Marriott Abound

[Red elephant]

You can, but the "Owner" level has to pay a 10% point premium to book 7+ nights at 13 months. Select can book 7+ nights without the premium and Executive and above can book 1+ nights at 13 months.

I did not know about the 10% point premium!! Thx

 

[Red elephant]

If you enroll your Vistana week in Abound and elect Club Points, then it will be available to other Abound members to make reservations at 12 months (not 13).

Wait now I am really confused I thought when you exchange into DP now Abound is 13 months booking window?

 

[timsi]

But doing this would then technically give Vistana deeded weeks owner a significant advantage. As an example, right now you have 100 owners competing for 100 reservations. Have 25 of those owners elect Club Points and you now have 75 owner completing for 100 reservations.

That is exactly how it works in VSN so why should Abound be different?

 

[kozykritter]

Wait now I am really confused I thought when you exchange into DP now Abound is 13 months booking window?

It's potentially 13 months based upon elite level in the MVC system. The lowest level, Owner, can book it 10 months out unless they pay a 10% point premium to book seven nights+ at 13 months out. All the levels above that have 13 month booking without premium. MVC recognition levels will be applied to all Vistana owners enrolling in Abound and possibly Vistana owners regardless of enrollment.

 

[remowidget]

But doing this would then technically give Vistana deeded weeks owner a significant advantage. As an example, right now you have 100 owners competing for 100 reservations. Have 25 of those owners elect Club Points and you now have 75 owner completing for 100 reservations.

I'm not following this whole line. There are different pools of inventory.

25 elect club points. Then 25 are competing for 25 reservations in the club pool.
75 are competing for 75 reservations in the Vistana Pool.

Spread it out further:

25 elect club points. Then 25 are competing for 25 reservations in the club pool.
10 convert to Bonvoy points, Bonvoy has 10 weeks to sell or redeem for points.
15 deposit into Interval. Then 15 are competing for 15 reservations in Interval.
50 competing for 50 reservations in the Vistana Pool.

The inventory isn't going to be in two pools at once.

 

[remowidget]

The real risk is what happens at 8 months.

Besides fear and sales lies, where has 8 months been mentioned?

8 months is only a Vistana thing.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

But doing this would then technically give Vistana deeded weeks owner a significant advantage. As an example, right now you have 100 owners competing for 100 reservations. Have 25 of those owners elect Club Points and you now have 75 owner completing for 100 reservations.

What is wrong with this? The problem is MVC creates artificial barriers and you cannot rely on them to get this right. What if there are 20 VOIs during July 4 and owners want all those weeks? They should have first rights to all of those VOIs.

Let deeded owners decide the weeks they want out of the owner pool. They cannot take more than the 75 weeks they own. Then release the 25 balance. That's how VSN and HGVC works. It protects owner rights. And it is fair.

 

[dioxide45]

I'm not following this whole line. There are different pools of inventory.

25 elect club points. Then 25 are competing for 25 reservations in the club pool.
75 are competing for 75 reservations in the Vistana Pool.

Spread it out further:

25 elect club points. Then 25 are competing for 25 reservations in the club pool.
10 convert to Bonvoy points, Bonvoy has 10 weeks to sell or redeem for points.
15 deposit into Interval. Then 15 are competing for 15 reservations in Interval.
50 competing for 50 reservations in the Vistana Pool.

The inventory isn't going to be in two pools at once.

My response was to those that don't think or realize there are multiple pools of inventory. Your line of though is the same as mine. My example was just one pool of inventory but with one type of member being restricted based on them depositing their week to Abound.

 

[remowidget]

What is wrong with this? The problem is MVC creates artificial barriers and you cannot rely on them to get this right. What if there are 20 VOIs during July 4 and owners want all those weeks? They should have first rights to all of those weeks.

Let deeded owners decide the weeks they want out of the owner pool. They cannot take more than the 75 weeks they own. Then release the 25 balance. That's how VSN and HGVC works. It protects owner rights. And it is fair.

So if Vistana/Marriott own 20% of the weeks in a given resort, you think that they should take only the worst weeks that are left after individual owners have booked?

Other people seem to think that Vistana/Marriott take all of the good weeks leaving nothing for individual owners.

Is there any proof of any of this? Is it just fear?

 

[dioxide45]

Let deeded owners decide the weeks they want out of the owner pool. They cannot take more than the 75 weeks they own. Then release the 25 balance. That's how VSN and HGVC works. It protects owner rights. And it is fair.

But this is the exact same thing. In what you are saying it doesn't matter really if you release the 25 fourth of July weeks at month 12 or month 8. Each has access to their own inventory.

 

[dioxide45]

Is there any proof of any of this? Is it just fear?

It is mostly fear. Our experience before Marriott introduced the program initially in 2010 was that certain weeks at our home resort were hard to book at the 13/12 month marks. We own Grande Vista. After DC rolled out and to today pretty much every week is available, with a few exception, every single week is available to book with only a few checkin dates booked up. So in our example, it became easier to make home resort reservations instead of harder.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

So if Vistana/Marriott own 20% of the weeks in a given resort, you think that they should take only the worst weeks that are left after individual owners have booked?

Other people seem to think that Vistana/Marriott take all of the good weeks leaving nothing for individual owners.

Is there any proof of any of this? Is it just fear?

You are raising a different issue about ownership types. WKORV resorts are close to sold out so the point is moot for these resorts. They cannot do much.

My comments pertain to owned weeks with non-owners trading in when owners are artificially blocked from access to all available deeded VOIs.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

The 75 owners should have access to all 20 VOIs. It would leave 0 VOIs for July 4 week but 20 VOIs on other dates for Abound traders. That's how it works today with SOs. Why shouldn't owners have advantage? We pay the bills and paid a premium for such rights. No separate inventory except for different owner types.

 

[dioxide45]

We pay the bills and paid a premium for such rights. No separate inventory except for different owner types.

Didn't the other owners that deposited also pay the bills and a premium? They just opted to give up their ownership right to Abound in exchange for Club Points.

I am not saying you are right or wrong, just different ways to do this and if Abound went your route, it would severely impact the quality of their product. The only option to prevent them from doing such is litigation.

 

[dioxide45]

That is exactly how it works in VSN so why should Abound be different?

VSN and Abound work fundamentally different. Deposit into VSN is really a passive action. You don't make an active decision to deposit like you won't in Abound. I am not necessarily saying it should or shouldn't be different. Just stating reasons why it can be different.

 

[remowidget]

The 75 owners should have access to all 20 VOIs. It would leave 0 VOIs for July 4 week but 20 VOIs on other dates for Abound traders. That's how it works today. No separate inventory except for different owner types.

Where can you show me that it works that way?

I suspect if Vistana/Marriott own 20% of the floating weeks in a resort, they get 20% of the July 4th weeks. That would be the neutral/fair thing for them to do. They are paying the maintenance on their ownership.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Didn't the other owners that deposited also pay the bills and a premium? They just opted to give up their ownership right to Abound in exchange for Club Points.

I am not saying you are right or wrong, just different ways to do this and if Abound went your route, it would severely impact the quality of their product. The only option to prevent them from doing such is litigation.

Exactly! They surrendered their ownership right. Why does that surrender allow non-owners the right to preferential weeks that owners have access to in the current system just because MVC has concocted a way to make more money by artificially limiting deeded owner pools.

 

[dioxide45]

Exactly! They surrendered their ownership right. Why does that surrender allow non-owners the right to preferential weeks that owners have access to in the current system just because MVC has concocted a way to make more money by limiting deeded owner pools.

Marriott seems to beleive the reservation rights transfer with the week, and don't necessarily belong to the owner of the week. I am not in a position to determine if they are right or wrong.

 

[byeloe]

Exactly! They surrendered their ownership right. Why does that surrender allow non-owners the right to preferential weeks that owners have access to in the current system just because MVC has concocted a way to make more money by artificially limiting deeded owner pools.

I don't see the difference, if the owner books a July 4th week and then rents it out, it is still gone and a non-owner will be using it

 

[remowidget]

The 75 owners should have access to all 20 VOIs. It would leave 0 VOIs for July 4 week but 20 VOIs on other dates for Abound traders. That's how it works today with SOs. Why shouldn't owners have advantage? We pay the bills and paid a premium for such rights. No separate inventory except for different owner types.

Here is proof it doesn't work that way

 

[CalGalTraveler]

I don't see the difference, if the owner books a July 4th week and then rents it out, it is still gone and a non-owner will be using it

Huge difference. That is a deeded right that was obtained upon purchase. Owners select the renter and are still legally liable for any damages occurred because the deeded VOI rights have not been surrendered. It remains legal deeded usage of their week.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Here is proof it doesn't work that way

What does this prove?

 

[byeloe]

Huge difference. That is a deeded right that was obtained upon purchase. Owners select the renter and are still legally liable for any damages occurred because the deeded VOI rights have not been surrendered. It remains legal deeded usage of their week.

I didn't know that the owner was still liable. What about when one had to make the reservation before depositing in interval?

 

[remowidget]

What does this prove?

It proves that owners don't currently get all of the best weeks and there are different pools of points.

 

[remowidget]

What does this prove?

Where are you getting your information from? Abound hasn't even been been released yet.