DC/Abound Inventory "Hidden" Restrictions? [MERGED]

[DanCali]

As far as I know the only official restriction on booking is minimum 3-nights at Ritz St. Thomas.

In another thread which is now closed to further replies I raised the possibility of there being (possibly abound) unofficial artificial restrictions on booking in Abound (pun intended). The example I gave is that a 7-night stay is available, but an overlapping 5-night stay is not available. Another tugger suggested this may be a weeks/trust thing, but I've seen it in cases where 4-nights are available, but 2-nights are not available, and it seems to have to do more with preventing owners from booking just "cheap" nights (Sun-Thu). I've seen this primarily at NCV, which is where I look the most, but am curious if others have seen other examples of this.

This, it seems to me, goes against the spirit of the "book 1+ nights at 13 months out" because it's more like "book 1+ nights at 13 months out, but only if we let you, and we won't tell you the complete set of restrictions". There may be some convoluted ways to get around this like booking the longer stay (if you have the points) and then shortening it but:

(i) to many, it's very unintuitive to look for 7 nights when they tell you that you can't even book the 5 nights you want
(ii) you may not have the points to book the longer stay, which would typically involve expensive weekend nights
(iii) it still goes against what they represent in the Elite brochures with "book 1+ nights" (although one can make a "greater good" argument, and this helping prevent broken weeks)

I'm curious how prevalent this is... so here is an example to get started. Feel free to include your own sightings of similar restricted bookings at other resorts. Perhaps it's limited to NVC only?

In the example below, a 4-night stay is available on July 5 and on July 12, but 2-nights stays are not available on those dates. As suggested above, this prevents booking without a Friday or Saturday during peak times. It's definitely not an "official" restriction, but it seems to apply to many weeks with higher demand at NCV.

 

[Wanderlustgrl]

As far as I know the only official restriction on booking is minimum 3-nights at Ritz St. Thomas.

In another thread which is now closed to further replies I raised the possibility of there being (possibly abound) unofficial artificial restrictions on booking in Abound (pun intended). The example I gave is that a 7-night stay is available, but an overlapping 5-night stay is not available. Another tugger suggested this may be a weeks/trust thing, but I've seen it in cases where 4-nights are available, but 2-nights are not available, and it seems to have to do more with preventing owners from booking just "cheap" nights (Sun-Thu). I've seen this primarily at NCV, which is where I look the most, but am curious if others have seen other examples of this.

This, it seems to me, goes against the spirit of the "book 1+ nights at 13 months out" because it's more like "book 1+ nights at 13 months out, but only if we let you, and we won't tell you the complete set of restrictions". There may be some convoluted ways to get around this like booking the longer stay (if you have the points) and then shortening it but:

(i) to many, it's very unintuitive to look for 7 nights when they tell you that you can't even book the 5 nights you want
(ii) you may not have the points to book the longer stay, which would typically involve expensive weekend nights
(iii) it still goes against what they represent in the Elite brochures with "book 1+ nights" (although one can make a "greater good" argument, and this helping prevent broken weeks)

I'm curious how prevalent this is... so here is an example to get started. Feel free to include your own sightings of similar restricted bookings at other resorts. Perhaps it's limited to NVC only?

In the example below, a 4-night stay is available on July 5 and on July 12, but 2-nights stays are not available on those dates. As suggested above, this prevents booking without a Friday or Saturday during peak times. It's definitely not an "official" restriction, but it seems to apply to many weeks with higher demand at NCV.

View attachment 66243

View attachment 66244

What happens when you call? Have you tried to book the 4 nights and call and modify it down to 2? Just out of curiosity. I would think that there is a chance they are using week inventory that perhaps someone split to do 5 days 4 nights and they are making it available for pts booking but don’t want to break it up like you mentioned. There are a lot of weeks owners there so from what I’ve understood and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong there isn’t a lot of trust inventory and we wait for owners who have weeks to elect for pts

 

[Fasttr]

Stumbled across an oddball one last night. Was looking at Ocean Pointe for mid December this year. But the week starting on Dec 25, 2022 jumped out at me. That week is only available if you book 8 or more nights with a check in any date between Dec 25 and Dec 31, 2022. If you select any #nights below 8, that weeks shows no availability on any check in date.

 

[DanCali]

What happens when you call? Have you tried to book the 4 nights and call and modify it down to 2? Just out of curiosity.

If you did that then you will likely get what you wanted but, as noted in the original post, there are several issues with that solution, most notably:

(i) If an owner wants 2 nights starting July 12 and sees no availability, it's not really logical to even check for 4 nights starting July 12 because why would that be available? It doesn't even make sense to look...

(ii) You need to have the points to book the 4 nights to begin with. At NCV for (non 4th of) July weeks , two midweek nights Wed-Fri would cost you 950 points, but Wed-Sun would cost you 3300 points. So you need an extra 2350 points on top of the 950 you presumably have to even have the option to go that route. That's an extra 250% in points to be able to book the long stay...

 

[DanCali]

Stumbled across an oddball one last night. Was looking at Ocean Pointe for mid December this year. But the week starting on Dec 25, 2022 jumped out at me. That week is only available if you book 8 or more nights with a check in any date between Dec 25 and Dec 31, 2022. If you select any #nights below 8, that weeks shows no availability on any check in date.

Yep, I see what you mean. This is exactly the type of thing I am referring to. Not sure in this case if it has to do with the turn of the year, week 53 inventory etc, but it illustrates the point well. Surely, if you can book 8 nights in a 1BR starting December 25, then 5 nights should also technically be available, no?

It's consistent with what I've seen where this is done for high-demand and/or holiday weeks.

 

[dioxide45]

While each minimum stay isn't disclosed anywhere, this is covered in the Abound Exchange Procedures;

6 Use Periods in The Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas may be subject to a three-night minimum stay, as determined by Exchange Company in its sole discretion. In addition, Exchange Company may impose minimum stay requirements for high demand Use Periods at Accommodations at any Component from time to time as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion.

 

[DanCali]

While each minimum stay isn't disclosed anywhere, this is covered in the Abound Exchange Procedures;

6 Use Periods in The Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas may be subject to a three-night minimum stay, as determined by Exchange Company in its sole discretion. In addition, Exchange Company may impose minimum stay requirements for high demand Use Periods at Accommodations at any Component from time to time as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion.

So you are saying that they basically gave themselves permission to do anything they want, whenever they want, at their own discretion, without any additional disclosures to owners?

I'll rename the thread to better reflect what might be going on.

 

[timsi]

So you are saying that they basically gave themselves permission to do anything they want, whenever they want, at their own discretion, without any additional disclosures to owners?

The Abound Exchange Procedures is a 33-page document, and it mentions "sole discretion" 64 times!

 

[bizaro86]

It seems to me the significant skim that Marriott takes from weeks owners electing points should be enough to cover breakage on weeks inventory without adding hidden rules.

If they're going to add restrictions they should be transparent. They don't mention them because they are charging plenty for 1 night access, so admitting they aren't actually offering that would hurt sales.

 

[Fasttr]

While each minimum stay isn't disclosed anywhere, this is covered in the Abound Exchange Procedures;

6 Use Periods in The Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas may be subject to a three-night minimum stay, as determined by Exchange Company in its sole discretion. In addition, Exchange Company may impose minimum stay requirements for high demand Use Periods at Accommodations at any Component from time to time as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion.

And that additional wording you bolded was not on the prior version of the Exchange Procedures…. which tells me they plan on doing more of it, not less.

 

[dioxide45]

And that additional wording you bolded was not on the prior version of the Exchange Procedures…. which tells me they plan on doing more of it, not less.

Prior versions had this, just in a different section. It looks like it still exists in the same section in the most recent version;

Except as otherwise provided in these Exchange Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule, there are no minimum length- of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Members, Presidential Members and Chairman’s Club Members during the Priority 1 Period.

 

[Fasttr]

Prior versions had this, just in a different section. It looks like it still exists in the same section in the most recent version;

Except as otherwise provided in these Exchange Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule, there are no minimum length- of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Members, Presidential Members and Chairman’s Club Members during the Priority 1 Period.

But this language only seemed to restrict disclosed limitations ("as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule") , which I assume to be the Points Charts as we refer to them. So the wording you bolded in your post above adds broader limitations, even if not disclosed elsewhere. In essence, they have covered their A$$es.

 

[DanCali]

But this language only seemed to restrict disclosed limitations ("as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule") , which I assume to be the Points Charts as we refer to them. So the wording you bolded in your post above adds broader limitations, even if not disclosed elsewhere. In essence, they have covered their A$$es.

I got the same impression.

The points charts for Ritz St. Thomas do mention a minimum stay in a footnote. I haven't seen anything else.

And I don't see any asterisk next to this much touted benefit:

 

[timsi]

It seems to me the significant skim that Marriott takes from weeks owners electing points should be enough to cover breakage on weeks inventory without adding hidden rules.

If they're going to add restrictions they should be transparent. They don't mention them because they are charging plenty for 1 night access, so admitting they aren't actually offering that would hurt sales.

Is there any evidence that the skim has the role of covering the breakage on weeks inventory? Vistana and HGVC do not have one and they work just fine. The skim may be more like the house edge on a roulette wheel which is 5.26%.

 

[dioxide45]

But this language only seemed to restrict disclosed limitations ("as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule") , which I assume to be the Points Charts as we refer to them. So the wording you bolded in your post above adds broader limitations, even if not disclosed elsewhere. In essence, they have covered their A$$es.

They are covering themselves better with the new language, but I still see it covered in the previous language "and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule."

I think the "or at" means applicable to both.

 

[dioxide45]

Is there any evidence that the skim has the role of covering the breakage on weeks inventory? Vistana and HGVC do not have one and they work just fine. The skim may be more like the house edge on a roulette wheel which is 5.26%.

Skim is just a hidden fee. HGVC has booking fees to mitigate breakage and Vistana has (soon to be had) housekeeping fees to possibly limit too many short stays.

 

[Fasttr]

They are covering themselves better with the new language, but I still see it covered in the previous language "and subject to applicable minimum duration of stays for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Exchange Point Schedule."

I think the "or at" means applicable to both.

In reality, regardless of how we may interpret that specific language.... in section VII. C. Amendments....they specifically reserve their right to amend the Exchange Procedures for the following situations specific to what we are discussing in this thread.

6. restricting the number of weeks or days that may be reserved for holiday, weekend, event, or other high demand Use Periods;

9. restricting the number of Program Members that are permitted to check-in on certain days at a given Component;

22. establishing a reservation priority system based on, among other things, length of stay;

23. establishing requirements to reserve certain days in combination with one another (e.g., requiring Program Members to reserve Friday in order to reserve the following Saturday);

29. creating restrictions or limitations on the reservation of weekend days on a Component-by-Component basis;

31. altering the minimum length of stay required for reservations of certain Use Periods and requiring minimum length of stay for certain Accommodations;

34. taking any other action or implementing any such change as Exchange Company deems, in its reasonable discretion, to be beneficial to the Program as a whole or to more equitably allocate the benefits and privileges of the Program among the categories of Program Members.

 

[timsi]

Skim is just a hidden fee. HGVC has booking fees to mitigate breakage and Vistana has (soon to be had) housekeeping fees to possibly limit too many short stays.

Except the Hk fee is paid to the resort currently, not to Marriott if I am not mistaken

 

[bizaro86]

Is there any evidence that the skim has the role of covering the breakage on weeks inventory? Vistana and HGVC do not have one and they work just fine. The skim may be more like the house edge on a roulette wheel which is 5.26%.

I asked a salesperson and they said the skim was to cover breakage. Obviously not a great source but they are using that as an excuse for the skim.

Either way they should publish what the rules actually are - it is very dishonest to say "book 1 night" and then have undisclosed restrictions

 

[dougp26364]

I think the problem isn’t the “hidden” rules which I reality are written and in plain site. The issue is the sales team not disclosing the truth, or glazing over the negatives while emphasizing the positives.
experienced tugger’s spot the sales teams misrepresentations while the general public just feels cheated and lied too

 

[bizaro86]

I think the problem isn’t the “hidden” rules which I reality are written and in plain site. The issue is the sales team not disclosing the truth, or glazing over the negatives while emphasizing the positives.
experienced tugger’s spot the sales teams misrepresentations while the general public just feels cheated and lied too

I don't believe there is any place to see the minimum stays for different resorts/times other than trial and error?

And if you hit one it doesn't say "5 night minimum stay" it just says no availability.

I can't think of any way those rules could be more hidden while still enforcing them.

 

[timsi]

In reality, regardless of how we may interpret that specific language.... in section VII. C. Amendments....they specifically reserve their right to amend the Exchange Procedures for the following situations specific to what we are discussing in this thread.

6. restricting the number of weeks or days that may be reserved for holiday, weekend, event, or other high demand Use Periods;

9. restricting the number of Program Members that are permitted to check-in on certain days at a given Component;

22. establishing a reservation priority system based on, among other things, length of stay;

23. establishing requirements to reserve certain days in combination with one another (e.g., requiring Program Members to reserve Friday in order to reserve the following Saturday);

29. creating restrictions or limitations on the reservation of weekend days on a Component-by-Component basis;

31. altering the minimum length of stay required for reservations of certain Use Periods and requiring minimum length of stay for certain Accommodations;

34. taking any other action or implementing any such change as Exchange Company deems, in its reasonable discretion, to be beneficial to the Program as a whole or to more equitably allocate the benefits and privileges of the Program among the categories of Program Members.

The issue is that the details of those procedures are not in writing, and not that they cannot be changed. Of course, it is part of how they operate, how can owners challenge them when it is almost impossible to demonstrate what is going on?

As I said before, Marriott loves to gather the broadest powers possible.
Instead of saying that the deposits will be used only for exchanges, the Abound Procedures state:

"Exchange Company (or its designees) shall have the exclusive right to utilize Exchange Points assigned to Exchange Company’s Interests or any other Exchange Points that Exchange Company is entitled to use for any purpose in its sole discretion, including, but not limited to, (i) the purposes of customer relations, public relations and employee relations; (ii) marketing, promoting, and selling of the Program, Interests, vacation ownership interests, programs, or vacation products at other resort condominiums or club resorts, or such other vacation ownership, multisite vacation ownership and membership or exchange plans developed, managed or marketed by Exchange Company or its affiliates from time to time; (iii) utilizing Use Periods or Exchange Points in manners which will enhance or expand the Program or any Affiliate Program; or (iv) the purpose of renting unreserved Use Periods to third parties, the revenue for which shall benefit the Exchange Company or its affiliates. Exchange Company (or its designees) is specifically entitled to charge Program Members for the use of any Exchange Points that are owned by, allocated to or controlled by Exchange Company for the use of the Accommodations or other benefits offered or made available through the Affiliate Program Reservation System."

 

[dougp26364]

I don't believe there is any place to see the minimum stays for different resorts/times other than trial and error?

And if you hit one it doesn't say "5 night minimum stay" it just says no availability.

I can't think of any way those rules could be more hidden while still enforcing them.

I don’t disagree with you. In my opinion it’s a bunch of BS, especially when the sales team pushes the ability to book single nights. If they made it known on their website there would be a lot of owners complaining. As it is the average owner just assumes there’s nothing available and looks for something else to book

 

[TheTimeTraveler]

It's all about "profits to the bottom line".

Always has been, always will be.



.

 

[bizaro86]

If they made it known on their website there would be a lot of owners complaining. As it is the average owner just assumes there’s nothing available and looks for something else to book

Exactly. It isn't that minimum stay restrictions are unreasonable. Except they've charged tens of thousands of to people for the right to make 1 night reservations, so if they were transparent about those restrictions those people would be naturally upset.