Call to Starwood about new system

[Twinkstarr]

I'm thinking II is a mess of "what do we do now?" because the 3 destination search limitation is gone again. You can now search like you used to be able to. Maybe II does pay attention to TUG.

-tim

I think they had the limit of the 3 destinations up during the $1 Getaway promotion.

Now that it's over we are back to normal.

 

[l2trade]

One benefit of the new system that no one is talking about is that you don't get penalized for late deposits. If you're trying to rent your unit and it doesn't rent, or your plans change, you can deposit your week right up to the last day of your usage period and still get the same trading power as if you deposited it a year earlier and aren't restricted to doing flexchanges. At least I think this is the case under the new system.

Yes, that appears to be the case with flexchange restrictions removed. I'm not sure how one will be able to tell if it is the same trading power. Due to my other complaints about the new system, I'm certainly not going to test this one out.

On a side note: Another benefit of the new system is that some resale prices at SDO just got a whole lot cheaper.

 

[Pit]

Another new benefit for renters is that owner rentals will become more plentiful. Non-SVN owners will continue to reserve good weeks, but instead of depositing with II they will use redweek, myresortnetwork, and the like, to rent their units. That way they can keep their reserved week intact.

 

[Fredm]

Fred -- I still don't see the legal ground for your argument, sensible as it is. Starwood chooses to maintain two programs, SVN and non-SVN. As such, they have chosen to create two sets of rules. What's objectionable is the argument that they can make some of the rules the same for all, but not all of the rules -- that seems like the definition of arbitrary to me.

jerseygirl,

Not arbitrary as it relates to external exchange. They just 'cleaned" that up.

Sure, there are SVN owners and non. But, that is "Club" membership.

 

[jerseygirl]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Fred. How can you say that the decision to make some resorts mandatory and others voluntary isn't arbitrary....

 

[rickandcindy23]

I agree with you, Jerseygirl. If they want to assign everyone Staroptions, that are now transferable with resale, then I would be just fine with that. Otherwise, I bought with a totally different set of rules than SVN owners did.

 

[jerseygirl]

... I bought with a totally different set of rules than SVN owners did.

Me too cindy -- and I fully understood what I was buying and made the best choices for me. I think that's what ticks me off the most -- I've said it before (sorry for sounding like a broken record), but it boils down to "Starwood wants their cake and they want to eat it too!" I'm of the firm belief that they can't enforce SVN rules (like the new exchange process) without owner consent. But, we'll have to wait and see. Far too many of us have demanded written explanations -- they can't dodge those requests forever and not expect us to get state regulators involved. I'm holding off for an official, written response ...

 

[Fredm]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Fred. How can you say that the decision to make some resorts mandatory and others voluntary isn't arbitrary....

I never said it was not.

I am talking about external exchange.

 

[mqlet]

Well, I just deposited my 2009 small 1bd 1-52 floater at SDO with II. I reserved a Christmas week with Starwood, but was given a Gold Plus floater for my deposit with II. It's currently trading the same as my 2011 Foxrun week #33, except for the fact that I can see the Westins in Hawaii with SDO.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Well, I just deposited my 2009 small 1bd 1-52 floater at SDO with II. I reserved a Christmas week with Starwood, but was given a Gold Plus floater for my deposit with II. It's currently trading the same as my 2011 Foxrun week #33, except for the fact that I can see the Westins in Hawaii with SDO.

This is very good news! Foxrun is a very good trader, and if you can see the Westins, you will probably be able to see the Four Seasons that only higher quality resorts will see (Foxrun will not see FS).

 

[rickandcindy23]

I never said it was not.

I am talking about external exchange.

So were we talking about external exchange. If we own at a resort that is voluntary, we understand that we can deposit the week of our choosing into II. As part of SVN, you cannot. If Starwood wants us to play by the same rules as SVN with the exchange game, at least we should get the Staroptions. But of course that isn't going to happen.

 

[Fredm]

So were we talking about external exchange. If we own at a resort that is voluntary, we understand that we can deposit the week of our choosing into II. As part of SVN, you cannot. If Starwood wants us to play by the same rules as SVN with the exchange game, at least we should get the Staroptions. But of course that isn't going to happen.

Look, all I am doing is stating what I believe is true. That its legit to change the rules of exchange.
I don't like it, I don't support it, and have no problem understanding why anyone affected would not like it.

Why do so many take a "you are either with us , or against us" view of it all?

If you do not think what has happened is legal, do something about it besides repeating the same thing to those who think you don't have a case.

 

[jerseygirl]

If you do not think what has happened is legal, do something about it besides repeating the same thing to those who think you don't have a case.

Fred -- I know your above comment was not addressed to me, but I can't help but reply. We are doing something about it -- official requests for information have been sent and we're awaiting official response. Please don't think we're sitting here doing nothing. You should know us better than that!

It's clear that we don't all agree on the legality aspect of this situation. You seem to think what they're doing is legal. That's your opinion ... just like it's my opinion that you're dead wrong! The important point is that we're all dealing with opinions only at this point.

 

[Fredm]

Fred -- I know your above comment was not addressed to me, but I can't help but reply. We are doing something about it -- official requests for information have been sent and we're awaiting official response. Please don't think we're sitting here doing nothing. You should know us better than that!

It's clear that we don't all agree on the legality aspect of this situation. You seem to think what they're doing is legal. That's your opinion ... just like it's my opinion that you're dead wrong! The important point is that we're all dealing with opinions only at this point.

jerseygirl.

Absolutely. We are dealing with opinions. And, I hope mine is wrong.

You are right; My comment was not addressed to you.
I do know better than to think you would not walk the talk.

Starwood has made their position clear (or as clear as they choose to). They do not feel it necessary to elaborate further. As usual, they are being assumptive. I wish you luck with an official reply that goes beyond that.

 

[DeniseM]

In case anyone else is interested in joining our letter writing campaign, please send a PM to gmarine (George) who is organizing it.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Why do so many take a "you are either with us , or against us" view of it all?

If you do not think what has happened is legal, do something about it besides repeating the same thing to those who think you don't have a case.

I definitely don't feel that way. There are many opinions here, and all of the disagreements are civil; I don't see anyone pounding the keys overbearingly here.

First, we have to get organized and write letters. Then we will look to the next step, which is unknown at this time.

 

[nodge]

Talked to a SVN representative today, a contact that I got from gmarine (by the way, Thank You). She was very nice and patient with all of my list of questions.

[...]

Also asked about bulk banking and was told not going to be done anymore. But that should make more availability within the SVN if they are not going to II.

Shhh. Don't look now, but it appears SVO just deposited a bulk of Westin Mission Hills units into II.

-nodge

 

[grgs]

Apologies if this has been discussed already, and I missed it. I know some of you have been able to deposit your fixed weeks in the some of the sections of SVR. Have any of you been able to deposit your deeded week in the Cascades section?

When I bought mine, I thought Cascades units were 1-52 float. However, the unit shows up in SVN as "Annual Fixed." When I checked with Starwood about this last year, they said the unit is fixed with an option to float. So, I would think I should be able to deposit my deeded week (which is 13).

Glorian

 

[gregb]

It seems that many who post to TUG use their units for trading. But there are those among us that mostly want to use the units they bought, not trade them. For us, there is a benefit to the changes made by *wood and II.

If you often trade your unit, the changes in the program may cause a loss in trading value, and they do certainly make a significant change to the "Request First" option because you cannot keep your reserved week. I would really like to see the old request first rules restored.

But look at if from the perspective of an owner who wants to use his/her unit. Because high demand weeks will not be going into II for trading, owners will now have more opportunity to use their unit during high demand weeks. And somehow it seems better to me that owners get to use the resort at high demand time, rather than people trading in.

Just wanting to add a different point of view to the discussion.

Greg

 

[Pit]

But look at if from the perspective of an owner who wants to use his/her unit. Because high demand weeks will not be going into II for trading, owners will now have more opportunity to use their unit during high demand weeks. And somehow it seems better to me that owners get to use the resort at high demand time, rather than people trading in.

I just have to comment on this logic, because it seems to be prevalent around here -- that is, the idea that an owner who occupies a unit should have priority over an owner who wants to trade out. There is simply no justification for this argument; the same reservation rules apply equally to all owners.

All owners have the same rights to squeeze the greatest value from their ownership, whether through exchange, rental, or occupancy. If trade values were unaffected, then its a moot point. However, because trade value is impacted negatively for some owners, the new system is unjust.

 

[rickandcindy23]

When we closed on our SDO in JULY, there were still weeks available for Easter week, in 2 bedroom units! People are sleeping at the wheel, if they haven't reserved their desired week more than 9 months ahead of their dates. I was so sure I wouldn't get Easter week, but I was offered different check-in days and different unit #'s. We deposited the two halves of the lockout into II before the rule changes.

There are many unhappy SDO owners, definitely, otherwise there wouldn't be eBay listings. But apparently there is no "race" to get the prime weeks. I cannot think of a more prime week than Easter. Maybe SDO should send a newsletter to owners, explaining the one year window to get reservations in their own resorts. That would take care of the issues that people have with exchangers.

 

[Stefa]

I called in September 2007 to make a StarOptions reservation for spring break 2008 and was told that SDO had availability. Since spring break was in March and overlapped with baseball spring training I find it hard to believe owners who want to occupy at SDO are having a hard time getting reservations.

I also feel that owners who wish to occupy should have priority over exchangers (although I don't want to get into a debate about it), but based on my personal experience and what I have read here at TUG, that has not been an issue at the non-SVN Starwood resorts.

 

[Pit]

... owners should have priority over exchangers ...

Exchangers ARE owners.

 

[K2Quick]

But look at if from the perspective of an owner who wants to use his/her unit. Because high demand weeks will not be going into II for trading, owners will now have more opportunity to use their unit during high demand weeks. And somehow it seems better to me that owners get to use the resort at high demand time, rather than people trading in.

I can't see where this is doing much of anything for owners at SDO. I closed on my unit in July and had my pick of pretty much any week I wanted to reserve (ended up with weeks 12 and 13). That's a lot better than a lot of owners in other systems have it as it pertains to competition to make prime reservations. I've not seen any reports on here of SDO owners not being able to reserve prime weeks for their own use with adequate advance notice.

Pure speculation on my part, but I think the change is driven more by *wood wanting to open up more prime inventory to SVN members using *options. If they're doing this to increase unit availability for SVN members, that stinks for us non-SVN members as we're giving up prime weeks to non-owners without the option to join the network ourselves.

 

[Stefa]

Exchangers ARE owners.

Haha. That will teach me not to proofread...