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

[FractionalTraveler]

My take on this is that you can put all the marketing wording aside.

What is happening on the ground is more important to me as a consumer of the vacation experience.

I perceive a disconnect between Corporate and the properties (operational) execution of the vacation experience.

Bottom line, Trust owners are not being treated as owners of anything at the properties. That is why I am homeless in the trust.

IMHO, corporate will look at it from the forest perspective and say that this is a tiny problem with super users of their product. Recall that Premier Plus is 5% or less of customer base according to them.

How many in that 5% will be pure trust owners with 13K points or more? Probably very little. I think most of that 5% are folks like myself as Hybrid owners who purchased trust points to top off portfolio.

I don't think they will solve this issue anytime soon. Operationally it presents the properties many challenges.

FT

 

[Quilter]

Here's more evidence that the ownership is not specified as "property ownership" but more directly as "vacation ownership". Note: I am not saying the Trust does not own properties, I'm saying the MVC uses the owned properties to fulfill vacation obligations.

I've added the bolding to point out that while the purchaser owns vacations they do not have ownership guarantees for any specific dates, properties or room types. The other bolding is to emphasize the Trust owns timeshare interests that are available for usage through the MVCD plan. Usage = vacation ownership when available through the plan.

This is part of the State and Legal Disclosures:

"State and Legal Disclosures

2Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program's ability to confirm a specific exchange request is dependant upon the timeshare interests and use periods available or as provided by the provider of accommodations or services. Therefore, Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program cannot guarantee specific resort choices, dates of travel, or types or sizes of accommodations. The earlier an exchange is requested, the better the possibility that a specific request may be confirmed.

6The Marriott Vacation Club Collection is comprised of timeshare interests owned by the MVC Trust and available for usage through the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations timeshare plan and timeshare interests that are available for usage through the MVC Exchange Company; please see the applicable Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program documents for more information. Resorts with property that comprise the MVC Trust are described in the documents provided at the time of sale, and more particularly on the exhibit entitled Component Site Chart, which may be revised from time to time. Request for occupancy at resorts with small amounts of property in the MVC Trust, as set forth in the Component Site Chart, will be fulfilled primarily through the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program. As of February 26, 2013 2/26/13, there are currently timeshare interests located at 43 resorts owned by the MVC Trust (as of October 17, 2013 this will increase to 46 resorts).and those resorts are designated with the symbol ]. As of February 26, 2013, there are currently 57 resorts, including the aforementioned 43 resorts, with timeshare interests available for exchange through the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program, or through the World Traveler Collection (as for the resorts located in Thailand only and those resorts are designated with the symbol . Please see the applicable Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program documents for more information.

 

[Quilter]

Bottom line, Trust owners are not being treated as owners of anything at the properties. That is why I am homeless in the trust.
FT

You own points to reserve a vacation based on availability in the plan. You got a vacation. It came with flexibility, convenience and affordability. If you own lots of these points you can take lots of advantage for this flexibility, convenience and affordability.

Marriott could say they delivered with a warm greeting and a smile, a nice room, a building convenient to the Marketplace. Fine amenities on the property.

Were the elevators working? If so, you were very lucky.

 

[rpgriego]

Here's more evidence that the ownership is not specified as "property ownership" but more directly as "vacation ownership". Note: I am not saying the Trust does not own properties, I'm saying the MVC uses the owned properties to fulfill vacation obligations.

I've added the bolding to point out that while the purchaser owns vacations they do not have ownership guarantees for any specific dates, properties or room types. The other bolding is to emphasize the Trust owns timeshare interests that are available for usage through the MVCD plan. Usage = vacation ownership when available through the plan.

This is part of the State and Legal Disclosures:

"State and Legal Disclosures

2Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program's ability to confirm a specific exchange request is dependant upon the timeshare interests and use periods available or as provided by the provider of accommodations or services. Therefore, Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program cannot guarantee specific resort choices, dates of travel, or types or sizes of accommodations. The earlier an exchange is requested, the better the possibility that a specific request may be confirmed.

6The Marriott Vacation Club Collection is comprised of timeshare interests owned by the MVC Trust and available for usage through the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations timeshare plan and timeshare interests that are available for usage through the MVC Exchange Company; please see the applicable Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program documents for more information. Resorts with property that comprise the MVC Trust are described in the documents provided at the time of sale, and more particularly on the exhibit entitled Component Site Chart, which may be revised from time to time. Request for occupancy at resorts with small amounts of property in the MVC Trust, as set forth in the Component Site Chart, will be fulfilled primarily through the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program. As of February 26, 2013 2/26/13, there are currently timeshare interests located at 43 resorts owned by the MVC Trust (as of October 17, 2013 this will increase to 46 resorts).and those resorts are designated with the symbol ]. As of February 26, 2013, there are currently 57 resorts, including the aforementioned 43 resorts, with timeshare interests available for exchange through the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program, or through the World Traveler Collection (as for the resorts located in Thailand only and those resorts are designated with the symbol . Please see the applicable Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program documents for more information.

WOW... You have to respect posters opinions, but damn you know how to use facts!

Interesting post on the marketing language, as well.

 

[SueDonJ]

You own points to reserve a vacation based on availability in the plan. You got a vacation. It came with flexibility, convenience and affordability. If you own lots of these points you can take lots of advantage for this flexibility, convenience and affordability.

Marriott could say they delivered with a warm greeting and a smile, a nice room, a building convenient to the Marketplace. Fine amenities on the property.

Were the elevators working? If so, you were very lucky.

So you're saying that all these sections you're quoting are proof that DC Trust Members have no claim to a higher place in the established Priority Placement Systems already in effect at the resorts, right?

Well, using that logic Weeks Owners have no claim to any certain placements either because the governing docs for Weeks do not guarantee anything more than a Week in the season/unit type you purchased (provided, of course, that you follow the rules.) At least, I haven't come across any such language in the Weeks docs that supports the placement system they've been implementing for years. Maybe you have, and if so you'll be happy to post that, too?

Marriott created this situation by integrating their new DC Points product with their existing Weeks system. IMO Marriott should now complete the integration by incorporating DC Members into the established, published - but not legally, contractually-supported - Priority Placement System.

 

[csalter2]

Quilter is spot on!

I totally agree with Quilter beacause he is accurate! When push comes to shove the bottom line is that you have points for a vacation, no more and no less. You points guarantee usage. If you had any sort of priority, believe me the marketing would be pointing that out in bold. Remember, you can request but there are no guarantees. People get upset because they want a specific room or location at a resort and get outright UGLY. However, a resort may attempt a probably will but they cannot guarantee. This is what upset owners and they start ranting on boards like this.

There will come a time when availability, particularly at high demand seasons at prime resorts, when it will be extremely difficult to get into those resorts. Being a premier plus or premier member will mean something then but the reservation will still be moot.

I say this from my experience with DRI. Marriott's DC is very similar in so many ways. DRI has platinum, gold and silver members. I am a gold member but I do not have priority in getting a particular room. My points are for the view category and room size. However, when I walk through the door the front desk recognizes that I am a gold owner. As a gold owner, platinum, or silver level owner you do get certain privileges. I can upgrade for less points when I make reservations. I get higher discounts for the cruises, air miles, and tours, etc. These are all outside of the real reason why I am in the Club as DRI refers to it. The key difference with DRI is the home resort collection. Marriott does not have that so I don't feel homeless in paradise. I get a 13 month advantage in booking over other DRI owner outside of my collection (resorts in the trust). Those outside of the collection can reserve at 10 months out and if you are deeded you can reserve 12 months out. That distincton is what Marriott lacks. That's what makes you feel homeless. As a points owner you are a glorified exchanger.

By the way this is a vacation club. Isn't it called the Destinations Club?

 

[SueDonJ]

I totally agree with Quilter beacause he is accurate! When push comes to shove the bottom line is that you have points for a vacation, no more and no less. You points guarantee usage. If you had any sort of priority, believe me the marketing would be pointing that out in bold. Remember, you can request but there are no guarantees. People get upset because they want a specific room or location at a resort and get outright UGLY. However, a resort may attempt a probably will but they cannot guarantee. This is what upset owners and they start ranting on boards like this.

There will come a time when availability, particularly at high demand seasons at prime resorts, when it will be extremely difficult to get into those resorts. Being a premier plus or premier member will mean something then but the reservation will still be moot.

I say this from my experience with DRI. Marriott's DC is very similar in so many ways. DRI has platinum, gold and silver members. I am a gold member but I do not have priority in getting a particular room. My points are for the view category and room size. However, when I walk through the door the front desk recognizes that I am a gold owner. As a gold owner, platinum, or silver level owner you do get certain privileges. I can upgrade for less points when I make reservations. I get higher discounts for the cruises, air miles, and tours, etc. These are all outside of the real reason why I am in the Club as DRI refers to it. The key difference with DRI is the home resort collection. Marriott does not have that so I don't feel homeless in paradise. I get a 13 month advantage in booking over other DRI owner outside of my collection (resorts in the trust). Those outside of the collection can reserve at 10 months out and if you are deeded you can reserve 12 months out. That distincton is what Marriott lacks. That's what makes you feel homeless. As a points owner you are a glorified exchanger.

By the way this is a vacation club. Isn't it called the Destinations Club?

Your Weeks ownership doesn't guarantee anything more, either, than usage on a first-come-first-served, availability basis. No specific hierarchy or unit placements are guaranteed by the contracts.

Plus, wasn't the Weeks system sold as MVCI, Marriott Vacation Club, Int'l?

 

[csalter2]

SueDonJ, that's correct!

So you're saying that all these sections you're quoting are proof that DC Trust Members have no claim to a higher place in the established Priority Placement Systems already in effect at the resorts, right?

Well, using that logic Weeks Owners have no claim to any certain placements either because the governing docs for Weeks do not guarantee anything more than a Week in the season/unit type you purchased (provided, of course, that you follow the rules.) At least, I haven't come across any such language in the Weeks docs that supports the placement system they've been implementing for years. Maybe you have, and if so you'll be happy to post that, too?

Marriott created this situation by integrating their new DC Points product with their existing Weeks system. IMO Marriott should now complete the integration by incorporating DC Members into the established, published - but not legally, contractually-supported - Priority Placement System.

SueDonJ, that's right. Weeks owners do not have a contractual guarantee either for a specific location unless they have a fixed week and there is only one of the rooms of that type. Our contracts only guarantee usage too. We can occupy, rent or exchange our ownership in the timeshare. It is sold like so much more, but the bottom line is what you signed for on the line.

 

[SueDonJ]

SueDonJ, that's right. Weeks owners do not have a contractual guarantee either for a specific location unless they have a fixed week and there is only one of the rooms of that type. Our contracts only guarantee usage too. We can occupy, rent or exchange our ownership in the timeshare. It is sold like so much more, but the bottom line is what you signed for on the line.

Good point, that fixed unit ownerships are not included in this discussion.

 

[Quilter]

So you're saying that all these sections you're quoting are proof that DC Trust Members have no claim to a higher place in the established Priority Placement Systems already in effect at the resorts, right?

Well, using that logic Weeks Owners have no claim to any certain placements either because the governing docs for Weeks do not guarantee anything more than a Week in the season/unit type you purchased (provided, of course, that you follow the rules.) At least, I haven't come across any such language in the Weeks docs that supports the placement system they've been implementing for years. Maybe you have, and if so you'll be happy to post that, too?

Marriott created this situation by integrating their new DC Points product with their existing Weeks system. IMO Marriott should now complete the integration by incorporating DC Members into the established, published - but not legally, contractually-supported - Priority Placement System.

Sue, I'll start with your last paragraph. What you and others (but not me) are fighting for is an integration of DC members into priority placement system according to your agenda and your agenda seems to have them equal with owners.

I'm not sure how the current priority placement system came into effect but somehow as a customer service one was devised and Marriott HAS integrated the DC members somewhere below owners. They are not owners at a property. They have vacation usage ownership.

As I've mentioned in several previous posts, it is ultimately in the hands of the rooms location people at each resort. The variables are owners, DC users, renters, MR users, II exchangers and tour guests then you add in check-in days and duration of stay. You are right, there are no guarantees for any of them except for week season/unit type you mentioned above. Waiting in the check-in line has always been a dreaded time of anxiety. Even when you are finally called up to the counter you hold your breath for the moment they reveal your room number. And they have been trained or conditioned to do that with a sense there will, most likely, be automatic push back as the customer assesses the suitability of such room.

Is there legal footing for owners to keep their priority? I contend there is. It always helps to find something in writing and to find a precedence. I have both. On the my-vacationclub.com website:

"Introducing an Exciting New Usage Option for Our Owners

Marriott Vacation Club is pleased to introduce a new usage option to enhance the value of your
ownership—the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations™ Exchange Program. This new usage option is a
flexible, easy-to-use, points-based enhancement that you can choose to add to your ownership.
Highlights of the program:
Inspired by feedback from owners like you seeking even more flexibility in their
vacation planning options.
Once enrolled, each year you can elect to use Vacation Club Points to explore new
vacation options or use your week just as you have in the past.
Benefits of the program include:
Unparalleled flexibility and simplicity
Simplified fee structure
Ever expanding array of vacation choices
As always with Marriott Vacation Club, the choice is yours—your ownership will not change and will only be
enhanced with the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program if you decide to enroll."

Whether by written internal memo or whatever I have had preferential room location treatment at my home resorts as a result of ownership. (That goes to precedence). The above states in two places that my ownership will not change. I've added the bolding, but if you go to the my-vacationclub website you will also see Marriott has added it's own bolding.

Making the DC Trust members equal to me for room location priority would, in turn, have an effect on my existing ownership because I would have more "owners" to compete with for room location.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue, I'll start with your last paragraph. What you and others (but not me) are fighting for is an integration of DC members into priority placement system according to your agenda and your agenda seems to have them equal with owners. ...

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.

I'm not sure how the current priority placement system came into effect but somehow as a customer service one was devised and Marriott HAS integrated the DC members somewhere below owners. They are not owners at a property. They have vacation usage ownership.

As I've mentioned in several previous posts, it is ultimately in the hands of the rooms location people at each resort. The variables are owners, DC users, renters, MR users, II exchangers and tour guests then you add in check-in days and duration of stay. You are right, there are no guarantees for any of them except for week season/unit type you mentioned above. Waiting in the check-in line has always been a dreaded time of anxiety. Even when you are finally called up to the counter you hold your breath for the moment they reveal your room number. And they have been trained or conditioned to do that with a sense there will, most likely, be automatic push back as the customer assesses the suitability of such room.

Is there legal footing for owners to keep their priority? I contend there is. It always helps to find something in writing and to find a precedence. I have both. On the my-vacationclub.com website:

"Introducing an Exciting New Usage Option for Our Owners

Marriott Vacation Club is pleased to introduce a new usage option to enhance the value of your
ownership—the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations™ Exchange Program. This new usage option is a
flexible, easy-to-use, points-based enhancement that you can choose to add to your ownership.
Highlights of the program:
Inspired by feedback from owners like you seeking even more flexibility in their
vacation planning options.
Once enrolled, each year you can elect to use Vacation Club Points to explore new
vacation options or use your week just as you have in the past.
Benefits of the program include:
Unparalleled flexibility and simplicity
Simplified fee structure
Ever expanding array of vacation choices
As always with Marriott Vacation Club, the choice is yours—your ownership will not change and will only be
enhanced with the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program if you decide to enroll."

Whether by written internal memo or whatever I have had preferential room location treatment at my home resorts as a result of ownership. (That goes to precedence). The above states in two places that my ownership will not change. I've added the bolding, but if you go to the my-vacationclub website you will also see Marriott has added it's own bolding. ...

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.

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? The one at your resort(s) where you always get a priority for the "best" units? 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?

Making the DC Trust members equal to me for room location priority would, in turn, have an effect on my existing ownership because I would have more "owners" to compete with for room location.

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.)

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.

 

[suzannesimon]

I wasn't saying a 7 day reservation should trump a 1-6 day stay. I was trying to point out that most resorts spread the Fri./Sat./Sun. check-ins evenly amongst the villas. Then the front desk has to fit in there the renters and DC members who have shorter stays.

What about the owner/MVC Exchanger who adds 3 days to their owned week? Would you insist they move units? If not, that leaves 4 nights open in what you would consider a prime location. How would you fill it. . .renter, MVC Exchange? Also, don't forget the rooms that get taken out of rotation for days when there is a major repair.

At Ocean Pointe the Management has a weekly session on the Activities for room location sudoku. They do this as a friendly way to introduce the complexities of room assignments. I've never gone to one of these. I'm glad it's not my job.

Just think of the different levels of guests there are at any given property:

owners
DC Trust points exchangers
DC Legacy points exchangers
II exchangers
renters
MR point users
Tour packages
DYKWIA's

My personal opinion (maybe not opinion, maybe wish is the right term) would be that 2-4 days during prime holiday weeks with full occupancy would not get as high of priority on location as someone staying 7 or MORE days. Without the skim, I would be converting my units to points, starting my reservations on Thursday and hopefully getting a prime location before all the weeks people check in on Fri, Sat, Sun. It seems like a waste to break up a top location unit for a short stay - that is all I'm saying. I have fixed weeks so my pecking order would be:

Fixed Week Owners in their purchased week & Multi-Week Owners
Home Resort Owners & Trust Owners
Legacy Points Owners Trading In
Renters (that's a good question - do they get the owner's priority?)
Resort Reservations
II Exchangers
Sales-Presentation Reservations

 

[csalter2]

Let's Be Realistic...

i believe we all need to be a little more realistic. We need to only expect that we get the room size and view we requested. Anything else is truly gravy.

You have people who come to the resort with varying room sizes, varying views, and more importantly, varying number of days that they are going to stay. I don't care if you are trust, legacy, weeks, points, whatever owner you have. Your room assignment will depend on what's available that day. You can call and speak to the almighty but if you want to be in building A on the top floor and those units are currently occupied, you will be in building B with your view and size unit you requested. There is no crystal ball until the morning checkouts. That's just a fact.

 

[puckmanfl]

good evening....

I am a glorified exchanger as a Legacy enrolled owner. The Trust owner is an owner at a resort called the "Trust". He/ she is "not an exchanger" I am just guessing that a Koolina (or any other weeks owner) occupying his/her own week, would be enraged if an exchanger or Trust owner snagged a better room in a particular category...

We can talk all we want about how we just purchased a vactation and room assignment is moot. However, every single resort has a written document regarding priority for room placement!!! I am not a "view " guy having purchased IV and MV at my Hawaii properties, but to some it is crucial!!!!

 

[SueDonJ]

i believe we all need to be a little more realistic. We need to only expect that we get the room size and view we requested. Anything else is truly gravy.

You have people who come to the resort with varying room sizes, varying views, and more importantly, varying number of days that they are going to stay. I don't care if you are trust, legacy, weeks, points, whatever owner you have. Your room assignment will depend on what's available that day. You can call and speak to the almighty but if you want to be in building A on the top floor and those units are currently occupied, you will be in building B with your view and size unit you requested. There is no crystal ball until the morning checkouts. That's just a fact.

We don't even have to call anymore - Owner Services sends out emails in advance of every stay asking for our placement requests and directs the replies to the resort personnel. Why do they ask if they don't intend to use the information for some purpose!?

I agree with you that we're legally entitled to only what's stipulated in the contracts, "the room size and view" that we purchased. But we all know that over the years Marriott has encouraged, if not stipulated, that the resorts should implement a hierarchy for unit placement based on ownership status. It's not the owners' fault that they feel a sense of entitlement (although many take it to the extreme, no doubt.) That's why some owners in this thread are saying that their historical usage patterns should not be impacted by DC Points users - because Marriott set the precedent of them having a priority.

Now Marriott has come along and changed the landscape to include a new type of owner. Why shouldn't DC Trust and Exchange Members expect that their place in the hierarchy be established and published the same as every other owner's place, according to the same parameters that Marriott used to set the original hierarchy? That is, ownership status?

I don't see that the only choices are EITHER no Priority Placement System at all OR the status quo, which appears to be a system that doesn't take into account at all that DC Members are Marriott owners. There has to be a middle, reasonable ground which incorporates all owners and IMO Marriott has been remiss in not addressing this issue.

 

[m61376]

If a point is truly a point...

Then it's a catch 22- IF legacy points = Trust points, then Trust points can't lay claim to an ownership entitlement for priority placement. I can't foresee that at resort level they will be able to assign units based on what type of points were used for the reservation, in which case all DC reservations would need to be treated as exchanges to some degree. Imagine the difficulty in distinguishing whether the reservation was made with Trust points, Legacy points, or some combo thereof, and then categorizing assignments based on which type of points were used.

While I do think that DC reservations should be given priority over II exchangers, I don't think that even pure trust reservations are on equal footing with a legacy week owner using his/her owned week at the resort he/she specifically owns and supports with his/her maintenance fees. I do think ownership at a specific resort should carry some advantages at that property.

But you're right, Sue- there should be some consistency and owners and DC "exchangers" should know what to expect.

 

[Fasttr]

So has any points owner ever seen their rate rules ever say anything other than "MVC EXCHANGE"? I would expect that if something was booked directly out of the trust, then it should say something different, but perhaps it doesn't. Though one would suspect that whenever using a mix of trust and legacy points, the reservation would always be going through the MVC Exchange Company.

Sorry if this has already been asked and answered, but I read page 1, then skimmed a few posts, then read the last page of posts. Anyhow, I have seen "MVC Trust" on a reservation I made back in January 2012 for a week in March of 2013 at MGV. Here is the info...

Summary of Room Charges Cost per night per room (USD)
Saturday, March 2, 2013 - Saturday, March 9, 2013 ( 7 nights )
MVC TRUST
Estimated government taxes and fees Included
• Complimentary on-site parking
• Changes in taxes or fees implemented after booking will affect the total room price.

And this was one that I attempted to use both Legacy AND Trust points to book, only to have it not work, and when I called and spoke to a rep, was told that the week was only available in the Trust and therefore I could only use trust points to reserve it. I guess this leads me to think that what they were saying was correct...at least at that point in time. Every reservation I have made since then has said MVC Exchange on it and those were at (Aruba OC, MGV again, and Newport Coast).

 

[bobpark56]

good morning....

This is interesting!!! Usually 3 bedrooms are in the best locations and mostly OF...Exceptions include MV at Koolina and 1st floor "OF" at ocean Pointe. ....

I have only 3 data points here, but our experience at Marriott Marbella is that views from the 2BR units are noticeably better than they were from our 3BR unit.

 

[SueDonJ]

Then it's a catch 22- IF legacy points = Trust points, then Trust points can't lay claim to an ownership entitlement for priority placement. I can't foresee that at resort level they will be able to assign units based on what type of points were used for the reservation, in which case all DC reservations would need to be treated as exchanges to some degree. Imagine the difficulty in distinguishing whether the reservation was made with Trust points, Legacy points, or some combo thereof, and then categorizing assignments based on which type of points were used.

While I do think that DC reservations should be given priority over II exchangers, I don't think that even pure trust reservations are on equal footing with a legacy week owner using his/her owned week at the resort he/she specifically owns and supports with his/her maintenance fees. I do think ownership at a specific resort should carry some advantages at that property.

But you're right, Sue- there should be some consistency and owners and DC "exchangers" should know what to expect.

About the new item you've brought into the discussion, Maintenance Fees -

If paying MF's is a critical point which "verifies" ownership, certainly DC Trust Members must be seen as equal to Weeks Owners because their per-point MF's incorporate the resorts' MF's for the Weeks conveyed to the Trust.

I don't know if that's what you're saying or not?

 

[rpgriego]

...every single resort has a written document regarding priority for room placement!!! I am not a "view " guy having purchased IV and MV at my Hawaii properties, but to some it is crucial!!!!

Does Marriott require each resort to publish their "priority for room placement" document?

But we all know that over the years Marriott has encouraged, if not stipulated, that the resorts should implement a hierarchy for unit placement based on ownership status.

Is there proof of MVCI/MVW encouraged, if not stipulated? This timeline seems to counter direct instructions from MVW.

Now Marriott has come along and changed the landscape to include a new type of owner. Why shouldn't DC Trust and Exchange Members expect that their place in the hierarchy be established and published the same as every other owner's place, according to the same parameters that Marriott used to set the original hierarchy? That is, ownership status?

What are "the same parameters that Marriott used to set the original hierarchy? That is, ownership status?"?

There has to be a middle, reasonable ground which incorporates all owners and IMO Marriott has been remiss in not addressing this issue.

Isn't the question... How does Marriott address hierarchy to a 1,000; 1,500; 2,000; 2,500; etc. vs the various other ownership types? And is it MVW's responsibility or the elected HOAs?

If paying MF's is a critical point which "verifies" ownership, certainly DC Trust Members must be seen as equal to Weeks Owners because their per-point MF's incorporate the resorts' MF's for the Weeks conveyed to the Trust.

If MFs become a ownership verification, the question then becomes... I pay under $1,750 annually for my Ko Olina week. 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.

 

[jeepie]

Yes, but...

...I don't think that even pure trust reservations are on equal footing with a legacy week owner using his/her owned week at the resort he/she specifically owns and supports with his/her maintenance fees...QUOTE]
Points owners also support ALL the resorts with MFs (and at a substantial $.43 per point, it can be argued they deserve equitable treatment). Having points, as well as both unenrolled and enrolled weeks, helps assure my objectivity, imho. Cheers.

 

[NightSkyTraveler]

Bottom line, Trust owners are not being treated as owners of anything at the properties. That is why I am homeless in the trust.


FT

As only a trust points owner, I have to disagree with this (to a point). Over Easter, checking into Harbour Lakes, we were asked if we were owners. I replied that we were points only. She promptly replied, "welcome home." We were treated as owners.

I really don't expect that kind of treatment, but it is nice. I do not really know which rooms at places are the "best" views for their category (is there something on TUG that tells/shows which rooms are "better" at each resort based on categories???), but I am also not overly concerned. We have been placed into most of our requests per the pre-vacation request forms, but again, I don't ever get my hopes up.

As far as priority, I feel that people in their home resort should have preference. That may change later, but for now, I am on vacation and enjoying my time wherever I may go.

 

[suzannesimon]

I have only 3 data points here, but our experience at Marriott Marbella is that views from the 2BR units are noticeably better than they were from our 3BR unit.

I haven't stayed in an Aruba Surf Club 3 BR but rented one for next April. That tier is far back from the beach in the check-in building. My guess is f you need a 3BR and they are relatively rare, you're less likely to complain about location.

 

[davidvel]

Is there legal footing for owners to keep their priority? I contend there is. It always helps to find something in writing and to find a precedence. I have both. On the my-vacationclub.com website:

"Introducing an Exciting New Usage Option for Our Owners

Marriott Vacation Club is pleased to introduce a new usage option to enhance the value of your
ownership—the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations™ Exchange Program. This new usage option is a
flexible, easy-to-use, points-based enhancement that you can choose to add to your ownership.
Highlights of the program:
Inspired by feedback from owners like you seeking even more flexibility in their
vacation planning options.
Once enrolled, each year you can elect to use Vacation Club Points to explore new
vacation options or use your week just as you have in the past.
Benefits of the program include:
Unparalleled flexibility and simplicity
Simplified fee structure
Ever expanding array of vacation choices
As always with Marriott Vacation Club, the choice is yours—your ownership will not change and will only be
enhanced with the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program if you decide to enroll."

Whether by written internal memo or whatever I have had preferential room location treatment at my home resorts as a result of ownership. (That goes to precedence). The above states in two places that my ownership will not change. I've added the bolding, but if you go to the my-vacationclub website you will also see Marriott has added it's own bolding.

Making the DC Trust members equal to me for room location priority would, in turn, have an effect on my existing ownership because I would have more "owners" to compete with for room location.

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:

Once enrolled, each year you can elect to use Vacation Club Points to explore new vacation options or use your week just as you have in the past.

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.

 

[jeepie]

...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.