We agree here more than we disagree, m. You're right, Marriott shouldn't simply dismiss half of its owners. Your point of view seems to be, though, that Marriott's concern going forward should be with the owners who may find themselves getting less exchange value in a new exchange system from their Silver season/1BR weeks than they may be getting now. My point of view is that Marriott should be concerned with the owners who are now getting less exchange value from their Platinum/3BR weeks and could get more in a new system. If most owners are unhappy with II, as Fletch indicated, it's likely that those Platinum/3BR owners are the ones voicing their unhappiness. IMO, if any group of owners must be adversely affected by Marriott rolling out a new exchange system, it shouldn't be the owners whose resort/season/unit configuration practically guarantees them a trade-down in the current system.
I don't know if it's correct but I also get the feeling that you think maybe Marriott shouldn't roll out any new system because the risk of upsetting any group of owners is too great. If I'm incorrect here, ignore me. If not, isn't risk/reward something that businesses have to assess on a routine basis? Marriott has had to take steps this year in this terrible economy - development suspension, etc. - that have severely impacted their bottom line. Remaining static right now isn't an option, they must generate revenue somewhere. I'm guessing that the revenue generated by an internal exchange system for Marriott, coming from stimulated sales and current owner conversions, far exceeds whatever risk there may be in a certain number of current owners becoming unhappy enough to default. Plus, defaults don't only hurt Marriott or other owners, the individual defaulting could suffer personal financial effects for quite a while. I don't think that many would or could make that choice as easily as you insinuate. But, if you're worried about Silver/1BR owners defaulting, why aren't you worried about Platinum/3BR owners defaulting?
Frankly, I think rolling out a new system in this economy is risky. People may be frustrated with II (esp. those Plat. 3 BR owners), but they bought into a system the way it is and the potential uproar IF any new system (IF there is a new system) puts them at a disadvantage could be big. People get accustomed and accepting of what they already had; after all, it's what they bought into. It is different if something is changed and people suddenly find themselves at a disadvantage.
I guess where we disagree is that I don't think any new system should be geared to make one group happy at another's expense. If Marriott is unable to create something that most owners would find value in, then I guess my opinion would be not to rock the boat. When I looked at the Asia Pacific points program I didn't see that most people would benefit. I don't know if they will create a program which most people perceive as being positive. I do feel that if the program, as Fletch suggested is good for the Plat. owners who should join and not so good for others, who should stay with II, that overall it won't be a good program. Of course, that's my opinion, and you are free to disagree.
And I do worry that IF Marriott uses this as a sales tool to enhance sales (which would be a likely scenario) and artificially inflate point values at future resorts, that your nice 3BR Plat. HH resort will only get the same number of days in a 2BR, with devaluation an intrinsic part of the program. Also, IF the point valuation mirrors the other points program which they rolled out (which I can only guess was a trial of sorts for a system wide overhaul), you might find that you need your whole 3BR to trade into many other 2BR's anyway, that Marirott arbitrarily has assigned higher point values. So, while it is always hard to get a 3BR on exchange because of inventory, at least most 3BR owners could lock off and use their 2BR for an equivalent exchange (at least owners of 3BR lock-offs; I'm not sure, but I don't think the HH 3BR's are lock-offs); I'm guessing that those great Plat. 3BR weeks won't be high enough on the Marriott ladder to get some of the premium 3BR's elsewhere. When I looked over the Asia Pacific point allocation and saw that a 2BR Waiohai owner couldn't exchange into a 2BR in Ko'Olina for a week, it made me realize that arbitrary point allocations could be a real impediment to what we're accustomed to considering as equal trades.
I guess that's my biggest concern and why I am wary of a new program. My guess is that, in the case of the Asia Pacific program, Marriott has lots of Ko'Olina inventory left to sell, so enhancing its points value is a good sales tool. Good for the future buyer (at least until the next resort comes along), but bad for other owners who won't have enough points to trade in. I'd venture to guess that most owners at these two properties, while liking one over the other perhaps for their own reasons, would have considered them as equivalent trades.
Admittedly, those that own whatever Marriott deems to be the top weeks will be happy campers (at least for the short run); Platinum owners of "lesser" resorts likely won't be as happy, and Gold owners (except for a few high demand Gold properties) probably less thrilled and I foresee a lot of unhappy Silver and Bronze week owners. So I don't think we can make the assumption that a new system will prevent Plat. week owners from essentially "trading down." I have to admit, I thought the same thing, until I looked at their earlier program roll out.
As for MF's and defaults- at status quo (the way things are) the vast majority of people feel they get value out of their ownership, enough to pay their MF's. Diminishing value for some owners increases the risk of some people defaulting. While it is not as simple as "walking away," if you look elsewhere (have you read the posts from Starwood's owners discussing the problem) it seems that many disenchanted owners have felt that they'd rather swallow the credit hit from walking away than continue paying MF's. I was surprised, but it has happened. If it could happen there when owners felt disenfranchised, it can happen here. That's why I'm acknowledging a risk.
Aside from the issue of whether resale units are charged more up front, I own weeks that will likely do well in the new system (at least initially), so I'm not voicing concerns from a personal vantage point. I am just not convinced that changing things will benefit enough people while only minimally negatively impacting others for such a program to work overall. Again, I know it has worked very well elsewhere, but superimposing a system upon another is very different than having a set of rules that encouraged the initial sales.
