My View Category Changed in Marriott Bonvoy for Interval exchange at Aruba Surf Club

[Hindsite]

.My question is who gets the upgrade and why?

People who book the specific view type get what they booked. That can be an owner week, a VSN or club points booking or a cash booking.
Deposits into II are based on forecast demand and when that forecast is off, they have the ability to change the view type in II.
Mostly, for most people it works most of the time. For those that it doesn't work it sucks, but that is how the system works.
If view type is important to you, don't use II to book.

 

[dioxide45]

I'm surprised over all these years that Marriott hasn't just stopped providing the reservation number and unit type code to II. When I made getaway bookings into Westgate properties, I am not provided with any of this. I am sure not providing these details would cause less confrontations and complaints at the front desk when checking in because people aren't getting the view they think they deserve. The system is what it is and we aren't guaranteed anything except the unit size and occupancy. When you make an exchange, you have no idea going in what you will get out. You expect the lowest common denominator. I opt not to say anything about it and just roll with it. I would rather have the detail provided before checkin and have it right 80% of the time than not have it at all and Marriott simply take away those two pieces of information (confirmation number and unit code).

 

[Superchief]

Interesting. This is one of only a few situations where I have heard of this happening at a Florida property. Did you notice the view change on Marriott.com prior to your arrival, or did they just give you the lower view category at checkin?

We don't necessarily know who got that Gulf Side. It is possible they upgraded an Ambassador Elite Bonvoy member paying cash. Also possible that they rented it out for cash or used it for inventory in Abound. Our one experience exchanging into Crystal Shores through II, they gave use the Gulf Front villa that was indicated in the Unit Number. Though that was also during Covid.

My Bonvoy reservation showed a gulf side confirmation when I last checked a few days prior to check-in. I spoke with another guest at the pool who was in a gulf side villa and was there for an encore stay. I've lost my trust for MVC management in the past couple of years and believe they only care about shareholders and not owners. I'm also having difficulty getting my Bonvoy points for this stay even though I had confirmed my number was on the reservation at check-in and I charged food to our room while there.

 

[davidvel]

Why is it that you think people can't be anything but developer sympathizers when they simply acknowledge that the developers have contracted rights? I agree with the people who say that it's useless to ruminate over views changing with II stays because that practice is longstanding and it's supported by the docs for both Marriott and II. It doesn't mean that we like it or that we want it to happen, it just means that we recognize that it's useless to try to fight these particular rules and it's a waste of time to even entertain the thought that they should be different.

I also don't understand how Marriott's and II's manipulations of II deposits "strip/steal the rights of the person who deposited the good view category." The owner who deposits gets the value of that deposit regardless of what Marriott/II eventually do with it.

I mentioned the people that say too bad/so sad, those are the rules. Not all people (though you do embody that here.) I am giving a normative opinion, not a positive statement.

I acknowledged they have the right (but not because of any MVC doc, btw, but because people relinquish view rights when they deposit due to II's rules.)

II strips/steal the rights of the person who deposited when they take away the view right that that person held in their owned unit, and do not pass that view to the person who traded in. If they had not deposited to II, they would get their original view. I understand that the rules allow for this, and those rules are what I am commenting on.

If they made rules that stripped the view when you rented or gave to a family member, I am sure you would not say "don't ruminate about it."

 

[Hindsite]

I'm surprised over all these years that Marriott hasn't just stopped providing the reservation number and unit type code to II.

Awww noooo don't take away the excitement of not quite knowing whether you are going to get that penthouse assigned or not.....
I'm not convinced that there are that many people that actually have a melt-down when they don't get the view type that was showing in their Bonvoy account initially, and fewer still would go to the effort of trying to hunt down someone to "blame" to the extent that the OP did. No need to change the system for so few people, when most manage just fine with the system as it is.
It is certainly more common that someone doesn't like their unit placement, as opposed to view type, when they are booking via their ownership. I've not heard anyone at the check-in desk complaining about an II exchange, but often cries of "I'm chairman level..." to try and get the assigned unit changed.

 

[Hindsite]

If they made rules that stripped the view when you rented or gave to a family member, I am sure you would not say "don't ruminate about it."

I think it would be fairer if that happened, particularly if it is an arms length 3rd party rental, notably for prioritisation relating to the original owner benefit level or timestamp. People should get the unit type and view they pay for, like they do if the book via Bonvoy, but nothing more.
Unfortunately there's no way for them to distinguish between gifting to a family member vs an arms length rental, so the process favours the retention of privileges, whereas with II the presumption is that it is arms length so the original owner benefits, and more, are stripped.

 

[Hindsite]

I look at an exchange as stepping into the shoes of the owner of the deposited unit.

That just isn't how it works with MVC and even less so for Sheraton and Westin as they are deposited by the system manager and people get a blended trading power to use in the exchange,. My observation of exchanging into much smaller systems or independents is that I don't get the unit that is noted on the II reservation, some resorts may assign what is deposited, but not all do.

With MVC, MVC/MVW, own large volumes of inventory and they can be asked to deposit to II by owners. We really don't know how many owners actually book and deposit the week themselves and then whether those unit/view types are preserved (they might be) vs ones that are deposited by the system manager based on their forecasting or their own inventory, and how many of those get changed to balance the overall supply and demand across the reservation systems.

 

[Dean]

IMO they should have the flexibility to assign units as they see fit. I do believe that the reason they downgrade a view is important. If it's done just for profit, they have the right but it does not pass the reasonableness test. If it's done to upgrade a member, then I'm OK with that and I do not think it reasonable to be upset. The most obvious situation for reasonableness is when someone has more than one unit either concurrent or consecutive and they use this option to keep them in the same unit or to get units close together. While I understand disappointment, I do think that anyone who takes the stand they're stealing from them needs a reset. IMO one cannot take the stand that they understand the resorts have the option and be livid if they do so though disappointed is understandable. And heaven forbid anyone arguing with resort staff over the issue. Even if they downgraded every exchange to the lowest option possible, that's still far better, IMO, than being absolute on unit view assignments like some have been in the past.

I'll also note that II no longer translates the info to resorts if an exchanger is also a member so the resorts don't even know much of the time.

 

[SueDonJ]

I mentioned the people that say too bad/so sad, those are the rules. Not all people (though you do embody that here.) I am giving a normative opinion, not a positive statement.

Really? When I'm in conversations about how the rules benefit Marriott or the exchange company or whatever more than they do the owners, I don't say "too bad/so sad" directly and neither do I intend an inflection that means the same. My intention is usually to point out that when/if the clear advantage that's stated in the docs is in their favor, IMO it's useless to try to fight it. Sometimes those discussions get frustrating for all of us but if anyone's walking away thinking that I'm obnoxiously flippant (i.e. "too bad/so sad") then I hope they'll call me on it in the moment.

I acknowledged they have the right (but not because of any MVC doc, btw, but because people relinquish view rights when they deposit due to II's rules.)

Right, it's the II docs that say the views of deposited intervals are not guaranteed to the exchanger. But isn't it the Marriott docs that give Marriott the rights to manipulate various intervals through II, marriott.com cash inventory, Abound points intervals, etc. I look at it as symbiotic - II doesn't in itself have the mechanism to use Marriott-designated inventory to change the views on exchanges just as Marriott doesn't have the mechanism to re-designate the view of a deposited interval. It requires them working together and there's no doubt they both do it to their advantage.

II strips/steal the rights of the person who deposited when they take away the view right that that person held in their owned unit, and do not pass that view to the person who traded in. If they had not deposited to II, they would get their original view. I understand that the rules allow for this, and those rules are what I am commenting on.

I'm sorry, I'm still not following this. What bestowed rights are stripped/stolen from the owner who deposits an interval to II? They get what they're promised, "like-for-like" (however II figures it) value for the exchange they eventually make, don't they? Yes, the exchanger who picks up an II interval freed up by that deposit might get a downgraded (or if they're lucky, upgraded) view, but the owner loses nothing.

If they made rules that stripped the view when you rented or gave to a family member, I am sure you would not say "don't ruminate about it."

You're right, I wouldn't. I'd fight it tooth and nail. The difference is that if I deposit to a third-party exchange company then I give up my rights to that interval, in which case I fully expect their rules to immediately come into play including whatever manipulation is in compliance with the docs and contracted between the exchange company and Marriott. If I gift or rent to a family member or a stranger then I retain "ownership" of that particular interval/reservation, I retain the rights to pull back that interval from one guest/renter and use it myself or re-gift or -rent it, and most importantly, I can be held responsible for damages inflicted during that interval.

 

[davidvel]

Really? When I'm in conversations about how the rules benefit Marriott or the exchange company or whatever more than they do the owners, I don't say "too bad/so sad" directly and neither do I intend an inflection that means the same. My intention is usually to point out that when/if the clear advantage that's stated in the docs is in their favor, IMO it's useless to try to fight it. Sometimes those discussions get frustrating for all of us but if anyone's walking away thinking that I'm obnoxiously flippant (i.e. "too bad/so sad") then I hope they'll call me on it in the moment.

Right, it's the II docs that say the views of deposited intervals are not guaranteed to the exchanger. But isn't it the Marriott docs that give Marriott the rights to manipulate various intervals through II, marriott.com cash inventory, Abound points intervals, etc. I look at it as symbiotic - II doesn't in itself have the mechanism to use Marriott-designated inventory to change the views on exchanges just as Marriott doesn't have the mechanism to re-designate the view of a deposited interval. It requires them working together and there's no doubt they both do it to their advantage.

I'm sorry, I'm still not following this. What bestowed rights are stripped/stolen from the owner who deposits an interval to II? They get what they're promised, "like-for-like" (however II figures it) value for the exchange they eventually make, don't they? Yes, the exchanger who picks up an II interval freed up by that deposit might get a downgraded (or if they're lucky, upgraded) view, but the owner loses nothing.

You're right, I wouldn't. I'd fight it tooth and nail. The difference is that if I deposit to a third-party exchange company then I give up my rights to that interval, in which case I fully expect their rules to immediately come into play including whatever manipulation is in compliance with the docs and contracted between the exchange company and Marriott. If I gift or rent to a family member or a stranger then I retain "ownership" of that particular interval/reservation, I retain the rights to pull back that interval from one guest/renter and use it myself or re-gift or -rent it, and most importantly, I can be held responsible for damages inflicted during that interval.

Nothing that I have ever read allows Marriott to take the good views of exchanges and replace with worse views, but I may have missed it. I pointed out in my original comment that I knew this was allowed by II's rules that all exchangers agree to. I was responding to a comment concurring that Marriott does this and how I felt about it.

I am not saying that the person who deposits is losing a view right, I am saying that Marriott is stripping the view right that is owned by the depositor before giving to II. I am referring to the source of the view right being from the owner. Regardless of how it is looked at Marriott clearly takes these view rights through the use of II's rules in certain cases. I'll start advocating for them changing "the rules" (subject to change, blah, blah, blah) so that if you rent out your week, the view right is stripped and given to other owners, since I don't rent.

 

[klpca]

That just isn't how it works with MVC and even less so for Sheraton and Westin as they are deposited by the system manager and people get a blended trading power to use in the exchange,. My observation of exchanging into much smaller systems or independents is that I don't get the unit that is noted on the II reservation, some resorts may assign what is deposited, but not all do.

With MVC, MVC/MVW, own large volumes of inventory and they can be asked to deposit to II by owners. We really don't know how many owners actually book and deposit the week themselves and then whether those unit/view types are preserved (they might be) vs ones that are deposited by the system manager based on their forecasting or their own inventory, and how many of those get changed to balance the overall supply and demand across the reservation systems.

I understand how it works, but from a theoretical point (and a simplistic example), II is essentially facilitating an exchange transaction between multiple owners. Marriott and others have recognized the opportunity to utilize their access to the inventory to swap inventory to their benefit - at the expense of exchangers. As long as it is in the documents that everyone has agreed to, I agree with Sue, there is nothing that we can do about it. We are also using leverage to get value out of our ownerships when we exchange an SDO into a Hawaii Westin, or a 1 bedroom into a 2 bedroom for a $59 upgrade charge. We are all playing a game here. The real losers are the uninformed users.

 

[Dean]

Nothing that I have ever read allows Marriott to take the good views of exchanges and replace with worse views, but I may have missed it. I pointed out in my original comment that I knew this was allowed by II's rules that all exchangers agree to. I was responding to a comment concurring that Marriott does this and how I felt about it.

I am not saying that the person who deposits is losing a view right, I am saying that Marriott is stripping the view right that is owned by the depositor before giving to II. I am referring to the source of the view right being from the owner. Regardless of how it is looked at Marriott clearly takes these view rights through the use of II's rules in certain cases. I'll start advocating for them changing "the rules" (subject to change, blah, blah, blah) so that if you rent out your week, the view right is stripped and given to other owners, since I don't rent.

As posted on MVC's website

Access to resorts and services described as part of the Exchange Partner Resorts is provided via an affiliation with Interval International Inc. and is subject to Interval International Inc.’s terms and conditions. Actual participating resorts are subject to change and may require the payment of additional fees.

Since II's rules are clear on this, as well as the info when you deposit/exchange, it is clear that we are agreeing to abide by II's rules and are out of MVC control. IMO it's always been clear that II ignores view type on the deposit so it would make sense they do on the exchange. MVC knows the view type of the deposit because they have it linked to the deposit confirmation number and use it for inventory control. Jeremy's point about not even receiving the info is a valid one but I'd hate to see that change. I'd at least like to know the info and hope for the best. I've seen some major blow ups at the FD (MVC & DVC) over unit assignments including this issue. Shame on those people. Even if one is not getting what is actually reserved for a direct reservation, better to handle it with more class than yelling and screaming.

That said, I think it's reasonable to assume the worst and hope for the best. I do feel there are some ways that improve one's chances of securing a good unit for an exchange. I've actually had more issues with the reverse over the years where they wouldn't change the view type to downgrade when the situation made sense.

 

[Superchief]

IMO they should have the flexibility to assign units as they see fit. I do believe that the reason they downgrade a view is important. If it's done just for profit, they have the right but it does not pass the reasonableness test. If it's done to upgrade a member, then I'm OK with that and I do not think it reasonable to be upset. The most obvious situation for reasonableness is when someone has more than one unit either concurrent or consecutive and they use this option to keep them in the same unit or to get units close together. While I understand disappointment, I do think that anyone who takes the stand they're stealing from them needs a reset. IMO one cannot take the stand that they understand the resorts have the option and be livid if they do so though disappointed is understandable. And heaven forbid anyone arguing with resort staff over the issue. Even if they downgraded every exchange to the lowest option possible, that's still far better, IMO, than being absolute on unit view assignments like some have been in the past.

I'll also note that II no longer translates the info to resorts if an exchanger is also a member so the resorts don't even know much of the time.

It is my understanding that owners using their week or using points for a designated view cannot be upgraded. This would include someone using concurrent or consecutive weeks. I've never been upgraded to a 'higher' view in the 40 years I've been an MVC owner. Therefore, any downgrade would be due to MVC using the higher level villa for rentals or other non-owner reservations. MVC might be contractually allowed to do this, but it is never to the advantage of its owners.

 

[Hindsite]

Marriott and others have recognized the opportunity to utilize their access to the inventory to swap inventory to their benefit - at the expense of exchangers.

I really haven't seen any evidence that there is any large scale activity like this with MVC, otherwise how would I so consistently get better exchanges than my deposits? You can assume that is what happens, but that doesn't make it true, or untrue, they may well do that with the inventory they own or people ask them to deposit for them, and I have no problem with that. It is in all our interests that they run a profitable company.
I'm quite stunned that it is so easy to get great value from II using MVC deposits and people with unbranded low season weeks to deposit seem to do almost as well.
There are indeed many people who didn't take any time to understand the basics of II and had a bad experience so gave up using it, and I can't believe there are people who routinely deposit good to excellent weeks and take poor weeks in exchange. Even with the introduction of the points system and increased owner rental activity there is little to no change in availability in II for our use, over how it was 20 years ago. The only way that can work is if you have very high volumes, a breadth of user base and a variety of sales channels, which is one of the value propositions for MVW owning II, its a great way to monetise sticky inventory, as well as the normal transaction volume.

 

[Dean]

It is my understanding that owners using their week or using points for a designated view cannot be upgraded. This would include someone using concurrent or consecutive weeks. I've never been upgraded to a 'higher' view in the 40 years I've been an MVC owner. Therefore, any downgrade would be due to MVC using the higher level villa for rentals or other non-owner reservations. MVC might be contractually allowed to do this, but it is never to the advantage of its owners.

This has historically been true for owners using their actual week but one reason was related to sales. They wanted to convey the idea that if you wanted a better location/view, you had to pay the additional cost for it. My reference was more specific to owners on exchanges and I have seen lots of examples of upgrades there and more recently downgrades. But I have also seen a number of examples of upgrades for owners using their week generally for off season stays. I have been upgraded a few times but in situations where it made sense and generally it was a ? upgrade like first floor OF at MGO.

When I saw your response and first started reading it, I figured it was going to call me out on the reference to owners being downgraded using their week. I think this is extremely rare but it also does happen when there is no unit available generally due to maintenance issues.

 

[klpca]

I really haven't seen any evidence that there is any large scale activity like this with MVC, otherwise how would I so consistently get better exchanges than my deposits? You can assume that is what happens, but that doesn't make it true, or untrue, they may well do that with the inventory they own or people ask them to deposit for them, and I have no problem with that. It is in all our interests that they run a profitable company.
I'm quite stunned that it is so easy to get great value from II using MVC deposits and people with unbranded low season weeks to deposit seem to do almost as well.
There are indeed many people who didn't take any time to understand the basics of II and had a bad experience so gave up using it, and I can't believe there are people who routinely deposit good to excellent weeks and take poor weeks in exchange. Even with the introduction of the points system and increased owner rental activity there is little to no change in availability in II for our use, over how it was 20 years ago. The only way that can work is if you have very high volumes, a breadth of user base and a variety of sales channels, which is one of the value propositions for MVW owning II, its a great way to monetise sticky inventory, as well as the normal transaction volume.

I agree. I used to own 3 Marriotts but I sold them back in 2015 when I realized that I could do almost as well using non-Marriotts for exchanging. I sold them due to a combination of MF cost, the trading power of my underlying units, and what I was exchanging into. I knew then that I would miss some Marriott units due to the preference period and that I would be at the rock bottom of the pecking order for unit placement, so I have learned to embrace the ground floor units that we regularly receive. We have always preferred smaller resorts so we are not always targeting Marriotts, but I am certainly not going to avoid them either. I think that the II inventory visible when searching for exchanges has been a little less robust than in prior years, but that is an anecdotal observation and I could be wrong. Marriott bringing Vistana under the umbrella has been a nice unexpected perk too. As far as the view category is concerned, I have never personally had a view category downgraded but of course, have been given a poor view within that category. On the resort's side, it is probably easier for them to keep everyone in their assigned view category for inventory control. The only unit placement that I can't stand is if it's located somewhere noisy - like right next to a busy walkway or a parking lot - but when you are exchanging you learn to be flexible.

 

[SueDonJ]

... When I saw your response and first started reading it, I figured it was going to call me out on the reference to owners being downgraded using their week. I think this is extremely rare but it also does happen when there is no unit available generally due to maintenance issues.

Yes, inventory being taken out of service on short notice because of maintenance issues is the ONLY time I would expect owners to be placed into something other than what they own. I also think that if/when this happens, the affected owner(s) should automatically be upgraded if there's availability. If there isn't and a downgrade is the only possibility, then I would expect - and ask nicely but stridently for - reasonable compensation in the form of enough Bonvoy or Abound points to make a difference.

Otherwise, there is NEVER a good reason for owners using their Owned Weeks/Abound Points to be deliberately placed into something other than what they booked. IMO giving Marriott carte blanche to upgrade means that you're also giving them carte blanche to downgrade, and if there's anything that will put Marriott's timeshare business into serious disarray it's inventory control mismanagement. I don't want it to ever happen simply because it can.

I agree with you that this thread mainly deals with exchange inventory/placement and this tangent of owner placements muddies things a bit, but anytime I see upgrades/downgrades being mentioned for owner stays my head explodes a little bit.