Enrolled versus Trust Inventory Availability?

[kds4]

So, do you really need to 'own' both kinds of points to access all available points inventory? It has been claimed that if you are an enrolled week owner, you can only see 'enrolled' points inventory to make a points reservation. Similarly, if you own only 'trust' points, you would see only trust points when looking to make a reservation. So, only an enrolled owner who also has trust points should be able to 'see' everything that is available in the system, yes? If so, this supports what I have heard in many sales presentations. But how to prove or disprove?

It occurs to me that this could be verified one way or another (at least anecdotally) through an experiment requiring 3 TUGgers. It would take 1 owner of just enrolled weeks, 1 owner of just trust points, and 1 owner of both.

These 3 would then select specific resorts and specific dates to search in the same order on a specific date/time. They would then perform their searches simultaneously (so all 3 types of owners are searching the same 'inventory' locations and dates at the same time) and report their results. If they all see the same availability, it would appear to not matter what 'kind' of points you own. On the other hand, if there are differences in what they see as available inventory, that would appear to support the MVCI claim that what you own matters.

Granted that even if no differences in available inventory are seen now, there could be in the future (as Marriott's IT capability evolves). We would at least be able to confirm the current state of the inventory control system.

Any takers?

 

[tschwa2]

So, do you really need to 'own' both kinds of points to access all available points inventory? It has been claimed that if you are an enrolled week owner, you can only see 'enrolled' points inventory to make a points reservation. Similarly, if you own only 'trust' points, you would see only trust points when looking to make a reservation. So, only an enrolled owner who also has trust points should be able to 'see' everything that is available in the system, yes? If so, this supports what i have heard in sales presentations. But how to prove or disprove?

It occurs to me that this could be verified one way or another (at least anecdotally) through an experiment requiring 3 TUGgers. It would take 1 owner of just enrolled weeks, 1 owner of just trust points, and 1 owner of both.

These 3 would then select specific resorts and specific dates to search in the same order on a specific date/time. They would then perform their searches simultaneously (so all 3 types of owners are searching the same 'inventory' at the same time) and report their results. If they all see the same availability, it would appear to not matter what 'kind' of points you own. On the other hand, if there are differences in what they see as available inventory, that would appear to support the MVCI claim that what you own matters.

Any takers?

If you do a search you will find that it has been done several times. Off the top of my head I would say Greg has done it on more than one occasion.

 

[JIMinNC]

The program documents directly contradict the assertion that enrolled owners can only see enrolled points (called MVC Exchange inventory) and that Trust owners can only see Trust inventory. They clearly state that Trust Points have access to both inventory in the Trust and inventory in the MVC Exchange. Enrolled Points only have access to inventory in the MVC Exchange, but as tschwa2 just posted, this has been discussed on TUG frequently. GregT and others believe, based on their tests, that MVC is depositing virtually all of the Trust inventory (with a few high value/high demand exceptions, and maybe then only in the 13 month window) into the MVC Exchange. The net result of this is that all the evidence points to both Enrolled and Trust Points having access to virtually all of the same inventory - at least by the 12 month release date - with only a few isolated exceptions.

 

[kds4]

If this experiment has already been performed as I described, my apologies. I did not find a thread that appeared to do that and I was curious to see the results from this methodology as a snapshot of the actual operation of the system separate from how the documents say it should operate. Do the mechanics match the instructions? If there are recent results posted on TUG, can someone direct me to them? Even if done previously, it is probably worth doing periodically as the system is dynamic and can change as MVCI modifies the constraints. This exercise provides a rudimentary 'check and balance' of the inventory control system.

If Greg is/has done this with the help of 2 other owners, that's great.

 

[WyldSmurf]

I know this does not answer the question directly but I wanted to share an experience related to booking with points from enrolled weeks and destinations club

I was recently trying to book a week in Aruba using points online and I had enough points in 2018 but it was taking additional my trust points from 2019. I called the service line and spoke to the most helpful adviser ever ( I should have written his name down) and he explained in this booking situation I needed 1050 trust points based on 3 days of the days I wanted to stay being trust points only. He stated this is rare and he has only seen this happen at booking a handful of times that you could have enough points but require a set amount of trust points. I think very complex things are going on in the background and likely owners do not know the whole story but the great TUG members share experiences that give better insight and ask the right questions.

 

[GregT]

I would be happy to participate in a robust sightings experiment. I have both trust points and elected points. We would need to do in sightings board.

I would suggest we focus on Ritz STT, Kauai Lagoons, and Waikoloa Ocean Club to start as properties that are primarily only in the Trust and perhaps we add a couple that are primarily held by owners (Waiohai?)

What search parameters should we put in place? 13 month and 12 month availability?

Do we have any pure Trust point owners that can participate? They would need to be Executive level at a minimum?

Please comment and thank you.

Best,

Greg

 

[dougp26364]

The program documents directly contradict the assertion that enrolled owners can only see enrolled points (called MVC Exchange inventory) and that Trust owners can only see Trust inventory. They clearly state that Trust Points have access to both inventory in the Trust and inventory in the MVC Exchange. Enrolled Points only have access to inventory in the MVC Exchange, but as tschwa2 just posted, this has been discussed on TUG frequently. GregT and others believe, based on their tests, that MVC is depositing virtually all of the Trust inventory (with a few high value/high demand exceptions, and maybe then only in the 13 month window) into the MVC Exchange. The net result of this is that all the evidence points to both Enrolled and Trust Points having access to virtually all of the same inventory - at least by the 12 month release date - with only a few isolated exceptions.

I'll take this one step further. Not only is all inventory available to any points user but to ordinary, plain old vanilla weeks owners as well.

Recently we went back to exchanging weeks. So long as I'm requaesting I've had no problem getting an exchange within the MVC system. Now I've seen less inventory for instant exchange online but exchanging via request hasn't been a problem.

Sales people have always, shall we say, stretch the truth. Their favorite technique has always been fear. Right now MVC uses the fear you can't get the exchange you want. That, in my experience, just ain't true. Granted I only have access to enrolled points and weeks exchanges but, I've seen very little change and no truth to any salesmans assertion I'd be left in the cold if I didn't "supercharge" my enrolled points by purchasing additional trust points.

The ONLY thing that might have been close to accurate has been the easy availability to trade up in size. It's not impossible and II has tacked on their upgrade fee but, in general, I'm not seeing as much MVC availability for online instant exchanges and even less when it comes to trading up in size. On the other hand, trading out of the MVC system and trading up in size hasn't changed all that much. I can still move up in size via instant online exchange relatively easily outside the MVC system. But that sort of eliminate the cost advantage of being an enrolled owner in most cases.

In short, just ignore the salesmans claims and remember, they work on commission, not on salary. There's little incentive for them to make you feel anything other than uncomfortable with your present ownership and make you feel they need to buy the new shinny product.

 

[kds4]

I know this does not answer the question directly but I wanted to share an experience related to booking with points from enrolled weeks and destinations club

I was recently trying to book a week in Aruba using points online and I had enough points in 2018 but it was taking additional my trust points from 2019. I called the service line and spoke to the most helpful adviser ever ( I should have written his name down) and he explained in this booking situation I needed 1050 trust points based on 3 days of the days I wanted to stay being trust points only. He stated this is rare and he has only seen this happen at booking a handful of times that you could have enough points but require a set amount of trust points. I think very complex things are going on in the background and likely owners do not know the whole story but the great TUG members share experiences that give better insight and ask the right questions.

Your experience would seem to indicate that (at least sometimes) the type of points owned does matter when it comes to available inventory. In the experiment I described, this would be demonstrated as search results where the pure points owner would see different availability than the enrolled week points owner when both search simultaneously for the same dates at the same resort.

 

[SueDonJ]

I think the DC set-up still conforms to what's in the DC Points FAQ thread, that as Jim explained above, MVW is making pretty much all inventory available at the 12-mos mark via the Exchange Company for booking with either Trust or Exchange Points. Within the 13-mos period, some of the highest-demand intervals still appear to be made available only via the DC Trust to DC Trust Points owners.

One of the things that some sales reps say is that the properties which have come online since the DC inception are made available and will always remain available to only DC Trust Points owners. That's completely false. In fact as each new property has come online their Points Charts have indicated that they are available only via the Exchange Company (and therefore reservable-able with Trust or Exchange Points,) because they're not conveyed to the DC Trust until some time later. In addition, at the outset of each new property we've seen almost simultaneous deposits to II for Weeks exchanges.

Now as moderator, this is a good abstract discussion and it's smart to revisit it occasionally to gain updated info. But as Greg says, the minute we start talking about specific availability of specific resorts/dates, the discussion has to take place on the Sightings board. If you're in for the experiment please start it there, or, appreciate that I'll have to move it there. Thanks!

 

[kds4]

I would be happy to participate in a robust sightings experiment. I have both trust points and elected points. We would need to do in sightings board.

I would suggest we focus on Ritz STT, Kauai Lagoons, and Waikoloa Ocean Club to start as properties that are primarily only in the Trust and perhaps we add a couple that are primarily held by owners (Waiohai?)

What search parameters should we put in place? 13 month and 12 month availability?

Do we have any pure Trust point owners that can participate? They would need to be Executive level at a minimum?

Please comment and thank you.

Best,

Greg

I am like you and own both. I suggested all 3 types of owners participate as a control (meaning would an owner with enrolled week and trust points see the same results as a pure trust point owner or a strictly enrolled week owner combined or could there be any differences - a glitch maybe)? They should ideally see the same but the only way to be certain is to have all 3 searching - trust only, enrolled only, and a trust/enrolled owner like you or me.

 

[kds4]

I think the DC set-up still conforms to what's in the DC Points FAQ thread, that as Jim explained above, MVW is making pretty much all inventory available at the 12-mos mark via the Exchange Company for booking with either Trust or Exchange Points. Within the 13-mos period, some of the highest-demand intervals still appear to be made available only via the DC Trust to DC Trust Points owners.

One of the things that some sales reps say is that the properties which have come online since the DC inception are made available and will always remain available to only DC Trust Points owners. That's completely false. In fact as each new property has come online their Points Charts have indicated that they are available only via the Exchange Company (and therefore reservable-able with Trust or Exchange Points,) because they're not conveyed to the DC Trust until some time later. In addition, at the outset of each new property we've seen almost simultaneous deposits to II for Weeks exchanges.

Now as moderator, this is a good abstract discussion and it's smart to revisit it occasionally to gain updated info. But as Greg says, the minute we start talking about specific availability of specific resorts/dates, the discussion has to take place on the Sightings board. If you're in for the experiment please start it there, or, appreciate that I'll have to move it there. Thanks!

No argument from me. I agree conducting it and posting the results is best on the sightings board.

 

[JIMinNC]

I'll take this one step further. Not only is all inventory available to any points user but to ordinary, plain old vanilla weeks owners as well.

This statement is true...but only up to a point, I think.

For "floating" time at a resort where the Trust owns floating weeks, the Trust has equal access to "reserve" any given interval. But once the Trust "reserves" its intervals (however that is done), those intervals are only available to Trust Point owners until the Trust opts to deposit those intervals into the MVC Exchange Company. We don't really understand exactly how all this process works in the background, and it may be a simultaneous reserve/deposit when the points owner makes a request. Below is the relevant paragraph from the Destination Club Reservations Procedures that outlines the process by which MVC can "reserve" floating weeks for use by trust point owners. It's been theorized here on TUG by some that MVC actually must pre-reserve those intervals when the Weeks reservation windows opens, but an alternative thought has been advanced that says they don't actually pre-reserve, but that MVC just ensures that weeks and points owners have equitable access to any given intervals when making reservations, and the Trust waits until a Trust owner requests an interval before actually "reserving" it for benefit of that Trust owner. The real process is hidden in the "black box" that we can't peer into.

G. Reservation at Underlying Components. In the event that the underlying property that has been submitted to the Trust consists of existing timeshare interests that are subject to “floating” or other similar use plans at the Components containing such timeshare interests, the Program Manager shall be required to reserve Use Periods at such Components in accordance with the Components’ respective underlying reservation procedures. In order to provide Trust Owners with the greatest possible flexibility in making reservations, Program Manager shall use reasonable efforts to reserve Use Periods at such Components on an equitable basis and Program Manager shall use reasonable efforts to reserve Use Periods that represent the full seasonality at such Components. Program Manager is under no obligation to reserve any particular Use Periods at such Components or reserve only those Use Periods that represent the highest Point values at such Components.

 

[kds4]

I'll take this one step further. Not only is all inventory available to any points user but to ordinary, plain old vanilla weeks owners as well.

Recently we went back to exchanging weeks. So long as I'm requaesting I've had no problem getting an exchange within the MVC system. Now I've seen less inventory for instant exchange online but exchanging via request hasn't been a problem.

Sales people have always, shall we say, stretch the truth. Their favorite technique has always been fear. Right now MVC uses the fear you can't get the exchange you want. That, in my experience, just ain't true. Granted I only have access to enrolled points and weeks exchanges but, I've seen very little change and no truth to any salesmans assertion I'd be left in the cold if I didn't "supercharge" my enrolled points by purchasing additional trust points.

The ONLY thing that might have been close to accurate has been the easy availability to trade up in size. It's not impossible and II has tacked on their upgrade fee but, in general, I'm not seeing as much MVC availability for online instant exchanges and even less when it comes to trading up in size. On the other hand, trading out of the MVC system and trading up in size hasn't changed all that much. I can still move up in size via instant online exchange relatively easily outside the MVC system. But that sort of eliminate the cost advantage of being an enrolled owner in most cases.

In short, just ignore the salesmans claims and remember, they work on commission, not on salary. There's little incentive for them to make you feel anything other than uncomfortable with your present ownership and make you feel they need to buy the new shinny product.

Interesting. I actually had not thought to include owners of un-enrolled weeks. If all inventory is available to all owners (including unenrolled weeks owners) as you suggest, then an unenrolled week owner should see the same availability to make a 7 night reservation on the MVCI website at their resort within their owned season as a points owner looking simultaneously for availability at the same resort for those same dates using the Book My Points function (unless it was the very last interval of a given unit size/view type, which would then go the first owner of any kind to book it if I am understanding your reasoning correctly).

 

[kds4]

I would be happy to participate in a robust sightings experiment. I have both trust points and elected points. We would need to do in sightings board.

I would suggest we focus on Ritz STT, Kauai Lagoons, and Waikoloa Ocean Club to start as properties that are primarily only in the Trust and perhaps we add a couple that are primarily held by owners (Waiohai?)

What search parameters should we put in place? 13 month and 12 month availability?

Do we have any pure Trust point owners that can participate? They would need to be Executive level at a minimum?

Please comment and thank you.

Best,

Greg

Actually, to cover all bases, I guess there should really be 4 owners participating (with the addition of an un-enrolled weeks owner). This would answer the question of whether unenrolled weeks owners can see 'all' available inventory the same as points owners can (as another poster has stated should be the case). It really comes down to finding one of each type of owner willing to participate. If everyone sees the same results, great. At least that aspect of the playing field is 'level'. But what if their results are not the same? Then we no longer have an 'abstract' question but a 'real-world' situation affecting how owners can actually use their ownership to book inventory. I know what the docs say (from another poster). I'm just suggesting a way to verify that information.

 

[JIMinNC]

Interesting. I actually had not thought to include owners of un-enrolled weeks. If all inventory is available to all owners (including unenrolled weeks owners) as you suggest, then an unenrolled week owner should see the same availability to make a 7 night reservation on the MVCI website at their resort within their owned season as a points owner looking simultaneously for availability at the same resort for those same dates using the Book My Points function (unless it was the very last interval of a given unit size/view type, which would then go the first owner of any kind to book it if I am understanding your reasoning correctly).

I'm pretty sure I've seen good points availability at Maui Ocean Club when a MOC weeks owner was complaining that there was no availability showing on the weeks booking system for the same dates. I think there is almost no question that MVC uses some kind of allocation or pre-reserve process to ensure that inventory is fairly apportioned for weeks and points uses (we just don't know how it all actually works). It's the same way that there can be rental availability on Marriott.com when no points or weeks reservations are available.

 

[kds4]

I'm pretty sure I've seen good points availability at Maui Ocean Club when a MOC weeks owner was complaining that there was no availability showing on the weeks booking system for the same dates. I think there is almost no question that MVC uses some kind of allocation or pre-reserve process to ensure that inventory is fairly apportioned for weeks and points uses (we just don't know how it all actually works). It's the same way that there can be rental availability on Marriott.com when no points or weeks reservations are available.

Do you recall how far in advance the week owner was looking? Pre-reserving/allocating is what I am trying to confirm or refute the existence of with what I am proposing. The available inventory results are either all going to be the same or not. If not, why not (and what I think Marriott should be required to explain to any class of owner who should be but is unable to book a reservation that another class of owner or MR renter can). I'm not trying to tear Marriott down by any means (as I have been a loyal MR customer for 25 years and MVCI owner for 8). I'm more interested in trying to peek into the 'black box' to ensure the game is as fair as it can be (and hopefully verify how MVCI claims in their documents the system should work). I don't suppose to unravel the inner workings of the internal exchange machine, but we can at least answer the basic question of who can see what. We've heard anecdotal reports from different individual owners (Here's what happened to me, or I just saw this on the sightings board). I don't think we've ever had an organized group of different owner types take a coordinated dive into the inventory pool to see if the view is the same for all.

 

[JIMinNC]

Do you recall how far in advance the week owner was looking? Pre-reserving/allocating is what I am trying to confirm or refute the existence of with what I am proposing. The available inventory results are either all going to be the same or not. If not, why not (and what I think Marriott should be required to explain to any class of owner who should be but is unable to book a reservation that another class of owner or MR renter can). I'm not trying to tear Marriott down by any means (as I have been a loyal MR customer for 25 years and MVCI owner for 8). I'm more interested in trying to peek into the 'black box' to ensure the game is as fair as it can be (and hopefully verify how MVCI claims in their documents the system should work). I don't suppose to unravel the inner workings of the internal exchange machine, but we can at least answer the basic question of who can see what. We've heard anecdotal reports from different individual owners (Here's what happened to me, or I just saw this on the sightings board). I don't think we've ever had an organized group of different owner types take a coordinated dive into the inventory pool to see if the view is the same for all.

No, I don't recall the specifics. My recollection is it certainly wasn't last minute, but was sometime on or after the 12-month window opening when an owner would expect to be able to find something. I believe it was for the high demand late January -- February time frame, and I suspect we were probably looking at it either at or fairly close to the 12 month window, but I don't recall specifically. It was a couple of years ago when I had enough points elected/banked to be able to search for full MOC weeks. Right now I don't have enough unused points to see much.

I agree it would be an interesting exercise. It sounds like you and/or GregT have the enrolled + Trust owner type covered. I'm sure there are a lot of enrolled-only owners that could help. There are probably fewer Trust-only owners with no enrolled weeks. The only one I can think of off the top might be Fasttr. I think he owns Trust points, but his only deeded week is unenrolled. But as I recall, I think he only has a small trust package and is not an Executive Level owner, which GregT suggested might be desirable? Given that it takes 7000 points for Executive, it might be hard to find a Trust-only Executive level owner.

For the unenrolled weeks owner, you would probably need multiple owners since each owner could only search the resorts/seasons they own.

 

[GregT]

All,

I'm confused by the addition of the un-enrolled weeks owner. There will definitely be reservations available to a points user that are not available to a weeks owner. As an example, I would expect that if a multi-week owner called a VOA today and wanted to reserve a July 27, 2018 1BR OF reservation at MOC using a traditional week, there would be no availability. And yet, I booked that 1BR unit this morning using points. And there were other unit types available with points.

This makes sense to me -- there is heavy competition among week owners for those prime weeks and they are often gone shortly (10 minutes?) after the phone lines open. However, the weeks that support points availability may sit there for a much longer period of time, not sure why -- perhaps the point owner is agonizing over blowing all those points on one reservation and is slower to commit???.

It was explained to me once that Marriott projects when how many weeks will be utilized for "alternatives" -- MRP redemptions, DC point elections, and other applicable, and will hold those weeks back from the inventory of weeks available at release to home week owners. Then what ultimately passes through the MVC Exchange is those weeks that are in the Trust plus the weeks that become redeemed for points.

In my real world example above, there is a disconnect between the availability of inventory for reservations. So I'm not sure what we will learn by having a weeks owner participate in the experiment. Make sense?

Best,

Greg

 

[GregT]

No, I don't recall the specifics. My recollection is it certainly wasn't last minute, but was sometime on or after the 12-month window opening when an owner would expect to be able to find something. I believe it was for the high demand late January -- February time frame, and I suspect we were probably looking at it either at or fairly close to the 12 month window, but I don't recall specifically. It was a couple of years ago when I had enough points elected/banked to be able to search for full MOC weeks. Right now I don't have enough unused points to see much.

I agree it would be an interesting exercise. It sounds like you and/or GregT have the enrolled + Trust owner type covered. I'm sure there are a lot of enrolled-only owners that could help. There are probably fewer Trust-only owners with no enrolled weeks. The only one I can think of off the top might be Fasttr. I think he owns Trust points, but his only deeded week is unenrolled. But as I recall, I think he only has a small trust package and is not an Executive Level owner, which GregT suggested might be desirable? Given that it takes 7000 points for Executive, it might be hard to find a Trust-only Executive level owner.

For the unenrolled weeks owner, you would probably need multiple owners since each owner could only search the resorts/seasons they own.

I agree -- I don't recall a pure Trust Point owner on TUG that is Executive Level. A hybrid owner would work as long as their Trust Points were available for Bank/Borrow and they didn't have any Elected Points at all. That would necessitate the search engine working only with Trust Points.

Alas, I have Elected Points in my account at the moment, so I can't serve as the Trust Point person.

Best,

Greg

 

[JIMinNC]

I agree -- I don't recall a pure Trust Point owner on TUG that is Executive Level. A hybrid owner would work as long as their Trust Points were available for Bank/Borrow and they didn't have any Elected Points at all. That would necessitate the search engine working only with Trust Points.

Alas, I have Elected Points in my account at the moment, so I can't serve as the Trust Point person.

Best,

Greg

I can't either. Most of my available points that can be used for 2018 reservations are Trust (1750 Trust points from 2019 that can be borrowed to 2018, plus another 825 banked points that are now in the 2018 year, for a total of 2575 in 2018). But I also have 325 leftover 2018 rented Elected points, so that means I don't have a pure Trust points pool either. I'm not Executive anyway, so I can't really help much with my small number of points.

 

[dougp26364]

All,

I'm confused by the addition of the un-enrolled weeks owner. There will definitely be reservations available to a points user that are not available to a weeks owner. As an example, I would expect that if a multi-week owner called a VOA today and wanted to reserve a July 27, 2018 1BR OF reservation at MOC using a traditional week, there would be no availability. And yet, I booked that 1BR unit this morning using points. And there were other unit types available with points.

This makes sense to me -- there is heavy competition among week owners for those prime weeks and they are often gone shortly (10 minutes?) after the phone lines open. However, the weeks that support points availability may sit there for a much longer period of time, not sure why -- perhaps the point owner is agonizing over blowing all those points on one reservation and is slower to commit???.

It was explained to me once that Marriott projects when how many weeks will be utilized for "alternatives" -- MRP redemptions, DC point elections, and other applicable, and will hold those weeks back from the inventory of weeks available at release to home week owners. Then what ultimately passes through the MVC Exchange is those weeks that are in the Trust plus the weeks that become redeemed for points.

In my real world example above, there is a disconnect between the availability of inventory for reservations. So I'm not sure what we will learn by having a weeks owner participate in the experiment. Make sense?

Best,

Greg

The one clear thing I've understood is that MVC will control and shift inventory as needed. As far as proof, you'll never see it directly asin-enrolled owners must utilize II for exchanges vs making a points reservation via the MVC website.

All I'm saying is MVC doesn't differentiate were inventory comes from for a confirmation, they'll confirm any reservation from any pool so long as there's enough trade power (weeks) or points.

One of the big talking points was MVC's agreement with II that they could swap comparable value to provide for MVC owners requests. That greased the wheels for points and weeks to flow as freely from one pool to the next, trust, enrolled or un-enrolled.

I'll never convince anyone on TUG and that's all right. All I can say is, from my personal experience with weeks the ONLY difference I've seen has been less Marriott inventory available online for size upgrades. Online searches have given way to request first searches if I want to stay within the MVC family of resorts.

 

[davidvel]

This makes sense to me -- there is heavy competition among week owners for those prime weeks and they are often gone shortly (10 minutes?) after the phone lines open. However, the weeks that support points availability may sit there for a much longer period of time, not sure why -- perhaps the point owner is agonizing over blowing all those points on one reservation and is slower to commit???.

It was explained to me once that Marriott projects when how many weeks will be utilized for "alternatives" -- MRP redemptions, DC point elections, and other applicable, and will hold those weeks back from the inventory of weeks available at release to home week owners. Then what ultimately passes through the MVC Exchange is those weeks that are in the Trust plus the weeks that become redeemed for points.

In my real world example above, there is a disconnect between the availability of inventory for reservations. So I'm not sure what we will learn by having a weeks owner participate in the experiment. Make sense?

Best,

Greg

If this is true, it certainly violates the CC&Rs.

 

[GregT]

If this is true, it certainly violates the CC&Rs.

Not sure what you mean? If they have 50 floating 2BR OF weeks (as an example), and 10 are owned by the Trust and their history suggests another 6 will be redeemed for elected points, then they have 34 every week that are available for traditional week reservations. They release 17 of them 13 months out, and the other 17 12 months out.

Those weeks are booked quickly, at 9am PT when the phones open. Does that violate the CC&Rs? It made sense to me at the time, and curious if it is a problem? Thanks!

Best,

Greg

 

[davidvel]

Not sure what you mean? If they have 50 floating 2BR OF weeks (as an example), and 10 are owned by the Trust and their history suggests another 6 will be redeemed for elected points, then they have 34 every week that are available for traditional week reservations. They release 17 of them 13 months out, and the other 17 12 months out.

Those weeks are booked quickly, at 9am PT when the phones open. Does that violate the CC&Rs? It made sense to me at the time, and curious if it is a problem? Thanks!

Best,

Greg

My opinion is that any "allocation" of intervals by MVC to itself violates the HOAs obligation to allow equal access to all owners. Here's an illustration:

Imagine that Brian* was the manager for a Resort. He decides that he can make some money with a TS User Points Club. He signs people up who own weeks at the resort (and buys some himself) and charges every year. These people collectively own 5% of all weeks. These Club members assign their usage to Brian on an annual basis.

Brian then decides (as manager and Club owner) to allocate 5% of the available reservations across the 52 weeks (including he highest demand ones) to his Club automatically through his computer system at 12 (or 13) months (without anyone having to call in), and sets them aside for his Club members to reserve at their leisure. His users are thus guaranteed at least 5% of the best weeks, where other "regular" owners have to call in and try to get through the phone to get the prime weeks.

This is not permitted under the reservation procedures. The HOA must give equal access to reserve each and every week to all members regardless if they choose to form a club or not. There is no provision in the CC&Rs that allows this allocation among different groups, classes, or clubs of people. The Marriott Club and its members (and Brian's in the hypothetical) are owners just like everyone else who are not part of the Clubs. They are not entitled to any priority to automatically allocate reservations to their club.

How the DC Club could do what they want to do under their program, and be compliant, I have no idea.

* All persons are fictional.

 

[davidvel]

Not sure what you mean? If they have 50 floating 2BR OF weeks (as an example), and 10 are owned by the Trust and their history suggests another 6 will be redeemed for elected points, then they have 34 every week that are available for traditional week reservations. They release 17 of them 13 months out, and the other 17 12 months out.

Those weeks are booked quickly, at 9am PT when the phones open. Does that violate the CC&Rs? It made sense to me at the time, and curious if it is a problem? Thanks!

Best,

Greg

In your example, all 50 weeks should be available to all owners at the time the reservation window opens, not just 34.