Speculation About Marriott's New Timeshare Structure [merged]

[tombo]

Legally, can they just arbitrarily decide which week they want to assign to the points pool? I would think (and hope) that it would either be a straight percentage or according to the actual deeded week. If the latter- it will be interesting, because of course the more in demand weeks will be more rewarding for Marriott to convert. And, at least some of those are resale weeks (as a matter of fact, my Plat. Aruba week happens to have one of the highest TDI weeks on the deed).

Marriott has an incentive to place more prime weeks within a season in the points system as people convert leaving more less than prime in season weeks in the original weeks program. Unless someone can find anything in their contract stating otherwise, yes Marriott can and will stack the deck in favor of their new program. You are deeded access to weeks in your season (platinum, gold, etc) BASED ON AVAILABILITY. You were never guaranteed access to the week on your deed. Marriott has the rights to your specific deeded week and everyone else's to allocate as they see fit. Marriott never promised x% of the prime weeks in a season would be available to exchange for, or that they would guarantee x number of prime weeks. Your new availability will be whatever weeks marriott has yet to steal for points inventory.

Why would the benevolent Marriott favor the new points owners over the original owners? Because it is best for Marriott and Marriott's profits. They are not selling weeks anymore, they are selling points and the old system and profits from the old system are ancient history. All Marriott loyalty, and the Marriott corporate strategy from here on out is based on points. If you aren't points you aren't important. Worse than that, the worse your trading experiences under weeks becomes, the better spokesperson you are for the advantages of points and the more likely you are to convert or sell to someone who will convert. A disgruntled weeks owner is a future points buyer in Marriott's eyes. Rather than addressing your concerns, they will profit on them!

If people a year from now are laying by the pool saying that getting a good exchange with points is impossible and they had better luck in the weeks program, the sales of ponts and conversions will suffer and the program could be in jeopardy. If however everyone by the pool and on the web is bragging about getting new years ski weeks, 4th of july on Hilton head, cheering about the ability to exchange for weeks and resorts they never could get before they joined points, then the sales and conversions will be much easier. Who do you think Marriott wants to get the prime trades, points members, or weeks owners? Be realistic when answering and you know it is points.

To jump start the points program I assume Marriott will place all developer owned weeks into points inventory, all reposessed/delinquent MF's weeks into points, and most if not all conversions will have one of the best in season weeks deposited into points inventory. This will give new points owners the best access to the best weeks proving to all skeptics that points memberships are much better than deeded weeks when exchanging. However when enough people convert to points the advantages of preferential inventory will diminish because Marriott has not actually created any new inventory when they created a points program. Then the reality will set in that you simply paid more money to have the same access to the same weeks you had before the points scam was launched.

 

[SueDonJ]

I think this is where some of the Starwood owners could help us out, by pointing out the contract language that gives Starwood the right (or not!) to choose which weeks are deposited to II when an owner requests an exchange. Browsing that board I get the impression that there isn't any such language, which is why Starwood didn't have to announce their processing change last year and why owners don't have any recourse for the perceived loss of exchange value.

However it all works out, I can't imagine that the week numbers on existing deeds will be used to account for anything other than what their intended use is - an accounting measure to prevent the developer from selling more than a particular available interval. If Marriott arbitrarily decides to assign some other value to those deeded week numbers without benefit of the owner giving up that protection, they will be in violation of a number of contract provisions. It just can't happen in a floating system that usage of unconverted weeks will be limited to existing deeded weeks and/or usage of points will be limited to the weeks on converted deeds.

I think that while it's true the devil is in the details, it's also true that we will probably not be entitled to as many details as some of us are demanding. This thread has taken a somewhat insulting turn, IMO, with the comments about "blind faith" and "counting units to convert without details." No one has said that they'll be unconditionally buying into whatever Marriott is selling; it's just that each of us has a general understanding of what our particular needs will be in order to consider buying in. Lighten up on the "blind faith" already.

 

[tombo]

I

However it all works out, I can't imagine that the week numbers on existing deeds will be used to account for anything other than what their intended use is - an accounting measure to prevent the developer from selling more than a particular available interval. If Marriott arbitrarily decides to assign some other value to those deeded week numbers without benefit of the owner giving up that protection, they will be in violation of a number of contract provisions. It just can't happen in a floating system that usage of unconverted weeks will be limited to existing deeded weeks and/or usage of points will be limited to the weeks on converted deeds.

.

Which is the exact problem we are discussing. Since the deeded week is nothing more than an accounting number to prevent the overselling of weeks with no rights to access to your deeded week, Marriott can do whatever they want to with regards to where they place specific weeks. Platinum owners who have weeks that float from week 18 to 34 have no specific rights to the June and July weeks regardless of what is on the deed.

Use the example of a beach Platinum season that has available weeks from weeks 18 to 34. If a weeks owner with a deeded week 26 or 27 refuses to convert to points, Marriott can still put his deeded week 26 or 27 into the points inventory removing it from weeks inventory when someone with a deeded week 18 converts to points. So every time a platinum owner converts to points marriott can place a week 22 to 30 into the points inventory, no matter what is on the deed, giving points all prime weeks. Nothing illegal, no documented rights of weeks owners usurped. Marriott is within their legal rights to place any prime platinum in season week they choose into the points inventory pool every time someone converts. So yes the points trades will be great prime in season weeks and the people who don't convert to ponts will end up with a glut of weeks 18 to 21 and 31 to 34 to exchange for with their Platinum deeded week.

Marriott sold the deeded owners the right to exchange for weeks within their season based on availability. They never bothered to mention that they were going to reduce availability by starting an entirelly new points program. But heck they are giving you what they legally sold you. You will get to exchange for the remaining weeks platinum inventory based on availability. What a deal.

 

[DanCali]

I think that while it's true the devil is in the details, it's also true that we will probably not be entitled to as many details as some of us are demanding. This thread has taken a somewhat insulting turn, IMO, with the comments about "blind faith" and "counting units to convert without details." No one has said that they'll be unconditionally buying into whatever Marriott is selling; it's just that each of us has a general understanding of what our particular needs will be in order to consider buying in. Lighten up on the "blind faith" already.

Sorry if I was among those whose comments have offended anyone. That was certainly not the intent... I tend to be a bit cynical at times when making an argument, but it's not personal in any way - just how I talk. In the end, we're all on the same side no matter if we end up as weeks or points owners.

Just so you understand where I come from... I started with Starwood ownership and, while I love their resorts, I have seen how a management company can maneuver in gray areas to profit at owners' expense. I then did plenty of research and bought into Marriott because I heard rave reviews and liked the system. In the little time that I've owned, it's worked great for me... Having seen what Starwood does, I can't help be a bit cynical when I see Marriott possibly going down the same path.

 

[SueDonJ]

Which is the exact problem we are discussing. Since the deeded week is nothing more than an accounting number to prevent the overselling of weeks with no rights to access to your deeded week, Marriott can do whatever they want to with regards to where they place specific weeks. Platinum owners who have weeks that float from week 18 to 34 have no specific rights to the June and July weeks regardless of what is on the deed.

Use the example of a beach Platinum season that has available weeks from weeks 18 to 34. If a weeks owner with a deeded week 26 or 27 refuses to convert to points, Marriott can still put his deeded week 26 or 27 into the points inventory removing it from weeks inventory when someone with a deeded week 18 converts to points. So every time a platinum owner converts to points marriott can place a week 22 to 30 into the points inventory, no matter what is on the deed, giving points all prime weeks. Nothing illegal, no documented rights of weeks owners usurped. Marriott is within their legal rights to place any prime platinum in season week they choose into the points inventory pool every time someone converts. So yes the points trades will be great prime in season weeks and the people who don't convert to ponts will end up with a glut of weeks 18 to 21 and 31 to 34 to exchange for with their Platinum deeded week.

Marriott sold the deeded owners the right to exchange for weeks within their season based on availability. They never bothered to mention that they were going to reduce availability by starting an entirelly new points program. But heck they are giving you what they legally sold you. You will get to exchange for the remaining weeks platinum inventory based on availability. What a deal.

But my point is, the basic premise of what they've sold already won't be changed by the introduction of a system in which weeks can be optionally converted to points with different usage opportunities. Every MVCI owner who bought into the floating week system will still be able to reserve according to availability.

The contracts for floating weeks do not guarantee that availability will not be subject to future "product enhancements" (don't they always use that phrase?), they do not guarantee a certain week's usage, and they do not guarantee a certain exchange value. Whatever perception we might have saddled ourselves with, that our usage would always be the same as it was on the day of purchase or historically, isn't Marriott's responsibility to uphold. I frankly find it very hard to believe that ANY sales presentation - by Marriott reps or external resale reps - would have included that verbal guarantee. But it wouldn't matter anyway, because the written contracts are binding while verbal representations are not.

I still go back to, Marriott has implemented the 12/13-month rule on as fair a basis as possible by dividing the available inventory for every possible check-in day by 50%, because of the related contract stipulations. We will be able to review the contracts for points conversion to determine if they contain similar stipulations. If so, all the worry here over Marriott skimming the best weeks for points owners' usage is wasted. If the contracts don't support it, though, such as what appears to be the case with Starwood, then we'll just have to accept it. In either case, a request to review the contracts prior to conversion (which IME has been granted in the case of weeks sales,) or during a rescission period will tell us what we need to know in order to determine if we want to proceed with converting or not.

 

[tombo]

This thread has taken a somewhat insulting turn, IMO, with the comments about "blind faith" and "counting units to convert without details." No one has said that they'll be unconditionally buying into whatever Marriott is selling; it's just that each of us has a general understanding of what our particular needs will be in order to consider buying in. Lighten up on the "blind faith" already.

You could be referring to someone else ( I hope so), but this is my quote where I used the term Blind Faith:

"Anyone who is not concerned and who trusts Marriott blindly to take care of them and what they purchased from Marriott (or resale) is too trusting IMO."

Not an offensive statement, not a statement naming any particular person, and still a statement I stand by. If MARRIOTT OWNERS ( not you specifically) are going to trust Marriott to do what is best for them with reagrds to the new points program, I think they are too trusting, or naive, and either way in for a rude awakening (once again IMO).

 

[SueDonJ]

Sorry if I was among those whose comments have offended anyone. That was certainly not the intent... I tend to be a bit cynical at times when making an argument, but it's not personal in any way - just how I talk. In the end, we're all on the same side no matter if we end up as weeks or points owners.

Just so you understand where I come from... I started with Starwood ownership and, while I love their resorts, I have seen how a management company can maneuver in gray areas to profit at owners' expense. I then did plenty of research and bought into Marriott because I heard rave reviews and liked the system. In the little time that I've owned, it's worked great for me... Having seen what Starwood does, I can't help be a bit cynical when I see Marriott possibly going down the same path.

I can certainly understand that! It's one of the reasons why I think this thread is so helpful, because it lets us look at every angle each time somebody adds a new thought to the discussion. Maybe the only difference is that some of us are starting with a dose of cynicism rather than picking it up now?

 

[Fredm]

I think that while it's true the devil is in the details, it's also true that we will probably not be entitled to as many details as some of us are demanding. This thread has taken a somewhat insulting turn, IMO, with the comments about "blind faith" and "counting units to convert without details." No one has said that they'll be unconditionally buying into whatever Marriott is selling; it's just that each of us has a general understanding of what our particular needs will be in order to consider buying in. Lighten up on the "blind faith" already.

I agree with you.

The devil may be in the details. But, some details will never be known.
No developer is going to lay bare the intricate details of its inventory management.

It really comes down to whether one believes that Marriott will follow the law. Of course they will. The law protects reservation rights for deeded week owners.

As for the rest of it, each of us must decide if the benefits/drawbacks of the new (yet unexplained) system will warrant our participation. The issue that matters to most is the cost of participating in whatever is introduced. If the buy-in is free, most will give it a try no matter what it is. The rest is in the eating. That will likely take a couple of years to evaluate.

Those that bought to occupy their home resort should care less about the new program.

 

[tombo]

But my point is, the basic premise of what they've sold already won't be changed by the introduction of a system in which weeks can be optionally converted to points with different usage opportunities. Every MVCI owner who bought into the floating week system will still be able to reserve according to availability.

The contracts for floating weeks do not guarantee that availability will not be subject to future "product enhancements" (don't they always use that phrase?), they do not guarantee a certain week's usage, and they do not guarantee a certain exchange value. Whatever perception we might have saddled ourselves with, that our usage would always be the same as it was on the day of purchase or historically, isn't Marriott's responsibility to uphold. I frankly find it very hard to believe that ANY sales presentation - by Marriott reps or external resale reps - would have included that verbal guarantee. But it wouldn't matter anyway, because the written contracts are binding while verbal representations are not.

.

So you have no problem with Marriott taking weeks 22 to 30 and converting one of those prime weeks to points every time a platinum beach owner converts just because it is legal? Marriott's blatant disregard for current owner's loss for the benefit of "points members" is irrelevant? You don't mind that 100% of the converted points inventory will be prime platinum weeks while the majority of people who don't convert will choose from 100% of the non prime in season weeks (18 to 21 and 31 to 34) that marriott left in weeks and the ever decreasing availability of prime in season weeks?

So Marriott's plan to force owners to either pay to convert or be squeezed out by Marriott's transferance of prime inventory from weeks to points is a good thing? We will have to disagree on this. Marriott is using legal language in the contracts to change the entire Marriott timeshare program just to force owners to pay more or lose inventory access. That is wrong. If they really wanted to roll out a great new program to benefit owners, it would be offered for free!!! It isn't going to be free, it is extortion to make Marriott money on the backs of current owners.

The fact that other timeshare companies have done it doesn't make it right. I thought that Marriott was more ethical than most companies, but I was obviously wrong.

 

[DanCali]

I think this is where some of the Starwood owners could help us out, by pointing out the contract language that gives Starwood the right (or not!) to choose which weeks are deposited to II when an owner requests an exchange. Browsing that board I get the impression that there isn't any such language, which is why Starwood didn't have to announce their processing change last year and why owners don't have any recourse for the perceived loss of exchange value.

I don't trade my Starwood units (a 2BR lockoff) via II primarily because the Starwood II system is not what Marriott owners are used to. Because Starwood picks the deposited weeks, you don't really know what gets deposited when you deposit or when others deposit so it's not immediately obvious you'll get a summer Hawaii week even if you have a great trader. If I wanted to travel off season I may feel differently about it. I would not be surprised if Marriott retains control of the deposited II weeks for the points owners since that can be easily written in the new documents.

The issue with Starwood was that they always had the right to retain control of the II deposited weeks for units part of SVN (Starwood Vacation Network - i.e., the points system). All retail units are part of SVN as well as resale units at the mandatory resorts (Westin Maui N/S, Westin Kierland, Vistana Villages first 2 phases, Harborside and St. John phase 1). The only weeks that could use II similar to Marriott were resale units at voluntary resorts which, to keep things in perspective, is only a minority of owners (but quite a few tuggers). In fact, the original rules were written such that, for SVN owners, Starwood could deposit any week that was "comparable" to the season you owned, including a week from a different resort. So if someone wanted to deposit a Gold Harborside week, Starwood may deposit a summer Maui week instead...

About a year ago the rules changed such that now Starwood will actually deposit a week from the resort you own but applied those rules to everyone, including voluntary resale owners who are not part of SVN and cannot trade with points. As an SVN owner (I own at a mandatory resort, resale), Starwood had the right to do what they did previously because it was in the SVN documents and they probably have the right to change those rules as they did. It's even possible that the current rules are better for SVN owners because they leave the better inventory in the points system and they deposit the resort you own into II with trading power equal to the average of the season you own. Resale owners at voluntary resorts (probably 5%-10% of total owners) have a very legitimate gripe because they were never part of SVN, they never agreed to the old rules, and the new rules completely changed the way they think about exchanges as well as the inventory available to them even though they still can't use points. I'm sure Starwood thinks what they did is legal. Some owners beg to differ. Personally, I think they want to have their cake and eat it too...

The analogy to the Marriott world would be first Marriott retaining control of weeks deposited into II for points owners. If you join the points program you know the rules and agree to them. That's cool... Later though, they decide they do the same to the weeks owners who didn't convert, and siphon all that inventory to the points system (or to themselves) while giving II unreserved weeks in the same season. That wouldn't go over so well with weeks owners...

 

[SueDonJ]

You could be referring to someone else ( I hope so), but this is my quote where I used the term Blind Faith:

"Anyone who is not concerned and who trusts Marriott blindly to take care of them and what they purchased from Marriott (or resale) is too trusting IMO."

Not an offensive statement, not a statement naming any particular person, and still a statement I stand by. If MARRIOTT OWNERS ( not you specifically) are going to trust Marriott to do what is best for them with reagrds to the new points program, I think they are too trusting, or naive, and either way in for a rude awakening (once again IMO).

That's the general tone that I'm objecting to, yes. Even though your post and similar comments haven't been directed to any one specific individual or in response to any one specific post, I question why it's necessary to bring up the "blind faith" concept at all in this thread seeing as nobody here has admitted that they are relying unconditionally on Marriott to protect their individual interests. It's not all that big a deal, but it would be nice if similar comments don't make their way here. Now it sounds like I'm trying to be The Boss Of The Thread and that's not what I want either. It's just something to think about.

 

[Darlene]

We have a deeded week at Marriott Monarch, and we receive a confirmation from Marriott for our reservation for our deeded week. I don't do anything, I don't even have to call. It is automatically done, and then either I have to deposit the week to exchange or call and take the points for the week before the December 31st deadline. Are you saying that Marriott is going to change or stop giving us our deeded week unless we convert to points?
I checked and our reservation is there for next year. It was made 18 months ahead.
Darlene

 

[SueDonJ]

Does anybody else think that this particular twist in the thread, of how Marriott will be handling weeks and points inventory, could have been the basis for a similar loooonnnngggg thread if TUG existed when the 12/13-mo rule was implemented? I do wonder what the owners of resorts where the rule wasn't written into the contracts thought as that was rolled out across the entire system, and I imagine they were not very happy.

 

[SueDonJ]

We have a deeded week at Marriott Monarch, and we receive a confirmation from Marriott for our reservation for our deeded week. I don't do anything, I don't even have to call. It is automatically done, and then either I have to deposit the week to exchange or call and take the points for the week before the December 31st deadline. Are you saying that Marriott is going to change or stop giving us our deeded week unless we convert to points?
Darlene

It sounds like you have a fixed week, Darlene, and I would expect owners of fixed weeks to have more protection for their usage (whether it's occupying or exchanging) than floating weeks. It's possible you may have to deal with a different exchange value within II's system if Marriott's change affects II overall, but your home resort usage and exchanges for Marriott Reward Points shouldn't be negatively impacted. Or at least, it's not been speculated in this thread that fixed weeks owners will lose those options.

 

[SueDonJ]

So you have no problem with Marriott taking weeks 22 to 30 and converting one of those prime weeks to points every time a platinum beach owner converts just because it is legal? Marriott's blatant disregard for current owner's loss for the benefit of "points members" is irrelevant? You don't mind that 100% of the converted points inventory will be prime platinum weeks while the majority of people who don't convert will choose from 100% of the non prime in season weeks (18 to 21 and 31 to 34) that marriott left in weeks and the ever decreasing availability of prime in season weeks?

So Marriott's plan to force owners to either pay to convert or be squeezed out by Marriott's transferance of prime inventory from weeks to points is a good thing? We will have to disagree on this. Marriott is using legal language in the contracts to change the entire Marriott timeshare program just to force owners to pay more or lose inventory access. That is wrong. If they really wanted to roll out a great new program to benefit owners, it would be offered for free!!! It isn't going to be free, it is extortion to make Marriott money on the backs of current owners.

The fact that other timeshare companies have done it doesn't make it right. I thought that Marriott was more ethical than most companies, but I was obviously wrong.

The way I think with ANYTHING related to our timeshares, is that they're ethical if they're adhering to the contracts. That's it. That's all it comes down to. If this was a thread about what I WANT them to do, I'd be demanding that they give me first choice for whatever I want! And you could do the same!

Whether or not whatever they do now or offer in the future benefits me or you or any certain percentage of owners or all owners or no owners is good for discussion, sure, but I just don't understand why we on TUG continually demand something from Marriott that they're not contractually obligated to give us. It doesn't matter if the current system works or doesn't work for us individually, and it doesn't matter if we want them to change it or not. What matters is that they CAN change things and as long as they do so legally, we can only deal with what they offer or get out.

{edited to add} But aside from that, you're making quite a few specific assumptions about how Marriott WILL handle inventory in a possible new points system, and you're asking me to agree with your premise that Marriott is planning to hurt owners based on those assumptions. How can I agree with your premise if I don't know that the assumptions are correct?

 

[Darlene]

Yes, a fixed week. Sorry, I wasn't distinguishing between fixed vs deeded. I think we will have to start using our week. I've never been to Hilton Head, and have enjoyed it's high trading value.
I do agree that Marriott will look out for what's best for Marriott. Living in SLC, I know so many people that have bought Marriott and truly think that Marriott is looking out for them. What because he's Mormon? Think again. It's a business.
Darlene

 

[SueDonJ]

I don't trade my Starwood units (a 2BR lockoff) via II primarily because the Starwood II system is not what Marriott owners are used to. Because Starwood picks the deposited weeks, you don't really know what gets deposited when you deposit or when others deposit so it's not immediately obvious you'll get a summer Hawaii week even if you have a great trader. If I wanted to travel off season I may feel differently about it. I would not be surprised if Marriott retains control of the deposited II weeks for the points owners since that can be easily written in the new documents.

The issue with Starwood was that they always had the right to retain control of the II deposited weeks for units part of SVN (Starwood Vacation Network - i.e., the points system). All retail units are part of SVN as well as resale units at the mandatory resorts (Westin Maui N/S, Westin Kierland, Vistana Villages first 2 phases, Harborside and St. John phase 1). The only weeks that could use II similar to Marriott were resale units at voluntary resorts which, to keep things in perspective, is only a minority of owners (but quite a few tuggers). In fact, the original rules were written such that, for SVN owners, Starwood could deposit any week that was "comparable" to the season you owned, including a week from a different resort. So if someone wanted to deposit a Gold Harborside week, Starwood may deposit a summer Maui week instead...

About a year ago the rules changed such that now Starwood will actually deposit a week from the resort you own but applied those rules to everyone, including voluntary resale owners who are not part of SVN and cannot trade with points. As an SVN owner (I own at a mandatory resort, resale), Starwood had the right to do what they did previously because it was in the SVN documents and they probably have the right to change those rules as they did. It's even possible that the current rules are better for SVN owners because they leave the better inventory in the points system and they deposit the resort you own into II with trading power equal to the average of the season you own. Resale owners at voluntary resorts (probably 5%-10% of total owners) have a very legitimate gripe because they were never part of SVN, they never agreed to the old rules, and the new rules completely changed the way they think about exchanges as well as the inventory available to them even though they still can't use points. I'm sure Starwood thinks what they did is legal. Some owners beg to differ. Personally, I think they want to have their cake and eat it too...

The analogy to the Marriott world would be first Marriott retaining control of weeks deposited into II for points owners. If you join the points program you know the rules and agree to them. That's cool... Later though, they decide they do the same to the weeks owners who didn't convert, and siphon all that inventory to the points system (or to themselves) while giving II unreserved weeks in the same season. That wouldn't go over so well with weeks owners...

Thanks, Dan, this is a great post. As things progress with Marriott and whatever new thing is implemented, it will be interesting to see the threads here that will be similar to the ones on the Starwood board. What I find most interesting is that not all owners are in agreement - there have been quite a few posts taking the position that what's in place now offers more opportunity for truer equal exchanges, and that what people got in the past were actually up-trades. I'm all for more equitable exchanges, but sadly that does mean some will have to accept a reduced exchange value.

 

[DanCali]

So you have no problem with Marriott taking weeks 22 to 30 and converting one of those prime weeks to points every time a platinum beach owner converts just because it is legal? Marriott's blatant disregard for current owner's loss for the benefit of "points members" is irrelevant? You don't mind that 100% of the converted points inventory will be prime platinum weeks while the majority of people who don't convert will choose from 100% of the non prime in season weeks (18 to 21 and 31 to 34) that marriott left in weeks and the ever decreasing availability of prime in season weeks?

I imagine there are some state laws that protect owners from Marriott's right to do what it wants just by the mere fact it's not forbidden in the resort docs. Fredm pointed out to some, but the legalese was too much for me...

I sure would like to know the answer to this one though...

 

[RandR]

I agree with you.

The devil may be in the details. But, some details will never be known.
No developer is going to lay bare the intricate details of its inventory management.

It really comes down to whether one believes that Marriott will follow the law. Of course they will. The law protects reservation rights for deeded week owners.

As for the rest of it, each of us must decide if the benefits/drawbacks of the new (yet unexplained) system will warrant our participation. The issue that matters to most is the cost of participating in whatever is introduced. If the buy-in is free, most will give it a try no matter what it is. The rest is in the eating. That will likely take a couple of years to evaluate.

Those that bought to occupy their home resort should care less about the new program.

On the surface that seems true but if Tombo's thought that Marriott will skim the best weeks in a season for the points program, it doesn't hold. If I am not able to get school vacation weeks at my home resort because Marriott syphoned them to the points program when people converted then I have a big problem with the new system. Hopefully Marriott will set it up more like the 13/12 month rule so that it isn't too bad.

 

[RandR]

The way I think with ANYTHING related to our timeshares, is that they're ethical if they're adhering to the contracts. That's it. That's all it comes down to. If this was a thread about what I WANT them to do, I'd be demanding that they give me first choice for whatever I want! And you could do the same!

Whether or not whatever they do now or offer in the future benefits me or you or any certain percentage of owners or all owners or no owners is good for discussion, sure, but I just don't understand why we on TUG continually demand something from Marriott that they're not contractually obligated to give us. It doesn't matter if the current system works or doesn't work for us individually, and it doesn't matter if we want them to change it or not. What matters is that they CAN change things and as long as they do so legally, we can only deal with what they offer or get out.

{edited to add} But aside from that, you're making quite a few specific assumptions about how Marriott WILL handle inventory in a possible new points system, and you're asking me to agree with your premise that Marriott is planning to hurt owners based on those assumptions. How can I agree with your premise if I don't know that the assumptions are correct?

So what you are saying is that if it is legal for Marriott to take all the best weeks first when people convert to points and leave you, the weeks owner (assuming you stay with weeks), the less desirable weeks you would be fine with that since they stayed within the law? So you or others that bought direct and spent a lot of money (not a knock on direct buyers, just stating a fact) to get a specific week(s) during prime season would now say 'oh well they played by the letter of the law so I guess there's nothing I can do'? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Y-ASK]

Use the example of a beach Platinum season that has available weeks from weeks 18 to 34. If a weeks owner with a deeded week 26 or 27 refuses to convert to points, Marriott can still put his deeded week 26 or 27 into the points inventory removing it from weeks inventory when someone with a deeded week 18 converts to points. So every time a platinum owner converts to points marriott can place a week 22 to 30 into the points inventory, no matter what is on the deed, giving points all prime weeks.

I think it all depends on if they split the inventory which I think would be difficult to do and then not get caught with their hands in the cookie jar by reserving mostly prime weeks for points owners. If they allow both types of owners (Deeds and Points) the same shot at calling in and either getting a points reservation or a weeks reservation then I think the program would be considered "fair". But if there is no home resort preference period then the owner who does not convert is going to be pretty disappointed because not only would you have the same resort owners trying to reserve a prime week, you would also have all the other points owners from other resorts trying to get that prime week at your resort as well. That my friend would be what would piss me off about the whole deal. I too will wait for the details but I can't imagine that they could legally take a week 18 deed into the trust and then split out a week 27 for points owners only. Unfortunately unless they put it all in writing, no one will know for sure unless someone brings a lawsuit and they get the info. through discovery....


Y-ASK

 

[PerryM]

That huge yellow grader coming down the road is for you....

Thanks, Dan, this is a great post. As things progress with Marriott and whatever new thing is implemented, it will be interesting to see the threads here that will be similar to the ones on the Starwood board. What I find most interesting is that not all owners are in agreement - there have been quite a few posts taking the position that what's in place now offers more opportunity for truer equal exchanges, and that what people got in the past were actually up-trades. I'm all for more equitable exchanges, but sadly that does mean some will have to accept a reduced exchange value.

I believe ALL Marriott owners will have reduced exchange value - ALL.

In my case there isn't any question - I'm not going to go to Maui anymore either joining Marriott or staying with II.

I can't think of a case where ANY Marriott owner will do better than what they have now.

Sure you can combine Points from a few Gold weeks and get Platinum but kiss ANY existing "upgrades" bye bye.

This is exactly what you would expect with a sales/exchange system - Marriott "lost" lots of money for 20+ years by allowing owners to exchange upwards - that should have been their upgrades to sell.

So starting on 6/21/10 your ability to upgrade an exchange now belongs to Marriott.

What about II?

I'm assuming the 24-day rule will expire soon and my Gold week will exchange in II for a similar Gold unit. II will have the opportunity to level the playing field too.

This is going to be a great opportunity for Marriott and II to level the playing field and pocket all those lost upgrades they have been eying for 20 years.

 

[SueDonJ]

So what you are saying is that if it is legal for Marriott to take all the best weeks first when people convert to points and leave you, the weeks owner (assuming you stay with weeks), the less desirable weeks you would be fine with that since they stayed within the law? So you or others that bought direct and spent a lot of money (not a knock on direct buyers, just stating a fact) to get a specific week(s) during prime season would now say 'oh well they played by the letter of the law so I guess there's nothing I can do'? Am I understanding you correctly?

Well first, I didn't buy to get a specific week! I bought into a floating system which gets me a week in a specific season subject to the availability rules, which can change if the contracts allow it. History tells me that Marriott has changed the rules (to the detriment of certain owners) when they implemented the 12/13-mo rule, so it wouldn't come as a surprise if they do it again.

But besides that, I've already said in this thread that I don't believe the contract language will allow for Marriott to remove usage of any certain weeks from the current floating system for as long as deeds for the floating season continue to exist. Marriott cannot unilaterally remove from deeded weeks owners the opportunity to reserve any week within their season (which is not the same as owners reserving and thus removing from reservation inventory certain weeks.)

What they can do is make all reservations, weeks and points, subject to availability on a first-come-first-served basis, with priority as exists now for multi-week owners and possibly for points owners. But they don't currently correlate usage of 13-mo inventory to week numbers contained in existing deeds, so I'm not convinced that they will have to correlate usage of points inventory to the week numbers contained in the deeds that are converted or to specific weeks in the purchase inventory. Couldn't the points system be integrated that way, so that all reservations are first-come-first-served with various reservation priorities, while week numbers are simply utilized for inventory controls to prevent Marriott from overselling particular intervals as well as limiting weeks/points reservations to the number of corresponding owners? I think so.

But in the end, again, all that will matter is whether or not the system they implement is supported by the contracts.

 

[RandR]

Susan, I agree and hope that they do it the way you describe. If the points system is allocated the % of each week in the floating system that corresponds to the number of weeks converted then it would be just like the 13/12 month rule. As you say, not necessarily going to make me happy but still a fair way to do it.

As far as contract language, the new contracts can be made to say anything as long as they don't violate anything from the existing contracts. Look in your existing contract. Does it say that you are guaranteed a week in your season or a shot at each week in your season? I am not as doom and gloom as some but still don't fully trust what is going to happen.

 

[SueDonJ]

I believe ALL Marriott owners will have reduced exchange value - ALL. ...

That's not my thought at all. I own non-lockoff 3BR Hilton Head Platinum and Gold weeks. In II now I get 2BR because of severely limited 3BR inventory. Within the new points system I have some expectation of actually getting 3BR in exchange, because those owners won't have to reserve, lock-off and deposit their weeks in order to get their exchange value. Even if I choose to accept a 2BR Hawaii week (which I would consider equal exchange value to my 3BR HH,) that's still not as low as the exchange value I'm currently "enjoying" with II. There's no way that this system will give me reduced value from what I get now!