Next year, using StarOptions is tough!

[yumdrey]

I just called starwood to make a reservation at Harborside for June.
Actually, I called starwood three times (once each day) from Sat to Mon.
Called exactly at 9am EST. But on Saturday, I was on hold for 10+ minutes to get a rep. By the time I could speak to a rep, of course all Harborside week was gone. Yesterday, they had nothing either. Today, they had several 1BR deluxe which is the smaller 1BR.
It is the first time I couldn't get a premium 1BR at exactly 8 months out @ 9am for early June week.
Last year, I could get premium 1BR for mid-June (week 24) and 1BR deluxe for week 25.
Seems like competition got worse for next summer.

 

[lprstn]

Hum, I planned on using some for next year also. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[tomandrobin]

It really is hit or miss with Starwood. Last year when we called, we could only get a deluxe 1 bedroom, if anything at all. This year, we got three 2 bedrooms units for Memorial Day week.

 

[DanCali]

Sorry to hear about your problems reserving this week. I actually had success reserving that week, so maybe I got lucky.

 

[levatino]

I tried on several occasions to get a unit at HRA with options at 9 am and had no luck, so this isn't news one way or the other to me.

 

[woodyd70]

Expect more of the same, unfortunately

As I have posted before, with the "new flexibility" of carrying over staroptions, I believe this will become a bigger issue moving forward. JMO

Think about it, you're sailing along through the calander year and months have passed by and a percentage of SVN owners decide that they aren't going to use their options, so they carry them over to the following year. Now as we begin to experience the following year, we have SVN owners using last years usage in conjunction with the current year's allottment. How is this NOT going to cause an availability nightmare? I so hope I'm missing something here and hope someone can provide an explanation for me that will make sense as to how this could possibly be perceived as a benefit (other than the flexibility of the salesperson's "pitch" which I think we all agree has little or no bearing on what's important to the owner)

Again, JMO

 

[Pedro]

As I have posted before, with the "new flexibility" of carrying over staroptions, I believe this will become a bigger issue moving forward. JMO

Think about it, you're sailing along through the calander year and months have passed by and a percentage of SVN owners decide that they aren't going to use their options, so they carry them over to the following year. Now as we begin to experience the following year, we have SVN owners using last years usage in conjunction with the current year's allottment. How is this NOT going to cause an availability nightmare? I so hope I'm missing something here and hope someone can provide an explanation for me that will make sense as to how this could possibly be perceived as a benefit (other than the flexibility of the salesperson's "pitch" which I think we all agree has little or no bearing on what's important to the owner)

Again, JMO

I consider the 'flexibility' to be a great benefit. If I can't use one of my weeks next year, I will bank the corresponding staroptions for the following year. At the same time, the fact that I didn't use the staroptions one year, means that somebody else can find availability at a resort they wouldn't have been able to book into if I hadn't banked my options. At the end everything evens out, and I think it is a much more important benefit that just the suggested salesperson's "pitch".

 

[woodyd70]

Here's how I see it........using the following example

You own 44,000 Staroptions annually

You are assigned your options Jan 1, 2012

You decide to carry over your unused options to 2013

It's now May, 2013 and you have 88,000 options in your account

You call SVN and request a 1br Premium at HRA Christmas week at 9 a.m. Eastern time exactly 8 months prior to check in

Low and behold, you are able to book the week due to it being available

5 minutes later, an SVN member that owns 162,000 staroptions annually calls for the same week as their schedule has just freed up to allow them to travel Christmas week

The 162,000 option owner is told "sorry", but we're all booked for that week, can I search another time for you?

This could very well happen, ya know?

Please share with me how this example has added flexibility for anyone other than the 2 following...........

1) A sales rep that sells an inferior package because either they're a weak rep or the owner can't afford to purchase what they really need, so they pitch "just go with the less expensive package, and carry over your options to the following year so that you can access HRA.......

2) An owner that purchases well less than they really need, double up their options, and create an inventory availabiltiy nightmare for everyone else that bought enough package to begin with to obtain the vacations they expected to receive.

This is JMO my friend, and I hope above all hope that I'm wrong........I'm on your side ya know......It just worries me that availability will be compromised due to "perceived" flexibility.

Thanks

 

[LisaRex]

An owner that purchases well less than they really need, double up their options, and create an inventory availabiltiy nightmare for everyone else that bought enough package to begin with to obtain the vacations they expected to receive.

Yes, but in years 1 and 3, that owner didn't do anything with their SOs. Ergo, MORE availability for the 162,000 SO owner.

The ability to carry over SO's is a nice incentive for folks just below 67,100/81,000/148,100/196,100 SOs to purchase an additional week to get to one of those threshholds. I can foresee HRA and WSJ getting even more difficult to exchange into, but WKORV has tons of excess inventory.

Plus, banking SOs isn't free. It could be a decent money maker for SVO, which I'm all for because I hope that means that they'll quit pecking at the same carcass (high tier resort owners) for a change.

 

[woodyd70]

I see your point..........and again, hope you're both right. I own 5 resales and have very little monetary "skin in the game", I'm just sharing a concern. I personally feel pretty badly for folks that have purchased large packages at developer pricing that will have their "inventory carcass picked at by other owners that have, until now, been unable to take a bite".

But, carrying "unused" inventory over becomes past tense........accessing future inventory is just that, and for the life of me I can't see how that will NOT affect availability in a negative manner for everyone, especially the ones that own enough annually to get what they want without having to carry over.......JMO

thanks

 

[gravitar]

Who it probably hurts the most would be the EOY owners who will now be competing directly with the banking owners.

 

[jerseygirl]

I'm glad for the added flexibility .... but I also have my reservations. I think some owners have probably asked for it ... but, I think it's primarily designed to help Starwood sell small (often unattractive) weeks.

E.g., 25800 / 37000 / 44000 packages didn't get much before .... but, now they can bank and compete for summer Harborside weeks (just an example). Sure, you can argue that they've opened up availability when they don't use their SOs in year one, but is there really demand for their weeks?

Two "no demand" weeks combined -------> Moves owners into competition for "high demand" weeks ----------> Increases competition for those who have enough SOs for "high demand" weeks without banking

 

[woodyd70]

I agree Jersey Girl, as I have mentioned in earlier posts on this subject, I think it's very important to note that Starwood has neither purchased nor built new inventory for quite some time now. Selling more flexibility has been forced upon them due to lack of construction of new inventory and I am afraid the brunt of this situation will be thrust upon the owners in the form of less flexibility. Marriott should be a pretty good example of what occurs when expansion and construction scale back and flexibility is needed. Marriott owners are being pitched "points" now........."points" can be comprised of excess inventory in less desired seasons being bundled together. For example, let's say Starwood packages together (2) gold plus season units in Orlando at SVV, together equalling 134,200 options for a much cheaper price and holding the price super high on the 81,000 option packages as they are much more rare in nature. Marriott is simply taking multiple off season weeks that were previously nearly impossible to sell and packaging them together and selling "points", how else would they be able to sell enough horsepower to travel during platinum season without new construction? I think Wyndam's model would be a pretty fair comparison and it truly scares me to see flexibility occur at such a high price to the owner base. JMO

 

[LisaRex]

I do see your points, but I think that the reality will be that it's less impactful that we might think. The main reason that I think this is because, by nature, aren't big planners. They're not organized enough to call at 9 months out to get into HRA/WSJ. Some aren't even organized enough to lock in the week that they paid for. So I think for those of us who plan, and are persistent in calling, we'll be okay. For others, not so much.

Personally, I think that before Starwood pulls a Marriott -- which IMO is a huge deterrent to buying a Marriott because they've complicated what used to be simple and pissed off their most loyal owners in the process -- that they'll start letting voluntary resale owners join SVN. It would be such an easy money maker for them, because they are missing out on SVN fees from thousands and thousands of resale owners. Why piss off owners by raising MFs every year, when you can just open up the system and collect a big paycheck.

Starwood has seen all those SDO units change hands, for instance, and know what we know -- that there's no reason to buy in Hawaii when you can buy SDO for $500 and exchange in! II is making a lot of money when there's no reason for it. Just allow those owners to exchange in via SVN and get money for nothing. And your chicks for free.

If I were Starwood, I'd allow targeted resale owners to join for a fee -- $3-5,000 would be my target. Would this make exchanging even more of a bottleneck for the other owners? Of course it would. But think of all those uncaptured SVN fees....

 

[csudell]

In theory I like the idea of banking but what an owner of small amount of SOs needs to consider is if my normal 44K SOs costs 1500/year and I bank them to use 81K the next year, my vacation is costing double also. Would I pay double to get a 2 BR instead of a 1 BR premium, not sure I personally would. For owners paying less MFs, it could be a great deal.

Here is a question with the banking... If I banked my SOs in 2012, so I have 88K to use in 2013 and I use 51700 in 2013, I have 36300 left. Can that be banked to use in 2014?

 

[jerseygirl]

I would never pay $3 - $5000 to enroll my voluntary units! I get way too much value out of them the way they are. Even if everyone else joined and the Starwood-to-Starwood preference went away, there are soooooooo many wonderful non-Starwood trades out there for those of us who are flexible (i.e., kids not in school any longer!).

If I had SDO or WMH true platinums worth 148,100 SOs -- maybe for $599, but definitely not for $3 - $5000. But, that's just me -- I'm sure it might be worth it to others.

My philosophy -- buy and lock in what you "HAVE to HAVE" each year. Then, use the traders to see the rest of the world.

 

[LisaRex]

I would never pay $3 - $5000 to enroll my voluntary units!

Yes, but what if you could convert to SPs every other year??

 

[rickandcindy23]

When someone posted a while back that SDO or SBP owners would likely be invited to Staroptions, I was at first excited about it. But then I realized I wouldn't be willing to pay much of anything for the use of Staroptions. It doesn't really interest me.

Could be a lack of understanding, but I would guess it's really an apprehension of lack of inventory to use those SO's. There is a lack of both, I think.

Starpoints may be different, but I doubt they would let resale buyers have Starpoints.

 

[jarta]

"I would guess it's really an apprehension of lack of inventory to use those SO's."

If there could be a future lack of inventory to use StarOptions, couldn't there be a lack (or at least a diminished amount) of inventory for II use due to Starwood's bulk depositing? Just asking. Don't know what's going to happen.

Marriott II trading could be the model. There might be quite a scramble to make use of II's Starwood to Starwood preference. The TUG Sightings board would then become an even more valuable tool/asset for those who do not use StarOptions. ... eom

 

[PamMo]

With the new banking option, I think the concern over competition for prime resorts (St John, Harborside, Hawaii) is a valid one. Like LisaRex wrote, owners will have to be even more determined and persistent to get the trades they want. Although, savvy TUGgers will have a definite edge over the typical owner.

I also agree that this will help Starwood sell less desirable weeks, touting the ability to bank SO's and reserve at any resort in SVN. Isn't that why a lot of TUGgers buy cheap SDO units - solely to trade into "better" resorts with the Starwood preference in II? Starwood sees a huge benefit in keeping trades in-house and reaping new fees, but what's the great benefit to an owner who will have to pay 2XMF's plus a banking fee, for a week they can now get through II by exchanging one week? If most deposits go into SVN vs II, things will get very interesting... The supply of units at St John, Harborside, and Hawaii resorts is limited, but the demand for usage in SVN will surely go up. I'm betting there will be a lot of discussion here on the board about how/if trading ability changes.

 

[jerseygirl]

Yes, but what if you could convert to SPs every other year??

Well, shucks, I forgot about that -- I'd pay $10000 then! :hysterical:

Zero interest ..... get my hotel points the old-fashioned way ....... and I'm a Hyatt girl, not a Starwood girl!

 

[woodyd70]

In theory I like the idea of banking but what an owner of small amount of SOs needs to consider is if my normal 44K SOs costs 1500/year and I bank them to use 81K the next year, my vacation is costing double also. Would I pay double to get a 2 BR instead of a 1 BR premium, not sure I personally would. For owners paying less MFs, it could be a great deal.

There a 1br's in the SVN system that produce 44,000 options for a MF of under $500, like SBP 1 Bedroom deluxe (Palmetto Phase)Platinum season weeks, which is quite a bit less than $500.........this ownerhip could produce an HRA vacation EOY platinum season 1br Premium for less than $1000 (2 years MF's)

Heck, the gold season 2br Palmetto is worth 44,000 options and the MF on it is only $675........

I'm just saying............

 

[YYJMSP]

Here is a question with the banking... If I banked my SOs in 2012, so I have 88K to use in 2013 and I use 51700 in 2013, I have 36300 left. Can that be banked to use in 2014?

Yes -- my understanding is:

In 2012, you'd bank your 44,000 current SOs.

In 2013, you'd make your 51,700 SOs reservation at 8 months out using 44,000 SOs from your bank, plus 7,700 current SOs. You'd bank the remaining 36,300 current SOs.

In 2014, you'd have 36,300 SOs in your bank, plus another 44,000 current SOs.

 

[work2travel]

..., but what's the great benefit to an owner who will have to pay 2XMF's plus a banking fee, for a week they can now get through II by exchanging one week?

Well, it seems that the benefit to an owner of a low SO timeshare will be the ability to vacation in a more expensive/higher SO timeshare location that would not be available to him/her otherwise via II trades. More expensive than vacationing at the lower SO resort -yes. Fair? - yes. There is a cost to being able to experience higher cost resorts. Could it be that the end of cheap SDO/SBP trades to higher tier resorts via II is eminent? Probably...

 

[PamMo]

Yes, that's the big question. If you bought resale in a non-mandatory resort, with some work, you could count on Starwood priority in II for getting great trades into prime resorts. Will owners at St John, Harborside, and Maui overwhelmingly choose SVN over II to bank their weeks in the future? We own multiple weeks at WKORV (N&S) and Harborside, and I would never deposit them in II, but I may consider banking SO's. Where do you think Starwood will place their bulk deposits? If they're mostly going into the SVN system for SO exchanges, resale units at non-mandatory resorts like SDO and others will definitely lose their touted value of being an inexpensive, easy way to trade into the top resorts.