Call to Starwood about new system

[Fredm]

Same exact generic response as post #182.

My post was an open letter response to the Starwood communication.

 

[calgarygary]

....I would like to fight them if anyone comes up with a good way please count me in. BTW what are CCR's?

CCR's = Codes, Covenants & Restrictions. In layman's terms, the rules of the timeshare.

 

[Iwant2gonow]

My post was an open letter response to the Starwood communication.

Sorry Fred...I did not mean to leave your name in that quote I was replying to.

CCR's = Codes, Covenants & Restrictions. In layman's terms, the rules of the timeshare.

thanks...when I did a search online there was 450 acronyms to chose from.

 

[Piscesqueen]

Highlands

I currently have nothing deposited as I got my pending request for exchange into Highlands Inn filled this morning! Yay for that.

Did you get this exchange with SDO?

 

[l2trade]

Another story about SDO seasons in II

I just got off the phone with Starwood again this morning. Now, I am being told that Sheraton Desert Oasis has four different season codes in their new affiliation with II, which represent:

Platinum = 1-21 & 50-52
Gold Plus = 1-52 red
Gold = 22-27 & 36-49
Silver = 28-35

Now this week range is more accurate to the original float period than what II has quoted me up until now for red 1-52 owners. Why are II & Starwood telling me different stories about the week range (trading powers) that Gold Plus season represents?

I want to see everything in writing. This would reduce wasted phone call time for everyone involved at both companies and individually just to ask some basic questions. What do Starwood & II really accomplish by hiding the details of the new program? I do not see how hiding the details is beneficial to anyone involved. Rather than just focus on addressing specific consumer concerns, everyone involved must spend enormous phone time just trying to figure out what the facts really are.

The implementation of these new rules is a mess between both companies computer systems. I've heard that from II reps who were complaining about it. I see it myself every time I log into II and see 9 different ways to enter 2009 units. In reality, I have no 2009 left available and only a couple 2010. I can't tell whether side A or side B is the bigger half. I'm told that don't worry, every trade I make will be pending at first until Starwood and II work it out on the back end. Really? How do you know which ownership unit I intended to trade? How do you know which lock-off side I intended to give up? How do you know which usage year?

Even if I were a consumer that loved the new rules (which I don't), I would be very frustrated with the confusion and ambiguity with how they are being rolled out.

 

[chalucky]

Worth a bump to keep this thread front and center.

As others have mentioned....not only have bulk deposits dissapeared, but also any vestige of Starwood priority. The change in availability is breathtaking.

I wonder what the rationale would be behind that...except to stick it to anyone using II to trade their ownership week. I am wondering if any of the callers to Starwood have asked about the priority being removed?

 

[DeniseM]

Since the change a few weeks ago, there have been some deposits with Starwood priority - there have also been some without Starwood priority.

 

[barndweller]

Did you get this exchange with SDO?

No. I got it with Sedona Springs.

 

[jerseygirl]

If the new system works like Hyatt, and if I understand Hyatt's agreement with II (admittedly, two big "ifs"), Starwood will balance the books with II on a periodic "after-the-fact'" basis (maybe 3 or 4 times a year).

Example:

--In the past, Starwood used historical data to "bulk bank," in advance, weeks to correspond with the projected numbers of requested exchanges. These were the :early" deposits most likely to have access to the 3-day priority.

-- Now, Starwood is not depositing inventory (with the possible exception of undesirable studio units during non-prime weeks) UNTIL a Starwood owner does a "deposit first" (which means Starwood owes II a unit) or UNTIL a Starwood owner actually consummates a bastardized "request first" unit.

-- My non-scientific "read" on the attitudes of Tuggers is that most of us are doing NOTHING until we see if Starwood reverses track on this obviously unfair new system. Yes, I know we're a small minority of actual owners, but if we're confused, what do you think is the confusion level on all the uneducated members? Of, if you're like me, ALL of your Starwood units have disappeared from your account --- and you'd rather get a root canal then try to get Starwood and/or II on the phone.

So -- I predict that the number of Starwood deposits will remain small until such time as the customer bases gets comfortable with the new process (assuming some do) and some "true" activity begins to occur.

With any luck, this will in fact come to pass and put some pressure on II. They won't be happy if Starwood's new plan results in significant deposits moving to RCI, other dependents, used for direct exchanges, rentals -- or, god forbid, the users actually use the units themselves and leave the exchange industry out of the picture altogether.

Here's hoping that this is one of those "becareful what you wish for" moments with both Starwood and II.

 

[sunray]

If the new system works like Hyatt, and if I understand Hyatt's agreement with II (admittedly, two big "ifs"), Starwood will balance the books with II on a periodic "after-the-fact'" basis (maybe 3 or 4 times a year).

Example:

--In the past, Starwood used historical data to "bulk bank," in advance, weeks to correspond with the projected numbers of requested exchanges. These were the :early" deposits most likely to have access to the 3-day priority.

-- Now, Starwood is not depositing inventory (with the possible exception of undesirable studio units during non-prime weeks) UNTIL a Starwood owner does a "deposit first" (which means Starwood owes II a unit) or UNTIL a Starwood owner actually consummates a bastardized "request first" unit.

-- My non-scientific "read" on the attitudes of Tuggers is that most of us are doing NOTHING until we see if Starwood reverses track on this obviously unfair new system. Yes, I know we're a small minority of actual owners, but if we're confused, what do you think is the confusion level on all the uneducated members? Of, if you're like me, ALL of your Starwood units have disappeared from your account --- and you'd rather get a root canal then try to get Starwood and/or II on the phone.

So -- I predict that the number of Starwood deposits will remain small until such time as the customer bases gets comfortable with the new process (assuming some do) and some "true" activity begins to occur.

With any luck, this will in fact come to pass and put some pressure on II. They won't be happy if Starwood's new plan results in significant deposits moving to RCI, other dependents, used for direct exchanges, rentals -- or, god forbid, the users actually use the units themselves and leave the exchange industry out of the picture altogether.

Here's hoping that this is one of those "becareful what you wish for" moments with both Starwood and II.

Will Starwood need to "bulk bank" all the deposit unit the year after the use year when you cannot cancel the "deposit first" unit.

 

[DeniseM]

Will Starwood need to "bulk bank" all the deposit unit the year after the use year when you cannot cancel the "deposit first" unit.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but they would have to deposit a week, during the use year - not the next year.

 

[sunray]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but they would have to deposit a week, during the use year - not the next year.

When you request Starwood to deposit a week into II, Starwood will not actually deposit a week to II unless you find a trade in II. The reason is "request first" can be cancel anytime in the use year. The deposit become final after the use year. That why you do not see too many "bulk bank" this year. You will see more "bulk bank" beginning next year when the "request first" become final. This way, Starwood will not rely on historical data to "bulk bank" to II.

 

[DeniseM]

When you request Starwood to deposit a week into II, Starwood will not actually deposit a week to II unless you find a trade in II.

That's not correct: Asking Starwood to deposit a week, and putting in a request first, are 2 completely different things. If I call up Starwood and ask them to deposit a week, they will actually deposit the week, and it will no longer be available to me for my own use. Many people know they are going to exchange their week, and they have no intention of using it themselves, so they go ahead and do a full deposit from the start. Starwood does not wait for you to make an exchange before depositing your week.

 

[l2trade]

That's not correct: Asking Starwood to deposit a week, and putting in a request first, are 2 completely different things. If I call up Starwood and ask them to deposit a week, they will actually deposit the week, and it will no longer be available to me for my own use. Many people know they are going to exchange their week, and they have no intention of using it themselves, so they go ahead and do a full deposit from the start. Starwood does not wait for you to make an exchange before depositing your week.

Has anyone here had problems doing a deposit first for a 2010 week since the new system took over? I'm curious how that process went.

I've heard Starwood agents do assignment by default when you ask to deposit. I was told by II that you must be very specific with Starwood to insist that you actually wanted to deposit / bank your week, not just assign it. Starwood told me everything is an assignment now, until an exchange is confirmed or the assignment automatically turns into a deposit after your usage year is up.

 

[Fredm]

That's not correct: Asking Starwood to deposit a week, and putting in a request first, are 2 completely different things. If I call up Starwood and ask them to deposit a week, they will actually deposit the week, and it will no longer be available to me for my own use. Many people know they are going to exchange their week, and they have no intention of using it themselves, so they go ahead and do a full deposit from the start. Starwood does not wait for you to make an exchange before depositing your week.

Denise, this is no longer true.
ALL deposits are Starwood's newly defined version of Request First.

 

[DeniseM]

Denise, this is no longer true.
ALL deposits are Starwood's newly defined version of Request First.

Fred - I must have missed that. Can you point me to that info.?

*OK - I just went back through this thread and reviewed the "deposit first" thing and boy do I feel dumb!

I thought the "Unit assignment" was just a shell week for searching or putting in an exchange request, and you could still do a regular deposit first (with SW choosing the week.)

But... I know a Tugger who deposited a fixed week last week and thinks she did an actual deposit first AND she thinks they deposited her fixed week 52! I have a fixed SVR week too, so I am going to see what I can find out and report back.

Sorry to be so dense!
Duh-nise

 

[sunray]

That's not correct: Asking Starwood to deposit a week, and putting in a request first, are 2 completely different things. If I call up Starwood and ask them to deposit a week, they will actually deposit the week, and it will no longer be available to me for my own use. Many people know they are going to exchange their week, and they have no intention of using it themselves, so they go ahead and do a full deposit from the start. Starwood does not wait for you to make an exchange before depositing your week.

With the new Starwood II methodology, you cannot reserved a unit and deposit it to II, you "request your assignment" to trade. "Request your assignment" is not same as deposit a week. I believe Starwood does not need to give(deposit) a week to II until you actual make a trade in II during your use year. Because Starwood did not give a week to II, Starwood allows you to cancel your "request for assignment" anytime during your use year. You can use your own unit if it is still available.

With this methodology, Starwood know exactly how many unit to give (bulk bank) to II and not based on estimation on historical data.

 

[DeniseM]

But... I know a Tugger who deposited a fixed week last week and thinks she did an actual deposit first AND she thinks they deposited her fixed week 52! I have a fixed SVR week too, so I am going to see what I can find out and report back.

Update - I double checked and SW did deposit her fixed week 52!

 

[jerseygirl]

So they're NOT messing with fixed weeks? This is GREAT news. Maybe I'll try to deposit one of mine tomorrow ... haven't wanted to prepay maintenance fees as I've been oh sooooooooo tempted to dump all of them!

 

[DeniseM]

So they're NOT messing with fixed weeks? This is GREAT news. Maybe I'll try to deposit one of mine tomorrow ... haven't wanted to prepay maintenance fees as I've been oh sooooooooo tempted to dump all of them!

The week was deposited online, and it shows in her Acct. as a week 52 deposit.

 

[jerseygirl]

Wonderful! (Of course, I'm still really $%^&*#$ about the float week situation.)

 

[DeniseM]

Me too - but I own a fixed SVR week, too, so I am glad to have at least one fixed week!

 

[Fredm]

Fred - I must have missed that. Can you point me to that info.?

*OK - I just went back through this thread and reviewed the "deposit first" thing and boy do I feel dumb!

I thought the "Unit assignment" was just a shell week for searching or putting in an exchange request, and you could still do a regular deposit first (with SW choosing the week.)

But... I know a Tugger who deposited a fixed week last week and thinks she did an actual deposit first AND she thinks they deposited her fixed week 52! I have a fixed SVR week too, so I am going to see what I can find out and report back.

Sorry to be so dense!
Duh-nise

You are not dense. You are den(i)se. This is all new. And, not obvious.

Glad to know that fixed weeks are not being thrown into this.

My only remaining problem with this new methodology is the subversion of Request First. If Starwood would only permit the retention of the original home resort reservation they would have a legitimate leg to stand on.

 

[K2Quick]

There's a deposit of about six weeks of WPORV on the Sightings board. This one might be a good test of *wood priority and/or trade power of any weeks deposited under the "enhanced" system.

 

[Politico]

I tested with my already deposited 1 BR SDO and I see it. But, I also noticed that when I map search in II, I cannot search an entire region anymore. I am now limited to searching 3 destinations at a time. (ie ?I can't search the entire Carribbean). That is a very stupid change. Is everyone else experiencing the same?