• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 26 years!

    Join tens of thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  • TUG started 27 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Check out our happy birthday post here: Happy Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $15,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $14 Million dollars
  • Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! Join tens of thousands of other owners who get this every week! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    Read more Here
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Final Straw- Selling our Marriott/Vistana Timeshares

Dean

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
6,144
Reaction score
1,340
Points
448
‘That is not a personal attack.
IMO it's not a personal attack and I feel whether one owns or not is applicable to the discussion in this case. As a rule, when it's a matter of true principle, ethics, laws and rules; I do not feel one has to be directly involved to have a valid opinion. In this case it does affect the reasonableness of the position since everyone agrees they did more than they were required to do. And some might see it as rude to not answer the question but continue to post so strongly on the subject.
That's true to a point. However, I think when every other hotel branded timeshare company offers more to their owners than MVC during times of crisis (which is consistently true in every crisis, imo) then it is relevant to compare them. Especially as many people will buy new more timeshares, or sell and buy something different. Tug is a resource for researching timeshare purchases (hopefully resale!). I think crisis response is a valid consumer consideration, and MVC's competitors all have a track record of offering more to their customers in times of crisis than MVC.

Does MVC follow the law/agreements in place? I think generally yes. Do they bend over backwards to make sure customers are getting the most value they can in a crisis? Not compared to their competitors. Seems relevant to me...
I think it's fair to compare them but that's different than stating one SHOULD have done more because in their eyes, someone else did. There will always be someone that does more or less and what is more or less will vary with the individual's situation and views. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that they did FAR more than was required by the rules but they are being inappropriate because they did not do more still. They clearly put a lot of effort and thought into the choices they made. Obviously there are a lot of things they could have done differently including a lot less than they ended up doing, they had decisions to make. By rule everyone under 60 days would have lost their week and most over 60 days couldn't change and use either under the actual rules anyway. And by rule points in holding could normally be used at 60 days out and would expire the end of the UY. Don't forget even had they been hard line to the rules in place, they still are losing a lot of money because of all this. Maybe they can look at some future changes that would accommodate such an extreme situation but most of those options would require a vote of the owners resort by resort.

I think it's the me, me, me part of this that bothers me the most. I'm comfortable with the choices MVC has made in this situation and it likely is a good compromise between helping owners and future usage. I was not in complete agreement with them on the hurricane solution last year. So at this point it's about what we're made of, not MVC, IMO.
 

ljmiii

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
426
Points
293
Location
NY, NY
Wow...I spend an evening out and the morning sleeping in and a flame war erupts. To recap where I left off...

I felt MVC's initial response was abysmal but am reasonably pleased with the policies they eventually put in place to address the COVID-19 crisis. Points cancelled 60 days or less were extended into 2021 and given a special 120 day window. And worthless weeks were allowed to be deposited into II up to a day before check-in (instead of 14 days out) - affected MVC week owners got something instead of nothing.

And comparisons of MVC to HGVC are valuable in general. But despite the fact that one buys a 'deeded week' to get into HGVC it in fact is operated as a pure point system with the ability to book one's 'home week' up to a year in advance. This gives HGVC greater flexibility (though you have to pay a fee to use your cancelled 2020 points in 2021).

That said...

CalGalTraveler's opinion is as valid as anyone else's. She doesn't seem to be misinformed about MVC's standard policies and procedures.

And if you asked a hundred people, "Should a business do less than it's peer group to help it's customers through a crisis even though it met its contractual obligations?" you would get a positive response in the teens at most.

That said, I *do* think MVC's response to the crisis has been more than adequate and given the differences inherent in a weeks based system *has* done about as well as HGVC in this regard.
 

Dean

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
6,144
Reaction score
1,340
Points
448
CalGalTraveler's opinion is as valid as anyone else's. She doesn't seem to be misinformed about MVC's standard policies and procedures.
If you're referring to my post, let me clarify. I do feel that their opinion is valid but I also feel that where they're coming from as a point of reference is applicable.

And if you asked a hundred people, "Should a business do less than it's peer group to help it's customers through a crisis even though it met its contractual obligations?" you would get a positive response in the teens at most.
IMO that's irrelevant, esp in today's entitlement world.
 

TheTimeTraveler

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
3,638
Reaction score
1,034
Points
398
Location
Massachusetts
I also feel MVC points owners have done better than the weeks owners. And perhaps that was intentional so as to show the value of points system or penalize those pesky weeks owners who haven't bought from MVC or spent $$$$ for enrollment.
This may be true to an extent, however MVC points owners who had "locked off" and split up their weeks for use had no other recourse but to use Interval International as an alternative during the pandemic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fairwinds

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
669
Reaction score
103
Points
253
Location
Virginia
I do feel that it is the responsibility of individual owners to take action about their vacation in a timely manner and protect their vacation by moving/depositing their week. Not sure if Marriott has informed people about their options before the 60-day deadline. That doesn't cost much.


TUGgers like to throw out a comparison with a wholly-owned condo when it comes to the risk of usage. When people complain about MFs on TS weeks being too high compared to wholly-owned condos, TUGgers quickly point out the differences between wholly-owned condos and timeshares. The HOAs are controlled by Marriott and they also manipulate utilize the system to their own benefit, unlike many other HOAs for fully owned condos. So no wonder people expect more from Marriott. As a relatively new MVC owner, I don't understand the MVC system as well as @Steve Fatula but I do feel like Marriott should have come up with some other creative ways of appeasing these owners. Note that I did not lose anything significant because of corona restrictions so I am not advocating that MVC should do more because I stand to gain from it in any way.

II ACs are given out for free so they are worth exactly zero IMO. Yes, some people turn them into wonderful vacations but an owner who did not deposit their week > 60 days out isn't going to be the one doing that. Most likely such owners have many ACs already in their II account if they have one. If they don't have an II account, it's probably not even worth setting up an II account for.

Marriott could have given access to unbooked inventory within a certain number of days of check-in in future years instead of II AC. I read somewhere that Marriott grabs unbooked inventory within a certain date of check-in to rent out. Perhaps give owners a shot at that inventory before using it themselves? I feel MVC chose the easy way. I know they are not obligated to work harder as they are not responsible for the travel restrictions of the corona crisis. But a more empathetic response from MVC would have been nice to read about and would win the hearts of many owners. HGVC has done that. Even though I'm going to be a loser in the next few years in HGVC due to too many club points chasing limited inventory, I feel better about HGVC that I do about MVC.

Yes they could do more. And I am certainly not against Marriott being generous. I received a restricted week after losing time during the recent hurricane. I also agree that wholly owned condos are different but I still think the premise is appropriate. My point is that most of, if not all the solutions that disgruntled posters are suggesting, are solutions that require the transfer of something that does not belong to them, e.g., using encore incentive weeks normally used by sales department. Those weeks have value and they are entitled to them; we are not. That’s why I think that anything Marriott does is generous and above and beyond what is required. If you are not entitled to those weeks you should not be upset if they are not offered.

However, I do think Steve Fatula has more weeks than he needs and should give me one. Palm Desert in February please.
 

ljmiii

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
426
Points
293
Location
NY, NY
If you're referring to my post, let me clarify. I do feel that their opinion is valid but I also feel that where they're coming from as a point of reference is applicable.
I'm not....and agree with you on that issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if you asked a hundred people, "Should a business do less than it's peer group to help it's customers through a crisis even though it met its contractual obligations?" you would get a positive response in the teens at most."

IMO that's irrelevant, esp in today's entitlement world.
It is arguably the only question that matters in today's customer driven world - particularly during the crisis. At the moment customers are judging airlines, car rental companies, hotels, and other businesses of all kinds against their peer group to see which ones deserve their business in the future. As they should. To see which ones can be relied on to 'do them right' in the face of future adversity.

Compared to other industries timeshares are relatively isolated from peer comparisons once the initial purchase is made. In particular, MVC's barrier to exit is huge compared to DVC and HGVC (I can't speak to others). OP will take a bath if he sells - particularly in today's timeshare market. Yet he feels (or felt) that MVC can't be trusted.

I hope that OP considers the comments you, myself, and others have made will reassure him that MVC *has* done as well as its peer group. Or at least that after considering our comments he makes an informed decision to sell.
 

Dean

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
6,144
Reaction score
1,340
Points
448
I'm not....and agree with you on that issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if you asked a hundred people, "Should a business do less than it's peer group to help it's customers through a crisis even though it met its contractual obligations?" you would get a positive response in the teens at most."

It is arguably the only question that matters in today's customer driven world - particularly during the crisis. At the moment customers are judging airlines, car rental companies, hotels, and other businesses of all kinds against their peer group to see which ones deserve their business in the future. As they should. To see which ones can be relied on to 'do them right' in the face of future adversity.

Compared to other industries timeshares are relatively isolated from peer comparisons once the initial purchase is made. In particular, MVC's barrier to exit is huge compared to DVC and HGVC (I can't speak to others). OP will take a bath if he sells - particularly in today's timeshare market. Yet he feels (or felt) that MVC can't be trusted.

I hope that OP considers the comments you, myself, and others have made will reassure him that MVC *has* done as well as its peer group. Or at least that after considering our comments he makes an informed decision to sell.
From a right and wrong standpoint I don't think it's arguable since they're doing more than required.
 

CrackCorn

Guest
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
99
Reaction score
14
Points
68
Location
Bay Area, CA
This has been one of the worst hijacking of a thread that I've seen in this forum. It went from the OP "taking their ball and going home" because they didn't like the game they signed up for ... to blaming MVC that they didn't do 'enough' during unprecedented times!

It boils down to knowing what you signed up for and being able to make informed decisions based on the issue presented to you. It's that simple. Take ownership of the problem.


Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

controller1

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2017
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
1,193
Points
223
Location
Louisiana
Resorts Owned
Westin KORVN OF
Westin Nanea OF
Westin FLEX
You asked multiple times re ownership.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I personally do not think that is an attack. It is a simple question to determine whether the poster has skin in the game. That is why I tend to not give as much credence to the posts from members/guests who do not show their ownership in their profile.
 

bnoble

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
8,006
Reaction score
1,710
Points
448
Location
The People's Republic of Ann Arbor
Resorts Owned
Wyndham Sea Gardens, Peppertree at Tamarack, Kauai Beach Villas
It is arguably the only question that matters in today's customer driven world
Maybe. But, asking that question independently of everything else that positions that brand in the market is a little misleading. If a brand is seen as a leader in other ways, the fact that it is less customer-friendly in some policies compared to other competitors may not be a problem.

A recent experience with BMW comes to mind. Most of their cars are designed for run-flat tires, including my wife's. Run-flats are more expensive and have a shorter tread life than regular tires, so they are significantly more expensive to own overall. With her car, there is no place to put a spare--the car was designed assuming one would never be needed, saving the weight and space for the tire, jack, etc. So, she really can't put other tires on the car safely. She doesn't have a choice.

Now, if you asked 100 people if taking the choice of run-flat or not away from them was a good idea, maybe the vast majority would say no. But, the vast majority of car buyers are not buying BMW, and BMW does not position itself as a mass-market brand.

Indeed, when my wife called me from the tire shop to tell me about this, she was peeved that she was replacing them so soon and that they were so expensive. My response: "You bought this car for a reason--because you really like driving it. Buy the run flats and don't think twice about it. This is just a part of owning this car. It's a nice sunny day. Get the tires, open the sunroof, and go for a drive. Enjoy it."
 

Fairwinds

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
669
Reaction score
103
Points
253
Location
Virginia
This has been one of the worst hijacking of a thread that I've seen in this forum. It went from the OP "taking their ball and going home" because they didn't like the game they signed up for ... to blaming MVC that they didn't do 'enough' during unprecedented times!

It boils down to knowing what you signed up for and being able to make informed decisions based on the issue presented to you. It's that simple. Take ownership of the problem.
It was the OP who said that Marriott not doing enough during the quarantine was the last straw And is in part why they are leaving. it’s a conversation that may have drifted, as conversations do. But I should wish the OP farewell. So, happy trails nokaoi9. There is more than one way to vacation and I hope you find a good one. When and If I get fed up with something I’ll leave too.

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:

turkel

TUG Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
738
Points
324
Location
California
Resorts Owned
Marriott Shadow Ridge
Marriott Grand Chateau
I also feel MVC points owners have done better than the weeks owners. And perhaps that was intentional so as to show the value of points system or penalize those pesky weeks owners who haven't bought from MVC or spent $$$$ for enrollment.

I recommend checking out HGVC to people like the OP who are not happy with Marriott.
As a weeks only owner I disagree with you. I have had to change 2 exchanges and I am completely satisfied with the outcome. It may have cost me more but I didn’t lose anything.

Hilton burned me bad back in 1994 after the Northridge Earthquake I tend to hold a grudge so HGVC is a non option.

TUG members are pretty well informed I doubt many Marriott owners are interested in jumping to an alternate system over MVC response to Covid.

Steve please don’t leave! I totally understand your feelings regarding TUG right now. I have struggled with the same feelings but your input is appreciated and valued by many here!
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
13,651
Reaction score
1,456
Points
799
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
Wow.

It's against TUG Rules, it's actually a personal attack, to ask someone what they own?!?!

Good gravy. You mean that for all these years I could have been reporting the same few Starwood people who sent me DM's telling me what I had to say was worthless in that forum unless I owned in it? That happened with my ownership listed in my profile, and with me admitting that I was offering information specific to Marriott that might be helpful as a contrast!

A reminder from the TUG Rules:

"Avoid replying to messages to point out bbs rule infractions

Leave this to BBS Administrators and Moderators. When you jump in, it makes for even more work on the part of the administrators to clean up the mess. If you feel a message is improper, you may report it to the BBS Staff by clicking on the "report" link at the bottom of the message."


The reason I'm putting this here is because I seriously think this train has gone way off the track into Crazytown now. If you "Report" posts then they'll be seen by all of the mods/admin, not just those who happen to be reading the thread (which in the Marriott forum usually means only me, in Vistana usually only Denise, etc...) Maybe fresh eyes would see things differently.
 
Last edited:

CalGalTraveler

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
5,487
Reaction score
4,214
Points
398
Location
California
@Steve Fatula I have learned a lot from long-time MVC posters including yourself about how MVC works and am appreciative of that.

Frankly I am surprised that you would delve into someone’s posting history to mount a personal attack, make blanket allegations about one's opinions (to which they are entitled), and tell stakeholders who have a broader timeshare world view that their comments are irrelevant and unwelcome. This seems out of character for you.

Perhaps there should be a separate MVC system owners only and MVC Corp stakeholder thread for everyone else? That would be a more productive solution than complaining about other people.

Most people I know take a comparison shopper’s mentality when buying expensive items like a car. How does one you know if a policy or program is good if one can’t measure what the market is doing?

If the process of comparison is somehow perceived as negative please know that it is not intentionally negative nor personal.

Like it or not Vistana and Hyatt are now part of the MVC family. Times change. Perhaps two forums are warranted because it sounds like some people don’t want to hear that their car has issues - they are not looking for another car so want to find ways to enjoy the car they have. That's okay. I will recognize this sensitivity going forward.

Others have a vested interest in understanding how MVC behaves to evaluate their TS relationship direction with MVC. I believe the OP was seeking a market reality check on whether to keep the car. Her title said, “Final Straw.” Obviously she has encountered several situations in which she has not been treated well by MVC policies. Belittling her feelings as one of “entitlement” and “those are the rules, get over it” is not helpful.
 
Last edited:

bogey21

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
8,020
Reaction score
2,918
Points
499
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
I like Calgal's post. To a large degree it pretty much reflects my feelings. That is if you are happy with MVC, enjoy you usage to the fullest. There is no need to justify yourself. If you are unhappy enough, bite the bullet and sell. My decision was to sell but I see no useful purpose in continuing to explain why...

George
 

bazzap

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
3,537
Reaction score
681
Points
349
Location
Cirencester UK
As an MVC Weeks owner, not Points although I am enrolled, I do believe that there has been more flexibility offered by MVC with cancelled Points bookings In response to Covid-19.
However, having cancelled my June/July 2020 Weeks bookings prior to the 60 day deadline, I have unrestricted Interval exchange options until 2022.
Availability may well be more challenging than usual, but this is still a fairly good option in the circumstances.
 

turkel

TUG Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
738
Points
324
Location
California
Resorts Owned
Marriott Shadow Ridge
Marriott Grand Chateau
@Steve Fatula I have learned a lot from long-time MVC posters including yourself about how MVC works and am appreciative of that.

Frankly I am surprised that you would lurk into someone’s posting history to mount a personal attack, make blanket allegations about one's opinions (to which they are entitled), and tell stakeholders who have a broader timeshare world view that their comments are irrelevant and unwelcome. This seems out of character for you.

Perhaps there should be a separate MVC system owners only and MVC Corp stakeholder thread for everyone else? That would be a more productive solution than complaining about other people.

Most people I know take a comparison shopper’s mentality when buying expensive items like a car. How does one you know if a policy or program is good if one can’t measure what the market is doing?

If the process of comparison is somehow perceived as negative please know that it is not intentionally negative nor personal.

Like it or not Vistana and Hyatt are now part of the MVC family. Times change. Perhaps two forums are warranted because it sounds like some people don’t want to hear that their car has issues - they are not looking for another car so want to find ways to enjoy the car they have. I will recognize this sensitivity going forward.

Others have a vested interest in understanding how MVC behaves to evaluate their TS relationship direction with MVC. I believe the OP was seeking a market reality check on whether to keep the car. Her title said, “Final Straw.” Obviously she has encountered several situations in which she has not been treated well by MVC policies. Belittling her feelings as one of “entitlement” and “those are the rules, get over it” is not helpful.
All I can say is I am really disappointed in this post. Steve asked you a question without malice and you clearly didn’t answer. Why?

Its not an attack it’s a simple yes or no. But you have taken it to a whole other level.

I always find it interesting when the attacker plays the victim. It is just so disheartening that we just can’t disagree without calling names and being down right rude.

Lurker? Really?
 

Dean

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
6,144
Reaction score
1,340
Points
448
Like it or not Vistana and Hyatt are now part of the MVC family. Times change. Perhaps two forums are warranted because it sounds like some people don’t want to hear that their car has issues - they are not looking for another car so want to find ways to enjoy the car they have. I will recognize this sensitivity going forward.
Point of order. Not really a member of MVC at least not at this time, just owned by the same owners big picture.

“those are the rules, get over it” is not helpful.
Maybe, maybe not. However, IMO it is important to understand the rules and that rules have meaning. Hopefully others reading about all these issues will have a better understanding of their risks and responsibilities going forward. I'm reminded of a couple of DVC reallocations where people said things like "I knew it could happen but never expected it to, how dare they." Or "it's been 10 years since the last time so they shouldn't reallocate now." To take the other side of that argument, there are rules in place including rules to change the rules and one needs to understand that to participate. Pointing out the rules in place when someone clearly doesn't understand them or ignores them is not inappropriate unto itself. There are ways to try to get the rules changed and if one wants to go that route, I think they should.

ETA: One should always strive to deal with the issue and not the person where possible.
 

ljmiii

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
1,055
Reaction score
426
Points
293
Location
NY, NY
Steve asked you a question without malice and you clearly didn’t answer. Why?
It isn't as if I wanted to comment on this aspect of the thread but the piling on has to stop.

*Of course* it was a question with malice. He sought to discredit CalGalTraveler's standing as someone entitled to comment on MVC. Since he apparently repeated the question three times it moved on to badgering. As for "lurk" I agree it was inaccurate since there was neither hiding nor ambush. But "...delve into someone’s posting history" would have been all too accurate.

I get that you disagree with her position. I disagree with most of her position. But you seem not to get that she feels that she has been attacked. Threatened and perhaps hurt simply because she expressed an opinion on this forum. And that is unacceptable.
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
13,651
Reaction score
1,456
Points
799
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
Enough.

I see that the issue has been reported and it’s open for any other mod/admin to weigh in if they choose. As a moderator, and as a TUGger who’s been on the receiving end of being questioned as to why my opinion is valid for something I don’t own, it doesn’t seem unfair or against TUG Rules to ask the question. As for calling it “lurking” to look at a TUGger’s profile or posting history to get a sense of how much s/he might already be familiar with what I’m discussing, well, that’s a new one on me. I do it all the time and so don’t many others.

Considering that there are too many reports being generated these days for mods/admin to get in the middle of personality conflicts, my suggestion is to keep to the topic and leave the bickering behind unless you want to see another thread locked.
 
Last edited:

frank808

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
722
Points
348
Location
Oahu
Resorts Owned
Disney Vacation Club (Aulani, HHI, SSR, VGC, VGF), Hilton Grand Vacation Club (Bay Club, Kingsland, Kohala Suites) & Marriott Vacation Club (Grand Residence, Grand Chateau, Grand Vista, Harbour Lake, Willowridge, Aruba Surf Club, DC points)
That is one of many factors that will cause MF increases, correct. Then you have increased cleaning costs, staff for cleanings, staff for enforcing social distancing, etc. etc. etc.

As far as inventory goes, due to increased time and requirements on cleaning, Branson (as one example) does not have anywhere near all inventory even open,
I stupidly thought it would be great to go there the day it re-opened for new bookings. I was mistaken. Due to units being vacant for about 3 months, anyone who has owned a vacant house should know better (I have but did not think of it!). There were a number of issues such as AC not working that took a few days to work out. Vacant properties tend to decay with no usage, often faster than if used.
Situation here at Lakeshore Reserve is they are operating at 70% capacity. It is 100% occupied this past weekend. Staffing seems to be ramping up to full staff here.

Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk
 

frank808

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
722
Points
348
Location
Oahu
Resorts Owned
Disney Vacation Club (Aulani, HHI, SSR, VGC, VGF), Hilton Grand Vacation Club (Bay Club, Kingsland, Kohala Suites) & Marriott Vacation Club (Grand Residence, Grand Chateau, Grand Vista, Harbour Lake, Willowridge, Aruba Surf Club, DC points)
Own HGVC, MVC(DP points, enrolled weeks and unenrolled weeks) and DVC. I have been happy that each system has tried to help me as they could. According to the T&C the various systems did NOT have to do anything.

All 3 systems have offered some form of help to owners. Also all 3 systems will have inventory issues for the next couple of years. Could the Hilton's, Marriott and Disney done more? Sure they could but there has to be a compromise as they will not be able to manage a system where they give away the farm.

Personally this closure has impacted me the worst in HGVC and DVC. Not much impact in MVC because of the way I use my weeks. Will see how it affects me with MVC 2021 and 2022. I know it will make my usage harder as there will be more people competing for the same times.

Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk
 

csodjd

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
975
Points
174
Location
So. California
Resorts Owned
Hilton Hawaiian Village - Lagoon Tower
Marriott Maui Ocean Club
Personally this closure has impacted me the worst in HGVC and DVC. Not much impact in MVC because of the way I use my weeks. Will see how it affects me with MVC 2021 and 2022. I know it will make my usage harder as there will be more people competing for the same times.
I'm the opposite because I CHOSE to be just an unenrolled weeks owner at MOC, but with HGVC I have points. I was able to cancel my May trip and all the points come back. Whatever isn't used this year I can use next year. Worst case I can convert them to Hilton Honors and have hotel nights (lousy exchange, but still an option). But that's a risk I took in having a week and no points in MVC.
 

nokaoi9

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
206
Reaction score
14
Points
228
Location
Ventura, CA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Newport Coast Villas, Sheraton Vistana Villages
Some of the early comments after my original post speculated there was more to the story and I should just accept the situation.

Admittedly I was pretty heated after my call with Marriott the other day and agree with some comments that I likely shouldn’t have gotten upset as I did. I also stand by my position of wanting to exit Marriott ownership. This decision is not based on an isolated incident, but rather IMHO, a deterioration of what I was once very happy to own.

Over the years I have loved my ownership less and less. When Marriott first rolled out the Destination Club, I didn’t think twice and immediately dropped the couple thousand. After all, I didn’t want to “miss out on everything Marriott was going to offer in the future.” After enrolling and seeing that I couldn’t convert my week to points to cover a low season week at my home resort, I was immediately turned off. As an owner at Westin Kaanapali, if I were to elect StarOptions instead of using the week, I get the fully 148,100, there is zero skim. A year or so later, my wife and I were at Newport Coast and offered an explorer package. Somewhat hesitant knowing we were not interested in buying trust points, we signed up for the package to see what changes would occur over the next year, and had (if memory serves me correctly) twelve months to use the package. Within about six weeks we had decided on a week, made the reservation, and paid the balance. Approximately two months later, we learned that we were having our first child. I called Marriott to see if we could cancel or extend the package past the twelve months. I was immediately told no, we were not allowed to cancel nor extend the date beyond the twelve months. Not wanting to take a young infant to Newport, we let the week go and forfeited the money. Last year we were at Ko Olina and decided to attended an owner’s update, curious what changes might be coming with the MVCI/Vistana merger. The salesperson could not have been any nicer until I asked the following question. If someone purchased a developer week at Westin Kaanapali, for say $40k, and would want the option to access Marriott properties post merger, how would one go about doing that? His answer as very simple and quick, they'd have to buy a minimum of 1000 points. I then asked about Marriott owners being able to access Vistana properties, I was again told that they'd have to buy a 1000 points. I forget what the exact per price point was at this point, but want to say it would have been ~$15k all in for the 1000 points. Being owners in both systems, I had no interest in adding points, which immediately rubbed him the wrong way. He then became very aggressive in front of my wife an daughter, and tried to convince me on how we would be missing out on everything in the future.

I have loved the vacations we’ve had at Marriott and Vistana properties over the years. We have seen more and done more by 40 than I would have guessed we'd do in a lifetime. Having spent between $150k-$200k on purchasing deeded weeks and maintenance fees over the years, do I feel that Marriott could/should have done more given the situation? Absolutely. I know MVCI is a business, and ultimately what matters most is the bottom line. With that said, Yes. I am relatively certain there’s plenty of inventory that Marriott holds in the trust for Ko Olina, and while I was not asking for another week at Ko Olina next year, I though it would have been nice for them to offer if there is sufficient inventory. What I really would have been happy with is the non-restricted certificate to use in Interval International, as I do believe they have the authority to override this. Between my four different II accounts, I am sitting on 10 accommodation certificates. My guess is this one from Marriott will not have strong trading power, and is all but worthless. My frustration is not over the lost week in Hawaii, or the costs that will be lost with it, but ultimately the lack of customer service. I am tired of the the lies at owner updates, fed up with the never ending money grab of trying to devalue weeks owners and force them into either selling their weeks or buying trust points. I would hope if you had a strong and loyal customer base, you would want to do what you could to retain and protect that. I don't feel that is the case with Marriott any longer, and it actually is counterproductive to their long term strategy.
 
Last edited:
Top