UPDATE: RCI CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - must read for all RCI members [Includes Results]

[rickandcindy23]

John,
One thing we have discussed at Twin Rivers (Philip, PA-, is on the board, too) is allowing all blue week owners to deed back their weeks as they want to bail, and then tell the current red week owners that those ten weeks per year X 26 units are our responsibility to maintain. Maybe owners will rent the weeks for $200 or something reasonable, which might soften the blow, but increasing fees by 20% for the 40 red weeks seems drastic to me. The HOA already owns about half of the blue weeks, so is it really a bad idea? I don't know.

 

[bnoble]

as we were promised on the sales tour.

Seriously? You're using *this* as your reason why RCI owes this to you?

Ummm, okay.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Seriously? You're using *this* as your reason why RCI owes this to you?

Ummm, okay.

NO! I am using the past exchange power of our blue weeks as my reason. AND this is the reason so many people are disenchanted with timeshare. They had great exchanges, and now they cannot get them again. It's how RCI is hurting timeshare. They have helped to create the need for postcard companies. People want OUT, because it isn't what it once was.

II has a great window of opportunity for any ol' week, and I want that back with RCI.

As I said, I am dumping my blue weeks.

 

[Carolinian]

The test is to look at both supply and demand across the entire year. Some areas do have very strong demand but that is overwhelmed by supply, like the red-all-year Canary Islands. Many blue weeks in the UK, for example, will still have more demand than there is supply, while hurricane season in much of the Caribbean and Florida are usually going to have an excess of supply over demand even though the weeks are designated as red.

HOA's need to evaluate two things. One is how to migrate their owners who exchange across the range of exchange companies rather than putting all of their eggs in the unreliable RCI basket. The other is to identify own-to-use markets for off season weeks. There are resorts I am familiar with in both the UK and on the OBX who have marketed to local residents, promoting the advantage of the yearround use of resort facilities. Some of these people use their actual week to exchange, which is then just icing on the cake not the main reason for owning, while others use the weeks for visits by relatives. In the UK, the developers marketed the resorts from the beginning in the local area as ''a country club that is also a timeshare''. I am also aware of a resort adjacent to a golf course on the OBX and a similar resort in the UK which have been quite successful in marketing to golfers in the off season. Other resorts have marketed based on other sports such as hunting and fishing. The key is to identify the market and then direct HOA resales in those segments. This limits ''exchange exposure'' for the HOA.

Actually they can but it isn't easy. (And I'm excluding Orlando and other areas that may have periods with down demand but always have at least a good amount of demand - they are not the problem). As already mentioned some states unfortunately require equal fees for each week so step one is to split time up or combine it so it isn't all one week to avoid those rules. Points systems can do that or RTU use models where a value is assigned rather than a straight week - anything to get a different value assigned so fees can be proportional to use/trade value.

There are some great examples of this in the Northeast I'm aware of as well as some well known resorts that have utilized RCI Points to accomplish that goal. It doesn't require points - RCI or anyone elses - but it does require effort by the resort to make things attractive to ALL owners not just those lucky or smart enough to have purchased the top demand times. I know there is a reluctance by those top owners to make changes as they currently get effectively subsidized by the poor weeks but if they look long term they are going to pay anyway OR the resort is going to go into a death spiral as fees rise and those low time owners stop paying.

It is my opinion that seasonal resorts have to act to protect themselves not depend on others to save them. Even if RCI was/is to blame, and I don't agree that they are with the exception of the horrible undercutting of rental values they should not be allowed to do with free inventory, it is still the resort Board and owners that have to take steps to maintain value for all owners or suffer the consequences. It's past the point where RCI rules and policies are going to be changed back even if it was felt the old model was sustainable - now we have to deal with things as they are today and save our resorts by treating all owners to a fair use value for the money they pay.

 

[bnoble]

NO! I am using the past exchange power of our blue weeks as my reason.

But what you have to understand---and I'm not the first to say this---is that those weeks have no intrinsic value. You are paying more in MFs than the usage time is worth. Expecting to get time in return that is worth more is irrational.

That you used to anyway is a blessing, not a promise of future performance. Essentially, you were able to because exchange was (and still is) a very inefficient "market" in the economic sense. For a variety of reasons---RCI's rental program being only one---the exchange market is becoming more efficient. That means that the ability to get something for nothing is going to disappear over time.

Edited to add: ultimately, the ability of the well-informed owner to exploit the loopholes in exchange inefficiency is slowly eroding. And, any journeyman economist will tell you that that erosion is inevitable.

 

[Pit]

John,
One thing we have discussed at Twin Rivers (Philip, PA-, is on the board, too) is allowing all blue week owners to deed back their weeks as they want to bail, and then tell the current red week owners that those ten weeks per year X 26 units are our responsibility to maintain. Maybe owners will rent the weeks for $200 or something reasonable, which might soften the blow, but increasing fees by 20% for the 40 red weeks seems drastic to me. The HOA already owns about half of the blue weeks, so is it really a bad idea? I don't know.

Since we're already way off-topic, why doesn't the HOA initiate an active rental program, or alternatively, sell the inventory in bulk to someone that's in the retail rental business (RCI?). Then, use the proceeds to reduce the burden on owners.

 

[Carolinian]

I guess if we are expected to go to war over this issue, someone needs to explain why RCI and only RCI has an obligation to support blue week owners. II has no special program for them. The independents have no special program for them. (SFX won't even take their weeks. Yes, I know that a blue week in London might qualify, but you know those are not the weeks at issue here.) So why RCI alone?

Roger, I expected you to jump in defending RCI.

The 45 day window, devised by Crystal deHaan, founder of RCI was a win / win for everyone. It marketed distressed short shelf-life inventory for RCI, it gave value to off season weeks which benefited the resorts, and it gave broader options to off season owners. RCI promoted this in the materials they provided to developers which were used in sales, and also promoted it in their directory and magazines, and buyers and resorts depended on this. That does give them some obligation.

I have never been a member of II, but I do believe that they also have a program of lifting normal trading power restrictions on short shelf life inventory.

As to independents, most will indeed accept blue weeks, and give them value. SFX is an exception, of course. That is one big reason that resorts need to start actively migrating their owners across a range of exchange companies.

 

[Carolinian]

But, distressed last minute inventory is NOT intrinsically worth more. Last minute inventory is devalued whether from a trading power standpoint as a last minute deposit, rental price (compare Last Call to Extra Vacations), or as a week taken as an exchange. What it was formerly worth when it still had a long shelf life is totally and competely irrelevent at that point.

When timesharing was largely a closed system, and one had to be an owner to play, these weeks had a value of at least their m/f in most cases. It is the shift to the massive rental system, ending the exclusivity of timesharing that has changed the equation, and it is RCI that did that.

But what you have to understand---and I'm not the first to say this---is that those weeks have no intrinsic value. You are paying more in MFs than the usage time is worth. Expecting to get time in return that is worth more is irrational.

That you used to anyway is a blessing, not a promise of future performance. Essentially, you were able to because exchange was (and still is) a very inefficient "market" in the economic sense. For a variety of reasons---RCI's rental program being only one---the exchange market is becoming more efficient. That means that the ability to get something for nothing is going to disappear over time.

Edited to add: ultimately, the ability of the well-informed owner to exploit the loopholes in exchange inefficiency is slowly eroding. And, any journeyman economist will tell you that that erosion is inevitable.

 

[stevedmatt]

That wouldn't be fair to high season owners. Maintenance costs are the same whether you own during high season or low season, so why should a high season owner subsidize a low season owner's maintenance fee?

A couple of thoughts I have about this. I own a blue week at a small 30 unit Maryland beach resort. Maryland has a law that you can't have different MF for different weeks so unless that changes, nothing can be done about it. But from a purely MF perspective, in high season every unit is usually full with the occupancy close to the max 6 persons per unit. There is more traffic to and from the beach bringing wet sandy clothes and beach peraphernalia in and out, wearing out the bathtubs, washing machines, carpets, vacuum cleaners faster. There is also running the dishwasher more often, using the balcony furniture, requiring monitoring of the parking lot to ensure non guest aren't parking.

During my winter week I can't remember when there were more than 6 out of 30 checking in for the week. I can't remember when there were more than 3 units who stayed beyond Monday or Tuesday to check out on Friday. Occasionally there would be 1 RCI exchange (Maybe a last call, maybe a skyauction. I doubt they paid more than $200 for the week.) It's usually groups of 2-4 that come off season; a couple or a family with small children. We don't usually run the dishwasher or the clothes washer/dryer more than once. We don't usually use all the beds and we never sit out on the balcony. The unused units don't need additonal housekeeping. I certainly think an off season discount of $30-$50 a week would be justified.

My resort keeps fees down for everyone but when you have 144 HOA owned units&delinquencies (104 blue, 24 white, and 16 red- and RCI is generous with the red and white designation because only 1 available red week would be considered high time) and everyone has to make up for the delinquencies and HOA units and winter weeks rent for 1/2 MF and prime weeks rent for 2X MF- the blue weeks will be further tempted to walk and then high season can have the fun or paying for the expenses for all the seasons. I think cutting the lower season some kind of break might keep them from walking.

Tracey

I really agree with Tracey here. Add to the above comments, air conditioning costs and pool maintenance costs.

As a shoulder season owner who visits when the pool is closed, I really do feel I shouldn't have to pay the same as a high season owner who runs the AC and gets to swim in a heated pool. The cost associated with such are very high. In a large unit (1000 sq. ft.+), AC in a warm climate could cost $100 for the week in electricity, not to mention the service fees to have the AC maintained. And for those unaware, pool costs are also very high. Someone has to check the PH and bacteria levels daily as well as clean the filters and keep the deck clean. At many places that provide towels, there is also the cost to launder them.

I actually think this would be location and resort specific, but I could easily see a variation of $150-200 for a week.

 

[crazyhorse]

Something for nothing

(and your drinks for free). Apologies to Dire Straits.

Message from the Sales Team?

Let me explain the advantage of buying this off season week at this beautiful resort. First, they are cheaper to buy than the Red weeks. You can still use RCI to exchange these weeks if you want to.

Yes, but I will only be able to exchange into undesirable weeks.

No, RCI has a special arrangement that 45 days out you can get any week that is left in the Exchange Pool.

What! any week?

Yes, Red weeks, even larger units then this one. You have to realise though that you will still have to pay the same maintenance fees as the owner of a high season holiday week at this resort.

That`s a bit unfair isn`t it?

Well you pay the same rates throughout the year, back home, don`t you? And this 45 day advantage gets you into our beautiful resort at a discount.

Well if you put it that way, I`ve got nothing to lose. But first can I trust that RCI will honour this option in the future?

Nothing is certain in life, but RCI has been operating for decades now, it is the largest timeshare company in the world and treats its members in a very responsible manner.

OK I`m almost convinced, but What do RCI get out of this 45 day rule?

Oh, the weeks didn`t cost them anything in the first place. And if you don`t give them an exchange fee for them, they can always rent them out.
Top your glass up sir?


:hysterical:

 

[Jennie]

Don't use Orlando as an example, because you know RCI rents those off-season weeks for less than $200 for a 2 bedroom week. I resent that someone else gets the same thing I get for exchange, and all they have to pay is $200.

What's even more infuriating is that weeks rented to the public through RCI's Endless Vacations web site can be canceled within 24 (or is it 48?) hours before the scheduled check-in time and receive a full refund. If they wish to arrange for a guest certificate, guess what the cost is--FREE.

Meanwhile, if an RCI member cancels a confirmed exchange reservation, they forfeit the entire exchange fee ($144. and up) NEW RULE as of last month. Also, the trade value of the re-deposited week is recalculated as if it were being deposited on the cancellation date for the first time. Oh, but not to worry. Cancellation insurance can be purchased for $69.. But it must be purchased within the 30 day period following the exchange confirmation, so this would not be available for a trade made within the the 29 days prior to the check-in date, assuming anything is available at that time.

Oh, and don't forget there will be a $59. fee if you, an RCI member, want to obtain a guest certificate.

Bottom line: "Membership has its privileges." You, the RCI member, have the privilege of paying exorbitant prices compared to what John Q. Public is charged.

 

[Jennie]

I don't have a weeks account, but I see a lot of good stuff available for 7500 points. Can I assume that those same weeks are available to weeks members without trading power limitations? If so, there's still some sort of a "last minute" window on the weeks side.

Nope, the weeks that are pfd'd to Points are no longer visible or available through a member's Weeks account.

 

[PerryM]

Just leave him!! Jeeze...

(I am not making light of the very serious problem of spousal abuse in the following post - it's just for illustration purposes only)

At least once a week, every week, the cop shows I watch on TV have a spousal abuse episode that always has me thinking back to you guys and RCI.

You know the typical situation - the cops arrive to a 911 domestic disturbance call and get in between the two folks screaming and hitting each other. The arguments continue and the result is just about always the same - the police become the target of the couple's rage and are kicked out.

Me; I keep screaming at the TV - just leave the guy - Jeeze.

RCI has amply demonstrated that it intends to abuse you, the customer.

And what do you the customer do? You place a 911 call to the lawyers and courts and what is the final result? You know - you go right back to RCI and beg to be abused again.

To those of you who seem to delight in being abused by RCI - "Just leave the guy" - Jeeze...

(This is my last post on this subject since I know I'll see you guys again - calling 911 and begging the courts to meddle in RCI's business and for you to be abused once again)

Happy holiday season to all - I'm spending the holidays in II exchanges where I abused the II system - that's how it's supposed to work if you use them...

 

[jerseygirl]

Perry -- I don't think anyone on this board called the attorneys. Some of us attempted to work with the cards we were dealt with. Your broad strokes are a little too wide, as usual.

 

[Carolinian]

Actually, a Tugger was the lead plaintiff in one of the original cases. I had several emails from him during the early part of the case. The class action lawyers told him to quit posting on t/s sites and then to quit exchanging emails with members of t/s sites. The Tugger involved was passionate about the issue and I was really suprised he sat still for what this shyster lawyer did in this case.

As I have said for years, the place to challenge this in court was with a state Attorney General consumer protection lawsuit, not a class action.

 

[jerseygirl]

I stand corrected. However, it still doesn't change my point that Perry is blaming the very people posting NOW who tried to work with the situation as given, none of whom had anything to do with filing the original lawsuit.

 

[jmama]

What's even more infuriating is that weeks rented to the public through RCI's Endless Vacations web site can be canceled within 24 (or is it 48?) hours before the scheduled check-in time and receive a full refund. If they wish to arrange for a guest certificate, guess what the cost is--FREE.

Meanwhile, if an RCI member cancels a confirmed exchange reservation, they forfeit the entire exchange fee ($144. and up) NEW RULE as of last month. Also, the trade value of the re-deposited week is recalculated as if it were being deposited on the cancellation date for the first time. Oh, but not to worry. Cancellation insurance can be purchased for $69.. But it must be purchased within the 30 day period following the exchange confirmation, so this would not be available for a trade made within the the 29 days prior to the check-in date, assuming anything is available at that time.

Oh, and don't forget there will be a $59. fee if you, an RCI member, want to obtain a guest certificate.

Bottom line: "Membership has its privileges." You, the RCI member, have the privilege of paying exorbitant prices compared to what John Q. Public is charged.

It is infuriating to me, no doubt about that. I appreciate all the efforts by Susan, Jennie, et al. on this case, and I think they did make a significant difference.

It is odd that RCI wants to a choose a model that eventually destroys their own business, i.e. who will deposit for exchange when the exchange pool is raided. Or, maybe they are just relying on non-tuggers who may just keep depositing even though they can NOT get a decent trade. If you choose not to rent from RCI because you feel RCI is cheating owners, I respect that choice. However, I also get irritated by some ridiculous tax breaks for some arbitrary reason, but I'm certainly not going to turn those down. I hope we can start a new thread of how to take advantage of the rentals ourselves since we are stuck with them.

So, in response to this note, where is this mysterious site where you rent from RCI as anonymous public and get a better deal. I might as well search there if it is the same company and cheaper....

 

[rickandcindy23]

This is why independently run and managed timeshares (not the big companies) need to tell owners to vote with their weeks and deposit them with other companies. There are so many great choices out there. Want to go to Hawaii but never could with RCI? Try TP Maui, Trading Places, or HTSE. All have inventory that is expiring soon. There are Hawaii weeks that are going to waste on those sites, almost daily.

It is infuriating to me, no doubt about that. I appreciate all the efforts by Susan, Jennie, et al. on this case, and I think they did make a significant difference.

It is odd that RCI wants to a choose a model that eventually destroys their own business, i.e. who will deposit for exchange when the exchange pool is raided. Or, maybe they are just relying on non-tuggers who may just keep depositing even though they can NOT get a decent trade. If you choose not to rent from RCI because you feel RCI is cheating owners, I respect that choice. However, I also get irritated by some ridiculous tax breaks for some arbitrary reason, but I'm certainly not going to turn those down. I hope we can start a new thread of how to take advantage of the rentals ourselves since we are stuck with them.

So, in response to this note, where is this mysterious site where you rent from RCI as anonymous public and get a better deal. I might as well search there if it is the same company and cheaper....

 

[bnoble]

where is this mysterious site where you rent from RCI as anonymous public and get a better deal.

http://www.wyndham-vacations.com

It's a subset of the stuff available for rent at rci.com, for the most part---and usually priced a little bit higher than rci.com's prices.

 

[beejaybee]

http://www.wyndham-vacations.com

It's a subset of the stuff available for rent at rci.com, for the most part---and usually priced a little bit higher than rci.com's prices.

I disagree. Extra Vacations 2 bedroom for $690-Endless (Wyndham) Vacations 3 bedroom same resort & time for $530. No brainer for me which to book!

Plus that cancellation policy that Endless offers would compensate (IMHO) for the "bit higher" price that might on occasion be quoted on Endless.

 

[bnoble]

Hence "for the most part" and "usually", as opposed to say "always".

The cancellation terms are better externally though.

 

[crazyhorse]

Directory Changes

Not really sure where this should appear but there have been significant changes in the On-line Resort directory. The directory used to show only bona-fide timeshares.

Now, depending on the country, many other units are included. These can go from non-timeshare camping sites up through wooden lodges and up to hotel suites in cities.

For instance, the on-line directory for England now has 614 resorts (including private houses converted to apartments). The current RCI catalogue Directory of Resorts 2008/9 has only 49 resorts.

Similarly, Ireland has 50 resorts (6 in the catalogue), Spain 162 (106), France 152 (58), Italy 205 (112).

I await to see what will happen when I try for an exchange holiday as to what is offered. I am not decrying the new entries, they may be very good options, but they are not timeshare.

Will the new entries have any implications for the settlement?


Besides, can the RCI software cope?

 

[Carolinian]

Some of those new ''resorts'' that show up turn out to be trailer parks.

Not really sure where this should appear but there have been significant changes in the On-line Resort directory. The directory used to show only bona-fide timeshares.

Now, depending on the country, many other units are included. These can go from non-timeshare camping sites up through wooden lodges and up to hotel suites in cities.

For instance, the on-line directory for England now has 614 resorts (including private houses converted to apartments). The current RCI catalogue Directory of Resorts 2008/9 has only 49 resorts.

Similarly, Ireland has 50 resorts (6 in the catalogue), Spain 162 (106), France 152 (58), Italy 205 (112).

I await to see what will happen when I try for an exchange holiday as to what is offered. I am not decrying the new entries, they may be very good options, but they are not timeshare.

Will the new entries have any implications for the settlement?


Besides, can the RCI software cope?

 

[crazyhorse]

Carolinian:

quote "Some of those new ''resorts'' that show up turn out to be trailer parks."

In England, trailers can be anything pulled by a truck (lorry), but I know what you mean-we call your trailers, "caravans".

With a trailer park, at least you would expect to have that park listed in the directory as one individual resort. But what RCI has done is to list individual trailers as "resorts".

These new resorts can be a single house, on its own, perhaps owned by one individual. The units may also be part of a group of properties, but each one is listed as a seperate resort.

For instance, resort BH05 is number 1 Lakeview Cottage, whereas resort BH06 is number 2 Lakeview Cottage. These are identical units on the same site, in a group of 5. RCI does state this. Why have them listed seperately? They are thus given the same coverage as say resort 2932 Barnsdale, a Gold Crown resort with 49 units.

The procedure clearly swells the number of resorts tenfold for England, but for what purpose?

 

[Laurie]

The procedure clearly swells the number of resorts tenfold for England, but for what purpose?

To create the illusion that "the possibilities are endless" ...

Most of these have had only one deposit ever, and were for rental only, and very off-season at that.

How I know? Recently I had 2 European confirmation cancellations, resulting in a specialist being assigned to me, who asked me to make a list of all acceptable substitutions, so theoretically I'd have first crack.

I painstaking went thru their entire directory and made a list of lots of those. She looked up each of their histories and related what I said above, including details on *when* the rental was for - at some point I stopped even reading them off to her because an exchange would never happen. Even a rental for a specific week in shoulder season would probably never happen.

I agree it's weird, because that's a lot of work for their data entry folks for one measly rental - unless they're building it up for future rentals thru all their subsets, which is probably the answer to your question.