• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 26 years!

    Join tens of thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $14,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $14 Million dollars
  • Follow the TUG Member Banner as it travels the world on vacation with Timeshare owners! Also sign up to get the banner sent to you so you can submit a photo of your vacation with the banner to share with TUG! Banner Thread
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free! Join tens of thousands of other owners who get this every week! Latest resort reviews and the most important topics discussed by owners during the week!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    Read more Here
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Ranking the Top Timeshare Systems

Fredm

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
8
Points
248
Location
Palm Desert, CA
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.
One does indeed learn new things every day. Thank you for the information.

Emmy:
I apologize for stating the single confirmation incorrectly. It indeed is a wrinkle that affords a multi-week owner the ability to manipulate the reservation system if intent on doing so. For those that do so, it is an unfair advantage over single week owners.
 

DavidnRobin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
10,813
Reaction score
1,223
Points
498
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Resorts Owned
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
Steve -

You know my vote already - SVO - of course. For all the reasons I have stated over the last 1.5 years.

The others? We don't care which order.

It all comes down to what ones vacation priorities are. SVO certainly has it's drawbacks - and certainly it's distractors - but it fits our vacation desires best.
 

sharktzu

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
111
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Temple City, CA
O.k. I'll chime in also although I've already voted with my wallet. All of the systems have their strong points and weak suits, but I like Starwood based on the overall quality of their resorts and the locations they've choosen. I also like how aggressive they've become about expanding and building more resorts. HGVC and Marriott would be tied for 2nd in my book. Hyatt's are nice, but there just aren't enough of them.
 

mesamirage

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
2
Points
228
Location
Chandler, AZ
O.k. I'll chime in also although I've already voted with my wallet. All of the systems have their strong points and weak suits, but I like Starwood based on the overall quality of their resorts and the locations they've choosen. I also like how aggressive they've become about expanding and building more resorts. HGVC and Marriott would be tied for 2nd in my book. Hyatt's are nice, but there just aren't enough of them.
Sorry Sharktzu... I would like to count your vote, but the Michigan Avatar voids you of any voting privs... :D

GO UW HUSKIES!! :cheer:
 

mesamirage

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
2
Points
228
Location
Chandler, AZ
Steve -

You know my vote already - SVO - of course. For all the reasons I have stated over the last 1.5 years.

The others? We don't care which order.

It all comes down to what ones vacation priorities are. SVO certainly has it's drawbacks - and certainly it's distractors - but it fits our vacation desires best.
David... I'm the Hyatt guy.. and I still voted Starwood #1 myself. Hard to argue against the quality of the resorts! It's top tier/top shelf and we like that... its just a bit $$$ but you do get your $$$ worth!! (except for the reservation system... but I won't revisit that)

Steve
 

JonathanIT

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
410
Reaction score
2
Points
16
Location
L.A.-But I'd rather be on Brokeback Mtn.
Kazakie said:
I like Hiltons, but don't care for the big-3 Hilton locations (Las Vegas, Orlando & Big Island) - hello, we're paying a premium for the Hilton brand and the flexibility to travel to other places, if we always want to go to LV or Orlando we'll buy a similar quality resort for much less money.
My vote goes to Hilton in a heartbeat... but then again I don't own anywhere else! :D

I have to say that downgrading Hilton based on locations is completely unwarranted. Yes, they have too many properties in Florida. But who doesn't love Hawaii? And thank god for Las Vegas, because it's cheap to own! But many have failed to recognize the effort with which they are addressing this issue, and the breadth of Hilton's future expansion.

*They already added a close affiliation with four Intrawest properties, including: Whistler, BC; Tremblant, Quebec and Palm Desert, CA

*They also have a gorgeous property in Breckenridge, CO, the Valdoro Mountain Lodge. I hope to go back this year.

*They are building an incredible property in NYC. I visited the site when was there in June; I'm really excited about this one. Just a couple blocks from Central Park!

*The Grand Marbrisas in Carlsbad, CA should open next year.

*The Hilton Vilamoura Vacation Club in Portugal just opened.

*Their close affiliation with Fiesta Americana in Mexico now includes Acapulco, as well as Los Cabos and Cancun.

*The Grand Waikikian in Honolulu is going to be awesome! (ok, I love Honolulu).

My point is that HGVC recognizes that owners/members have consistently put expansion at the top of the priority list. I think they're doing a good job.

BTW, I looked into Marriott when I was in Hawaii at the Grand Ko'Olina property. I have to say that the property/accommodations are spectacular... but I could not believe that they are on the "old school" trading weeks system for their timeshares. I would never even consider this, having experienced Hilton's point system flexibility. That was an absolute deal breaker.

If I purchased at another company, it would (and will probably be) with Disney Vacation Club. I am a Disney fan and go to Orlando several times a year.
 

taffy19

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
587
Points
398
One does indeed learn new things every day. Thank you for the information.

Emmy:
I apologize for stating the single confirmation incorrectly. It indeed is a wrinkle that affords a multi-week owner the ability to manipulate the reservation system if intent on doing so. For those that do so, it is an unfair advantage over single week owners.
Thank you, Fred. How about my math? :eek: Did that make sense or not? Dave, please correct me if I am wrong here. I assume too that there are less holiday or vacation weeks in the system than in my example but that was for emphasizing my point. Here is clearly where the advantage of owning multiple weeks comes in handy.

I already knew from experience that the best weeks go to the multiple week owners and it was a brilliant strategy for the Marriott to sell more weeks. I am all for the Marriott treating their most loyal customers royally but not at our (single week owners) expense.

My votes go to the Hyatt and the Hilton as these systems seem to be more fair. I am not voting about quality because I have stayed at so few of the resorts. The Westins look beautiful to me.
 

taffy19

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
587
Points
398
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:Thus, the "remaining inventory" at 12 months is 50% of the available units for any (and every) specific week of the year.
Dave, you had answered my question already in my last post. I had missed your post in the previous page. Thank you.

It's even more obvious to me now that people will have to keep buying more weeks if they want to compete for the best vacation weeks and the holidays too and certainly when more multi-week owners are added in the 50% pool.

I still don't understand why we had to call several weeks on a row one year but it must have been that the dates, they offered us, were not acceptable so we tried two times more to get our week in March. Last year, we got a cancellation by calling later that week again as this recommendation was posted here.
 

linsj

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,881
Reaction score
166
Points
273
Location
Chicagoland
Resorts Owned
HGVC
My vote goes to Hilton for #1. I bought HGVC because the points system makes the most sense for my needs: flexibility to book the number of days I want (with a minimum of 3) without being tied to weeks at a time; getting 3+ weeks out of my 5,000 points every year, including part or all of that in Hawaii (I own in Orlando); being able to see what's available when on the web site and book it on the site; lowest cost to get into.

Yes, I wish there were more properties; and, as a result, I've looked at the other 3 hotel clubs. But none of them come close to the price, flexibility, and simplicity of Hilton.
 

Fredm

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
8
Points
248
Location
Palm Desert, CA
Thank you, Fred. How about my math? :eek: Did that make sense or not? Dave, please correct me if I am wrong here. I assume too that there are less holiday or vacation weeks in the system than in my example but that was for emphasizing my point. Here is clearly where the advantage of owning multiple weeks comes in handy.

I already knew from experience that the best weeks go to the multiple week owners and it was a brilliant strategy for the Marriott to sell more weeks. I am all for the Marriott treating their most loyal customers royally but not at our (single week owners) expense.

My votes go to the Hyatt and the Hilton as these systems seem to be more fair. I am not voting about quality because I have stayed at so few of the resorts. The Westins look beautiful to me.
Emmy.
Your math does not recognize that under no circumstances can more than 50% of any one week be reserved at 13 months. No matter what.

I think our point of disagreement comes from which measure is used.
I am using the percentage of weeks owned. You refer to the percentage of individual owners.

I believe that if it were an entirely democratic system (which it is not), and put to a vote, each owner would receive one vote for each share owned.
I cannot say for certain how such a vote would come out, but assuming each owner voted their personal best interests, it would likely fall in favor of the multiple share owners.

Since a system does exist which recognizes the different reservation needs of multiple week owners, a ceiling of 50% of each week seems as reasonable an approach as any. No system can be entirely equitable to every circumstance. However, Marriott's system makes an attempt at it. No doubt, it is based in part on Marriott's interests as well.

It is not at all a forgone conclusion that if there were not a 13 month reservation policy that single week owners would fare better at 12 months. They may fare worse. Those multiple week owners can just as easily tear through the inventory. Unless you are advocating that those who own multiple weeks should not be able to reserve consecutive weeks in a single reservation call. That would really cause an uproar that would be difficult to justify, IMHO.
At least the current system provides an orderly mechanism for the needs of all owners to be addressed in a reasonable way overall.
 

Troopers

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Bay Area, CA
I'm a newbie and find this dialogue infomative (and quite interresting) since I do not owe a TS.

Does the Mariott 13 month reservation rule extend to owners with multiple weeks of the same resort or owners with multiple one week resorts?

The below assumes an owner with the multiple weeks of the same resort
I think it is fair for one to be able to reserve multiple weeks (consecutive or not) as one reservation 13 months in advance at the home resort. However, if the owner cancelled any portion of the reservation, the entire reservation is cancelled. The owner is receiving a benefit as a multiple week owner to be able to book a month before single week owners. I think it is unfair for the owner to cherry pick the desirable weeks and cancel a week without any penalty. If a two week owner was certain about one week and uncertain about another week, he/she could reserve the certain week at 13 months and the uncertain week at 12 months.

The below assumes an owner with multiple one week resorts
I think it is unfair if one is able to reserve multiple weeks (consecutive or not) 13 months in advance at any of the resorts owned. An owner should only be able to reserve the number of weeks at a resort equaling the number of weeks owned at that resort (in this case, only one week). I think it is fair that the owner be able to do this 13 months out. This is the benefit of a multiple one week resort owner.

If I'm not making any sense, no worries...I'm a newbie. Blame me!
 
Last edited:

taffy19

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
587
Points
398
Emmy.
Your math does not recognize that under no circumstances can more than 50% of any one week be reserved at 13 months. No matter what.

I think our point of disagreement comes from which measure is used.
I am using the percentage of weeks owned. You refer to the percentage of individual owners.

I believe that if it were an entirely democratic system (which it is not), and put to a vote, each owner would receive one vote for each share owned.
I cannot say for certain how such a vote would come out, but assuming each owner voted their personal best interests, it would likely fall in favor of the multiple share owners.

Since a system does exist which recognizes the different reservation needs of multiple week owners, a ceiling of 50% of each week seems as reasonable an approach as any. No system can be entirely equitable to every circumstance. However, Marriott's system makes an attempt at it. No doubt, it is based in part on Marriott's interests as well.

It is not at all a forgone conclusion that if there were not a 13 month reservation policy that single week owners would fare better at 12 months. They may fare worse. Those multiple week owners can just as easily tear through the inventory. Unless you are advocating that those who own multiple weeks should not be able to reserve consecutive weeks in a single reservation call. That would really cause an uproar that would be difficult to justify, IMHO.
At least the current system provides an orderly mechanism for the needs of all owners to be addressed in a reasonable way overall.
OK, point well taken. Thank you. :)
 

tomandrobin

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
4,069
Reaction score
89
Points
283
Location
Bel Air, Maryland
Since it seems all the major hotel based timeshare systems have thier own internal exchange/reservation system, in addtion to II or RCI, why doesn't Marriott have its own internal system? Have they looked at adding an internal system or did thier use to be one?
 

Fredm

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
8
Points
248
Location
Palm Desert, CA
Since it seems all the major hotel based timeshare systems have thier own internal exchange/reservation system, in addtion to II or RCI, why doesn't Marriott have its own internal system? Have they looked at adding an internal system or did thier use to be one?
See page 4 of this thread.
 

taffy19

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,723
Reaction score
587
Points
398
Since it seems all the major hotel based timeshare systems have thier own internal exchange/reservation system, in addtion to II or RCI, why doesn't Marriott have its own internal system? Have they looked at adding an internal system or did thier use to be one?
Yes, they are working on one and there are several posts about it if you search for it.

Fred, I only see two pages?
 

Dave M

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
12,242
Reaction score
6
Points
473
Location
Sun City Hilton Head, SC
Marriott's internal trading system would serve all owners. No perceived advantage or disadvantage for existing owners.

It's too deep for this thread, but, as Emmy has suggested, there are several threads on the Marriott forum that delve into the speculation of what Marriott's internal trading system will look like.
 

saluki

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
513
Reaction score
2
Points
228
Location
STL
Fred, I only see two pages?
It depends on how your TUG "User Control Panel" is set up. If you are at the default setting for posts shown per page, this thread is currently 6 pages.
 

tomandrobin

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
4,069
Reaction score
89
Points
283
Location
Bel Air, Maryland
Marriott's internal trading system would serve all owners. No perceived advantage or disadvantage for existing owners.

It's too deep for this thread, but, as Emmy has suggested, there are several threads on the Marriott forum that delve into the speculation of what Marriott's internal trading system will look like.
I wonder if allowing all owners, wether developer or resale will put pressure on Starwood to change its system.

It seems that Hyatt, Hilton, DVC treat owners equal in thier system. Marriott is apparently heading that way. Not sure is Starwood could go back and fix thier Mandatory/Voluntary mess.
 

Dave M

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
12,242
Reaction score
6
Points
473
Location
Sun City Hilton Head, SC
It seems that Hyatt, Hilton, DVC treat owners equal in thier system. Marriott is apparently heading that way.
There is no evidence at all that Marriott is or isn't headed that way. As I suggested, you should consider reading some of the threads on this subject in the Marriott forum for more info.
 

Fredm

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
8
Points
248
Location
Palm Desert, CA
I wonder if allowing all owners, wether developer or resale will put pressure on Starwood to change its system.

It seems that Hyatt, Hilton, DVC treat owners equal in thier system. Marriott is apparently heading that way. Not sure is Starwood could go back and fix thier Mandatory/Voluntary mess.
Starwood could fix their Mandatory/Voluntary mess in a New York minute, if they wanted to. They could do so within the current system structure.

The only difference between M and V resorts is that M resorts have SVN membership attached by deed. Membership is automatic at transfer of title, and ongoing membership is mandatory. Resale buyers of V resorts must apply for membership. Currently, Starwood is not approving resale applications. They could do so at any time they choose.

Further, the application fee would be reoccurring for all subsequent resale membership applications. There is no fee associated with mandatory resort resales. For this reason, I believe Starwood will, sooner or later, "fix" the current situation. The revenue stream will be too attractive to ignore.

Currently, the conventional wisdom is that Starwood believes it in their marketing interests to withhold the membership. I am not so sure that is true any longer.
The recent announcement from Starwood that all future resorts will be Voluntary, may mean exactly the opposite. Since they would not receive ongoing SVN application fees from mandatory resort resales., they just may be setting it up so that the application fee stream from Voluntary resorts will be maximized.

Starwood must know by now that they are earning the animosity of original owners of Voluntary resorts, when those owners discover the devaluation of their purchase at resale.
Marriott owners simply cannot transfer Marriott points at resale . It is not hurting Marriott's ability to sell timeshares. If Starwood would leave it at that, it would not hurt their marketing efforts either.
Starwood is not stupid. Which is why my opinion regarding SVN membership to Voluntary resort resales is what it is.

To take one step further, Starwood V resale prices have been pounded into the cellar as a result of the current situation. Given their excellent trade value in I.I., the very low prices are unwarranted by any real utility measure. If I am right and Starwood reverses course, current V resort resales may prove to be the value buy of the last decade.
 
Last edited:

duke

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
677
Reaction score
88
Points
238
Location
California
To take one step further, Starwood V resale prices have been pounded into the cellar as a result of the current situation. Given their excellent trade value in I.I., the very low prices are unwarranted by any real utility measure. If I am right and Starwood reverses course, current V resort resales may prove to be the value buy of the last decade.
I agree! Buy Voluntary (resale) and Requalify. You get high value StarOptions to exchange and StarPoints for hotels if you want. Also, if you can get to 5* ELITE quickly you can get the last of the SPG Platinum for life.

Its a bargain!

ALSO, if you follow Fred's strategy here....I think that his thought that SVO might, at somepoint, let Voluntary resales be allowed in SVN for a fee....they would only be able to trade for StarOptions. They never would give the ability to exchage for StarPoints or participate in the ELITE program.

Requalify is the better route and can be done now.
 
Last edited:

jerseygirl

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,327
Reaction score
0
Points
36
... if you follow Fred's strategy here....I think that his thought that SVO might, at somepoint, let Voluntary resales be allowed in SVN for a fee....they would only be able to trade for StarOptions. They never would give the ability to exchage for StarPoints or participate in the ELITE program.

Requalify is the better route and can be done now.
Duke -- your advice on requalification has always been excellent. But, I don't think most participants of this board put any real value on the Elite program or the ability to exchange for StarPoints. Fred's comments are not designed to convince people to requalify.

On another note, if Starwood ever does reverse course on resale membership in the network, I think you'll see the price of the current Mandatory resorts decline, and the price of the current Voluntary resorts increase significantly. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the following:

The "market" valued these 81000 StarOptions at a little over $0.123/StarOption:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110154479609&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=001

And these 44000 StarOptions at $0.29/StarOption:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=200136239847&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=010

The first one is a lousy week. Educated buyers realize how difficult it will be to trade for better weeks. The second one is a good, but not great, gold week.

St. John will also sell at a premium because the market doesn't care about the number of StarOptions. People are not buying to trade.

For the majority of the other resorts, there is plenty of great competition in the same markets. My prediction is that they will resell based on a "parity" StarOption price (whatever that turns out to be).
 

duke

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
677
Reaction score
88
Points
238
Location
California
Duke -- your advice on requalification has always been excellent. But, I don't think most participants of this board put any real value on the Elite program or the ability to exchange for StarPoints. Fred's comments are not designed to convince people to requalify.
Jersey.....Requalify is value if you can get to 5* ELITE and get SPG Platinum for Life.

Also, There are some very high value Voluntary resorts that have high StarPoint conversions. Add to that SVN 10% bonus and the value of buying Voluntary and converting to StarPoints then to AirPoints with 25% bonus and using for first or business class travel is a bargain.

Duke
 
Last edited:

jerseygirl

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,327
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Jersey.....Requalify is value if you can get to 5* ELITE and get SPG Platinum for Life.
Can you point me to the benefits of SPG Platinum?

Also, There are some very high value Voluntary resorts that have high StarPoint conversions. Add to that SVN 10% bonus and the value of buying Voluntary and converting to StarPoints then to AirPoints with 25% bonus and using for first or business class travel is a bargain.

Duke
Can you give a specific example vs. the maintenance fee? I tend to use "upgrade" miles for international and never pay attention to the other options. Recent example -- First class ticket I needed (okay, wanted :) ) was over $12000 or 250,000* miles (lots of timeshare weeks!). I bought the cheap ticket ($1500) and paid an $800 upgrade fee. I'll earn almost enough miles to "repay" the 25000 upgrade ... and didn't give up a timeshare week.

*It is possible to get a first class ticket in this market for 120K miles, but you have to be exceptionally lucky and flexible. If your timeframe is short, you need 250K miles.
 
Last edited:
Top