Ranking the Top Timeshare Systems

[mesamirage]

I choose to post in the spirit of sharing information. That is what TUG is all about. When I offer opinion. I state it as such. And risk being flamed because of it. Nonetheless it is offered up in the same spirit. If I can add worthwhile dimension to a discussion, it too will stand on its merits or lack thereof.

Fred

Please keep your post coming... I hope you didn't take my post as a flame... If you did I apologize. I did state "I know if you deal with something everyday you have a much better understand of the systems" and I believe that to be true....

Thanks for your continued inputs.... I hope others have found them as informative as I have.... I only challenged the 13 month/50% inventory statements because it is the first time I have heard that vs all I have read previously (and again I am a Westin/Hyatt owner so I don't read on Marriott that much) is how much advantage owning 2 weeks is over 1 week.

I only belong to TUG for the spirit of sharing... and I think you serve that cause well.

Steve

 

[Fredm]

Please keep your post coming... I hope you didn't take my post as a flame... If you did I apologize. I did state "I know if you deal with something everyday you have a much better understand of the systems" and I believe that to be true....

Thanks for your continued inputs.... I hope others have found them as informative as I have.... I only challenged the 13 month/50% inventory statements because it is the first time I have heard that vs all I have read previously (and again I am a Westin/Hyatt owner so I don't read on Marriott that much) is how much advantage owning 2 weeks is over 1 week.

I only belong to TUG for the spirit of sharing... and I think you serve that cause well.

Steve

Thank you, Steve.

As tomandrobin stated, none of the systems are perfect. Each has pluses and minuses. We all like our timeshares for personal reasons. That is what really counts.
These system comparisons are really individuals stating personal preferences.
Mine was a bit different. I tried to clarify a couple of distinctions.

 

[taffy19]

OK. We a splitting hairs. Marriott does not "own" the exchange. It does function exactly as stated.

Unfair advantage is a valid perspective. However, there are roughly 50% of shares owned by multiple share owners. The ability to make consecutive week reservations with multiple shares is a service to those owners. Nor can the system be manipulated. If one week of a multiple week reservation is later canceled, the entire reservation is canceled.

The term 'unfair advantage" is not what was responded to. The terms used were "bump" and "lockout" single share owners.. No reservation is ever bumped. Once made it is honored. Nor are they locked out. Again 50% of the inventory is held back for approximately 50% of the shares owned. And the system is punitive to those multiple week owners who attempt to either abuse it, or must cancel for legitimate reasons. The resulting cancellations are thrown back into the pool for owner reservations.

I am simply explaining how the system functions.

When we bought at the Marriott the 13 month booking feature didn't even exist and we were able to get any week we wanted and holiday weeks too that I booked less than a year out. We were not even aware that the rules had changed but we did notice a big difference with trying to get the week we wanted after the first few years.

Now my question to you. How can the 13 month booking feature be fair to single week owners if, for instance, 80% of the people only own one single week but get 50% of the inventory available to them for booking. Isn't there a problem then? It is far from 50/50 because 80% of the people are chasing 50% of the inventory available to them but finally, when there are only 20% single week owners left then they have more units available than they need so single week owners should have the advantage but then the Marriott will change the rules again as they did several years ago. Can you explain why the 50/50 rule is fair and how the arithmetic adds up?

Does anyone know what the percentage is of single week owners today? If it is exactly 50%, then it would be fair but if that percentage is different one way or the other, then you get an imbalance. JMHO. Also, if multiple week owners want to keep the advantage of reserving the most desirable weeks, they will have to keep buying more weeks if more two, three, four week owners are coming in the pool. It is great for the Marriott bottom line but very expensive for the Marriott customer.

What I prefer about the Marriott system is that you can choose your exchange week so your chances of getting a decent exchange are higher with the Marriott than with the Starwood system. These people pay a lot for their choice resort but are shortchanged when they want to make an exchange to a different resort. They are saved a lot of frustration trying to get that best week but at a price. The Hyatt and Hilton seem to be much better here and the Hilton seems to be the most flexible of all from what I have read. What I like about the Hyatt is that you buy a fixed week (which we prefer) but use points for making exchanges so you can save them up to get what you really want later.

 

[ciscogizmo1]

Now my question to you. How can the 13 month booking feature be fair to single week owners if, for instance, 80% of the people only own one single week but get 50% of the inventory available to them for booking. Isn't there a problem then? It is far from 50/50 because 80% of the people are chasing 50% of the inventory available to them but finally, when there are only 20% single week owners left then they have more units available than they need so single week owners should have the advantage but then the Marriott will change the rules again as they did several years ago. Can you explain why the 50/50 rule is fair and how the arithmetic adds up?

I've never had a problem reserving at my resorts. So I'm not sure I have an issue with 50%. Everyone always says how it is impossible to reserve at Maui Marriott. Both my friends that own EOY weeks reserved at the 12 month window for a summer week. I'm not convinced that all owners lose out. I think a few complain loudly. I know one owner complained awhile back he couldn't get reservations and I figured out he called at the wrong time. He didn't want to admit it though. I know he called one hour too late. Because he was on vacation in California but lived in the East Coast I think the person got confused with the time change.

Also, I think you are making the assumption that all weeks are being reserved at 13 month window. All Marriott says is that up to 50% can reserved at 13 months. I have a feeling many people use their weeks and doing back to back at two separate resorts isn't as attractive. For example, I own two weeks and sometimes I want to deposit one week and use the other. Sometimes there aren't any really good consective weeks that would make it work for me. So I don't always use the 13 month rule.

I guess, I have a hard time believing that everyone has a hard time getting the week they want. I haven't seen it amoung my friends. So I'm not sure I buy that nobody gets the weeks they want because of the 13 month rule. But this is just IMHO..

 

[ciscogizmo1]

For me:

1) Marriott is first. I like the locations & ease of using II. I've gotten so great trades through II with my Marriotts.

2) Starwood is 2nd for me. The resort quality is awesome but I'm not sure if it is worth the price in maintenance. I love the Maui location however, I want more locations to visit. It is very difficult to trade out of my Maui location to St. John & Harborside. So I think their internal trade program isn't all that it is cracked up to be. I've only stayed at Maui so it is hard to rate this one overall.

3) Hilton & Hyatt... I have no opinion of these resorts. Other than I think Paris Hilton trashes the "Hilton" name. Maybe one day I'll get to stay at one of these places...

 

[Fredm]

Now my question to you. How can the 13 month booking feature be fair to single week owners if, for instance, 80% of the people only own one single week but get 50% of the inventory available to them for booking. Isn't there a problem then? It is far from 50/50 because 80% of the people are chasing 50% of the inventory available to them but finally, when there are only 20% single week owners left then they have more units available than they need so single week owners should have the advantage but then the Marriott will change the rules again as they did several years ago. Can you explain why the 50/50 rule is fair and how the arithmetic adds up?

iconnections

Please stop and consider what you are saying. Multiple week owners cannot reserve more weeks than are owned. 20% of the owned weeks cannot reserve 80% of the available reservations. In fact, they cannot reserve more than 20% Not all multiple week owners will make consecutive week reservation. But, if they all did, they cannot reserve more than 50% of any single week, irrespective of the division of ownership. Mathematically, no advantage is given to them, EXCEPT the ability to reserve consecutive vacation weeks if they own two or more. Singe week owners do not need that advantage, by definition.

 

[Fredm]

I've never had a problem reserving at my resorts. So I'm not sure I have an issue with 50%. Everyone always says how it is impossible to reserve at Maui Marriott. Both my friends that own EOY weeks reserved at the 12 month window for a summer week. I'm not convinced that all owners lose out. I think a few complain loudly. I know one owner complained awhile back he couldn't get reservations and I figured out he called at the wrong time. He didn't want to admit it though. I know he called one hour too late. Because he was on vacation in California but lived in the East Coast I think the person got confused with the time change.

Also, I think you are making the assumption that all weeks are being reserved at 13 month window. All Marriott says is that up to 50% can reserved at 13 months. I have a feeling many people use their weeks and doing back to back at two separate resorts isn't as attractive. For example, I own two weeks and sometimes I want to deposit one week and use the other. Sometimes there aren't any really good consective weeks that would make it work for me. So I don't always use the 13 month rule.

I guess, I have a hard time believing that everyone has a hard time getting the week they want. I haven't seen it amoung my friends. So I'm not sure I buy that nobody gets the weeks they want because of the 13 month rule. But this is just IMHO..

Your experience is much like mine. and those I know.
Most do not have any difficulty. It is the few who do that are vocal. Their disappointment is understandable. Any floating week system is prone to this occurring, especially when the season is the entire year, as is Hawaii, for example. Disproportionately, 50 weeks worth of owners want to occupy the same 10 weeks. There are bound to be some who are squeezed out.

 

[Dave M]

Does anyone know what the percentage is of single week owners today? If it is exactly 50%, then it would be fair but if that percentage is different one way or the other, then you get an imbalance.

I don't know the answer, but we can get a slightly different answer - very closely.

At the end of 2006, MVCI had 349,000 individual owners (per Marriott's 2006 annual report). At that point, there were roughly 534,000 weeks owned (based on the units available [see the FAQs for the Marriott forum] X 51 weeks and adjusted for a guess as to how many were unsold).

That works out to an average of about 1.5 MVCI timeshares per owner, a figure I have heard on numerous occasions from Marriott employees. Since many multiple-week owners own more than two weeks, that would suggest that the number of owners owning two or more weeks is significantly less than half of Marriott owners.

 

[Fredm]

I don't know the answer, but we can get a slightly different answer - very closely.

At the end of 2006, MVCI had 349,000 individual owners (per Marriott's 2006 annual report). At that point, there were roughly 534,000 weeks owned (based on the units available [see the FAQs for the Marriott forum] X 51 weeks and adjusted for a guess as to how many were unsold).

That works out to an average of about 1.5 MVCI timeshares per owner, a figure I have heard on numerous occasions from Marriott employees. Since many multiple-week owners own more than two weeks, that would suggest that the number of owners owning two or more weeks is significantly less than half of Marriott owners.

If 25% of the owners bought 2 weeks (or more) it would represent (at least) 50% of the sold inventory.
Dave's numbers suggest that the multi share ownership is closer to 35% If that is close to accurate then multiple share owners have 70% of the inventory. They can still only reserve 50% at 13 months.

 

[benjaminb13]

So whats the final score?????

 

[taffy19]

So whats the final score?????

Not clear to me either.

I don't know the answer, but we can get a slightly different answer - very closely.

At the end of 2006, MVCI had 349,000 individual owners (per Marriott's 2006 annual report). At that point, there were roughly 534,000 weeks owned (based on the units available [see the FAQs for the Marriott forum] X 51 weeks and adjusted for a guess as to how many were unsold).

That works out to an average of about 1.5 MVCI timeshares per owner, a figure I have heard on numerous occasions from Marriott employees. Since many multiple-week owners own more than two weeks, that would suggest that the number of owners owning two or more weeks is significantly less than half of Marriott owners.

If 25% of the owners bought 2 weeks (or more) it would represent (at least) 50% of the sold inventory.

Dave's numbers suggest that the multi share ownership is closer to 35% If that is close to accurate then multiple share owners have 70% of the inventory. They can still only reserve 50% at 13 months.

Are these two posts not contradictory from each other or do I not understand the math?

Your experience is much like mine. and those I know.

Most do not have any difficulty. It is the few who do that are vocal. Their disappointment is understandable. Any floating week system is prone to this occurring, especially when the season is the entire year, as is Hawaii, for example. Disproportionately, 50 weeks worth of owners want to occupy the same 10 weeks. There are bound to be some who are squeezed out.

We are talking about apples and oranges here. The 80% of the single week owners may have difficulty in making reservations in a 50/50 pool. They will get a week eventually but only a small percentage will get the desired week and they may have to try several weeks on a row too just to get a week in the season they bought. We didn't even care what week we got so long it was in the second half of February or the first half in March.

On the other hand, the 20% of the multiple week owners have a very good chance in getting their desired week on the first try because less people are competing with them in their 50% inventory pool. Do you get me now?

The last two years, we got a cancellation that came back in the pool. I have a feeling that these weeks were released by the multiple week owners who knew how to make these reservations properly with multiple confirmation numbers so they wouldn't lose all the other weeks that they had reserved at the same time too. It is a horrible system for the single week owner and for anyone, in general, who isn't well informed like we are here.

I've never had a problem reserving at my resorts. So I'm not sure I have an issue with 50%. Everyone always says how it is impossible to reserve at Maui Marriott. Both my friends that own EOY weeks reserved at the 12 month window for a summer week. I'm not convinced that all owners lose out. I think a few complain loudly. I know one owner complained awhile back he couldn't get reservations and I figured out he called at the wrong time. He didn't want to admit it though. I know he called one hour too late. Because he was on vacation in California but lived in the East Coast I think the person got confused with the time change.

Also, I think you are making the assumption that all weeks are being reserved at 13 month window. All Marriott says is that up to 50% can reserved at 13 months. I have a feeling many people use their weeks and doing back to back at two separate resorts isn't as attractive. For example, I own two weeks and sometimes I want to deposit one week and use the other. Sometimes there aren't any really good consective weeks that would make it work for me. So I don't always use the 13 month rule.

I guess, I have a hard time believing that everyone has a hard time getting the week they want. I haven't seen it amoung my friends. So I'm not sure I buy that nobody gets the weeks they want because of the 13 month rule. But this is just IMHO..

There have been numerous complaints written about how hard it is to make reservations at the Marriott in Palm Desert and at the Newport Coast Marriott too. I never mentioned the MOC but only the two resorts that I am familiar with. Here is even a thread (post #1 and #5) where it was mentioned at the owners' meeting at the MDSV-I how difficult it is to reserve a week.

Do you believe that I would lie about it when I post this black and white in a forum so the Marriott could sue me for misrepresenting their system? Since I have been a member at TUG, we always called the moment the call center was open and we have used an atomic clock too plus used automatic dialing on two different land lines at home as well as with a cell phone.

I remember posting my frustration while we were on vacation but that was in CA so we didn't mess up the time. There may have been another person too who you are referring to? I checked if the thread was still there and it is and I copied it too so I have a record of it now and I wasn't the only one complaining as the thread was six pages long!

I even wrote an email to Mr. J.W. Marriott himself and we did get our desired week that year but the problem repeated one year later again so we finally traded our MDSV-I in for a fixed week instead as we prefer it. We hated to give up this timeshare because we love the desert and like going there. Also, the exchanges were very good and renting the condo, in the beginning, was easy and very profitable when we didn't have enough time to use all our weeks but reserving for our own use in late February or early March, the three times we went there, was very hard.

Yes, I am vocal about it because Marriott has to solve this problem. I did a search and found other links too where people complained so I am not the only one. If you want proof, I will gladly provide the links.

 

[CaliDave]

My votes

1) Marriott - locations
2) Hilton - points system is fantastic they NEED more locations in prime areas. I love Maui and Kauai. I'm not a big fan of Oahu or the big Island.
3) Starwood - too few locations where I want to travel. too hard to get prime weeks unless u own madatory resorts or buy from the developer.
4) Hyatt - expensive.. too few locations, where I want to travel

 

[CaliDave]

There have been numerous complaints written about how hard it is to make reservations at the Marriott in Palm Desert and at the Newport Coast Marriott too. I never mentioned the MOC but only the two resorts that I am familiar with. Here is even a thread (post #1 and #5) where it was mentioned at the owners' meeting at the MDSV-I how difficult it is to reserve a week.

I love Newport, but would never buy, because the platinum season is wayyyy to long.. Summer should have had its own season or fixed weeks. Its very hard to get summer reservations. I know several owners.

 

[taffy19]

Dave, the secret between you and me is that the rest of the year is so much better to go on a vacation here at the coastal communities. I wouldn't go in the summer if they gave it to me but people, who have children in school, need this time of the year. I am not going to mention the best months of the year because that is going to hurt us, who live here. You know what they are.

 

[ciscogizmo1]

Emmy.... Iconnections...

Sorry I didn't mean to get you upset over this. Seriously, I disagree and we gonna just have to agree to disagree. I don't remember who I was referring to in the post about them getting the time mixed up. So I have no clue it was you or not. I'm thinking it was something from last summer.

I'm kinda of a math person so unless I actually see the numbers showing how many people don't get their reservations I probably won't believe it. You know in fact when my aunt reserved her IMPOSSIBLE Maui week last year she had to change the check-in day from Saturday to Sunday. She did this a week after that reservation time opened up. So my point is that for every complaint that you can find of someone not getting their reservation I can find someone who did. You know what I mean.

It is definitely a floating week system and yes I do expect that one day I'll call up and they say sorry that week is booked up. But I'm going on Year 5 and I haven't been shut out yet. So if it happens a couple times... Oh well.. If I wanted a guaranteed week I would have bought a fixed week or I would have bought a permanent vacation home. I didn't want either so I bought timeshares..

I'm happy with my choice...

 

[taffy19]

Emmy.... Iconnections...

Sorry I didn't mean to get you upset over this. Seriously, I disagree and we gonna just have to agree to disagree. I don't remember who I was referring to in the post about them getting the time mixed up. So I have no clue it was you or not. I'm thinking it was something from last summer.

I'm happy with my choice...

That is perfectly OK with me to disagree. All of us are giving our own opinion and that makes the forum interesting to read.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Fredm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredm View Post
If 25% of the owners bought 2 weeks (or more) it would represent (at least) 50% of the sold inventory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredm View Post
Dave's numbers suggest that the multi share ownership is closer to 35% If that is close to accurate then multiple share owners have 70% of the inventory. They can still only reserve 50% at 13 months.
Are these two posts not contradictory from each other or do I not understand the math?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredm View Post
Your experience is much like mine. and those I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredm View Post
Most do not have any difficulty. It is the few who do that are vocal. Their disappointment is understandable. Any floating week system is prone to this occurring, especially when the season is the entire year, as is Hawaii, for example. Disproportionately, 50 weeks worth of owners want to occupy the same 10 weeks. There are bound to be some who are squeezed out.
We are talking about apples and oranges here. The 80% of the single week owners may have difficulty in making reservations in a 50/50 pool. They will get a week eventually but only a small percentage will get the desired week and they may have to try several weeks on a row too just to get a week in the season they bought. We didn't even care what week we got so long it was in the second half of February or the first half in March.

On the other hand, the 20% of the multiple week owners have a very good chance in getting their desired week on the first try because less people are competing with them in their 50% inventory pool. Do you get me now?

The last two years, we got a cancellation that came back in the pool. I have a feeling that these weeks were released by the multiple week owners who knew how to make these reservations properly with multiple confirmation numbers so they wouldn't lose all the other weeks that they had reserved at the same time too. It is a horrible system for the single week owner and for anyone, in general, who isn't well informed like we are here.


Emmy.

My meaning is simply this:
'Unfair" depends on ones perspective. Mine is that it is reasonable for 50% of the inventory to be held for those who have a desire to make consecutive week reservations. It is likely that multiple week owners control more than 50% of the weeks, but the limit of 50% seems reasonable.

Regarding your perception that these owners are somehow using multiple confirmation numbers to work the system is unfounded. It cannot be done. A single confirmation number is given for the multiple week reservation. The cancellation, for any reason, of any one week of a confirmed multi-week reservation has the automatic effect of canceling the entire reservation.

I do not think you are lying. Your frustration is genuine. I also believe that there are numerous posts which reflect the same sentiment and experience. But, add them all up and they do not represent 2% of the weeks owned. Desert Springs (because you referred to it) has about 33,000 intervals, of which 16,000 are Red weeks.

Your experience is unfortunate. I would be frustrated if it repeatedly happened to me also. But, it has not. Nor has it happened to the overwhelming majority of owners. It is bound to happen, however. Such is the nature of floating week ownership.

Regarding the math, I do not know how else to explain it. You keep citing that 80% of the owners have difficulty with the remaining 50% of the inventory.
If only 50% of any one week can be reserved at 13 months, the remaining 50% is withheld for 12 month reservations.
Multi-week owners cannot reserve more weeks than owned. If they own less than 50%, then less than 50% of each week gets reserved. The remainder is available at 12 months.
If multi-week owners own more than 50%, that means that single week owners own less than 50%, but 50% is available to them at 12 months. I simply do not see how this is "unfair".
My explanation is not intended to diminish your frustration. I just think you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Kal]

Rather than trying to prove or disprove any point one wants to make with statistics, just put the Marriott system to a simple test.

Pick a popular high-demand week at one of the top resorts then try to get a reservation. Better yet just try to communicate with a human. If successful, note the time of the call.

 

[MrTravel]

Hi Denise,

The resort I was thinking of most is Sheraton's Desert Oasis in Scottsdale. We had the whole 2 bedroom unit, but I gave my parents the larger side and stayed in the small lock off side. Small is the key word! The living room and bedroom were both tiny. I would have much rather been in one of Marriott's studio lock offs for the week than in that cramped 1 bedroom.

Steve

I need to second that Steve. Never will I go to SDO again or any Starwood resort for that matter. I have been to all four TS presentations and I picked HGVC for all the reasons stated. My order of preference:

Hilton
Marriot
Hyatt
Starwood

 

[mesamirage]

Who's Now? Ranking Top 4 Hotel-Based Ownerships

Here is a new update (8-5-07), I can't update the front page any longer so I will update in the thread from time to time.

The rankings are great, but I think the comments from TUGGERs is the best part, it gives us all some perspective on the BIG 4 should we be considering another purchase (Hey name a TUGGER who isn't ALWAYS looking for another purchase, we are addicts!)

Rankings
1st place vote gets 4 points/2nd 3 points/3rd 2 points/4th 1 point

Starwood 69 points
10 1st place votes (40)
3 2nd place (18)
4 3rd place (8)
3 4th place (3)

Hyatt 56 points
8 1st place (32)
4 2nd place (12)
3 3rd place (6)
6 4th place (6)

Hilton 57 points
5 1st place (20)
6 2nd place (18)
7 3rd place (14)
3 4th place (3)

Marriott 56 points
7 1st place (28)
7 2nd place (21)
3 3rd place (6)
1 4th place (1)

Starwood owners seen stuffing the ballot box to increase resale values!! More on CNN later tonight....

 

[benjaminb13]

The rankings are a sign of the times.
hGVC and Hyatt are becoming more popular- Hyatt iat #2 is especially surprising- there are so few resorts----
Quality and flexibility-
consumers are getting smarter-
Soon the frustrating marriott reservation system and the starwood mandatory/ voluntary issues will have to be addressed if Starwood and Marriott are to continue being competitive
Only better for us timeshare fiends

 

[Fredm]

The rankings are a sign of the times.
hGVC and Hyatt are becoming more popular- Hyatt iat #2 is especially surprising- there are so few resorts----
Quality and flexibility-
consumers are getting smarter-
Soon the frustrating marriott reservation system and the starwood mandatory/ voluntary issues will have to be addressed if Starwood and Marriott are to continue being competitive
Only better for us timeshare fiends

Right on! Nothing like competition to get their attention.

 

[taffy19]

Right on! Nothing like competition to get their attention.

Exactly and I hope that the timeshare resort developers are reading some of these posts and will pay attention to the consumer as we are getting more informed every day with a forum like this.

Regarding the math, I do not know how else to explain it. You keep citing that 80% of the owners have difficulty with the remaining 50% of the inventory.

If only 50% of any one week can be reserved at 13 months, the remaining 50% is withheld for 12 month reservations.
Multi-week owners cannot reserve more weeks than owned. If they own less than 50%, then less than 50% of each week gets reserved. The remainder is available at 12 months.
If multi-week owners own more than 50%, that means that single week owners own less than 50%, but 50% is available to them at 12 months. I simply do not see how this is "unfair".
My explanation is not intended to diminish your frustration. I just think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Fred and ciscogizmo1, you and I see our math differently so I am going to give you an example here and I am asking you or anyone else to correct me, if I am wrong.

Let's assume that there is a pot of 1,000 weeks and 1,000 weeks (50/50) so there are 2,000 weeks in total. From the 2,000 weeks only 800 are highly sought after weeks (just an example here). Each pot gets 400 desirable weeks and the rest are more ordinary weeks. Now, let's imagine that there are 1,600 people, who own one single week only and 400 people own multiple weeks.

In the first pot are 400 desirable weeks that 1,600 people are trying to get reservations for so 1 in 4 is not going to get that desirable week and there are only 600 regular weeks left for the other 1,200 people in pot #1. Does that mean that 600 people will have to call back a week later or will they get the weeks that are left over in pot #2 that nobody wanted there? These are mostly ordinary weeks, I assume.

If that is true, why did we have to call back several weeks on a row a few years ago just to get our week? Why didn't we get it from pot #2 in the first or second week when we tried? If it is true that they are mixing these pots, why do they say that 50% of the inventory goes to the single week owners for 12 month out booking and 50% goes to the multi-week owners for 13 month out booking?

Here is the second half of my example. In the second pot are also 400 highly desirable weeks but there are only 400 multiple week owners in this pot today so each one will get a highly desirable week, if the figures are like in my example here plus they have a second or more chances yet trying to get the week they are really after depending on how many weeks they own. I have read it so many times that this is how it works.

I am surprised that you are not aware of the separate confirmation numbers that multi-owners should ask for when they make their multiple week reservations on a row as I have read this more than once too so they will not lose all the reservations they have made in case they want to change the date of a week at one of the other resorts they own. I even did a search quickly and came up with four posts where this was mentioned in four different threads so you are learning something new from me today. Ask multi-week owners here.

The Marriott owners, who own the most weeks, can start making reservations for that very desirable holiday week more than 13 months out and if they book the other resorts first, where they own and leave the most desirable week for last, they will have multiple chances for getting that holiday week that everyone wants but the single week owner only has the chance once and 1 in 4 with the 1,200 owners for only 400 of these desirable weeks. What about the other 600 people when there are no more weeks in that #1 pot? They have to try again or get it from the other pot. I see no other way unless you can explain it somehow?

It would be an interesting question to ask Marriott how it really works. I have another question yet? If the most desirable weeks are taken out of the inventory before the 13 month booking date, are they taken out of pot #2?

As you can see from this web site here, the person with the most weeks will get the most desirable holiday weeks while the single week owner will hardly ever have a chance to get that holiday week or even a week at all on the first try.

This came about when Marriott started the 13 months booking feature and we experienced the difference because we owned before this happened and we never had problems making our reservations or booking a holiday week too. JMHO.

 

[Dave M]

Regarding your perception that these owners are somehow using multiple confirmation numbers to work the system is unfounded. It cannot be done. A single confirmation number is given for the multiple week reservation. The cancellation, for any reason, of any one week of a confirmed multi-week reservation has the automatic effect of canceling the entire reservation.

As Emmy has correctly stated, Fred, it is easy to get separate reservation numbers for consecutive weeks reserved.

You are partially correct. Marriott - if not prompted otherwise - will include all multiple weeks reserved at the same time in a single reservation. However, the standard recommendation on the Marriott forum is to ask Marriott to make those reservations in separate records, each with its own reservation number. Marriott will comply with such a request, thus providing maximum flexibility to the owner with respect to those reservations to cancel or change one of the reservations at a later date without affecting those weeks covered by other reservation numbers.

 

[Dave M]

It would be an interesting question to ask Marriott how it really works. I have another question yet? If the most desirable weeks are taken out of the inventory before the 13 month booking date, are they taken out of pot #2?

Assuming that pot #1 is the weeks available for those reserving 13 months or more in advance and pot #2 is the weeks remaining available for reservation at 12 months in advance, I believe this FAQ quote from the MVCI site is responsive:

Please keep in mind that a maximum of 50% of the inventory may be reserved by multiple-week Owners 13 months prior to the first check-in day of their requested week. The remaining inventory becomes available 12 months prior to the requested check-in date.

Thus, the "remaining inventory" at 12 months is 50% of the available units for any (and every) specific week of the year.