Call to Starwood about new system

[DeniseM]

1. Since bulk banking is going away, are Starwood weeks deposited into II just going to trickle in daily?

That's a big question mark - if Starwood is going to control ALL deposits from now on, why wouldn't they do bulk space banking? That makes no sense to me...

2. I own WKV week 8, if I deposit my week in II.....If I read this correctly, It will show my deeded week for the deposit. If this id the case, and they are going forward with using the deeded week, are we now eligible to get the bonus weeks, like Marriott owners get?

I think that was one of the first theories, but now it appears that you will be assigned a generic trade value, based on the season that you own. There is no indication that we will start getting AC's.

 

[tomandrobin]

I think that was one of the first theories, but now it appears that you will be assigned a generic trade value, based on the season that you own. There is no indication that we will start getting AC's.

Has anyone asked about getting them? Are we the only system not to get AC's for depositing "premium" weeks?

 

[ArtsieAng]

I spoke with Carla Smith yesterday.....She had asked me a number of times if I tried searching with my new "Gold Plus" designation, implying that the trade power would not differ from "Platinum."

When you do an on-line search in II, you are seeing weeks that no one has an on going request for. Under those circumstances, you most likely would not be able to distinguish any difference in trade power.....A Starwood studio might very well be able to grab a 1, 2 bdrm, etc, regardless of designation. This is not how you test trading power!


The real test of trading power comes into play when you place a request for a particular week in II. Request will be granted based on how far in advance the request has been placed, as well as trading power.....With Starwood giving our weeks particular designations, we can expect our trading power to equal our designation, all else being equal. If you own a "Platinum" week, and have now been given a "Gold Plus" designation, your trading power should be diminished.

They are pushing a "seasonality" theory, and ignoring your right to reserve your deeded week.

I don't believe that they will deposit your deeded week. A generic week will be deposited for you........If they were to deposit my deeded week into II, it would be given a "Platinum" designation. It falls within the time frame of "Palmetto" which if purchased by Starwood, has been given the Platinum designation.

 

[Twinkstarr]

That's a big question mark - if Starwood is going to control ALL deposits from now on, why wouldn't they do bulk space banking? That makes no sense to me...



I think that was one of the first theories, but now it appears that you will be assigned a generic trade value, based on the season that you own. There is no indication that we will start getting AC's.

Well we've seen some of the first deposits under the new system, tiny bulk bank of studios at WKORV-N in Flexchange. And no *wood priority.

Last minute HRA locked-off 3br unit for Labor Day weekend(flexchange again).

9/20 WKORV 2br, flexchange unit.

So is this what we are going to get? Flexchange units.

 

[Fredm]

That's a big question mark - if Starwood is going to control ALL deposits from now on, why wouldn't they do bulk space banking? That makes no sense to me...

As I understand it, deposits will be made from the resort owned, and in the season owned. The reason they are not bulk banking is in acquiescence to the issues raised here about its unfairness. That is a plus, as far as it goes. Prior to this change, an SVN member had zero assurance that the assigned deposit represented a home resort deposit, never mind in the season owned.
For non-SVN owners, it is half a loaf. They do not get to deposit the week reserved, but no more grinding telephone calls about being assigned something other than what is owned. Same resort, same season.

Sure, it is not perfect from a non-SVN owners perspective. But, nonetheless, fair on balance. It does not place total control in the hands of the owner. But, it also assigns an average value that has representative clout with I.I.
As I have stated here before, making one call to request an I.I. deposit which is from your home resort in the season owned is a legitimate approach to the matter. It may not be optimal for some owners, but it is both legitimate , and how many timeshare owners exercise their exchange requests elsewhere.
For every negative someone can point to, an offsetting benefit can be cited to the owner base at large.

I am not a proponent of Starwood's management of this issue, and others. But, I am saying that the new implementation is something hard to argue with, if substance and fairness is the measure, IMO.

There is a lot of pot stirring going on about flex deposits, etc. These do not serve a constructive purpose. Flex deposits are just that. Extra inventory being made available to the I.I. general membership during flex time. Nothing more or less. I.I. would NEVER accept a flex deposit from Starwood as inventory for a owner's legitimate exchange request.

Everyone should take a deep breath on this implementation until the system has a chance to shake out. There will be plenty of time to discuss real inequities that may exist, once they are fact.

 

[ArtsieAng]

As I understand it, deposits will be made from the resort owned, and in the season owned. The reason they are not bulk banking is in acquiescence to the issues raised here about its unfairness. That is a plus, as far as it goes. Prior to this change, an SVN member had zero assurance that the assigned deposit represented a home resort deposit, never mind in the season owned.
For non-SVN owners, it is half a loaf. They do not get to deposit the week reserved, but no more grinding telephone calls about being assigned something other than what is owned. Same resort, same season.

Sure, it is not perfect from a non-SVN owners perspective. But, nonetheless, fair on balance. It does not place total control in the hands of the owner.
But, it also assigns an average value that has representative clout with I.I.

It is not fair at all, IMO.....I am not interested in Starwood controlling my week, or receiving an "average value." I want what I purchased....The right to reserve my deeded week, and do with it what I choose.


As I have stated here before, making one call to request an I.I. deposit which is from your home resort in the season owned is a legitimate approach to the matter. It may not be optimal for some owners, but it is both legitimate , and how many timeshare owners exercise their exchange requests elsewhere.
For every negative someone can point to, an offsetting benefit can be cited to the owner base at large.

Again.....I am not interested in the "owner base at large," I want what I am entitled to. Are you advocating that we give up our individual deeded rights, and take one for the team?

I am not a proponent of Starwood's management of this issue, and others. But, I am saying that the new implementation is something hard to argue with, if substance and fairness is the measure, IMO.

How exactly do you see no longer being able to reserve your deeded week, for deposit into II, something that you should be entitled to, as "fair?" My deed gives me the right to reserve my deeded week, and Starwood does NOT have the right to take that away from me......For any reason, IMO.


There is a lot of pot stirring going on about flex deposits, etc. These do not serve a constructive purpose. Flex deposits are just that. Extra inventory being made available to the I.I. general membership during flex time. Nothing more or less. I.I. would NEVER accept a flex deposit from Starwood as inventory for a owner's legitimate exchange request.

Everyone should take a deep breath on this implementation until the system has a chance to shake out. There will be plenty of time to discuss real inequities that may exist, once they are fact.

What is currently "fact," is that Starwood is arbitrarily designating weeks as they see fit.

 

[Twinkstarr]

As I understand it, deposits will be made from the resort owned, and in the season owned. The reason they are not bulk banking is in acquiescence to the issues raised here about its unfairness. That is a plus, as far as it goes. Prior to this change, an SVN member had zero assurance that the assigned deposit represented a home resort deposit, never mind in the season owned.
For non-SVN owners, it is half a loaf. They do not get to deposit the week reserved, but no more grinding telephone calls about being assigned something other than what is owned. Same resort, same season.

Sure, it is not perfect from a non-SVN owners perspective. But, nonetheless, fair on balance. It does not place total control in the hands of the owner. But, it also assigns an average value that has representative clout with I.I.
As I have stated here before, making one call to request an I.I. deposit which is from your home resort in the season owned is a legitimate approach to the matter. It may not be optimal for some owners, but it is both legitimate , and how many timeshare owners exercise their exchange requests elsewhere.
For every negative someone can point to, an offsetting benefit can be cited to the owner base at large.

I am not a proponent of Starwood's management of this issue, and others. But, I am saying that the new implementation is something hard to argue with, if substance and fairness is the measure, IMO.

There is a lot of pot stirring going on about flex deposits, etc. These do not serve a constructive purpose. Flex deposits are just that. Extra inventory being made available to the I.I. general membership during flex time. Nothing more or less. I.I. would NEVER accept a flex deposit from Starwood as inventory for a owner's legitimate exchange request.

Everyone should take a deep breath on this implementation until the system has a chance to shake out. There will be plenty of time to discuss real inequities that may exist, once they are fact.

Sorry Fred, but I don't think I'm stirring the pot. Just saying this is what I have observed in II so far.

Why do you say II wouldn't except a flex deposit for a legitimate exchange request?

 

[rickandcindy23]

From my vantage point, Marriott has a much better deal through II than Starwood. I think that is what bothers me the most. Starwood shouldn't be shutting down internal priority periods.

This is so odd to me. I feel like II is a victim of Starwood's attempts to shut down the resale buyers who know how to work the exchange system, just to stop a few of us who figured it out. It seems counterproductive because it will drive resale values even lower.

 

[DeniseM]

Fred - I agree that we don't really understand fully what's going on, yet, but that is completely Starwood's fault! They obviously are trying to fly under the radar here, by not providing any info. to owners about a huge change! If they really believed this was a positive change, they would be making announcements all over the place and patting themselves on the back about "surprising and delighting us"!

It is unbelievable to me that even though Starwood's chief counsel has told non-SVN owners over and over again that they have the legal right to deposit the week of their choice with II, that now Starwood is reversing it, with no announcement?

It's just appalling...and unethical....and it says so much about Starwood's lack of loyalty to it's customers....

 

[Captron]

I agree that this is probably better for the "owner base at large" but why should I/we be penalized as the minority because we have taken the time and effort to EDUCATE ourselves and use the system to our advantage WITHIN THE RULES that they have established? They are STARWOOD's rules written by them! Some of us learned them well and shared what we know with others to get best possible advantage WITHIN THE RULES as stated. Why are they changing the rules, seemingly, to stop this activity?

Pushing the rules to the limits for ones own advantage is standard procedure whether it is in sport, business, law, or life!!! (ie ever tried to get something stated but NOT written into the formal contract? - NOT gonna happen 9.99/10 times!) For example, do I feel for the person who takes a paltry injury (or other) settlement WITHOUT even consulting a lawyer? Sure I do! Do I feel responsible? No I DO NOT!

I feel no remorse for educating myself and using every advantage I can while working within the rules! I have no responsibility for those that get into this who can not or will not educate themselves as much as they can to do likewise. In fact, I do put out effort, as we all do here, to help those that come and wish to help themselves. We, our fearless moderator and select others in particular, answer the same questions repeatedly and SHARE the advantages we have learned (often with considerable effort and time) FREELY with all who come here, member and guest alike. We DO NOT keep our learned "tricks" secret, we DO NOT, and DO NOT ENCOURAGE others to function outside the rules. We answer questions based on what we have learned and shared when people CAN NOT get straight answers to the same questions from Starwood.

I think we all, most here more than me, have and continue to go ABOVE and BEYOND to help out other owners. We DO NOT keep things we have learned SECRET to maintain an exclusive advantage. WE SHARE THEM FREELY! The key here is that these people have to find us and ask questions and read. Not a big task! (at least after you have caught up with years of threads) I point owners and those interested in ownership to this resource ALL THE TIME! People I come across on other boards and in person.

Do I then feel any responsibility for those that DO NOT put out the effort, factually the "owner base at large"? My general approach is the I do not take ownership of other peoples problems, particularly when they result from their own action or lack of action. So the answer is NO, I DO NOT!

So do I feel I should give up advantages gained (within the rules) because it helps the "ownership at large" NO I DO NOT!!!!!! JMHO

 

[gmarine]

Giving up the right to deposit your reserved week isnt good for anyone. Let Starwood take this and who knows what could be next. In some regards the point of what is happening is getting lost. Is isnt just that trade power is or isnt affected. It isnt just that our season designation has changed with II.

It is that Starwood is taking away our RIGHT to do as we wish with a DEEDED unit. Once I make that reservation, it is MINE and nobody is going to tell me what I can do with it.

 

[Fredm]

Sorry Fred, but I don't think I'm stirring the pot. Just saying this is what I have observed in II so far.

Why do you say II wouldn't except a flex deposit for a legitimate exchange request?

Twinkstarr, I am not questioning your observations. If you thought so, I apologize.
Observing a flex week does not in any way equate to that deposit being representative of what is being used for an owners exchange request. It's just a flex week available in the system.
It certainly does not mean that it is all you are entitled to exchange into UNLESS your actual deposit was considered a Late Deposit.
And, that is the reason I.I. would never accept a flex deposit for a legitimate exchange request.
Those are the rules, pure and simple.

 

[Fredm]

I agree that this is probably better for the "owner base at large" but why should I/we be penalized as the minority because we have taken the time and effort to EDUCATE ourselves and use the system to our advantage WITHIN THE RULES that they have established? They are STARWOOD's rules written by them! Some of us learned them well and shared what we know with others to get best possible advantage WITHIN THE RULES as stated. Why are they changing the rules, seemingly, to stop this activity?

Pushing the rules to the limits for ones own advantage is standard procedure whether it is in sport, business, law, or life!!! (ie ever tried to get something stated but NOT written into the formal contract? - NOT gonna happen 9.99/10 times!) For example, do I feel for the person who takes a paltry injury (or other) settlement WITHOUT even consulting a lawyer? Sure I do! Do I feel responsible? No I DO NOT!

I feel no remorse for educating myself and using every advantage I can while working within the rules! I have no responsibility for those that get into this who can not or will not educate themselves as much as they can to do likewise. In fact, I do put out effort, as we all do here, to help those that come and wish to help themselves. We, our fearless moderator and select others in particular, answer the same questions repeatedly and SHARE the advantages we have learned (often with considerable effort and time) FREELY with all who come here, member and guest alike. We DO NOT keep our learned "tricks" secret, we DO NOT, and DO NOT ENCOURAGE others to function outside the rules. We answer questions based on what we have learned and shared when people CAN NOT get straight answers to the same questions from Starwood.

I think we all, most here more than me, have and continue to go ABOVE and BEYOND to help out other owners. We DO NOT keep things we have learned SECRET to maintain an exclusive advantage. WE SHARE THEM FREELY! The key here is that these people have to find us and ask questions and read. Not a big task! (at least after you have caught up with years of threads) I point owners and those interested in ownership to this resource ALL THE TIME! People I come across on other boards and in person.

Do I then feel any responsibility for those that DO NOT put out the effort, factually the "owner base at large"? My general approach is the I do not take ownership of other peoples problems, particularly when they result from their own action or lack of action. So the answer is NO, I DO NOT!

So do I feel I should give up advantages gained (within the rules) because it helps the "ownership at large" NO I DO NOT!!!!!! JMHO

Captron.

I admire your forceful presentation. It would be compelling if based in fact. However, there is a huge difference between your understanding of the system, and the system itself.
You proceed from the assumption that you have educated yourself on how to maximize the system. I would not be so certain in your righteous indignation. Just because you have digested the consensus opinion does not make the consensus correct.

To be clear, I also prefer that an owner have the ability to deposit a reserved week. I was among those who lifted the banner in support of non-SVN owners to not be bound by SVN member rules. Indeed, it was the very basis of my early advocacy of voluntary resort ownership. I agree that those who can game the system within the confines of the system should be able to do so.

But, this is not about my personal preference. It is all about the legitimacy of the matter. At the end of the day THAT is what will count. Not your preference, or mine (which happen to be the same).

I, too, know a little something about how the I.I. exchange system works. My insight was not gained here. Owner rights regarding exchange are based on the affiliation agreement between I.I. and the resort manager. The agreement must, of course, conform to the legal rights of owners. They may be implemented differently from system to system, but that's another issue.

My view of an owner rights regarding exchange deposits has remained unchanged since day one.
I wrote an I.I. primer for Starwood owners a couple of years ago, published here on TUG. I stated then that a non-SVN owner was entitled to a deposit representing their home resort in the season owned.
Having not abdicated their rights to another allocation system, non-SVN owners are entitled to have what they purchased represent an exchange request.
An SVN member had no such rights. The deposit could be from any resort in any season.

Again, this is not about personal preference, but legitimacy.
Your assumption about what knowledge you have gained does not matter either.
If those who care about the issue want to do battle with Starwood, I strongly suggest that you be armed with the facts to support what you claim. To the best of my meager knowledge, a deposit which represents the home resort in the floating season owned, is legitimate. Indeed, it is how many deposits are made elsewhere.

You state: "why should I/we be penalized as the minority because we have taken the time and effort to EDUCATE ourselves and use the system to our advantage WITHIN THE RULES that they have established? They are STARWOOD's rules written by them! Some of us learned them well and shared what we know with others to get best possible advantage WITHIN THE RULES as stated. Why are they changing the rules, seemingly, to stop this activity?"

Really? What rules are those, and where are they written?
See, this is precisely what I mean. You show me where these rules are written, and you have my profound apology on a silver platter.
The only written rules I know of are those pertaining to SVN members.

Respectfully, you may well believe what you are saying because the misinformation has been repeated enough to become the consensus opinion. Consensus opinion does not make it accurate. That's not education, its perpetuating a myth.

 

[Fredm]

Fred - I agree that we don't really understand fully what's going on, yet, but that is completely Starwood's fault! They obviously are trying to fly under the radar here, by not providing any info. to owners about a huge change! If they really believed this was a positive change, they would be making announcements all over the place and patting themselves on the back about "surprising and delighting us"!

It is unbelievable to me that even though Starwood's chief counsel has told non-SVN owners over and over again that they have the legal right to deposit the week of their choice with II, that now Starwood is reversing it, with no announcement?

It's just appalling...and unethical....and it says so much about Starwood's lack of loyalty to it's customers....

Denise, I agree with you. Starwood could have done this much better.

But, I have a theory. An attempt to reconcile what I have observed, and an assumption about Starwood's apparent inability to speak frankly with its owner base.

So, here it goes;
It begins with the assumption that Starwood manages inventory with its best interest in mind. I believe this is the real basis for the SVN bulk deposit procedure, and its ongoing attempt to manage non-SVN owner inventory the same way. They relented, but on a reluctant exception driven basis.
This posed several problems for Starwood. One was the disproportionate overhead associated with managing by exception. A second was the heat it was taking from disenchanted owners, mainly here on TUG. Another was the potential illegality of not representing an owners value for an exchange request. To make matters yet more difficult, it created a disconnect with I.I. who was also spending its time trying to reconcile its process with the Starwood affiliation agreement. It worked fine so long as there were not many complaints which had to be referred back to Starwood for reconciliation.

Clearly, Starwood had to end the madness. And do so in a way that preserved its options in a more limited way. But, they also had to do so in a defensible manner, and consistent with a method I.I. was able to reasonably implement as fair to its underlying system of exchange values.

So, the current implementation was devised to address the above.

Why do so without detailed explanation to the owner base? Why fly under the radar?
Well, I will answer the questions with a question.
Would you bring attention to the fact that you had your hand in the cookie jar, as you were putting the lid back on?

 

[DeniseM]

Fred - thanks for your response - we appreciate your expertise here!

It seems like you have info. about II, that we don't. What are your sources? That might help us to understand where you are coming from.

 

[Fredm]

It is that Starwood is taking away our RIGHT to do as we wish with a DEEDED unit. Once I make that reservation, it is MINE and nobody is going to tell me what I can do with it.

Well, let me ask you a question. Before I do, I ask you to forget what you already know about the process of depositing a week with I.I.

Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?

 

[Fredm]

Fred - thanks for your response - we appreciate your expertise here!

It seems like you have info. about II, that we don't. What are your sources? That might help us to understand where you are coming from.

Denise, I said it was a theory of mine. One that seems consistent with observations I have made.

 

[LisaH]

Well, let me ask you a question. Before I do, I ask you to forget what you already know about the process of depositing a week with I.I.

Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?

That should be fine with me if one can "request first". Once a match is made, Starwood can deposit whatever week they want if II is willing to go with this. If the request is not fulfilled, I have the right to either use the reserved week myself, rent it, or even deposit with RCI.

 

[gmarine]

Well, let me ask you a question. Before I do, I ask you to forget what you already know about the process of depositing a week with I.I.

Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?

If I put in a request first, I'm using a specific week for that request, agreeing to give up that specific week if my request is confirmed.

Once my request has been confirmed, I have at that point given II my unit that was used for the exchange and am out of the equation.

At which Starwood resort do you own?

 

[Twinkstarr]

Well, let me ask you a question. Before I do, I ask you to forget what you already know about the process of depositing a week with I.I.

Would you have the same complaint if you were able to "request first" with the specific week reserved, and had the exchange request filled? Would you care what week Starwood gave I.I. for the filled request, once the trade was actually confirmed?

I guess the question really is are these generic markers by season have the same trading power in II as an actual reserved week. Are you going to get that request filled with one of these markers?

Now the really problem as I see it are the SDO units that float 1-52 or the SBP units that float 9-47ish. Now do you think that an average over that many weeks is going to give you the same trading power as a March week at SDO or a 4th of July at SBP?


I personally think Starwood has gotten themselves into this whole situation with the SVN, non-SVN,voluntary, mandatory resorts. Didn't you once say Fred, they should just end the madness and open SVN up to whoever wants to join.

 

[gmarine]

I guess the question really is are these generic markers by season have the same trading power in II as an actual reserved week. Are you going to get that request filled with one of these markers?

Now the really problem as I see it are the SDO units that float 1-52 or the SBP units that float 9-47ish. Now do you think that an average over that many weeks is going to give you the same trading power as a March week at SDO or a 4th of July at SBP?


I personally think Starwood has gotten themselves into this whole situation with the SVN, non-SVN,voluntary, mandatory resorts. Didn't you once say Fred, they should just end the madness and open SVN up to whoever wants to join.

Both a March week at SDO and a summer week at SBP will have more trade power than a generic "assignment" given to owners of the seasons you mention. I confirmed this with both II and Starwood. Both of those weeks are in platinum season yet the deposits will be given Gold plus trading power by II. This is part of the problem. I reserve one of these high demand weeks as I have the right to as per my deed. I then want to give this week to II and along comes Starwood to say that I cant do that. They will in turn make a deposit for me, however that deposit will have lower trade power than the unit I have made a reservation for. Essentially your being told you cant assign usage of that week to someone else. (II)

Starwood owners should not take this lightly. You never know what could be next. Imagine reserving a specific week for the purpose of renting it, only to be told Starwood has decided that owners cant rent that week because it is such high demand and can only be owner occupied. Or imagine Starwood putting this system into effect covering ALL exchange companies, even independants like SFX.

Its not much further than what they are doing now. You can only get taken advantage of if you let it happen. I refuse to let Starwood tell me what I can do without a fight.

 

[Fredm]

If I put in a request first, I'm using a specific week for that request, agreeing to give up that specific week if my request is confirmed.

Once my request has been confirmed, I have at that point given II my unit that was used for the exchange and am out of the equation.

At which Starwood resort do you own?

I do not currently own at any Starwood resort.
For that matter, I no longer own any timeshares.
Sold the last of them about 18 months ago. That was a 2 bedroom Presidential at Pono Kai. Bought it way back when Glen Ivy was in business. 1983, I think. 26 years ago. Whew! time flies.
Have owned a bunch in between, including WMH.
But, being a resale broker I have more timeshare use opportunities than I can take advantage of, so can't justify paying the fees,
and the capital is happier in my pocket.

The reason I asked the question was to try and figure out what owner "rights" are being surrendered under this new implementation.
Best I can tell non-SVN owners can request first, using their reserved week to do so. They can also do what no one else can, if I understand it right. An owner can actually place a pending request with the UNHEARD OF ability to cancel it! If this is true (and it remains to be seen) everyone should shut up before they change their mind!

If thought about, this "system" can be gamed at least a much as any other. Understanding the system is the key to optimizing its use.

Now, I recognize that a pending request will "just" be a deposit from the owners home resort in the season owned. And the value of the deposit will be a standardized value representative of the seasons exchange clout with I.I. What specifically is wrong with that?
Not hypothetically. But actually, as it translates to obtaining a successful trade?
Best I can tell, and I have tracked a big bunch of them, is that Starwood owners with low season weeks routinely get blockbuster trades.

So, the purists who absolutely must have the ability to trade the reserved week, can do so with a request first. If unsuccessful (and it probably will bear good fruit), the owner can pull it back, convert it to a deposit first, and STILL be able to wash it out if plans change or other opportunities present themselves.
The real difference is that this can all be accomplished with one call.

I am not saying it is identical in every nuance as other timeshare systems. All branded systems have their own wrinkle. Some good, some nor so good.
But, this particular set of wrinkles has to be compared with what existed before. That was hell on wheels for those non-SVN owners trying to pry any control at all away from Starwood, and spending hours on the phone in the attempt.

So far, I am having a hard time with the rant over this.

 

[tschwa2]

Other possible problems with Fredm's "theory". I can call Starwood and reserve any available week in my float period as long as it is 12 months or less. But as soon as I want to do any kind of search with II (request or deposit first) I need to call Starwood, they take back my reserved week and put it in their pot and assign a generic seasonal marker. If I don't see anything I want I would have to call up Starwood a third time (or a second time if I didn't bother to reserve anything in the first place) and again take whatever is available at my resort at that time.

Second problem is even if the generic seasonal markers have good trading power there will be less Prime non mandatory Starwood properties in II because they won't choose to deposit holiday weeks and other prime weeks.

 

[jerseygirl]

Fred -- One of us is misunderstanding the new policy. It's my understanding that I must give up the reserved week when I make the request first. Yes, I can cancel the request first at any time, but so can any other II member -- that's always been permitted -- it's not a new benefit. And, if I do cancel the request first, I have to go back to Starwood and make a new reservation. Chances are good that my original prime week reservation will no longer be available.

Gmarine -- Can you clarify? Do I have it right?

If yes, Fred -- do you still think it's fair?

Oops --edited to add, I was typing at the same time as tchwa2.

 

[gmarine]

I do not currently own at any Starwood resort.
For that matter, I no longer own any timeshares.
Sold the last of them about 18 months ago. That was a 2 bedroom Presidential at Pono Kai. Bought it way back when Glen Ivy was in business. 1983, I think. 26 years ago. Whew! time flies.
Have owned a bunch in between, including WMH.
But, being a resale broker I have more timeshare use opportunities than I can take advantage of, so can't justify paying the fees,
and the capital is happier in my pocket.

The reason I asked the question was to try and figure out what owner "rights" are being surrendered under this new implementation.
Best I can tell non-SVN owners can request first, using their reserved week to do so. They can also do what no one else can, if I understand it right. An owner can actually place a pending request with the UNHEARD OF ability to cancel it! If this is true (and it remains to be seen) everyone should shut up before they change their mind!

If thought about, this "system" can be gamed at least a much as any other. Understanding the system is the key to optimizing its use.

Now, I recognize that a pending request will "just" be a deposit from the owners home resort in the season owned. And the value of the deposit will be a standardized value representative of the seasons exchange clout with I.I. What specifically is wrong with that?
Not hypothetically. But actually, as it translates to obtaining a successful trade?
Best I can tell, and I have tracked a big bunch of them, is that Starwood owners with low season weeks routinely get blockbuster trades.

So, the purists who absolutely must have the ability to trade the reserved week, can do so with a request first. If unsuccessful (and it probably will bear good fruit), the owner can pull it back, convert it to a deposit first, and STILL be able to wash it out if plans change or other opportunities present themselves.
The real difference is that this can all be accomplished with one call.

I am not saying it is identical in every nuance as other timeshare systems. All branded systems have their own wrinkle. Some good, some nor so good.
But, this particular set of wrinkles has to be compared with what existed before. That was hell on wheels for those non-SVN owners trying to pry any control at all away from Starwood, and spending hours on the phone in the attempt.

So far, I am having a hard time with the rant over this.

Non-SVN members CANNOT use request first. You must give up your reservation BEFORE you can make a request.

For example, I have a reservation at SBP next July. Using request first I should be able to put in a request for another destination for dates before those of my home resort reservation, while still retaining my reservation if I dont get the exchange. However, under this new system you can do that. Starwood requires your home resort reservation to be canceled at the time you enter an ongoing request.

Before this new system, Starwood gave non-SVN owners a hard time when depositing reserved weeks. It shouldnt have been that way. This system is just a back door way around for Starwood to take control of deposits. I have the ability to make a reservation for a platinum week. Why would I want to deposit platinum week to get Gold plus trading power?

And forgetting for a minute about any trade power issues, I dont like the idea of Starwood controlling my deposit. Its my reservation, I own it. I never put up with it before, I certainly wont accept it now.

I cant understand why any Starwood owner would put up with it or why you think its OK for Starwood to attempt to control owner deposits.