Final Straw- Selling our Marriott/Vistana Timeshares

[Dean]

In fact they could have offered each affected owner a presentation package with a stay for free. Different inventory and might have gotten another bite at the apple. Lack of creativity...

They could have among lots of other choices. What they did was FAR more than they were legally or ethically obligated to do albeit much will be on the backs of the owners. I guess what I don't understand is why they should donate millions of dollars, maybe even more, beyond what they're doing already when they are not obligated to do so. If they felt it would have helped with sales later they certainly could have made that choice but it was their choice to make. But why be upset at them because they didn't, I understand being bummed at one's losses. What makes one special to deserve FAR more than they are contractually obligated for when one knew or should have know the risks they were/are taking.

When one makes a reservation the information is there when done online and is available as it is on the website. Normally they also go over it when you call and make reservations.

 

[Fairwinds]

My 2 cents. If you own and live in a condo and it is rendered uninhabitable by no fault of the management company or HOA are they responsible for your lodging. Why is Marriott responsible because government agencies restrict travel? Any little thing they do is above and beyond what is required. If a unit sits unoccupied for weeks or months and they provide compensation to owners someone down the line pays. Who is that?

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Well you seem to be happy with MVCs solution. So I wish you well.

 

[Steve Fatula]

@Steve Fatula You are assuming a zero sum game when it comes to inventory. MVC is huge has the resources and options to make this work. Eg eliminating the 60 day horizon for II (remember II is much more than MVC) opening up MVC inventory for these owners, offering Bonvoy points or arranging for excess hotel inventory, renting inventory from other timeshares. DP owners or vacation home rentals, or acquiring new property or hotel floor conversion like HGVC among a few ways to add more inventory They need to get creative.season

Totally disagree. Most all of the MVCI resorts are always 100% occupied in a normal year during high season, assuming you use Marriott at all. Do you even own? So, exactly how would anyone get into those resorts if they had future use? When I go to Palm Desert in Feb every year, it's 100% full. Same for Hilton Head, Hawaii, etc. during their high season. So, tell me where the inventory would come from, where? Many people can only travel during kids off of school season. So, someone who lost their Palm Desert week this year should be able to use it next year, along with next years weeks and block me out? No way that would work, you'd anger far more than you would appease. Someone who lost Hilton Head with kids should be able to use 2 weeks next year in summer!? Give me a break, so many people would be upset when they own a week and couldn't even use their 2021 week!

60 days was a great solution if they wanted to try to appease. It means, people who own or have normal un-cancelled weeks can get there first. Those who had cancel issues get whatever is left. So, the people who did everything correctly or did not even have any use during pandemic months are not punished next year for those who lost their weeks through either negligence, or in many cases, no fault of their own just bad luck. So, you get something out of it but you get second choice. I see nothing wrong with that. It keeps everyone with unrestricted weeks whole. But they did more than 60 days in some cases, and that was definitely the wrong thing to do in my eyes.

You simply need to understand how it works better. There is no way I would agree to causing people who have their normal weeks and unrestricted cancels to lose out to people who got cancelled due to the pandemic, no way. That is not fair at all.

Many of the long time owners already have concerns with what has been done, as Dean said, I kind of wish they would have help fast to the official policies as with what has been done, there are going to be impacts for possibly a few years. And that is NOT fair. There's been a few threads about this, @davidvel @JIMinNC obviously Dean here and several other long timers who have gone through other one time events have commented on the same.
,
Why do you say if the shoe was on the other foot, I might view it differently? Are you assuming I lost nothing, like my planned Hawaii trip in April? Along with other lost trips? I am not one of those who does situational ethics. It does not matter if I am affected or not, the right thing remains the right thing. And the right thing was to hold fast to the rules, which they did not. They attempted to appease some folks. Perhaps that will turn out to not be as bad as we believe, but unrestricted would be a total massive disaster for all.

And while MVCI may own II, think about what they are doing there. II works by exchanging your week for another resorts weeks. So, non MVCI resorts, I can exchange there for a lost Marriott week. And what do they get in return? Nothing of course. I wouldn't call that doing nothing.

You seem to think most Marriotts have all this inventory. For guys like me who do off season a lot, there is indeed some, and, the 120 or 60 day limits will allow that to be used up to the limits of inventory. I suspect we'll be seeing 100% occupancy for more than high season in even the lesser used resorts. And will the non MVCI owners be happy with an II that now essentially blocks off Marriott inventory to them for the next year or two (de facto since there won't be any inventory)? I wouldn't be if I was one of those companies.

I would love for there to be a great solution to all that. Would love it. I HATE seeing people lose vacations.

 

[TheTimeTraveler]

.

Steve; What you say is true, however there is "ghost inventory" each year, in each resort, which goes unclaimed. Marriott does not talk about this as they likely use this unclaimed inventory for their own financial benefit.

Ghost inventory is a result of people forgetting to reserve, deaths, no shows, and inventory in the process of transfer or estate settlement.

Each resort has this inventory, but no one really knows what the exact numbers are, or for the exact reasons, but it does exist. Very likely not enough to handle requests for the following year due to a pandemic.



.

 

[Ken555]

And while MVCI may own II, think about what they are doing there. II works by exchanging your week for another resorts weeks. So, non MVCI resorts, I can exchange there for a lost Marriott week. And what do they get in return? Nothing of course. I wouldn't call that doing nothing.

I don’t own Marriott, but for Vistana when we use II we pay an exchange fee to II. Don’t you also pay II when exchanging a Marriott week?

Also, in the last year or two II has been giving ACs out like candy. So there are weeks available somewhere. There could have been creative solutions had they wanted to for those who were directly impacted by the <60 day cancel issue.

I agree with you completely, though, that the policy is clear. I canceled my Vistana booked weeks in time so I could bank the options without issue (and I paid the price to bank without complaint), knowing that it’s also likely to impact availability when I want to redeem them.

It’s not an easy issue to resolve, and following the policies that we agreed to upon purchase is the fairest solution of all. Anything beyond the HOA and club policies is a gift.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Totally disagree. Most all of the MVCI resorts are always 100% occupied in a normal year during high season, assuming you use Marriott at all. Do you even own? So, exactly how would anyone get into those resorts if they had future use? When I go to Palm Desert in Feb every year, it's 100% full. Same for Hilton Head, Hawaii, etc. during their high season. So, tell me where the inventory would come from, where? Many people can only travel during kids off of school season. So, someone who lost their Palm Desert week this year should be able to use it next year, along with next years weeks and block me out? No way that would work, you'd anger far more than you would appease. Someone who lost Hilton Head with kids should be able to use 2 weeks next year in summer!? Give me a break, so many people would be upset when they own a week and couldn't even use their 2021 week!

60 days was a great solution if they wanted to try to appease. It means, people who own or have normal un-cancelled weeks can get there first. Those who had cancel issues get whatever is left. So, the people who did everything correctly or did not even have any use during pandemic months are not punished next year for those who lost their weeks through either negligence, or in many cases, no fault of their own just bad luck. So, you get something out of it but you get second choice. I see nothing wrong with that. It keeps everyone with unrestricted weeks whole. But they did more than 60 days in some cases, and that was definitely the wrong thing to do in my eyes.

You simply need to understand how it works better. There is no way I would agree to causing people who have their normal weeks and unrestricted cancels to lose out to people who got cancelled due to the pandemic, no way. That is not fair at all.

Many of the long time owners already have concerns with what has been done, as Dean said, I kind of wish they would have help fast to the official policies as with what has been done, there are going to be impacts for possibly a few years. And that is NOT fair.

What you are describing here is the exact definition of zero-sum game.

My point is that MVC has plenty of levers at their control to avoid a zero-sum game. MVC now owns II so can change rules. They can do whatever they want. MVC owns separate inventory that they rent or use for promotional packages or received from ROFR. They have new Vistana resorts at Nanea and Kauai which are not sold out. They could temporarily lease more space from other timeshares...many options so no need to feel sorry for them.

To compare, I have 4 years to use my 2019 HGV banked points (2yrs HGV, 2 yrs RCI in which I can trade back into HGVC or other.) That's plenty of cushion to absorb with little impact to owners.

 

[amy241]

Thank you for your kind remarks. We hope that we will be able to use it at some point in the future.

 

[Steve Fatula]

What you are describing here is the exact definition of zero-sum game.

My point is that MVC has plenty of levers at their control to avoid a zero-sum game. MVC owns II so can change rules or not deposit inventory. They can do whatever they want. MVC owns separate inventory that they rent or use for promotional packages or received from ROFR.

To compare, I have 4 years to use my 2019 HGV banked points. That's plenty of cushion to absorb with little impact to owners.

I couldn't care less about HGVC or any other non Marriott, this is the Marriott section. They are all setup differently, have different inventory levels, etc. Honestly, tired about hearing all about non MVCI properties here. The OP was not asking about HGVC.

Yes, MVCI could change rules (which is rarely fair). However, you must have missed my point about non MVCI II affiliated resorts. They will now be in an II that no longer offers MVCI inventory for the new few years, that's cheating them. It might behoove them to now look for other exchange companies as they will likely be cheated out of a lot of trades, maybe they can do better in RCi or others. So, MVCI (II) has a lot to lose there. They have to keep II viable for non MVCI resorts else they have even bigger problems.

Have you estimated the number of lost weeks MVCI owners have incurred (so far)? I think the number would astound you. And yes, what I described is a zero sum game because it is!

MVCI does own separate inventory, and, all of that will likely be used up given what they have already done. MVCI has a *lot* of owners. As I said, all the decent resorts are already always 100% occupied (other than no shows, last second cancels) in normal years. There simply isn't much of anything they can do at those resorts during high seasons. Other companies may have not sold all their weeks, don't know.

For me, I'd much rather keep owners who have followed all the rules viable and things work as normal, and, MVCI remain in business and not layoff (er furlough) even more people. At least they kept their health benefits. Killing MVCI does not help me or any other owner.

Reading my original resorts annual report gave a lot of insight in the pandemic world as to what is going on within MVCI. Also, staying last week in Branson gave me more insight. Things are not good from my point of view.

I do appreciate your nice world view that companies should go out of their way to help their customers. In general, I kind of agree to a point. The only difference is I believe MVCI has done as much as they could do, and are risking some serious future pushback once this all plays out as far as more lost weeks due to what they have already done, as little as that may seem to you.

 

[Steve Fatula]

.

Steve; What you say is true, however there is "ghost inventory" each year, in each resort, which goes unclaimed. Marriott does not talk about this as they likely use this unclaimed inventory for their own financial benefit.

Ghost inventory is a result of people forgetting to reserve, deaths, no shows, and inventory in the process of transfer or estate settlement.

Each resort has this inventory, but no one really knows what the exact numbers are, or for the exact reasons, but it does exist. Very likely not enough to handle requests for the following year due to a pandemic.

Well aware and very true. I suspect all of it will be consumed by what they have done already though. Someone, I think maybe @JIMinNC came up with a calculation in April or so of how many weeks were already lost. Now that it's June of course, even more weeks. The number is massive. No way they can possibly have that many weeks. As I had said, the popular resorts already have 100% occupancy anyway during high season. You can't replace all those weeks, at least within MVCI.

I think people underestimate what you can do with 60/120 day deposits because maybe they always do a year in advance as that makes them feel good or safe or organized or de-stressed, whatever. Most all of my trips are done within 120 days. There are exceptions. But there is simply no way they will go where they want to when they want to in all cases as that much inventory will simply not be there. And if you opened all those lost weeks to keeping them with a year or 2 to use them, it would be even worse. Even more owners would be impacted. I am quite certain my style of exchanging and ownership will be greatly affected the next 2 years, I am sure I will be losing out. Essentially, someone who was unaware of the rules or simply took the risk, will win out over me who followed all the rules. That's ok I guess as short term is always a little risk anyway. But I could never accept my own resorts week to be booked before I could use it.

 

[nycjimster]

I posted this on the forum a few weeks ago. I had reserved an August week at Ko Olina that I knew I can not use this year. I had posted on Redweek for rental and did not have any interest. My question to the forum - should I wait for rental or bank with Interval. Somebody asked me if I like to gamble, and I decided that I did not for this week. I called Marriott to bank the week with Interval (just outside the 60 days period). I remember someone on the thread mentioning that I could rent the rent to Marriott, and I asked the advisor if Marriott was still taking the late August week. Marriott was, and I jumped at the opportunity. It was less than my maintenance, but in light of the pandemic, I was very happy with the transaction. I spent a lot of time reading TUG the past few months, and I knew the challenge this year.

I also spoke with Marriott and Interval a lot the past month, and they have been amazing. I canceled my trade to Grande Vista for Easter Week, and Interval gave me a replacement week that I booked for late August in Hilton Head. I used another banked Marriott week to book Marriott Mrytle Beach the week before. I had to rework some of my banked weeks, and Interval was flexible in letting me extend over the deadline, and provide some excellent ideas on how to tackle my weeks. Granted I spent some time figuring it out and reaching out to Marriott and Interval. I have no complaints with Marriott and Interval.

 

[Steve Fatula]

I posted this on the forum a few weeks ago. I had reserved an August week at Ko Olina that I knew I can not use this year. I had posted on Redweek for rental and did not have any interest. My question to the forum - should I wait for rental or bank with Interval. Somebody asked me if I like to gamble, and I decided that I did not for this week. I called Marriott to bank the week with Interval (just outside the 60 days period). I remember someone on the thread mentioning that I could rent the rent to Marriott, and I asked the advisor if Marriott was still taking the late August week. Marriott was, and I jumped at the opportunity. It was less than my maintenance, but in light of the pandemic, I was very happy with the transaction. I spent a lot of time reading TUG the past few months, and I knew the challenge this year.

I also spoke with Marriott and Interval a lot the past month, and they have been amazing. I canceled my trade to Grande Vista for Easter Week, and Interval gave me a replacement week that I booked for late August in Hilton Head. I used another banked Marriott week to book Marriott Mrytle Beach the week before. I had to rework some of my banked weeks, and Interval was flexible in letting me extend over the deadline, and provide some excellent ideas on how to tackle my weeks. Granted I spent some time figuring it out and reaching out to Marriott and Interval. I have no complaints with Marriott and Interval.

You are an educated owner then, putting some effort into getting the best use out of your timeshare, as opposed to someone else giving you something for nothing for a one size fits all. There is no such thing in timeshare world, someone always wins and loses. Kudos for reading TUG and understanding some of your options and spending the effort. That is different than someone just sitting there until the last week or day, and then getting mad. In theory, there are a large number of people with more time on their hands than they have had before (sadly in most cases), so, for them at least, a little effort would likely have also paid off in some way. Not everyone of course. But as I said before, I always feel bad for anyone who has lost trips, whether they can be re-scheduled or not. A trip is a trip!

Good job!! TUG is really a great resource, what you learn here can provide you with benefits for the life of your ownership. Far more than if you had a more passive attitude.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

To me it is a matter of what risk you are willing to carry, and at what price.

Timeshares can provide a cheap alternative to other forms of short term rental, but you take the risk of non-usage for the period purchased, plus the risk of being unable to get rid of the property if it no longer fits your needs. Ownership entails cost and risks.

If going to a timeshare that costs one less than, say a hotel rental(s) to get the same space, that's great - until something like COVID-19 rears its ugly head. Then your cost savings go up in smoke (at least in the relative short term). You pays your money and takes your choice. . .

Same with airfare. Are you willing to pay the full refundable for each of your air trips? Or do you pay dramatically less for a non-refundable flight? When you buy the air fare, you usually have the choice. . . .

I personally have written off $3700 in air fare because once I couldn't take a Hawaii trip. Fortunes of War. . .

 

[csodjd]

Interesting thread. I was/am frustrated that I essentially lost my $2400 MF and week in Maui. I deposited in II, but don't really understand the system and so maybe I'll be able to use it, maybe not. But I bought a TS from MVC. They didn't promise I would be able to use it no matter what. I assumed the risk. It's nobody's fault. MVC doesn't "owe" me anything. If they want to extend a courtesy, great. I appreciate it. But I OWN the week, and so I alone assume the risk of a "natural" disaster. If Marriott was at fault, different story. But they aren't. They are a victim of all this too. And as much as I hate losing the week, and having to pay the MF, from a $$ standpoint, I'm way ahead because I'd have spent $5000 on air and golf and food, and Mai Tais. So I have not "lost money," I've just lost a week in Maui. I'll live. People are in food lines. And dying. I am in no position to bitch about losing a week in Maui.

I bitched bitterly about Hawaiian Air, because they CHANGED THE RULES (changed their CoC) when COVID hit to try and screw me. Marriott has done nothing to try and screw anyone. Whatever changes they have made to their rules were to try and help soften the blow. Could they have done more? Maybe. Did they have to do anything? No.

To the OP, I get it. If this wasn't/isn't a risk you wanted to assume or no longer want to assume, then yes, sell your TS. The risks are very small. This time, it happened. Let's figure out how to have a great vacation in 2021 and move on.

That's my view.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

@Steve Fatula The HGV info is provided to help the OP compare as to whether MVCs response is commensurate with the industry.

You could make the same zero-sum game argument about United vouchers vs. SWA response. More travel vouchers competing for limited airline seats. SWA handled the zero-sum game by pushing out voucher expiration until Sept 7 2022. They changed the rules temporarily to ensure customer satisfaction. SWA will not be going out of business anytime soon. How a company treats their customers not just during good times but during a crisis is a very important measure. This crisis response makes me more loyal to SWA vs. United going forward.

MVC has many levers for low cost options and temporary rule changes. They just want you to believe it is a zero-sum game.

MVC is a big conglomerate. There is no reason for owners to worry about MVC's (or II's) profitability. In fact, I think they missed an opportunity to engender more customer loyalty and generate upsell as evidenced by the OP and others on this board that are now unhappy and will tell other potential buyers.

 

[Steve Fatula]

@Steve Fatula The HGV info is provided to help the OP compare as to whether MVCs response is commensurate with the industry.

You could make the same zero-sum game argument about United vouchers vs. SWA response. More travel vouchers competing for limited airline seats. SWA handled the zero-sum game by pushing out voucher expiration until Sept 7 2022. SWA will not be going out of business anytime soon. In fact this makes me more loyal to SWA vs. United.

MVC has many levers for low cost options and temporary rule changes. They just want you to believe it is a zero-sum game. I am also a Vistana Hawaii owner (also owned by MVC). There is no reason for owners to worry about MVC profitability.

I don't see airlines as the same, as of today, they are at about 20% pre Covid TSA checkins at DFW as an example. Their solution is to not fly. MVCI has many more expenses that come into play even when "closed", different taxes, different orgs they must report to and are involved in, taxes, etc. Again, I don't care about SWA vs United or anything else. You simply cannot compare two widely different timeshare systems and say one response was better than the other. It's not possible. What is possible is different for each of them. I totally reject that HGVC did better for it's customers for that reason. As far as appearances, you may be correct. But if you read the meeting notes from some of the resorts, you will see some additional info about what additional expenses they now have. There was a brief discussion from some about will MF go down next year due to the pandemic and low occupancy. Well..... The news at least from 2 I have now read is not so optimistic...

MVCI is not pulling the wool over all the long time owners here. That is not the case. Many here have immense knowledge and in some cases even used to work at MVCI, like @SeaDoc

I understand nothing anyone says will change your mind. That's ok, you are entitled to your opinion. But at some point, you have to see that the 20 year + owners here who are mostly all either supporting what MVCI has done more than not, or, are mad at MVCI for the opposite reasons as you are, must have some reasons for being so. You will never get everyone to agree. All I can say is watch what happens the next year or two and then re-visit the topic. If your point is there is something somewhere that they could have done better, I will agree with you. But it won't make everyone whole. And the same could be said of any org.

But I do agree to disagree with you and no harm no foul. I can see your side. If you want to make a better case though, please expand on how they can make the number of lost week owners whole in detail, specifics, otherwise it's not very convincing. If Marriott has many levers to pull, what levers and how many weeks would that recover? etc. Wish I could lcoate the thread with the number @JIMinNC calculated were already lost long ago.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

But I do agree to disagree with you and no harm no foul. I can see your side. If you want to make a better case though, please expand on how they can make the number of lost week owners whole in detail, specifics, otherwise it's not very convincing. If Marriott has many levers to pull, what levers and how many weeks would that recover? etc. Wish I could lcoate the thread with the number @JIMinNC calculated were already lost long ago.

I've provided several ideas already in prior posts. The key is looking at how rules could be relaxed temporarily (e.g. SWA new 2022 expiration for vouchers) and looking across the resources of the entire corporation and its partners (MVC inventory, Unsold DP trust points, Vistana (e.g. unsold rooms at Nanea), II, Astin, Hyatt, Bonvoy points, free vacation promo packages, excess Marriott hotel rooms etc. ). This is not the same MVC system as 20 years ago so they have many levers.

It also doesn't have to be room for room inventory to delight the customer. What if they offered temporary elite status for one year? Costs them nothing but will delight (and may bring owners back to buy more to keep this status once they get a taste of it.)

MVC is fully capable of figuring this out themselves and they have the exact numbers if it were a priority. I don't think the enrolled points owners are affected so it is mainly un-enrolled resale deeded owners, correct? Perhaps this segment is not a priority for them? Are they doing anything for owners who followed the 60 day rule but missed their intended window?

 

[Dean]

Well you seem to be happy with MVCs solution. So I wish you well.

It's not me or you being happy but that I understand the rules, risks and responsibilities.

.

Steve; What you say is true, however there is "ghost inventory" each year, in each resort, which goes unclaimed. Marriott does not talk about this as they likely use this unclaimed inventory for their own financial benefit.

Ghost inventory is a result of people forgetting to reserve, deaths, no shows, and inventory in the process of transfer or estate settlement.

Each resort has this inventory, but no one really knows what the exact numbers are, or for the exact reasons, but it does exist. Very likely not enough to handle requests for the following year due to a pandemic.



.

There is but it's not inventory routinely available far in advance and even though it may be substantial, it's mostly off season, very short notice or even weeks reserved but not used. I'm sure the volume is barely enough to cover what they've done already if that.

What you are describing here is the exact definition of zero-sum game.

My point is that MVC has plenty of levers at their control to avoid a zero-sum game. MVC now owns II so can change rules. They can do whatever they want. MVC owns separate inventory that they rent or use for promotional packages or received from ROFR. They have new Vistana resorts at Nanea and Kauai which are not sold out. They could temporarily lease more space from other timeshares...many options so no need to feel sorry for them.

To compare, I have 4 years to use my 2019 HGV banked points (2yrs HGV, 2 yrs RCI in which I can trade back into HGVC or other.) That's plenty of cushion to absorb with little impact to owners.

I don't think they have plenty of leftovers that's in the club and unused. If it's unsold inventory or traded in with points for other options, IMO it's inappropriate to expect them to donate it.

I've provided several ideas already in prior posts. The key is looking at how rules could be relaxed temporarily (e.g. SWA new 2022 expiration for vouchers) and looking across the resources of the entire corporation and its partners (MVC inventory, Unsold DP trust points, Vistana (e.g. unsold rooms at Nanea), II, Astin, Hyatt, Bonvoy points, free vacation promo packages, excess Marriott hotel rooms etc. ). This is not the same MVC system as 20 years ago so they have many levers.

It also doesn't have to be room for room inventory to delight the customer. What if they offered temporary elite status for one year? Costs them nothing but will delight (and may bring owners back to buy more to keep this status once they get a taste of it.) Hotels are doing this.

MVC is fully capable of figuring this out themselves and they have the exact numbers if it were a priority. I don't think the enrolled points owners are affected so it is mainly un-enrolled resale deeded owners, correct? Perhaps this segment is not a priority for them?

They did relax the rules, that they made choices different that you prefer doesn't make them inappropriate. It's like the HHI hurricane choices. IMO they should have closed resort by resort rather than shifting owners to other resorts and canceling all the II exchanges but I do feel the choice was reasonable and it was done in favor of owners using their weeks over exchangers. I know some were upset that some of those exchangers were also MVC owners exchanging in and that's a far more legitimate beef IMO.

 

[Mroze]

I've provided several ideas already in prior posts. The key is looking at how rules could be relaxed temporarily (e.g. SWA new 2022 expiration for vouchers) and looking across the resources of the entire corporation and its partners (MVC inventory, Unsold DP trust points, Vistana (e.g. unsold rooms at Nanea), II, Astin, Hyatt, Bonvoy points, free vacation promo packages, excess Marriott hotel rooms etc. ). This is not the same MVC system as 20 years ago so they have many levers.

It also doesn't have to be room for room inventory to delight the customer. What if they offered temporary elite status for one year? Costs them nothing but will delight (and may bring owners back to buy more to keep this status once they get a taste of it.)

MVC is fully capable of figuring this out themselves and they have the exact numbers if it were a priority. I don't think the enrolled points owners are affected so it is mainly un-enrolled resale deeded owners, correct? Perhaps this segment is not a priority for them? Are they doing anything for owners who followed the 60 day rule but missed their intended window?

As per the laws of nature there is a cost for everything.
Nothing in life is free. If its free its worth exactly nothing.

If Marriott were to offer "Elite" status to everyone, "No One Would Be Elite". Who gets elite priority when 10M members are Elite? No One.
Bonvoy-Points are currency [just like Airline-Miles] and there is a cost to these. They are not like McDonald coupons that show up in flyers.
DP-Points have to be backed by inventory, these cant be spun up from thin air. If there are no weeks then these are worthless.
Marriott and II are independent companies, like Steve mentioned earlier, other [Non-Marriott Owners] are going to suffer due to actions Marriott has already taken.

Listening to this thread, it seems like Marriott owns a printing press and is in partnership with the Fed-Reserve.

I have personally had 7 weeks canceled due to Covid and am very pleased how Vistana & Marriott treated me.
I was fully aware of the limitations of canceling late. Despite the restrictions, Marriott & Vistana went out of their way to help.

As for the airlines, I have heard many glowing posts but personally experienced varying levels of service from refusing to issue refunds and restrictive future credits.
When the time comes to redeem the vouchers and the airlines are at 100% capacity, they can add more flights. Marriott at 100% capacity cannot add more rooms.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

It's not me or you being happy but that I understand the rules, risks and responsibilities.

Southwest had no contractual obligation to extend travel vouchers to 2022 but they did it to delight the customer. This will pay back to them in loyalty many times over. It's called customer satisfaction.

If it's unsold inventory or traded in with points for other options, IMO it's inappropriate to expect them to donate it.

Why not? You expect owners to shoulder the burden based on a contractual arrangement. Why shouldn't MVC pitch in to keep their base happy? If I recall from the MVC earnings call, they expected a high proportion of sales to come from their base. How do they expect owners to buy more if they are unhappy or happy but cautious to invest more based on what happened?

 

[californiagirl]

Amy241 I’m so sorry for the loss of your vacation. That would be a bitter pill to take. Especially with it being your first time using the resort I’m sure your anticipation was high. Hopefully Hawaiian gave you vouchers to rebook the flights for next year. I realize these are first world losses, but they are losses to you none the less.

 

[Steve Fatula]

I've provided several ideas already in prior posts. The key is looking at how rules could be relaxed temporarily (e.g. SWA new 2022 expiration for vouchers) and looking across the resources of the entire corporation and its partners (MVC inventory, Unsold DP trust points, Vistana (e.g. unsold rooms at Nanea), II, Astin, Hyatt, Bonvoy points, free vacation promo packages, excess Marriott hotel rooms etc. ). This is not the same MVC system as 20 years ago so they have many levers.

It also doesn't have to be room for room inventory to delight the customer. What if they offered temporary elite status for one year? Costs them nothing but will delight (and may bring owners back to buy more to keep this status once they get a taste of it.)

MVC is fully capable of figuring this out themselves and they have the exact numbers if it were a priority. I don't think the enrolled points owners are affected so it is mainly un-enrolled resale deeded owners, correct? Perhaps this segment is not a priority for them? Are they doing anything for owners who followed the 60 day rule but missed their intended window?

Do you actually own MVCI, if so where and for how long?

 

[Dean]

Southwest had no contractual obligation to extend travel vouchers to 2022 but they did it to delight the customer. This will pay back to them in loyalty many times over. It's called customer satisfaction.



Why not? You expect owners to shoulder the burden based on a contractual arrangement. Why shouldn't MVC pitch in to keep their base happy? If I recall from the MVC earnings call, they expected a high proportion of sales to come from their base. How do they expect owners to buy more if they are unhappy or happy but cautious to invest more based on what happened?

IMO it's irrelevant what one company did compared to another as long as they all followed the rules and laws in place. I expect owners to shoulder the risks they signed up for and MVC to follow the rules in place and the contract. If they can do more, that's OK but it's unreasonable to expect them to. They've already done a lot more than that. What happens with sales does not affect those realities. I'm sure sales will suffer no matter what even if they gave freebies to everyone just with the realities of the situations the next couple of years but IMO that's irrelevant to us as members/owners. It may be applicable for stockholders but that's another thread.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

What also hasn't been factored in here is the deluge of deedbacks, giveaway sales via ROFR, and defaults that will hit when owners get their MF Bill's. That will create plenty of available inventory similar to the OP.

 

[Dean]

What also hasn't been factored in here is the deluge of deedbacks, giveaway sales via ROFR, and defaults that will hit when owners get their MF Bill's. That will create plenty of available inventory similar to the OP.

But that doesn't increase club availability. What it might do is increase dues as the remaining owners will have to pay for the actual costs of managing the resort.