Definitive (I believe) answers to some important points program questions

[BocaBoy]

Must Relinquish Weeks at Sold Out Resorts or No Points Availability

If no one has relinquished a week for points in your season at a sold out resort, there can be no inventory for points users. It is as simple as that.

 

[dioxide45]

If no one has relinquished a week for points in your season at a sold out resort, there can be no inventory for points users. It is as simple as that.

Not true. Once a week at a sold out resort is deposited in to II, Marriott can utilize that week for points exchangers.

 

[m61376]

Thanks Dave. Good job. It's good to get specific answers to questions where we can get them.

The only thing I would question is whether or not Marriott is treated just like another owner for exchange purposes. I seriously doubt that Marriott will just be given an account where they place requests based on deposits. At a minimum, they won't be receiving ACs for deposits. That in itself is a difference.

More likely, there will be exchange departments who contact each other to compare lists of exchange requests and make trades based on a table of pre-determined like kind exchanges.

In any such arrangement, they may do it once per day to fulfill requests. My guess is it happens prior to general release of inventory by II into the system for exchange to maximize internal exchanges prior to external exchanges.

Actually, that's what has me wary. Marriott justifies the point spread and contends that current owners really needn't be concerned with their point allocation because they can still work in the weeks system, and that business will go on as usual. The benefit is they can have a single fee and the option for flexibility, albeit at a higher cost, and of course to those once in a lifetime packages. The contention is that Marriott will be a trader like everyone else, and that they will have to offer something comparable if they fill a point request with a deposited week. However, while they took umbrage at my suggestion that "comparable" could be multiple weeks, the sum of whose point values equal the week taken, I was not given confirmation that a singular week of equal value would, in fact, replace the week taken.

My concern is that, despite all the assurances that Marriott will do what's best for its customers and that this program is only an enhancement and nothing changes within our current ownership, that the exchange environment will change over time with the points program. The change may be gradual, but I'm a bit skeptical when I'm told "nothing changes.- do what you've always done."

 

[Tommy_Boy]

WOW

WOW, my resale purchase of a Aruba Surf Club Oceanside just closed, and I got my Marriott Ownership Certificate in the mail last week. After reading the post below, I SPRINTED downstairs to check on the date, terrified that they delayed my closing until after June 20th. It is dated June 17!!!! Whew! To be honest, I haven't the foggiest idea whether we will opt into this point system, I need to understand it alot better....but at least I have the option!

Thanks Dave. The information you posted is very helpful.

I do have an additional question which I've asked Marriott reps in several phone calls. They did not know an answer to this:

We all know that resale weeks sold after June 20, 2010 cannot enroll in the points system. But what about resale points? If an individual purchases points from another individual do those resale points participate in the Marriott points program? If not, what can you do with your points should you decide you don't want them anymore?

 

[hipslo]

If no one has relinquished a week for points in your season at a sold out resort, there can be no inventory for points users. It is as simple as that.

This is not an answer to the question of how the "prime" weeks are allocated between weeks and points inventory, assuming some weeks owners in the season in question do in fact give up their week for points, which is a very imporant question. So, it isnt "as simple as that", actually.

Prime weeks could be allocated purely first come/ first serve, they could be allocated on a pro rata basis between weeks and points, or perhaps in some other manner. This is a critical question.

 

[hipslo]

I could see you asking that to a Marriott Rep that just learned the program in three days, their head would be spinning! We probably know more about the program than 75% of the staff,,,,

I have asked that question of several reps already, have received all sorts of different answers, and do not think that any of them really even understand the question. But it is a very important question.

 

[hotcoffee]

Not true. Once a week at a sold out resort is deposited in to II, Marriott can utilize that week for points exchangers.

I don't think he was referring to exchanged inventory. There can be a lot of points exchangers competing for prime weeks via exchanges, but the total number of OF weeks cannot be less than the total number of people competing for them.

 

[ilene13]

Thanks so much Dave for posting, this is extremely helpful.

One question - the response as stated above suggests to me that, at 13 months, multiple weeks owners will be in direct, head to head competion with all premiere and premiere plus owners who seek to reserve prime weeks at 13 months, for the 50% of the inventory for each week that will be made available at 13 months, and that there will not be separate "pools" allocated to weeks and points owners at 13 months. Is that your understanding, or am I reading too much into the wording of the response?

Thank you Dave. The quote from HIPSLO is my biggest concern. I own 3 platinum 1 bedroom units at the Aruba Ocean Club. I usually get weeks 50-52, sometimes trading the week 50 for a concurrent week 52 (for my adult children). I hope i do not have to compete with point owners. Most Marriott reps have told me that there will be 2 diferent pools. This whole thing makes me nervous!!!

 

[dioxide45]

Thank you Dave. The quote from HIPSLO is my biggest concern. I own 3 platinum 1 bedroom units at the Aruba Ocean Club. I usually get weeks 50-52, sometimes trading the week 50 for a concurrent week 52 (for my adult children). I hope i do not have to compete with point owners. Most Marriott reps have told me that there will be 2 diferent pools. This whole thing makes me nervous!!!

There are different pools but not the way you are thinking. A points exchanger or points owner can not reserve in to a specific resort/view/season unless Marriott holds some inventory for that resort/season/view. If points inventory exists and then it is exhausted then no further points reservations can be made.

If there are 10 villas in an OF view at resort X for week 52 during platinum season and Marriott has 50 platinum OF weeks in it's inventory, then you could conceivably be competing against 50 people. But these people just replaced owners that could have reserved the same time. Those 50 people are out of the picture because they gave up their week for points to go somewhere else.

In the end there is a finite number of people you can possibly compete with, that number doesn't increase with new points owners. There is only a finite number of weeks at any resort.

 

[hotcoffee]

Thank you Dave. The quote from HIPSLO is my biggest concern. I own 3 platinum 1 bedroom units at the Aruba Ocean Club. I usually get weeks 50-52, sometimes trading the week 50 for a concurrent week 52 (for my adult children). I hope i do not have to compete with point owners. Most Marriott reps have told me that there will be 2 diferent pools. This whole thing makes me nervous!!!

I must be missing something. I cannot figure out what all of this concern is about. You will have to compete with exchangers of both types. But, I cannot believe that Marriott will give priority to points exchangers. They might at best have equal footing on a first-come, first serve basis (except, of course, premier exchangers).

 

[ilene13]

I must be missing something. I cannot figure out what all of this concern is about. You will have to compete with exchangers of both types. But, I cannot believe that Marriott will give priority to points exchangers. They might at best have equal footing on a first-come, first serve basis (except, of course, premier exchangers).

The concern is that I do not want to compete with exchangers at all. Prior to this nonsense I only competed with other owners who could book 13 months out. I do not want to exchange. I think my saving grace is that the Aruba Ocean Club is sold out.

 

[hipslo]

There are different pools but not the way you are thinking. A points exchanger or points owner can not reserve in to a specific resort/view/season unless Marriott holds some inventory for that resort/season/view. If points inventory exists and then it is exhausted then no further points reservations can be made.

If there are 10 villas in an OF view at resort X for week 52 during platinum season and Marriott has 50 platinum OF weeks in it's inventory, then you could conceivably be competing against 50 people. But these people just replaced owners that could have reserved the same time. Those 50 people are out of the picture because they gave up their week for points to go somewhere else.

In the end there is a finite number of people you can possibly compete with, that number doesn't increase with new points owners. There is only a finite number of weeks at any resort.

I don't agree. Let me give you an example that illustrates my concern. I think a lot of people are missing this issue.

At Mountainside there are 200 villas. Lets say there are 18 weeks in platinum season (I didnt bother to count, but I think that is close). So there are a total of 3600 platinum weeks at the resort.

For the sake of argument, lets say that the four weeks from mid february through mid march are the most desireable weeks. There are a total of 800 villas available during those four prime weeks. That represents approximately 22 percent of the total platinum season inventory.

Half of those 800 units, or 400 units, are made available to multiple week owners at 13 months. Under the current system, a multiple week owner who calls in at 13 months is competing ONLY against other multiple week owners for those 400 units. Again, for the sake of argument, lets say that there are only 200 folks who are multiple week owners at Mountainside, all of whom own 2 weeks at Mountainside. In my example, ALL 200 of those multiple week owenrs will be able to reserve two weeks (400 weeks total) during one of the four prime weeks betwen mid february and mid march at 13 months.

Now, let's assume that of the 3600 platinum units at Mountainside, 500 owners decide to turn their units in for points in a given year. That represents only approximately 14 percent of all platinum units at Mountainside. Let's assume further that everyone who turned in a week is a single week owner. As a result, there are now a total of 500 platinum units at Mountainside available to reserve using points.

ANY points owner who wants to reserve one of the prime weeks at Mountainside will be eligible to do so at 13 months, since it takes 6900 points to reserve one of those weeks at Mountainside, and anyone with that many points would qualify for premiere status (ignoring banking and borrowing for the moment).

So, if ANYWHERE within the entire marriott system (of 400,000 owners!!!!) there are 500 points owners with at least 6900 points who desire to reserve one of the prime weeks at Mountainside, they can do so at 13 months, and they would be competing with the 400 multiple week owners at Mountainside, at 13 months, for the same inventory.

If inventory is allocated between weeks and points on a first come, first serve basis, then points owners could conceivably take ALL of the prime reservations otherwise available at 13 months to multiple weeks owners. Maybe they get less than all, but they certainly get some. On an even, head to head competition, if they were all to go for the prime weeks, points owners would likely get 5/9, and weeks owners would likey get 4/9, since that is how the number of owners eligible to reserve the units at 13 months is distributed.

The above would be true despite the fact that only 14% of platinum season units at Mountainside were in the points pool, if there is not a pro rata allocation of inventory between weeks and points for every single week in the platinum season, on a week by week basis. If there was a pro rata allocation, then 86% of the prime weeks, or 344 units, would remain available to multiple week owners who have not converted to points, and only 56 units would be available to points owners. This would be fairer than a pure first come/ first serve allocation, but even a week by week pro rata allocation puts multiple week owners at a disadvantage compared to where they are currently, unless ALL of the folks who have converted to points are multiple week owners.

If the only folks who turn their weeks in for points are single week owners, then there are STILL 400 multiple week owners who have not turned their weeks in for points, and they still would like to reserve one of the 400 prime weeks, but they are now competing against points owners, who are entitled to make 500 reservations at Mountainside in platinum season, which is more than the total number of prime weeks released at 13 months.

I hope that was clear. Those of you who say that this is a non issue are, I believe, missing a critical point.

 

[BocaBum99]

I don't agree. Let me give you an example that illustrates my concern. I think a lot of people are missing this issue.

At Mountainside there are 200 villas. Lets say there are 18 weeks in platinum season (I didnt bother to count, but I think that is close). So there are a total of 3600 platinum weeks at the resort.

For the sake of argument, lets say that the four weeks from mid february through mid march are the most desireable weeks. There are a total of 800 villas available during those four prime weeks. That represents approximately 22 percent of the total platinum season inventory.

Half of those 800 units, or 400 units, are made available to multiple week owners at 13 months. Under the current system, a multiple week owner who calls in at 13 months is competing ONLY against other multiple week owners for those 400 units. Again, for the sake of argument, lets say that there are only 200 folks who are multiple week owners at Mountainside, all of whom own 2 weeks at Mountainside. In my example, ALL 200 of those multiple week owenrs will be able to reserve two weeks (400 weeks total) during one of the four prime weeks betwen mid february and mid march at 13 months.

Now, let's assume that of the 3600 platinum units at Mountainside, 500 owners decide to turn their units in for points in a given year. That represents only approximately 14 percent of all platinum units at Mountainside. Let's assume further that everyone who turned in a week is a single week owner. As a result, there are now a total of 500 platinum units at Mountainside available to reserve using points.

ANY points owner who wants to reserve one of the prime weeks at Mountainside will be eligible to do so at 13 months, since it takes 6900 points to reserve one of those weeks at Mountainside, and anyone with that many points would qualify for premiere status (ignoring banking and borrowing for the moment).

So, if ANYWHERE within the entire marriott system (of 400,000 owners!!!!) there are 500 points owners with at least 6900 points who desire to reserve one of the prime weeks at Mountainside, they can do so at 13 months, and they would be competing with the 400 multiple week owners at Mountainside, at 13 months, for the same inventory.

If inventory is allocated between weeks and points on a first come, first serve basis, then points owners could conceivably take ALL of the prime reservations otherwise available at 13 months to multiple weeks owners. Maybe they get less than all, but they certainly get some. On an even, head to head competition, if they were all to go for the prime weeks, points owners would likely get 5/9, and weeks owners would likey get 4/9, since that is how the number of owners eligible to reserve the units at 13 months is distributed.

The above would be true despite the fact that only 14% of platinum season units at Mountainside were in the points pool, if there is not a pro rata allocation of inventory between weeks and points for every single week in the platinum season, on a week by week basis. If there was a pro rata allocation, then 86% of the prime weeks, or 344 units, would remain available to multiple week owners who have not converted to points, and only 56 units would be available to points owners. This would be fairer than a pure first come/ first serve allocation, but even a week by week pro rata allocation puts multiple week owners at a disadvantage compared to where they are currently, unless ALL of the folks who have converted to points are multiple week owners.

If the only folks who turn their weeks in for points are single week owners, then there are STILL 400 multiple week owners who have not turned their weeks in for points, and they still would like to reserve one of the 400 prime weeks, but they are now competing against points owners, who are entitled to make 500 reservations at Mountainside in platinum season, which is more than the total number of prime weeks released at 13 months.

I hope that was clear. Those of you who say that this is a non issue are, I believe, missing a critical point.

I think there will be increased competition for prime weeks. I also believe that the number of slots competing for those slots will remain the same, but the intensity of competition will be fierce and those with Marriott on its side (ie points owners) will have an advantage.

I don't believe there will be equal or less competition.

Someone is going to lose. It will either be fixed/floating week owners or point owners. But make no mistake about it, someone is going to lose.

 

[hipslo]

I think there will be increased competition for prime weeks. I also believe that the number of slots competing for those slots will remain the same, but the intensity of competition will be fierce and those with Marriott on its side (ie points owners) will have an advantage.

I don't believe there will be equal or less competition.

Someone is going to lose. It will either be fixed/floating week owners or point owners. But make no mistake about it, someone is going to lose.

I agree, although I don't see how fixed week owners could lose, as they are guaranteed their fixed week, if they want it.

 

[seatrout]

Hipslo, why all the fear??

Points owner can only book at 13 months ahead. As a several weeks owner, you have always booked earlier than the 13 months out and thus are always ahead of the line. So there is really no worries.

As a Hyatt owner with experience with points, I welcome the points as a secondary options. Internal reservations with existing inventory are always easier than trading the peak time with II.

 

[Cathyb]

Every other year questions for Marriott

Earlier today I had a conversation with a high-ranking and knowledgeable corporate officer regarding some questions that either have not had good answers here or that I missed or that are still being responded to incorrectly by posters on this forum.

I submitted some questions in writing last Thursday and added some more over the weekend. Customer Advocacy assigned a specific officer to discuss the questions with me, knowing of my involvement here on the Marriott forum and approving publication here of the responses. If I get any of what he said wrong, I'm sure he will correct me. However, I have a lot of confidence in his answers.

Further, I can have further dialogue with this individual as appropriate. I promised that I would not bother him with every question posed here on TUG, especially where it appears that there aren't perfect answers (e.g., Why are more points required to reserve a week at my resort than what I received?) or where the questions have already been adequately answered on this forum.

If I get more info, I will edit this initial post, either adding to the Q&A here or linking to other threads. This thread does not take the place of what eventually will be a guide to the new program in the FAQs for this forum.

With that intro, here goes (The response wording is mine.):

Who will pay for additional housekeeping and any other new expenses at my home resort that are necessitated by the new points program (e.g., for short stays)?

Marriott response: An amount (not disclosed to me) for such expenses has been built into the $.40 MF per point that new points owners will pay. It's not clear what the amount of such additional expense will be. It depends on how many short stays there are, whether the rest of those weeks go unused or are used for other short stays, etc. In some cases, expenses might actually go down because a resort might be able to get by with fewer housekeeping personnel, some of whom work all week instead of only on weekends. The resort will be responsible for calculating and presenting to the administrators of the points trust the amount that the resort is owed. If you attend an HOA board or annual meeting in early 2012 or later, feel free to ask how your resort is affected.

If I Enroll my week(s) in the new program, will I have direct online access to II, just as I now do?

Marriott's response: Yes, yes, yes. You will be able to search for available II inventory even though you have an ongoing exchange request in place. You will also be able to search for Flexchange opportunities, just as you do now. Marriott is committed to giving current owners the same opportunities they have now. However, if you are concerned about the accuracy of that promise, simply keep your current II account until you are sure.

Will II's Comparable Exchange methodology apply to Marriott's requests to confirm exchanges through II for points owners, just as it does to us as existing weeks owners?

Marriott's response: Yes. II is a separate profit-making company and is not owned by Marriott. Marriott has no contract with II that would give Marriott the right to "raid" weeks in II inventory (Dave M note: as has been postulated by many here on TUG). Instead, Marriott will be requesting exchanges, just as we do. Marriott will have to offer "Comparable Exchange" weeks to get what it wants. If Marriott offers II too many top weeks to get so-so weeks in exchange, it will be impossible for Marriott to adequately serve its points owners.

Additionally, note that if Marriott wants a week from II, it will give II one in exchange. So if one week isn't there for us to exchange into, another “comparable” one will be.

There might actually be more II inventory eventually. With the non-resort stay options (e.g., cruises and Explorer program) offered in exchange for points, there may be more weeks in the trust that stay in Marriott’s hands and go unused. Certainly, Marriott can rent some of them. But as anyone who has been rejected by Marriott's rental program can infer, Marriott will have excess weeks that it will deposit into II. Those weeks are in addition to the weeks Marriott will deposit to get its exchanges for points owners.

There is conflicting wording in the various documents on the website regarding whether current owners will pay II fees if they enroll in the points program. Would you please clarify?

Marriott's response: There is some language in the II Buyers Guide (for Enrolled Owners) that erroneously states that Enrolled Owners will pay $109 for an internal Marriott-to-Marriott exchange. That wording will be corrected.

Bottom line? If you enroll, you will still pay fees for non-Marriott exchanges, but not for Marriott-to-Marriott exchanges where the only requested resorts are Marriotts.

Will Enrolled Owners still be entitled to Accommodation Certificates when depositing a week that II wants? Also, will exchangers still enjoy the Marriott 24-day internal exchange priority?

Marriott's response: Yes to both questions. II will still need those prime weeks. Thus, it's up to II as to which weeks it will offer an AC for or whether it will offer 2-for-1 or other specials. No change to the Marriott internal priority rules.

As a footnote, there are a ton of owners who don't want to have to deal with II, in part because they don't know how to use II effectively. We know this from the many posts here at TUG on that topic. Those people, as Enrolled Owners, can now use an Owner Services rep to handle everything and might not get an AC. We know to wait until II offers an AC before depositing, so we can still "work" the system.

As an Enrolled Owner, will I still have the same 13-month access to multiple week (concurrent or consecutive weeks) reservations that I do now?

Marriott's response: Yes. Further, the available inventory at 13 months for all who seek to reserve (including Marriott on behalf of points owners) will still be limited to 50% of the weeks available at a resort for any single week of the year. Thus, at least 50% of weeks will still be available at 12 months.

There are various scenarios under which there could be more inventory available at 13 months and 12 months than there is now. Some of these scenarios have been discussed in mother threads, but they include the point that it takes a lot of points (did I say skimming?) to reserve a prime week.

Can a points purchaser rent weeks obtained with point?

Marriott's response: Casual rentals by a points owner will be allowed. The language in the documents that prohibits commercial activity is to prevent the type of activity that often happens currently with owners of multiple weeks whereby they call in at 13 months, reserve many of the best weeks and then put them up for rent as a commercial enterprise.

Note: Whether rentals constitute commercial activity will be decided on a case by case basis. But renting a week or two will definitely not be a problem.

* * * * *

As stated above, I will edit this post and add to the thread as appropriate. However, I will not be available for the next 4 to 5 hours.

Dave: Could you get them to clarify what fees/expenses Every Other Year owners would have and if they pay them in the year they are able to use their unit or have to pay some of them annually? Thank you!

 

[dioxide45]

Dave: Could you get them to clarify what fees/expenses Every Other Year owners would have and if they pay them in the year they are able to use their unit or have to pay some of them annually? Thank you!

It is my understanding that the annual fee of $169 or $199 is due annually regardless if you own an every year or every other year. This is because you will be able to take advantage of the program on an annual basis bu banking or borrowing points.

 

[hipslo]

Hipslo, why all the fear??

Points owner can only book at 13 months ahead. As a several weeks owner, you have always booked earlier than the 13 months out and thus are always ahead of the line. So there is really no worries.

As a Hyatt owner with experience with points, I welcome the points as a secondary options. Internal reservations with existing inventory are always easier than trading the peak time with II.

Well, points owners can also book ahead of the 13 month window using the same techniques that we use currently in weeks. If the playing field is somehow slanted in favor of points, I am concerned about the ever increasing costs to always be at the front of the line, especially given the "skim".

Bottom line, I bought multiple weeks specifically to ensure my ability to reserve the weeks I need. Anything that potentially impinges on my ability to do that causes me great concern.

If my fears are groundless, that would be great. I suppose only time will tell.

 

[seatrout]

did not get the PM.

I think you will be OK. It is not very cost effective to use points and string reservation as we have done in the past.-- as there is a large increase in point costs compared to point that was given for the weeks.

The true demand is difficult to tell: yes there is now the 13 months point owner reservation. There is also a lesser demand for owner to reserve "prime" week to deposit for "trading power" as points are points. The need for multi-week owner to battle us to reserve our prime ski week to rent may also decrease as owner may deposit the points to go elsewhere

I do think that it is now much easier for us to go to the newer resort "trust owned" during peak time.

 

[Dave M]

I have a correction to my initial post, which I am making, and I'll try to respond to as many questions as practical.

Correction
I omitted (thanks, m61376) a critical piece of info related to our ability to have online access to II if be enroll and roll our existing II account into a new Enrollee II account. Marriott did not anticipate how important it is for us to have the online access that we need for searches. Thus, they are scurrying to fix it so that we will have access. What happened is that, in training, reps were told "no online access". It quickly became evident that it was a mistake to not provide it. So it's being fixed but, apparently, not all reps have the correct info.

Responses to questions posed in this thread
As I implied in my O.P. I won't be able to address questions for which there is no answer (e.g., Do you think Marriott will play fair?).

the response as stated above suggests to me that ... there will not be separate "pools" allocated to weeks and points owners at 13 months. Is that your understanding, or am I reading too much into the wording of the response?

Whether it's actually a separate pool or not, I don't know for sure. However, I do know that Marriott is committed to ensuring that every weeks owner is able to reserve a week within their season. Thus, the only weeks at our home resorts that will be available to points owners to reserve at 13 and 12 months will be Marriott-owned weeks, weeks traded for Marriott Rewards points and weeks traded for points by Enrolled owners. I have spent enough time discussing this point that it doesn't worry me as to whether I will be able to reserve a week as easily as I have in the past. Stated another way, BocaBoy's comment above was directly on point: "If no one has relinquished a week for points in your season at a sold out resort, there can be no inventory for points users. It is as simple as that."

I think someone alluded to this above, but could you inquire with your source as to the possibility of having some sort of Marriott Concierge, similar to what Andrew offers on Flyertalk?

That's what Owner Services reps are for. We are very, very small potatoes compared with FlyerTalk, especially since this site is primarily about timeshares and the FlyerTalk Marriott forum is about all of Marriott, but especially about the bigger picture - hotels! No concierge here.

* * * *

Other questions have been appropriately answered herein or do not have answers as far as I know.

 

[scrapngen]

Thanks, Dave, for getting some clarity for all of us!!

 

[Luckybee]

Well, points owners can also book ahead of the 13 month window using the same techniques that we use currently in weeks. If the playing field is somehow slanted in favor of points, I am concerned about the ever increasing costs to always be at the front of the line, especially given the "skim".

Bottom line, I bought multiple weeks specifically to ensure my ability to reserve the weeks I need. Anything that potentially impinges on my ability to do that causes me great concern.

If my fears are groundless, that would be great. I suppose only time will tell.

Isnt it also correct that the 13 month point owners have a 2 day advantage from looking at the charts at a number of resorts . As i saw it point inventory would open on a Tues...whereas weeks on a Thurs?

 

[mightywyrm]

Will II's Comparable Exchange methodology apply to Marriott's requests to confirm exchanges through II for points owners, just as it does to us as existing weeks owners?

Marriott's response: Yes. II is a separate profit-making company and is not owned by Marriott. Marriott has no contract with II that would give Marriott the right to "raid" weeks in II inventory (Dave M note: as has been postulated by many here on TUG). Instead, Marriott will be requesting exchanges, just as we do. Marriott will have to offer "Comparable Exchange" weeks to get what it wants. If Marriott offers II too many top weeks to get so-so weeks in exchange, it will be impossible for Marriott to adequately serve its points owners.

Additionally, note that if Marriott wants a week from II, it will give II one in exchange. So if one week isn't there for us to exchange into, another “comparable” one will be.

There might actually be more II inventory eventually. With the non-resort stay options (e.g., cruises and Explorer program) offered in exchange for points, there may be more weeks in the trust that stay in Marriott’s hands and go unused. Certainly, Marriott can rent some of them. But as anyone who has been rejected by Marriott's rental program can infer, Marriott will have excess weeks that it will deposit into II. Those weeks are in addition to the weeks Marriott will deposit to get its exchanges for points owners.

Maybe this is much ado about nothing, at least right now. However, like others here, I'm still VERY skeptical that Marriott is papering over the mechanisms it has put in place to ensure it can harvest weeks for its managed resorts that are deposited into II.

As m61376 stated:

The contention is that Marriott will be a trader like everyone else, and that they will have to offer something comparable if they fill a point request with a deposited week. However, while they took umbrage at my suggestion that "comparable" could be multiple weeks, the sum of whose point values equal the week taken, I was not given confirmation that a singular week of equal value would, in fact, replace the week taken.​

I understand why a Marriott rep might not like the term "raid", and that as of the date of this response Marriott doesn't have contract with II that would allow whatever he means by that term. That's a far cry from the allaying our concerns, however.

Marriott is suggesting that everyone will be happy, but this points trust doesn't even own any inventory at almost 80% of Marriott resorts (meaning they will rely heavily on trading within II). At the same time they're assuring 400K existing owners (who own all this inventory), that there's nothing to worry about: Marriott won't cut in line, and it will pay for every premium week it obtains with one (1) equally valuable week.

"Marriott will be requesting exchanges, just as we do." Really? Hmmm... I don't think that means what you think it means. I could tell you that, "I play basketball, just like Michael Jordan." Does this statement by me assert that MJ and I are equals? Not really...

So how does their exchange request process differ from that which they require us to use?

• Will Marriott's deposit-first requests be subject to the same trading power requirements as the rest of us? (Not that we have access to trading power assignments, mind you.)
• For inventory the trust actually owns, does Marriott construe the trust's ownership of thousands of weeks to mean that it can stack consecutive weeks as far ahead of the 13 month limitation as need be, guaranteeing advance booking up to the 50% limit at 13 months?
• Does Marriott have to supply it's comparable trade weeks at the time it withdraws them, or does it have a period of time to replenish the supply in "batch mode"? (I ask because this could mean that supplies are limited early in the year, and surpluses occur late in the year, or somesuch.)

Marriott and II greatly depend on each other. Bearing in mind that Marriott was (is?) an investor in II, considering the level of integration among their business processes, it's tough to simply accept a reiteration that there's nothing to worry about and just blindly sign on the line which is dotted.

I'd really like to see a response under a Marriott signature, btw. We're being asked to play this new game, but MVC has not been forthcoming and clear about the rules. We're a little concerned that the deck is stacked.

Perhaps even more important than the precise details are assurances. Dealing with executives (and other politicians) is sometimes a struggle to pin them down enough to get a real, insightful answer. Otherwise, we may be simply providing an opportunity to deflect our questions and use them to put our concerns to bed without actually "saying" much.

ps - thank you Dave, for working to refine and distill the details for us all. It's not my purpose to criticize you. I'm disappointed in Marriott, not you.

pps - I haven't been able to keep up with the flood of details, so if anything I mentioned is obsolete or already resolved, I apologize.

 

[DanCali]

However, I do know that Marriott is committed to ensuring that every weeks owner is able to reserve a week within their season. Thus, the only weeks at our home resorts that will be available to points owners to reserve at 13 and 12 months will be Marriott-owned weeks, weeks traded for Marriott Rewards points and weeks traded for points by Enrolled owners. I have spent enough time discussing this point that it doesn't worry me as to whether I will be able to reserve a week as easily as I have in the past. Stated another way, BocaBoy's comment above was directly on point: "If no one has relinquished a week for points in your season at a sold out resort, there can be no inventory for points users. It is as simple as that."That's what Owner Services reps are for. We are very, very small potatoes compared with FlyerTalk, especially since this site is primarily about timeshares and the FlyerTalk Marriott forum is about all of Marriott, but especially about the bigger picture - hotels! No concierge here.

Dave - thanks for getting this info.

I'm trying to look at the cup half full, but unfortunately Marriott does not seem committed to fairness (as the "old Perry" speculated in the speculation thread).

"Marriott is committed to ensuring that every weeks owner is able to reserve a week within their season." - I'm touched that they are committed to ensuring we get our deeded rights... - did they at some point consider taking those away too? But it is truly a problem if 20% of people convert and they can grab 100% of the desired weeks in a season. It makes the "season" not quite the season people bought...

I wonder if Marriott not addressing this question more appropriately is even in compliance with all state laws. FredM posted some information here regarding California laws (relevant to NCV and the Palm Springs area resorts). I'm not a lawyer, but hopefully some of the lawyers can comment on this. In my opinion, this is THE most disturbing aspect of the program (and I'm glad it's on other people's minds as well!).

 

[DanCali]

Isnt it also correct that the 13 month point owners have a 2 day advantage from looking at the charts at a number of resorts . As i saw it point inventory would open on a Tues...whereas weeks on a Thurs?

No. The 13 month window for weeks owners typically opens on a Tuesday if the first checkin day at the resort if Friday. Just do an example using a calendar and you'll see.