NO Access to trusts pool by enrolled owners (Marriott's response - post #447)

[BocaBum99]

Good evening.....


Boca....

Do you believe that legacy weeks usage hasn't changed. Yes, I can always use my home week but II inventory has to go down. MVCD is now a competitor for II exchanges!!

the nice girl on the videos said I can have it all!!!

Sure, that's just life. There is always a new competitor on the horizon for everything we do in life. It also creates new opportunities. It's what makes life and timesharing interesting.

 

[tombo]

[/B]

I'm running out the door so, this will be my last post on this subject.

IMO......You are purchasing the same thing, just packed differently. But, I've already said that, and you disagree. The points being sold are for existing timeshares, that Legacy owners have already bought and paid for.

I am with you. I quit posting on this thread several days ago too, but I decided to post one more time.

So many here on TUG complain about numerous posts, posts not on subject, posts that do many things that people don't like when they are posts they disagree with, but as long as they are pro Marriott they are good. I have not posted in a couple of days and still occasionaly some of my posts are referenced as being bad. However only my posts and your posts are bad to Susan because she dislikes any analytical posts that show Marriott to be treating owners badly. Post something good that MIGHT POSSIBLY come out of the changes whether it is guaranteed in writing or not, and it is a good post. You can post something saying that yes Marriott is treating all owners badly in some regard, but if you overall still like the new program, that too is a good post. When someone shows any positive feature or feeling about Marriott it is a good post. If as this thread was designed to do, Tuggers post warnings to other owners about how marriott is screwing them over then they don't serve any good purpose? Really?

Not saying that those who feel like red-headed stepchildren don't have a right to those feelings here, just that IMO it doesn't serve any good purpose to foster those feelings.

So if I convert to points and my points don't have access to all the inventory that points purchased from Marriott can access, then you really feel that posting about that inequity doesn't serve any purpose? Well yes it does serve a purpose and it is more informative than simply regurgitating Marriott's sales points. If someone wants endless praise for Marriott and their points rogram, there is unlimited acces to that info by simply contacting Marriott. If one wants to hear the downsides of the new program a forum like TUG is the only way to find out these things. Negatve Marriott posts exposing Marriott's tricks to devalue current owner's weeks serve a great purpose, they help owners know the truth rather than converting on Marriott sales hype alone. I have a hard time figuring out how making pro Marriott posts no matter what the thread is about serves a purpose, but to each their own.



The discussion this thread was designed to discuss the hidden agenda where Marriott does not allow legacy owners who convert their weeks to points to access the trust inventory. It is to point out that even if you convert to points, then your points are not able to do the same things that points purchased from Marriott will do. This helps all weeks owners make more informed decisions about converting to points or not, and about whether to deposit their weeks for points if they do.

This thread has gone off course on many posts, but if they are pro Marriott posts it is still a good post to some. It has gone to proponents saying how Marriott might not actually restrict legacy weeks owners access to inventory even though they can (yes just trust Marriott no matter what is in writing), how it is similar to what marriott did in the past using seasons(it is not similar), how resale owners got value they didn't purchase (when resale points hit the market make the comparison, until then it is irrelevant),and many other off tanget pro Marriott GOOD posts. If a sales rep or points specialist says something good about points like that there are not 2 separate inventories, that points aren't skimmed, that acess through II will not change, etc, then these are good posts from reliable sources. If the majority of reps say something bad about the points program (like the majority have said here), then these are stupid unfounded posts by by idiots who believe lying sales reps. If sales reps say good things about points then that is a true statement, if they say bad things it is a lie to sell points. Give me a break.

If not for TUGGERS pointing it out, all (including myself) would have assumed that points were points. Now we understand that points purchased directly from Marriott are more valuable than the points you get from converting your week(s) to points. To simply listen to those with like views severelly limits learning, knowledge, and understanding of any subject. The best purpose of these threads is to listen to both side so you can make a knowledgable decision about the new points program. There is no constructive reason to state that posts you disagree with have no purpose.


Unless proven otherwise, there are 2 sets of inventories. The new points purchasers who buy directly from Marriott can access both the trust inventory and the legacy weeks inventory deposited for points. Legacy owners who convert to points can only access the legacy inventory, not the trust inventory. It is a very bad thing for owners who convert to points. Until found in writing that legacy owners can access the trust inventory, then the best purpose of this thread is to inform and educate owners to the crooked trickery built into the points program by Marriott to devalue what we all own. It can help prevent many weeks owners from unknowingly becoming "red headed step child" points owners.

 

[BocaBum99]

Were we naïve to think that by enrolling that we would have unlimited access to trust inventory?

I don't think it was naive to think enrolled weeks owners would have unlimited access to trust inventory simply because other timeshare systems provide it. In fact, unless it's specifically stated, why would anyone believe otherwise?

I don't have a problem with limited access to Trust inventory and a concept of exchange inventory vs. Trust inventory as long as it is implemented in a way that makes sense.

To me, making sense is all inventory in the trust and in the exchange system can be seen by all, but there are simply rules for when inventory can be taken out of a pool. This visibility into inventory is the essential feature that makes points systems work well. When you can see the inventory and when you can get it, exchange or booking satisfaction increases enormously over the weeks exchange model. If Marriott simply recreates II, then they have failed. I don't think they will.

People also didn't like the waiting game with II. Though I don't see how Marriott plans to make this better. The inventory is the same, the waiting game will continue. Though the trade power now is transparent, so there is no waiting in hopes your week is powerful enough. You know what you can and can't get. Though many people know that it is at a cost. So now the complaints moves from non-transparent trade power to skimming points. Just going from one issue to another.

I think it's more than the waiting. I think it's also the unknown of whether or not your exchange will ever be fulfilled. I think that Marriott could make this situation better. (On the other hand, they could make it worse. Time will tell)

In the model I pose above, all inventory is visible to all participants. The only thing that varies is when each participant can access it. If you see that something you want is only available to another type of participant, you can either take the risk that it will be there when you want it, or you upgrade your position in line by making a purchase that gets you into that other group possessing the access privileges you want.

After reading all of the posts and reflecting on the program, I am less worried about 2 inventory pools and much more interested in knowing if Marriott will give visibility to Trust inventory for enrolled members and any exclusive access rules they may institute for Trust owners. Again, we will know this when we do a trade test on the system that is released.

 

[dioxide45]

So I gain another trading option.

Exactly. What was initially thought by most everyone was that you gained another reservation option. As this thread points out, it is just another trading option. Same as II, just with a little more flexibility and different costs.

 

[DJmonkey]

Home resort only

I am so confused, so I'll just focus on my situation.
We own at stream side in vail. This is a very old timeshare that I think Marriott acquired.
I can only use that resort and not exchange into other Marriott unless using II.
Personally I have not had good luck with II. We try to only stay at Marriott and Starwood properties and have not had the best luck with this.

I am still trying to figure out the new system but I think it would be a huge improvement for us, but maybe i am being naive. I was under the impression that i would be able to exchange pre dumped to II inventory or II inventory if that allows better trading.

So I gain another trading option. In addition I would have the ability to convert to points which I would not get enough of to make it worthwhile. Or to convert to hotel points every other year, which since we have a Prime week for we would get a high conversion rate, 110000 points I think.

I was hoping it would also add to my resale value but i don't think so and i don't really see much of a market to for selling a TS right now.

Any thought if is make sense for us?
What do I gain vs what do I lose?

Thanks

 

[SueDonJ]

... So many here on TUG complain about numerous posts, posts not on subject, posts that do many things that people don't like when they are posts they disagree with, but as long as they are pro Marriott they are good. I have not posted in a couple of days and still occasionaly some of my posts are referenced as being bad. However only my posts and your posts are bad to Susan because she dislikes any analytical posts that show Marriott to be treating owners badly. ...

Well, this is probably against the rules and I'll get called on it, but I think this is a very unfair assessment of my posts (in particular because you named me) and anybody else who posts in a similar style. And I honestly am surprised that it's coming from you, Tombo, because I think you were an unfair target when your posts were called out. We're ALL entitled to our own opinions and I don't like when any of us are made to feel like it's not okay for us to share them on TUG.

I like Marriott, there's no reason for me to apologize for that or to pretend it's not the truth or the basis for most of my opinions. We've been satisfied owners of Marriott timeshares and anticipate that we still will be after enrolling in the new Exchange system. My experiences have not been similar to the 90% of TUG posters who believe they've been misled by Marriott sales staff, so I don't share the prevailing anti-developer sentiment that most participants do.

And I don't ever say that somebody else's posts are BAD, regardless of whether they disagree with me or not. Tombo, you and I had a continuing discussion just last week about all this and I walked away from it convinced that some things you were saying were correct and some things were not, and that you and I weren't enemies because of our differences. I never said that you weren't entitled to your opinions, and I never easily dismissed anything you said simply because I know that your opinions will usually not be shared by me.

I see these last few posts between me and ArtsieAng the same way - we simply disagree but I haven't intended to leave anyone with the impression that I'm right and she's wrong. I do think that the ONE thing posted about "every" Marriott advantage being tied to the money spent is wrong, so I gave examples of why I think it's wrong. But that doesn't translate to me saying that anyone isn't entitled to their feelings that Marriott is treating them like red-headed stepchildren. I said I can understand that feeling and agreed that Points owners who spend less money are being given advantages that Weeks owners who spent more won't get. I was only trying to make the point that that's not any different from what's been the norm with Marriott's Weeks system, and I don't understand why it's productive to foster the feelings.

I don't ever expect total agreement from everyone to my TUG posts - how boring would it be here if we all never had any reason to share different opinions?! We all can choose to continue with a discussion or not and it doesn't make any difference to me who does or doesn't. But anybody who reads here regularly knows that I'm not anywhere near a "hit-and-run" poster, I'll keep posting until I think I understand what other folks are trying to say and until I think they understand me. Anybody who doesn't want to read me can make the choice to walk away. But I don't like being critiqued for my opinions, as opposed to the points I'm trying to make, any more than you do.

 

[SueDonJ]

... Unless proven otherwise, there are 2 sets of inventories. The new points purchasers who buy directly from Marriott can access both the trust inventory and the legacy weeks inventory deposited for points. Legacy owners who convert to points can only access the legacy inventory, not the trust inventory. It is a very bad thing for owners who convert to points. Until found in writing that legacy owners can access the trust inventory, then the best purpose of this thread is to inform and educate owners to the crooked trickery built into the points program by Marriott to devalue what we all own. It can help prevent many weeks owners from unknowingly becoming "red headed step child" points owners.

You keep saying that, "Legacy owners who convert to points can only access the legacy inventory, not the trust inventory." And that could be WRONG, Tombo, because kedler and others here have posted the substantiation from the governing docs that support a totally different working model of the system. When Trust owners exchange their points to non-Trust properties, when they exchange their points for MRP, when they exchange their points for other Destination Club options, etc ..., there will be Trust inventory available in the Exchange Company to Enrolled Weeks members.

Maybe you believe the few reps who said, "Enrolled Weeks will NEVER EVER have access to the Trust inventory" because it suits your argument to put this new system in the worst light possible, but nowhere have you provided any substantiation from the governing docs to support that statement. Other supportive documents, referenced here by knowledgeable TUGgers, do completely discount the "NEVER EVER have access to the Trust" contention, which makes me believe that it's incorrect.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you and what you mean to be saying is that Trust Members will have access to inventory that won't be available to Enrolled Weeks members until the Trust Members make it available to them? That's what the docs support, how I believe the system will work. But that's different from saying "NO ACCESS EVER AAAIIIEEE!!!" and if it's what you really mean, you should say so.

... After reading all of the posts and reflecting on the program, I am less worried about 2 inventory pools and much more interested in knowing if Marriott will give visibility to Trust inventory for enrolled members and any exclusive access rules they may institute for Trust owners. Again, we will know this when we do a trade test on the system that is released.

I'm okay with the system I outlined above in which any inventory exchanged for Points is available from the Exchange Company, whether it's the Points from Trust Members or Exchange Members. Like you I hope that we're all able to "see" what that inventory might be, whether it's available for instant confirmation or through a Wait-list. What I want most, though, is for them to be able to tell me when there is no chance for a requested exchange, so that I don't waste time chasing rainbows.

 

[BocaBum99]

I'm okay with the system I outlined above in which any inventory exchanged for Points is available from the Exchange Company, whether it's the Points from Trust Members or Exchange Members. Like you I hope that we're all able to "see" what that inventory might be, whether it's available for instant confirmation or through a Wait-list. What I want most, though, is for them to be able to tell me when there is no chance for a requested exchange, so that I don't waste time chasing rainbows.

For me, I think it is totally different. I am most likely going to enroll my week(s) for $595/$695 simply because I want to see "what is behind door number 3" and I can't resist the temptation.

 

[Luckybee]

Well, this is probably against the rules and I'll get called on it, but I think this is a very unfair assessment of my posts (in particular because you named me) and anybody else who posts in a similar style. And I honestly am surprised that it's coming from you, Tombo, because I think you were an unfair target when your posts were called out. We're ALL entitled to our own opinions and I don't like when any of us are made to feel like it's not okay for us to share them on TUG.

I like Marriott, there's no reason for me to apologize for that or to pretend it's not the truth or the basis for most of my opinions. We've been satisfied owners of Marriott timeshares and anticipate that we still will be after enrolling in the new Exchange system. My experiences have not been similar to the 90% of TUG posters who believe they've been misled by Marriott sales staff, so I don't share the prevailing anti-developer sentiment that most participants do.

And I don't ever say that somebody else's posts are BAD, regardless of whether they disagree with me or not. Tombo, you and I had a continuing discussion just last week about all this and I walked away from it convinced that some things you were saying were correct and some things were not, and that you and I weren't enemies because of our differences. I never said that you weren't entitled to your opinions, and I never easily dismissed anything you said simply because I know that your opinions will usually not be shared by me.

I see these last few posts between me and ArtsieAng the same way - we simply disagree but I haven't intended to leave anyone with the impression that I'm right and she's wrong. I do think that the ONE thing posted about "every" Marriott advantage being tied to the money spent is wrong, so I gave examples of why I think it's wrong. But that doesn't translate to me saying that anyone isn't entitled to their feelings that Marriott is treating them like red-headed stepchildren. I said I can understand that feeling and agreed that Points owners who spend less money are being given advantages that Weeks owners who spent more won't get. I was only trying to make the point that that's not any different from what's been the norm with Marriott's Weeks system, and I don't understand why it's productive to foster the feelings.

I don't ever expect total agreement from everyone to my TUG posts - how boring would it be here if we all never had any reason to share different opinions?! We all can choose to continue with a discussion or not and it doesn't make any difference to me who does or doesn't. But anybody who reads here regularly knows that I'm not anywhere near a "hit-and-run" poster, I'll keep posting until I think I understand what other folks are trying to say and until I think they understand me. Anybody who doesn't want to read me can make the choice to walk away. But I don't like being critiqued for my opinions, as opposed to the points I'm trying to make, any more than you do.

Sue...since you wish to make this about you let me just say you keep coming back to this on different threads and seem surprised when many on here refer to you as a Marriott apologist(or other terms meaning the same thing). Are you really as surprised by that as you seem to indicate?

Perhaps you're just an eternal optimist , but it seems like anytime anyone ever has anything negative to say about any aspect of Marriott you are always one of the first to jump in and tell there where/why/how they are wrong. And you do so by picking apart their posts and finding the smallest point to do it with. It gets old after awhile .You can say its just your opinion and of course you're entitled to your opinion but it does seem that no matter what anyone says if it is a negative Marriott post=bad, positive Marriott post=good. There are a few others who are not unhappy with the new program and they dont do this when expressing their opinions and you'll note that they dont get called on being Marriott apologists.

 

[dioxide45]

I give this thread only a 7 more posts before its locked.

 

[BocaBum99]

I give this thread only a 7 more posts before its locked.

 

[dioxide45]

I think this is an important thread, as it will have an impact on all of those who enroll and convert their week in to points. However I don't think there is a whole lot more that can be discussed until we hear something definitive from Marriott (either through DaveM's contact or otherwise). I don't count salesperson or VOA information definitive. We always knew you couldn't rely on salespeople, but you should be able to rely on VOAs.

P.s. Every time I type VOA, I actually end up typing VOE, and have to correct it, I had to correct it in this post twice before submitting.

 

[BocaBum99]

I think this is an important thread, as it will have an impact on all of those who enroll and convert their week in to points. However I don't think there is a whole lot more that can be discussed until we hear something definitive from Marriott (either through DaveM's contact or otherwise). I don't count salesperson or VOA information definitive. We always knew you couldn't rely on salespeople, but you should be able to rely on VOAs.

P.s. Every time I type VOA, I actually end up typing VOE, and have to correct it, I had to correct it in this post twice before submitting.

I find this entire Marriott program fascinating. This is an important thread. Hopefully, it won't get closed until DaveM does get us the answers to our most pressing questions.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue...since you wish to make this about you let me just say you keep coming back to this on different threads and seem surprised when many on here refer to you as a Marriott apologist(or other terms meaning the same thing). Are you really as surprised by that as you seem to indicate?

Perhaps you're just an eternal optimist , but it seems like anytime anyone ever has anything negative to say about any aspect of Marriott you are always one of the first to jump in and tell there where/why/how they are wrong. And you do so by picking apart their posts and finding the smallest point to do it with. It gets old after awhile .You can say its just your opinion and of course you're entitled to your opinion but it does seem that no matter what anyone says if it is a negative Marriott post=bad, positive Marriott post=good. There are a few others who are not unhappy with the new program and they dont do this when expressing their opinions and you'll note that they dont get called on being Marriott apologists.

Well, since Tombo NAMED me in his critique I thought it was only fair to think that it was about me.

Anybody who wants to point to something that's not opinion-based in any of my posts and give reasons why it's wrong, have at it. I'll admit, I pick apart a whole lot of things, but I don't simply say "THAT'S WRONG" and expect to be taken seriously. That Aruba thread, for example, had quite a few examples - "Marriott has no right to vote its shares." Well, it turned out they did have the right. "Marriott owes us for the roof." Well, it turned out the roofing company was responsible for the warranty coverage, but Marriott stepped up and paid you the pro-rated warranty coverage that wasn't available from the bankrupt roofing company. Here, it was "every Marriott advantage has always been based on the money spent" and that's wrong too.

Anybody who wants to disagree with my opinions, again, have at it. You say Marriott is a terrible, horrible company and I'll counter that in my experience they're not. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't share the same experiences. The difference is, I'm not going to come back every time with, "oh you're just an anti-developer zealot, what else should we expect?"

Like I said, I don't expect that everybody will agree with me when I post. Heck, I KNOW most people won't because it's very difficult to think positively about a company which you believe has not treated you well. But quite honestly, I don't understand why it needs to be pointed out repeatedly that my point of view is not the predominant one here, or doesn't vary from thread to thread, or that some are tired of hearing it. I guess eventually if that's the feeling I get more often than not, it'll drive me away from TUG. Is that the general idea - to drive any pro-Marriott opinions from the largest timeshare users' group on the web? Seems counter-productive to me.

I'll remind you that in the last few days I've been as outspoken as anyone on TUG about the extremely poor way that Marriott has prepared its employees for this rollout. You can't get much more critical of Marriott than to say their actions have been "inexcusable."

Now can we get back to the issues, and not the people who are posting about them?

 

[Luckybee]

Well, since Tombo NAMED me in his critique I thought it was only fair to think that it was about me.

Anybody who wants to point to something that's not opinion-based in any of my posts and give reasons why it's wrong, have at it. I'll admit, I pick apart a whole lot of things, but I don't simply say "THAT'S WRONG" and expect to be taken seriously. That Aruba thread, for example, had quite a few examples - "Marriott has no right to vote its shares." Well, it turned out they did have the right. "Marriott owes us for the roof." Well, it turned out the roofing company was responsible for the warranty coverage, but Marriott stepped up and paid you the pro-rated warranty coverage that wasn't available from the bankrupt roofing company. Here, it was "every Marriott advantage has always been based on the money spent" and that's wrong too.

Anybody who wants to disagree with my opinions, again, have at it. You say Marriott is a terrible, horrible company and I'll counter that in my experience they're not. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't share the same experiences. The difference is, I'm not going to come back every time with, "oh you're just an anti-developer zealot, what else should we expect?"

Like I said, I don't expect that everybody will agree with me when I post. Heck, I KNOW most people won't because it's very difficult to think positively about a company which you believe has not treated you well. But quite honestly, I don't understand why it needs to be pointed out repeatedly that my point of view is not the predominant one here, or doesn't vary from thread to thread, or that some are tired of hearing it. I guess eventually if that's the feeling I get more often than not, it'll drive me away from TUG. Is that the general idea - to drive any pro-Marriott opinions from the largest timeshare users' group on the web? Seems counter-productive to me.

I'll remind you that in the last few days I've been as outspoken as anyone on TUG about the extremely poor way that Marriott has prepared its employees for this rollout. You can't get much more critical of Marriott than to say their actions have been "inexcusable."

Now can we get back to the issues, and not the people who are posting about them?

Im all for that....but perhaps you should refrain from saying what is "right " or "wrong" re: the Aruba issues until court determinations are made down the road...and leave that issue for its own thread.

 

[DanCali]

Is that the general idea - to drive any pro-Marriott opinions from the largest timeshare users' group on the web? Seems counter-productive to me.

Gee - and I somehow was geting the vibe that the pro-Marriott people were trying to drive the other side away from this board...

 

[Dave M]

Moderator warning to all:
This thread will not be locked, as the topic is too important to do so. However, the primary combatants have been warned via PM to cease fire. Others should not join in the fray.

Get back to following the BBS "Be Courteous" rule and avoid criticism or attacks against others.

Also, if you have a comment about the moderating, please follow the rules and send a PM or e-mail. Do not comment in this thread.

 

[cruisin]

I for one hope this new twist on the 2 buckets thing is not true, but it does show that even the most anti Marriott points people would never have dreamed that Marriott would do something that seems so low. I will likely enroll and never turn in for points because I may save money on all the fees with splitting 3 lockoffs into II. I do not think Marriott has changed at all, their leadership is still the same, they have never cared about owners, they just don't get to hide the fact anymore.

 

[Luckybee]

Dave...now that you're here(or were)....do you think that there is merit to what I indicated earlier in this thread, (paraphrasing)that is, that even if your contact says X, until we see how the system is actually put in play, we're all just spinning our wheels?

What concerns me is that many of us are making decisions based on what we're reading on Tug(and gawd help us getting contradictory info from owner services) which may turn out to be faulty or flawed. It concerns me in that say Joe Smith enrols, then 6 months later finds out that the program isnt for him, then wishes to unenroll, there may be ramifications to that as yet unforseen. Its not that Im seeing black helicopters but I seriously question how a program so raft with confusion, and documents so filled with contradictions and gigantic black holes can possibly work. If it does, then better for all of us but if it doesnt then......

 

[JimIg23]

For me, I think it is totally different. I am most likely going to enroll my week(s) for $595/$695 simply because I want to see "what is behind door number 3" and I can't resist the temptation.

would you join for $1495/$1995?

 

[hotcoffee]

I for one hope this new twist on the 2 buckets thing is not true . . .

You can find out for yourself. If you have not done so already, retrieve the Destination Points Disclosure Guide (might require logging to MVCI):

https://www.my-vacationclub.com/common/vc/en-us/pdfs/enrollment_legal_docs/disclosure_guide.pdf

Skip to the bottom of the document (section VIII), and take note of the 11 resorts listed at the bottom. These are the initial 11 resorts added to the Trust. Read the paragraph just above the 11 resorts. Take note of who can reserve accomodations at the 11 resorts. Note that it is "members". Go back to the top, and scroll down until you get to the sections that discuss Trust Members and Exchange Members (particularly section IV). When you are satisfied that the term "members" refer to both Trust and Exchange members, take note of the following sentence under section IV, paragraph 2 (Exchange Members):

"Exchange Members will have the right to reserve and use the Accommodations and facilities that are a part of the Program in accordance with the Exchange Procedures."

 

[Luckybee]

You can find out for yourself. If you have not done so already, retrieve the Destination Points Disclosure Guide (might require logging to MVCI):

https://www.my-vacationclub.com/common/vc/en-us/pdfs/enrollment_legal_docs/disclosure_guide.pdf

Skip to the bottom of the document (section VIII), and take note of the 11 resorts listed at the bottom. These are the initial 11 resorts added to the Trust. Read the paragraph just above the 11 resorts. Take note of who can reserve accomodations at the 11 resorts. Note that it is "members". Go back to the top, and scroll down until you get to the sections that discuss Trust Members and Exchange Members (particularly section IV). When you are satisfied that the term "members" refer to both Trust and Exchange members, take note of the following sentence under section IV, paragraph 2 (Exchange Members):

"Exchange Members will have the right to reserve and use the Accommodations and facilities that are a part of the Program in accordance with the Exchange Procedures."

Hotcoffee

Are you suggesting that the sections you've referred to are crystal clear because if you are i must humbly disagree. There are a number of possible interpretations open and that is a big part of the issue. The average person reads a document drafted in legal language and tends to not see the nuances, contingencies and variations . There are lawyers who do nothing other than specialize in contract drafting and interpretation and end up with bigger messes over contracts far less complicated and much better drafted than this. Imho we would all be far better off if we assume nothing and expect anything esp if the foundation for our expectations come from these documents.

 

[hotcoffee]

Hotcoffee

Are you suggesting that the sections you've referred to are crystal clear because if you are i must humbly disagree. There are a number of possible interpretations open and that is a big part of the issue. The average person reads a document drafted in legal language and tends to not see the nuances, contingencies and variations . There are lawyers who do nothing other than specialize in contract drafting and interpretation and end up with bigger messes over contracts far less complicated and much better drafted than this. Imho we would all be far better off if we assume nothing and expect anything esp if the foundation for our expectations come from these documents.

I made that post for the benefit of those who choose to read the Disclosure Document. They can make up their own minds as to whether it is clear or not.

 

[Luckybee]

I do understand what you're saying but this is my concern....you say to cruisin "make up your own mind as to what this means".

Even if cruisin(or anyone else who is digesting this...not picking on you cruisin ), then "interprets" the documents and does so in a manner that is not consistent with how Marriott(and by Marriott what Im really saying is the rep on the phone who one is dealing with because lets face it, thats where the problems will arise) "interprets" in the future, then they may interpret to their detriment.

For example, if one interprets that because of what they've read here they accept that the various buckets/pools may put them at a disadvantage and because of that they dont join , and then later find out that it doesnt operate that way, or there are not various buckets/pools, and the cost to join goes up substantially they've operated to their detriment. The converse is also true.

One solution would have been a user guide at a minimum written in simple language that leave no or little room for confusion. The other is wait and see what happens when the program is in play.

 

[Dave M]

Dave...now that you're here(or were)....do you think that there is merit to what I indicated earlier in this thread, (paraphrasing)that is, that even if your contact says X, until we see how the system is actually put in play, we're all just spinning our wheels?

What concerns me is that many of us are making decisions based on what we're reading on Tug....

As I have stated a number of times, there are still so many unanswered questions that I haven't made up my mind what to do, even though I can see some personal advantages for me (e.g., short mid-week stays). Until we have some better answers to some of the open questions, I don't think it's wise, at least for me, to jump in.

There will be some questions that don't get answered to our satisfaction, just as there always have been - such as exactly how II's comparative exchange system works and why we can't get a reservation for the week we want even when we call at 9:00:01 a.m. on the first day reservations open up.

But we will eventually know more than we do now.

Did Marriott make mistakes? Sure. So do most companies when they roll out something new, especially if it's complex. Look at Apple's antenna problem. Look at all the regular recalls from hundreds (thousands?) of manufacturers. Just like other companies do, Marriott will fix some of the communication issues, but not as many as we would like.