- The resort’s yearly occupancy averages 95% or higher
- The most requested building is Morning Glory
- Floors 3-5 are considered “high” floors. A “high” floor is one of the most frequent requests received.
- Oceanfront Villas are located in the Morning Glory and Sea Oat Buildings. An Oceanfront Owner may be assigned to either one of these buildings
- Oceanside Villas are located in the Bayberry, Live Oak, Morning Glory and Sea Oat Buildings. An Oceanside Owner may be assigned to one of these four buildings"

 

[CashEddie]

When legacy owners purchased a week from Marriott, we were sold a deeded interest to a 7 night period of time during a particular season and room type at a specific resort. That is the foundation of Marriott's system.

When they added the trust and started to sell points based on the weeks they transferred to the trust, they told people that purchased that "you own everywhere..." Yes, that's technicallly true but those points represents fractional pieces to those weeks in the trust. No matter how many trust points you purchase, you will never own a full 7 night stay at a specific resort like the legacy owners. So trust owner do not own weeks, they own points that map back to a collection of weeks in a trust. So by this very nature, all reservations would have to be considered exchanges vs. "direct access to trust inventory" because which owner owns a full week in the trust at a specific resort? None of them.

I think Marriott made the mistake early on in the process in telling owners "when you purchase trust points, you have direct access to book XYZ..." and that played out in a few instances with reservations when folks were told that "you can only book with trust points..." I don't believe this is the case anymore and they will fill a reservation with "points" no matter where they come from because ultimately it will be worked through the exchange company. That is the only way they honestly can say that a "point is a point" now because all point reservations are handled as internal exchanges.

So I would say no to the idea that trust owners are on equal footing as legacy weeks owners. There is no way that could be possible because we own two different products all together.

As far as placement priority, my thought is that it should be legacy week owners given priority at their home resorts over points users and II exchangers.

 

[csalter2]

There will come a time...

There will come a time and it won't be soon when points owners will outnumber weeks owners and will have control over the HOA as the trust will dominate the association through Marriott. For newer resorts like Crystal Shores, there could be a discussion about priority rights and who should have that priority. Time will tell.

 

[puckmanfl]

good morning....

MVCD sells ownership at a new resort now. The resort is called "Trust". This resort is a hybrid and comprises different deeded weeks at different places. However, it is a distinct legal real estate entity. A Trust owner owns a deeded interest in this new hybrid resort. If the inventory comes from this new resort, the Trust owner is an owner just as a weeks owner at his/her resort.

Ths issue is largely not significant at this time because the majority of Trust owners are hybrids and most intervals are too pricey to be booked with only Trust points. However, as Greg's buddy (15K Trust) points becomes more outraged as he plays second fiddle on roomplacements, MVCD will have to address this issue.

Last thing mother company needs to have happen is have those Trust owners start yapping in the hot tub...about how they are not truly "owners"

 

[pipet]

As for whether Trust owners pay MFs... yes, they do... for the Trust. At resorts that were sold out or mostly sold out, it is weeks owners who pay the MFs. Trust members can stay in those resorts when the weeks owners trade for points/exchange, but it is the weeks owners who actually paid the MFs.

Because of that, I personally see weeks owners as having higher priority at their home resorts than DC point owners.

Resorts with large trust ownership are a different case, but since those resorts have less weeks owners, there will be less weeks owners to fit into the priority system, so it's probably less of an issue anyway.

I definitely think DC points should be on par with any other Marriott week owner exchanging in - certainly higher than a non-Marriott owner II exchange.

Do we even know if/how much resorts are being compensated for the additional costs involved with shorts stays? I am skeptical that resorts are compensated enough to account for the extra costs... and if that's the case, it means weeks owners pay higher MFs whether they participate in the DC or not and actually subsidize the DC.

 

[davidvel]

Another view would be that all timeshare weeks (after determination of deeded view rights and fixed weeks) should be treated equally as required by the deeded interest (hoa), whether an owner chooses to occupy their unit, trade it, sell the time, or let grandpa stay there. Anything less diminishes the value of that interest based on who occupys it.

In the end every person staying is using the week of an owner, whether it be one of us, Marriott, or the trust. Not a popular view I am sure, just food for thought.

 

[puckmanfl]

good morning

David raises a good point.. It is another "skim" I get an OF unit from II deposited by an OF owner. MVCD or the resort makes it MV or IV when I arrive. Why??? This unit is being skimmed as it works thru system!!!!!

 

[SueDonJ]

documented= fact

don't pit owner vs owner= WISHFUL THINKING! lol... Based on NO official MVW Priority Placement System, every father will be out to secure the best villa for his family. You actually think someone's going to say... no really, you-- a stranger, should have the better villa?

If my family left our vacation planning up to Don it'd be a disaster - he has no interest in delving into the finer points of ownership and even less in talking to the front desk personnel at check-in. TUG has quite a few female participants who gladly take on the responsibility, and do it well.

I do actually think that many people are willing to say that others "should have the better villa." (Except, I'd word it more like, "have an equal entitlement to unit placement ...") Several Weeks Owners are right here in this thread opining that DC Trust Members should be on par with us; certainly we understand if it comes to fruition, those DC Trust Members will be our competition.

 

[SueDonJ]

The way I understand room allocation priorities is that the Trust owners ARE incorporated in the placement system. They are somewhere after owners and somewhere before II exchangers.

Even if ownership was considered they can't claim property ownership at the same level as weeks owners. You would have to take their share of the Trust and divide it amongst all the different properties (since, as is claimed, they own all the properties). That would give each Trust owner such a minimal percent of ownership they would surely fall below multi-week owners and then even below 1 week owners. For example, if a Trust owner has 4500 Trust points and they visit Ocean Pointe, their percentage of ownership could be calculated 53/4500 = .0117 (or is that 4500/53, I can't remember and my keyboard doesn't have a divide sign).

I've been told my home resort ownership is first considered and then my total ownership is considered. These are just a couple pieces of the puzzle to weigh my request for the rooms available. I'm sure Trust ownership is being considered to some degree.

The below memo only goes to clarify why owners can't repeatedly expect the same favorite room year after year. It is not the list of criteria I have had front desks refer to when explaining room location priorities. While it says "Owners and guests" it appears to be directed specifically to Owners. ...

How can you be "sure" that DC Membership is considered when this thread was started by the OP because he's certain, based on his own usage over the last few years, that his membership isn't considered at all? He's not alone if you go by other reports to TUG.

I've seen the list I think you're talking about, looks something like this:
Multi-Weeks Owners using their owned Weeks;
Single-Week Owners using their owned Week;
Multi-Weeks Owners exchanging into another Marriott;
Single-Week Owners exchanging into another Marriott;
Non-Marriott II exchangers;
etc.

The GM's at my resorts used to include that list in the newsletter sections about unit placement/requests, but not since they started using the section quoted about rotations. I would love to see a published, updated list that includes DC Membership if one exists.

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Ocean Pointe still lists online and follows the original priority list that was put in place just prior to the sell-out. This priority list predates anything related to the DC. Since the only terms used in the list are "single-week" and "multiple-week" owners it is anyone's guess as to how a DC only member is placed on that list. It is however extremely doubtful that they are considered a weeks owner at any resort and the reports of poor unit placement confirms this. If I had to guess I would say they are placed next to last in the list. It might be more fair to classify them as "Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International resort" but I do not believe this is happening.

• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners occupying their ownership weeks ("in
season")
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners occupying their ownership week ("in season")
• Ocean Pointe multiple-week Owners exchanging through Interval International
• Ocean Pointe single-week Owners exchanging through Interval International
• Multiple-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International
• Single-week Marriott Owners at another Marriott Vacation Club International
resort exchanging into Ocean Pointe through Interval International
• Guests visiting Ocean Pointe on a Sales Preview Package
• Ocean Pointe Owners that are renting a guest room or villa
• Marriott Reward Members that are visiting Ocean Pointe on Marriott Reward
point redemption
• Guests that are renting a guest room or villa
• Owners of resorts outside Marriott Vacation Club International exchanging into
Ocean Pointe through Interval International