II Exchange Request First Process - FAIL

[Ken555]

I've used II successfully for years with SVN priority for other SVN properties and others without using their request first option. Last year I decided to try for one of the two Marriott's in Park City anytime in March 2012 and so used a deposited SVN 2-bed week more than a year in advance.

Last month it became obvious that this exchange wasn't likely to occur, though I've been told that units at these Marriott resorts often become available in early February when MFs aren't paid, or the weeks are deposited, etc. We decided to make other arrangements since we couldn't book all the flights necessary at the last minute, etc. However, I left the request at II to see what would happen and if it would get filled (which I would likely cancel at that point).

Today I manually searched at II using the SAME EXACT WEEK I want to exchange for a Marriott 2-bed in Park City in March. What did I find? You got it - a 2-bed at Marriott's Summit Watch for early March. I double-checked my request and it matches what's available online right now.

Needless to say, this really makes me quite disappointed with II's request first process. Obviously, my request wasn't honored. One of the week's I wanted is available right now for anyone to grab. Why wasn't my request, from over a year ago, filled with this week?

 

[squeeze]

I've used II successfully for years with SVN priority for other SVN properties and others without using their request first option. Last year I decided to try for one of the two Marriott's in Park City anytime in March 2012 and so used a deposited SVN 2-bed week more than a year in advance.

Last month it became obvious that this exchange wasn't likely to occur, though I've been told that units at these Marriott resorts often become available in early February when MFs aren't paid, or the weeks are deposited, etc. We decided to make other arrangements since we couldn't book all the flights necessary at the last minute, etc. However, I left the request at II to see what would happen and if it would get filled (which I would likely cancel at that point).

Today I manually searched at II using the SAME EXACT WEEK I want to exchange for a Marriott 2-bed in Park City in March. What did I find? You got it - a 2-bed at Marriott's Summit Watch for early March. I double-checked my request and it matches what's available online right now.

Needless to say, this really makes me quite disappointed with II's request first process. Obviously, my request wasn't honored. One of the week's I wanted is available right now for anyone to grab. Why wasn't my request, from over a year ago, filled with this week?

I'm sure someone much more educated in TS than myself will speak up, but I would guess it has to do with trading power.

If not, could it be an IT glitch? (not that, that would make you any happier.)

 

[Ken555]

I'm sure someone much more educated in TS than myself will speak up, but I would guess it has to do with trading power.

If not, could it be an IT glitch? (not that, that would make you any happier.)

I tested using the exact same week today and it's available for an instant exchange right now. Does request first require higher trading value/power vs instant?

I spoke with II about this in January, with a rep I've used for years and whom I believe knows their system well, and he told me my week should have no difficulty pulling a 2-bed in March at the resorts I wanted - the only question was whether or not a week there would be deposited (and aside from the obvious, such as another exchange request with a more powerful week than mine).

 

[rickandcindy23]

Do you have other requests in that search for other dates and areas? I just wonder because I know the system stops searching about two weeks before the day of check-in. I have been told that many times by II guides.

 

[Ken555]

Do you have other requests in that search for other dates and areas? I just wonder because I know the system stops searching about two weeks before the day of check-in. I have been told that many times by II guides.

Nope. I have the entire month of March and two resorts on the search request.

I didn't know about the on-going search stop date of two weeks prior. And, if true, it's even more confusing because the search is still active on the II site, or at least that is what displays when I review the search. If it stops, don't you think the search should automatically be removed or canceled and show as much online?

 

[rickandcindy23]

Well, if you have a range of dates, the search continues to the 14 days plus and won't pick up the weeks less than that. That was how it was explained to me. But I could definitely be wrong. I have been wrong before.

 

[DeniseM]

I think the Ongoing Request stops working as soon as you enter Flex-change and I've actually had it happen to me. Remember that you can't put in an ongoing request for a date during Flex-change, and that's why I don't believe that it works once you hit the 60 day mark.

A couple of years ago, I had an Ongoing request in place for Tahoe, and at exactly 60 days out, one of the resorts I had on request showed up in the online inventory, but it didn't match with my Ongoing Request. Fortunately, someone brought it to my attention, and I was able to do an Instant Online Exchange.

 

[Ken555]

If this is the case, then why does II still list my ongoing request as active?

 

[DeniseM]

If this is the case, then why does II still list my ongoing request as active?

Ken - I could be wrong, but I don't think they ever show them as deactivated. If you don't get the exchange, it's up to the member to contact II and ask for your exchange fee back.

 

[Ken555]

Ken - I could be wrong, but I don't think they ever show them as deactivated. If you don't get the exchange, it's up to the member to contact II and ask for your exchange fee back.

Lousy system. I'll call this week and update the thread with what I learn.

 

[lawduck]

My understanding is that II's request first system does not pick up cancellations (or at least late cancellations). I've always been told to continue searching for the requested weeks. Given the late stage, my guess is what you saw available was a cancellation.

 

[dougp26364]

I think the Ongoing Request stops working as soon as you enter Flex-change and I've actually had it happen to me. Remember that you can't put in an ongoing request for a date during Flex-change, and that's why I don't believe that it works once you hit the 60 day mark.

A couple of years ago, I had an Ongoing request in place for Tahoe, and at exactly 60 days out, one of the resorts I had on request showed up in the online inventory, but it didn't match with my Ongoing Request. Fortunately, someone brought it to my attention, and I was able to do an Instant Online Exchange.

It does, if not sooner. I had it in my mind that it ended sooner than the flexchange period. For all intents and purposes, if I have a request that isn't filled 6 months before our travel date, I consider it a no-go and start making alternate plans, changing to deposit first and/or add other resorts/destinations to our accaptable list. To date I've only had one request not match and that was because I pulled the trigger on another exchange I saw online.

 

[dougp26364]

I've used II successfully for years with SVN priority for other SVN properties and others without using their request first option. Last year I decided to try for one of the two Marriott's in Park City anytime in March 2012 and so used a deposited SVN 2-bed week more than a year in advance.

Last month it became obvious that this exchange wasn't likely to occur, though I've been told that units at these Marriott resorts often become available in early February when MFs aren't paid, or the weeks are deposited, etc. We decided to make other arrangements since we couldn't book all the flights necessary at the last minute, etc. However, I left the request at II to see what would happen and if it would get filled (which I would likely cancel at that point).

Today I manually searched at II using the SAME EXACT WEEK I want to exchange for a Marriott 2-bed in Park City in March. What did I find? You got it - a 2-bed at Marriott's Summit Watch for early March. I double-checked my request and it matches what's available online right now.

Needless to say, this really makes me quite disappointed with II's request first process. Obviously, my request wasn't honored. One of the week's I wanted is available right now for anyone to grab. Why wasn't my request, from over a year ago, filled with this week?

Marriott's new Destinations Club was designed to better control Marriott inventory. In theory, they're supposedly holding more Marriott inventory for Marriott owners and allowing fewer deposits to get outside the Marriott family.

I'm not 100% convinced this will be the case but, it's a possibility and perhaps it's true if we start seeing more people post exchanges that use to be common place are now not getting filled.

 

[Ken555]

It does, if not sooner. I had it in my mind that it ended sooner than the flexchange period. For all intents and purposes, if I have a request that isn't filled 6 months before our travel date, I consider it a no-go and start making alternate plans, changing to deposit first and/or add other resorts/destinations to our accaptable list. To date I've only had one request not match and that was because I pulled the trigger on another exchange I saw online.

Good thing I also didn't rely upon this exchange. Though I spoke with II about it in January, and was told to leave the request in at that time.

My point of starting this thread was to clarify the obvious confusion which exists with using deposited weeks as a request first, since those are promoted on TUG as the best way of obtaining preferred exchanges. It didn't work for me, and one of the acceptable weeks is now available for anyone to grab, likely for a week with less power than mine.

If the II system doesn't review cancellations, then the system is obviously flawed. There's a lot of positives about II, but the experience I had in this case certainly shows the negatives which also exist.

 

[lawduck]

It does, if not sooner. I had it in my mind that it ended sooner than the flexchange period. For all intents and purposes, if I have a request that isn't filled 6 months before our travel date, I consider it a no-go and start making alternate plans, changing to deposit first and/or add other resorts/destinations to our accaptable list. To date I've only had one request not match and that was because I pulled the trigger on another exchange I saw online.

At least for Worldmark owners, the request does not stop at the flexchange period. It is common practice to put in a request just before the flexchange period to pick up exchanges on the cheap. In fact, I recently picked up a one bedroom at MOC that way for Presidents Day week that way.

 

[Ken555]

II's response to my inquiry regarding their failure to match my request with an available week:

We apologize for the inconvenience you have encountered. Your
satisfaction with our services is very important to us.

Deposit#xxxxxxxxx

Our records indicate that you placed your request in the system on
[a year ago]. You followed all the right steps to optimize your chances of getting an exchange to Park City, Utah. Our system is programmed to work automatically up until 48 hour prior to your desired check in date to find you a match. It is important to consider that adjudication of the inventory is based on several criteria, such as travel preferences, date in which a pending request is placed, the supply and demand for inventory in the desired destinations. As choices you had selected either the "Marriott Mountain Valley Lodge" or "Marriott Summit Watch". Due to the fact that these are "Marriott" owned properties, it's also important to explain the Marriott Owners relinquishing "equally" demanded properties will be given priority. It is only fair. The same priority will apply for you, is you request to go back to a Sheraton owned resort.

Also, you explained that you actually found a unit available on-line on your own. This usually happens "last minute". Units that become available less than 59 days before travel. Interval receives last minute cancellations from members. When this happens there are occasions that the unit cancelled will automatically appear available before the computer is able to match it to a request. Normally, the procedure is a unit is deposited by a member. The unit then goes through a verification process, and then before the unit is release to general availability the computer is programmed to match the unit to the most comparable pending request in the system.

Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Alternatively, you are welcome to contact our Customer Service department at (800)252-5121.

I can only surmise that their match system is broken. It shouldn't be difficult for the system to be programmed to hold canceled weeks for review, before automatically making them available to members for an instant exchange. This was my first, and perhaps last, attempt at using the request first system at II.

 

[hypnotiq]

II's response to my inquiry regarding their failure to match my request with an available week:

I can only surmise that their match system is broken. It shouldn't be difficult for the system to be programmed to hold canceled weeks for review, before automatically making them available to members for an instant exchange. This was my first, and perhaps last, attempt at using the request first system at II.

This is true. It would be relatively simply to configure the system to check a canceled week against existing waitlists before releasing it.

But based on everything I've read about these systems, I dont think they're using the brightest architects to construct these systems.

 

[exyeh]

"At least for Worldmark owners, the request does not stop at the flexchange period. "


This is not true. In flexchange time period, if you did not get matched in early stage, you are on your own to find an instant exchange at II.

 

[jjluhman]

"At least for Worldmark owners, the request does not stop at the flexchange period. "


This is not true. In flexchange time period, if you did not get matched in early stage, you are on your own to find an instant exchange at II.

If this is the case, why did the postcard that I just received from II about my ongoing request state that it would run until 48 hours before the check in date?

 

[jdunn1]

Until last week I thought this, too. After over a year of never getting a match on any of my WM searches, especially in flex time, I got a pretty amazing match in flex -- a 3 bedroom Easter week at a new Wyndham resort in Destin, FL (The Emerald Grand). It was a pretty amazing exchange, two master suites, nearly 1,800 square feet, etc... I had to pass on the unit since I already have Easter plans but I did get matched with that unit a little more than 30 days before check-in.

While I don't like hearing straight from II's mouth that often last minute cancellations go staight to on-line inventory, at least I now know that II was still looking for a match to my search requests -- just most of the time the good inventor hits on-line inventory without ever being checked for an on-line match. I wonder if the unit I declined was a developer deposit and that's how I got it or it wasn't a cancellation, just a last minute deposit. Who knows?

"At least for Worldmark owners, the request does not stop at the flexchange period. "


This is not true. In flexchange time period, if you did not get matched in early stage, you are on your own to find an instant exchange at II.

 

[lawduck]

"At least for Worldmark owners, the request does not stop at the flexchange period. "


This is not true. In flexchange time period, if you did not get matched in early stage, you are on your own to find an instant exchange at II.

I know it is true because I have done it. I've set up requests just outside flexchange with hopes that it would match during flexchange. I just sent my inlaws to the Marriott in Maui that way.

 

[Toots2]

good experiences with request first - bad with deposit

As a multi-week owner in Son Anthem, Marriott Mallorca, we have very good experiences with request first - basically these ALWAYS worked. When doing a deposit first, your week(s) are gone. From there on they belong to II and it is just hoping that what they come up with is what you like. If you get something at all. II will use deposited weeks very quickly and then 'forget' kind of that you are still there. Using request first we got into Marriott's custom house within a month! Using deposit we ended up in a not-so-fancy Sheraton in Avon though the skiing was great. Using deposit we ended up in a quite run-down place in Finland. Now we deposited (Sept. 2011) two prime weeks back-to-back in Son Anthem (end of August 2012) and are still waiting for something in Hawaii...actually we were lured in an inattentive moment in depositing - the lady from II said: this is never going to work with request first (Hawaii)...so we deposited. (dumb) Now we're developing plan B. Rule 1 with II: NEVER EVER deposit. Note: If everyone would do request first, II can match all those requests, actually then they have to work for getting any exchanges. With deposit, they have your weeks and you have left no bargaining power. Just as one thought: assuming II is there to make money for their owners, once the heave a week from you deposited, wouldn't it be a great boost to II's income to immediately sell this week as a Getaway? You get noting anyway, and II gets cold hard cash for your week.

 

[DeniseM]

One thing that may come into play here is that in 2009, Starwood and II introduced different rules for Starwood owners. We know that there are some glitchy behind-the-scenes implications with these rules, that we have figured out by trial and error. So it's hard to say, what other behind-the-scenes components exist that may or may not be intentional, and may or may not impact exchanging for Starwood owners. I don't think you can do direct comparisons with other resort systems - because the rules are different for Starwood owners.

 

[vacationtime1]

OP's problem isn't the first time this has happened and I'm certain it will not be the last. See my identical experience two years ago: http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110647

II's online system is better than nothing, but its utility is probably more to reduce call volume at II headquarters than it is create the level of reliability that good computer programming could accomplish.

Request first is nice when it works, but it is obvious that it is not a panacea; any request must be monitored.

 

[Ken555]

One thing that may come into play here is that in 2009, Starwood and II introduced different rules for Starwood owners. We know that there are some glitchy behind-the-scenes implications with these rules, that we have figured out by trial and error. So it's hard to say, what other behind-the-scenes components exist that may or may not be intentional, and may or may not impact exchanging for Starwood owners. I don't think you can do direct comparisons with other resort systems - because the rules are different for Starwood owners.

Fwiw, I used a fixed week for this request first (and deposited) exchange attempt.