Call to Starwood about new system

[ArtsieAng]

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106239

There was no preference period for this one........just a few days ago. I am very concerned about it.

My Blue Ridge Village has a higher quality rating with II than SBP. I am wondering if I can get a Westin resort with an ongoing search.

There are a few that I posted today with no preference in WPV & KAN, that are outside of the flexchange period.

In the past, Starwood's preference period was only 3 days. More recently it had gone to anywhere from 2-3 weeks. They are not being consistent with their preference period, at this point. Going back to II to see what else is around.

 

[ArtsieAng]

m61376

Marriott always has an internal preference in II, ranging from 24 days to as few as 3 days later in Flexchange.

Yup, Marriott's preference period has always been consistent, and is a great perk for all Marriott owners.

 

[ArtsieAng]

RoshiGuy

OTOH, I cannot get steamed up about losing some trading power through II. It was a gift for the short time I had it. Based on what others have reported here, my SDO unit should still be a decent trader.

I think it's too soon to have any real feel for how decent a trader your weeks will be......Most of the reports are currently being based on what is being seen doing an on-line search. Realize, the weeks that we see when doing on-line searches are weeks that II does not have any existing requests to fill. It takes much less trading power to see those weeks, then it will to get higher demand weeks, and weeks with ongoing/request first, requests in place.

Once we start to get feedback from people with on-going searches or request first searches, we'll have a better idea of what the trading power is going to be for these weeks.

 

[Fredm]

Finally something we agree on. .....My understanding of the new Request First is exactly what jerseygirl has stated.

It would be truly mind boggling if this is how Starwood intends it to work. So much so, I just can't believe it. Why retain the option at all if this is true? The outcome would be identical in every way to a deposit first request under the new system.
In fact, it would be an outright insult to try this. It is calling owners stupid.

Neither Starwood nor I.I. have a defensible leg to stand on, if true.
Also, I.I. has to know this. It would place such a blemish on the exchange process as to invite its members to cancel.

For these reasons I can't believe it. If I am wrong I will cancel my I.I. membership in a New York minute.

 

[Fredm]

Below is an excerpt from the Rules and Regulations for SDO. It clearly indicates that I can request a reservation (not some newly defined code) for use or EXCHANGE PURPOSES.

Words can mean what you want them to mean. Or, they can mean what they are required to mean.

All exchange requests require a reservation to accompany the request.
"EXCHANGE PURPOSES" will follow the process defined in the resort affiliation agreement with the exchange, as currently written.
Absent an affiliation agreement, the owner clearly can surrender the reserved week to such an unaffiliated exchange. Nothing in the CC&R's prohibit it.

I am not trying to be argumentative for its own sake.
But, this verbiage does not make your case. Sorry.

 

[gmarine]

It would be truly mind boggling if this is how Starwood intends it to work. So much so, I just can't believe it. Why retain the option at all if this is true? The outcome would be identical in every way to a deposit first request under the new system.
In fact, it would be an outright insult to try this. It is calling owners stupid.

Neither Starwood nor I.I. have a defensible leg to stand on, if true.
Also, I.I. has to know this. It would place such a blemish on the exchange process as to invite its members to cancel.

For these reasons I can't believe it. If I am wrong I will cancel my I.I. membership in a New York minute.

You cannot retain a home resort reservation while having a pending request. Any request. There really is no request first anymore. You have to give up your reservation at the time the request is made.

Are you on the phone with II canceling yet?

 

[rickandcindy23]

I just emailed II, telling them that our Sheratons are going to other exchange companies. We own enough to make someone wince a little, perhaps. Otherwise, there will be no effect.

I would say that 50 such emails would make a difference, so I am wondering if any of the rest of you are thinking of sending something simple, just a statement of fact: your weeks are going elsewhere, and you know your options. My email:

My understanding is that I can no longer deposit my Sheraton Broadway Plantation and Sheraton Desert Oasis weeks (all three are 2 bedrooms in high season) that I have reserved with Starwood. This will prevent me from exchanging these weeks through II from now on. I will use RCI, Trading Places Maui or Hawaiian Timeshare Exchange for all of them.

I also noticed the lack of a preference period on the Westin Hawaii weeks that are currently in your system. Unfortunately for us, we no longer have a preference over anyone with a white week, even after 60 days, for the paltry few studios in the system today. There is no reason to stay with Interval International, as far as I can see.

 

[Fredm]

You cannot retain a home resort reservation while having a pending request. Any request. There really is no request first anymore. You have to give up your reservation at the time the request is made.

Are you on the phone with II canceling yet?

Yes, I was on the phone with I.I. to cancel, if they confirmed.
I was transferred to the I.I. Starwood desk.
I was told 3 times that request first remains, and I can keep my reservation if the request is not completed.

Now, I know I.I. does not have any say in what happens to a reservation made with Starwood once it is no longer in play with I. I., but, they were unequivocal about the request first, and stated convincingly that the entire purpose of Request First is the retention of the reservation. So, I.I. is not prepared to violate its procedures.

It seems to me that this is not as cut and dry as is being portrayed. At the least it is not yet settled.

 

[DeniseM]

Wouldn't it be nice if Starwood and II could get there stories straight? This is ridiculous!

 

[tschwa2]

Yes, I was on the phone with I.I. to cancel, if they confirmed.
I was transferred to the I.I. Starwood desk.
I was told 3 times that request first remains, and I can keep my reservation if the request is not completed.

I don't have an II account (was going to set up one before this mess began now I'm waiting to see) but I do have a 9-43 SBP EOY and have been keeping close tabs.

The way I understand it the Request First isn't identical to the Deposit First because if you don't find anything you still have the ability to make a week's reservation at your home resort during your float season. Deposit First- its gone. But in order to initiate a Request First Search you have to call Starwood for them to set up the generic resort seasonal marker in your II account. My understanding is that in order to do that they would cancel your current reservation which could be made again later if the search is canceled.

II and II Starwood agents seem to be saying many things that don't all agree. Who knows who is being given correct information and nothing is in writing. I wish someone would just initiate a New Request First search so we would all know rather than speculating, but since inventory and priority seem screwey right now I don't blame anyone for not. But even that wouldn't prove anything because Starwood could later say that it was a fluke or an exception.


Tracey

 

[Twinkstarr]

Wouldn't it be nice if Starwood and II could get there stories straight? This is ridiculous!

I don't think they've actually have a straight story yet. It's like they are sending up trial balloons. First one to get shot down was the ongoing search for only 12 months out.

 

[Fredm]

Wouldn't it be nice if Starwood and II could get there stories straight? This is ridiculous!

Yes, it is ridiculous.
But, I am reading the words being used by gmarine, and others.
gmarine continues to say, for example, "You cannot retain a home resort reservation while having a pending request. "

Then goes on to say there is no more request first.

Look, "Request First", and "pending request" cannot be used together.

I agree that an owner surrenders the reservation when placing a pending request. " Pending Request" is a condition associated with Deposit First only.

I have tried to be precise in my use of terms during this communication, but it is not working.

 

[gmarine]

Yes, I was on the phone with I.I. to cancel, if they confirmed.
I was transferred to the I.I. Starwood desk.
I was told 3 times that request first remains, and I can keep my reservation if the request is not completed.

Now, I know I.I. does not have any say in what happens to a reservation made with Starwood once it is no longer in play with I. I., but, they were unequivocal about the request first, and stated convincingly that the entire purpose of Request First is the retention of the reservation. So, I.I. is not prepared to violate its procedures.

It seems to me that this is not as cut and dry as is being portrayed. At the least it is not yet settled.

It isnt II that controls the reservation. It is Starwood. When you enter an ongoing request, II is going to contact Starwood to confirm that your unit is available to exchange. If you have a current home resort reservation, you must cancel it to retain your request.

This was confirmed by a Starwood Director and two different Starwood specialists, as well as the regular Starwood owner services reps. The II reps you spoke to are assuming it works the way it should.

I wish it wasnt this way. But this is the way it currently works. I will gladly provide you with contact to a Starwood director or specialist if you would like to call yourself.

BTW, since you previously stated you no longer own any timeshares, why do you care what the exchange procedure is relating to Starwood? And since you say you still belong to II, why would you cancel your II membership based on exchanging when you dont even own a timeshare?

 

[gmarine]

Yes, it is ridiculous.
But, I am reading the words being used by gmarine, and others.
gmarine continues to say, for example, "You cannot retain a home resort reservation while having a pending request. "

Then goes on to say there is no more request first.

Look, "Request First", and "pending request" cannot be used together.

I agree that an owner surrenders the reservation when placing a pending request. " Pending Request" is a condition associated with Deposit First only.

I have tried to be precise in my use of terms during this communication, but it is not working.

Of course they can be used together. If I place an exchange request, whether using "Request First" or "Deposit First", I have a pending request. Using either type of exchange request, it is shown in an II account as a "pending request".

I dont know how I can be more clear. YOU CANT RETAIN A HOME RESORT RESERVATION WHILE HAVING ANY EXCHANGE REQUEST ACTIVE. AGAIN, I WILL GLADLY GIVE YOU THE STARWOOD CONTACT FOR YOU TO CALL YOURSELF.

I'm really getting curious as to your motives in defending Starwood since you dont own a Starwood resort or any timeshare, for that matter.

 

[DeniseM]

Fred works in the TS industry - I think he is just trying to follow TUG Rules by being discrete about it.

 

[Fredm]

It isnt II that controls the reservation. It is Starwood. When you enter an ongoing request, II is going to contact Starwood to confirm that your unit is available to exchange. If you have a current home resort reservation, you must cancel it to retain your request.

This was confirmed by a Starwood Director and two different Starwood specialists, as well as the regular Starwood owner services reps. The II reps you spoke to are assuming it works the way it should.

gmarine, I don't know what else to say.
You continue to use terms associated with Deposit First.
"Pending request" and "ongoing request" are terms used to describe a condition of a Deposit First request.
So, when someone (a Starwood Director, God, or whoever) tells you
that a reservation is canceled when an ongoing or pending request is made, THEY ARE RIGHT. And I will say for the fifth time, I agree.

Nothing in the communications you have described (using your words), negates the Request First option.

BTW, since you previously stated you no longer own any timeshares, why do you care what the exchange procedure is relating to Starwood? And since you say you still belong to II, why would you cancel your II membership based on exchanging when you dont even own a timeshare?

A couple of questions there.
First, I care about Starwood exchange procedures because I am an information junkie when it pertains to my business. I am resale broker that specializes in Starwood and Marriott VO.
Although I don't know everything, and am occasionally dated on information I do know, my goal is perfect product knowledge.

I do not currently own any timeshares. I have already told you why.
However, timeshares go in and out of my company name from time to time.
I also take advantage of other I.I. member benefits, most often Getaways.
Despite the obvious advantages to me personally of maintaining a membership, I do take actions and voice opinions that are not always in my best interest. I'm funny that way. Makes me feel like a better human being for acting on principal.

 

[gmarine]

Fred,

If I have a home resort reservation for July 2010 and I then put in a "request first" for a different resort for June 2010, I have a "pending request"/"ongoing request". If you feel that those terms only apply to "deposit first", well thats up to you. However, II feels differently and calls every request "pending" until confirmed or canceled. The point here is getting lost on arguing over terminology.

Back to my "request first". I have a home resort reservation for July 2010. I want to put in a "request first" using that reservation, intending to use that reservation if I dont get confirmed. That would be the logical way "request first" would work. I place the request and if it doesnt come through, I retain my home resort usage.

Well Starwood has thrown a wrinkle into the process. In order to make this request I have to agree to cancel my home resort reservation .

This effectively makes "request first " useless, right? Not according to Starwood. According to them, you still retain your usage of that week and then are free to make a home resort reservation. So if you dont get your request confirmed you are left to make a home resort reservation for whatever is left.

 

[ArtsieAng]

Although this has been discussed at length, I figured that I too might as well spell out what I was told by Starwood, regarding the "Request First" procedure.

If I want to place a "Request First" request with II, I need to call Starwood, and they will use a generic week to place the request for me.

If I had reserved a week, let's just say week 25 at SBP for my own use, and then decided that I wanted to place a "Request First" in II, I must give my week 25 back to Starwood in exchange for a generic week that will be used to place the request.

If I do not receive my request from II, and/or decide that I no longer want to keep my request in place, I need to cancel my request, call back Starwood, and request another week. In other words, I am back to square one. There is simply no point in using the "Request First" option......Now, time has passed, and it is unlikely that week 25 will still be available. I will be forced to pick a week from whatever is then available from Starwood.

I know this sounds crazy........Because it truly is! However, that is what I was told, on more than one occasion, by Starwood.

PS....If anyone who has actually spoken to a Starwood rep has been given different info on this, please tell us what you have been told. Thanks!

 

[Fredm]

I'm really getting curious as to your motives in defending Starwood since you dont own a Starwood resort or any timeshare, for that matter.

gmarine, does this sound like I am defending Starwood?

"That Starwood has gone there is another nail in their coffin as far as I am concerned. But, its their coffin. Nice timeshares, not so nice timeshare company."

 

[RoshiGuy]

This effectively makes "request first " useless, right? Not according to Starwood. According to them, you still retain your usage of that week and then are free to make a home resort reservation. So if you dont get your request confirmed you are left to make a home resort reservation for whatever is left.

This new Starwood policy will definitely get a lot of people steamed up since they have apparently eliminated the request first trade option. I think I'll head over to HGVC which has a simpler points system where resale owners are treated much better.

 

[l2trade]

Well Starwood has thrown a wrinkle into the process. In order to make this request I have to agree to cancel my home resort reservation .

And, now another problem I see in my II account, this time with 'Search First'...

It appears that I cannot really do that since I own multiple lockoff units. Right now, II shows many placeholders for 2009 weeks. They ALL look exactly the same. I cannot tell which is which. In actuality, I've used all my 2009 weeks and only have some 2010 weeks left. In future years, this can get even more confusing to manage, especially if I start staying at, renting or exchanging with other companies too. Starwood and II both said I must use the 2009 placeholders to do search first for my 2010 week. 2009 for 2010, really?

I've already said plenty about trading power issues between weeks. Hey, what about trading power issue between YEARS? How does II know I'm not offering to give them a 2009 flexchange or something that is just 3 months from now? Is II reducing my results, just in case? I certainly see fewer instant exchange results for my full 2 bedroom search, than I do for my 2010 week that I deposited right before all these changes.

How does II know that I am really searching to give up a 2010 use year?

How will Starwood know which ownership year I was intending when II asks them for it?

How will Starwood & II know which ownership contract week I was intending to give up? Will they just decide for me? What if they take from the wrong contract (for example, a unit I might be in the process of selling?)?

What if they cancel the wrong reservation because I didn't get an opportunity to tell them which one to use?

At this point, there is no shortage of legitimate questions I have. The continued lack of written, detailed explanations from Starwood is outrageous. Starwood is denying me fair usage of my 2010 weeks, while the clock keeps ticking and the value of planning early (more choices) is lost. This new program is not what I signed up, agreed to and am paying for!

 

[Fredm]

Well Starwood has thrown a wrinkle into the process. In order to make this request I have to agree to cancel my home resort reservation .

This effectively makes "request first " useless, right? Not according to Starwood. According to them, you still retain your usage of that week and then are free to make a home resort reservation. So if you dont get your request confirmed you are left to make a home resort reservation for whatever is left.

That makes "request first" a joke. And Starwood may well be trying to shove it down its owners throat.

I have stated elsewhere in this thread:
"Request First. I have commented at length about this. If it is implemented as you have stated, then their position is not defensible. It will have to change. They have no basis to enforce it. It defies everything about its purpose. Indeed, it is contradictory on its face. It cannot stand. Period."

Further, as it relates to this issue, I have said:
"For it to be otherwise is a violation of the owners rights. Starwood can choose to substitute the week if I.I. has agreed to that protocol in its affiliation agreement. But, Starwood cannot confiscate the week if the owner terminates the request."

I have also reported my conversation with the I.I. Starwood desk.
They do not recognize what Starwood is doing as a valid representation of its request first process. I.I. can only finesse that subject so far, without being called on it. I.I insists that a Starwood owner can "Deposit First" and all that implies in their system.

So, as previously stated, if Starwood persists it cannot stand.
I believe that it will not stand. It may take a few turns of the screw before it is made right, but it must be made right.

Starwood VO may not care about what its owners think. Owners are a captive audience, so to speak. Indeed, their system structure demonstrates a certain disregard for its owners. But, that is an organizational problem. VO management is too disconnected from the hospitality company.
Corporate management cares. They must. The synergy otherwise disappears. That hurts the bottom line of their hotels, and soils the brand.

I.I. also has a stake in the outcome. If for no other reason than they cannot afford to be perceived as another RCI.
Never mind the loss of thousands of members who will walk if not remedied. Believe me, I.I. gets it.

Put it all together, and they will cave on this issue.
If they do not , its ripe for a class action. They likely know that as well.

 

[l2trade]

Calling II and/or Starwood each time I want to do a search is not a good answer. I login to II at least once per day. Does II really want me to call them daily just to 'look around'? No, I don't think so. I also do many different types of searches and criteria when I am logged in. That takes time. That is why online exchanges are cheaper. They don't need to pay a call center representative for every minute I am just window shopping or browsing around. The less I need to call someone, the better for everyone.

Prior to this, I call Starwood only once each time I make a reservation. Then, I do EVERYTHING ELSE online.

Starwood / II - Look at how much time all of us are spending writing on this TUG board about this. We have the time. Some of us are perpetually on vacation. Do you really want us calling you all the time? I hope not.

 

[ArtsieAng]

Fredm

Starwood can choose to substitute the week if I.I. has agreed to that protocol in its affiliation agreement. But, Starwood cannot confiscate the week if the owner terminates the request."

OK, now I think I see where the misunderstanding is here.......I do not believe that Starwood will automatically confiscate the generic week that was used to place the request. In all likelihood, you can keep that week, if you so choose.

The problem is that the generic week is not the week that I had reserved for use, and I don't really want that week.

I reserved week 25, but Starwood took back my week 25 and replaced it with a generic week. Even if they will allow me to keep the actual week used for the request, who cares? It's not really the week that I wanted to reserve.

I'm not sure if you were thinking that we could not keep the generic week if we choose to do so, or not.

 

[Fredm]

OK, now I think I see where the misunderstanding is here.......I do not believe that Starwood will automatically confiscate the generic week that was used to place the request. In all likelihood, you can keep that week, if you so choose.

The problem is that the generic week is not the week that I had reserved for use, and I don't really want that week.

I reserved week 25, but Starwood took back my week 25 and replaced it with a generic week. Even if they will allow me to keep the actual week used for the request, who cares? It's not really the week that I wanted to reserve.

I'm not sure if you were thinking that we could not keep the generic week if we choose to do so, or not.

I was saying just the opposite. They should not be able to cancel the reserved week.