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

[Carolinian]

Susan, you have hit the nail on the head to the solution if the lawsuit doesn't work. RCI used to be a vital partner of resort affiliates, and each had mutually beneficial policies. After Cendent took over RCI, they have gradually been planting a knife in the back of their resort affiliates. Their changes in the exchange mechanisms are already causing bailouts by exchanger owners for HOA's and it is only going to get worse. HOA's need to start now in actively migrating their exchanger members to other exchange programs, and they need to do that for their own survival.

The ''exclusive'' provisions of the RCI (and II) contracts violate anti-monopoly laws and would certainly not be enforced. Indeed, in reality, if a resort with such a clause wants to dual affiliate, as a practical matter, the new exchange company asks the resort to get a waiver from the existing exchange affiliate, which is freely granted.

All of us in RCI-only resorts should be insisting to our resorts that they immediately dual affiliate with II and spead the word on independent exchange companies. Even better, we could take the action that the Seasons chain in Europe did, and completely jump ship from RCI to II and tell members the whole sordid story of how points and rentals is destroying the RCI exchange system, just as Seasons did in their newsletter.

Wow! I used to consider myself cynical. I am bested, however, and I admit it.

First of all, who says RCI "failed"? Cendant would not have bought it if it wasn't a going concern! That, too, is the way of the business world. And Cendant decided they could milk it (us!) even further to make greater profits.

So why shouldn't another company step in and take over what RCI used to do? One reason is that RCI has a "exclusive" contract with most of its affiliated resorts, but it is unlikely that such a contract clause would be enforced. But the real point of including such clauses isn't to enforce them; it's to intimidate the other parties from getting to that point. Works well, too, for the most part. But at some point, someone pushes the issue. Eventually.

This, too, will come to pass.

 

[Jennie]

Even better, we could take the action that the Seasons chain in Europe did, and completely jump ship from RCI to II and tell members the whole sordid story of how points and rentals is destroying the RCI exchange system, just as Seasons did in their newsletter.

Is there a way we can obtain a copy of this newsletter? Is the article posted anywhere on the Internet where we could read it and print it out? It is so germaine to the issues being litigated in the RCI class action lawsuit.

The average timeshare owner is oblivious to how RCI operates, and they have a vested interst in learning. It must be even more difficult for a Federal Judge to grasp all the nuances, especially when the plaintiffs have been doing such a poor job of fighting for meaningful change.

Reading an article prepared by a major European chain fed up with RCI's nonsense could shed much needed light on this complex subject.

 

["Roger"]

Long post (sorry) ...

Jennie,

I would love to see the original article by the head of Seasons myself, out of historical interest. As far as I know, the only way that you will find it is if someone copied it and saved it on their hard drive.

Just so that you know, the whole history of the Seasons and its relationship with RCI is tangled. I am admittedly fuzzy on parts of it (and willing accept amendments and corrections to this post), but here is what I recall ...

Carolinian is correct - when Points was created, the Seasons pulled out of RCI and the President (or some such officer) blasted the program in a newsletter to owners. The story of the Seasons gets more complicated, however.

They not only pulled of RCI, but refused to allow anyone with an existing reservation via RCI to use the unit that they had reserved. At the time, Crimeshare (no friend of RCI) claimed that the real reason that the Seasons pulled out (and why RCI didn't try to sue them for breach of contract) was that they were broke. There were many posts in Crimeshare about the disreputable practices of the Seasons and how some of their employees were not being paid. Then again, all this might well be false in that the person who ran Crimeshare was successfully sued for libel (not by the Seasons).

Getting back to the Seasons themselves, there were articles in British newspapers about how owners of units at the Seasons resorts who bought their units prior to the Seasons takeover of the resorts were unhappy in that the Seasons was denying some sort of basic use of their units (fuzzy here) unless they joined the Seasons vacation club.

Ultimately, matters took another turn in that the Seasons added Clowance Estates to their vacation club. Clowance was and still is a RCI Points resort. (There must have been at least some sort of kiss and make up.) The Seasons also has some sort of alliance with GeoHolidays - a vacation club whose US affiliations are a sizable number of RCI resorts.

As best as I can remember, the dissatisfaction (very heated) with the RCI Points program expressed in the newsletter was that outsiders in Points were going to be able to get into a Seasons resort for too little. The Seasons resorts were going to be undervalued.

What do I personally make of all this? Personally (obviously opinion), the whole business exemplifies to me how sordid and murky timesharing is. It is not a clean industry (and not because of the existence of Points - it has always been a nasty industry). While the Seasons was probably on the financial edge, I suspect (opinion again) that was not the real reason for the Seasons pullout. Rather, the Seasons was trying to establish a points based vacation club and felt betrayed that RCI was setting up a competing alternative. Worldmark (points) and Bluegreen (points) pulled out at about the same time and I suspect for the same reason (they did not want something competing with their own points program). The Seasons did so too, but in a more stormy fashion.

Finally, Googling the Seasons is not easy. Their webpage is under Seasonsholidays. Likewise, if you want to learn more about GeoHolidays that is the name to look for.

 

[Carolinian]

The newsletter was online for a year or so on the Seasons website, then cycled off. Unfortunately I did not think to save a copy on my computer, and I had tried to print it a time or two but the online version was not printer friendly. If I had known it would cycle off as newer issues of the newsletter came out, I would certainly have saved it.

Your best bet to find a copy is probably to contact Seasons and ask if they can provide you with one. They probably have it in some format.

Another possibility is that someone at the Timeshare Consumers Association may have saved a copy. They tend to keep up with things pretty closely in the timeshare world in the UK.

Someone at another one of the exchange companies may also have saved a copy for their own purposes, and that might be another source.

As to Crimeshare, the only ''success'' in the liable suit was establishing that a TCA leader was the manager of the site before the case was dismissed. It never made it to being heard on the merits. The counterattack on Seasons in Crimeshare could have originated anywhere, since much of their material was anonymous. There was a fair amount of solid information on Crimeshare but also some that one had to take with a grain of salt.

As far as Seasons being ''broke'', they are still in business. Indeed I have an exchange, arranged through DAE, into one of their resorts for next year.

The Seasons article took aim at two distinct issues. One was the interface between Points and Weeks, and the second was the Rentals. They were hard on RCI on both seperate issues, and even cited a number as to how many rentals from the spacebank RCI was doing at that very early stage of their rental game, which was before RCI had even opened many of the rental channels they are now using.

Is there a way we can obtain a copy of this newsletter? Is the article posted anywhere on the Internet where we could read it and print it out? It is so germaine to the issues being litigated in the RCI class action lawsuit.

The average timeshare owner is oblivious to how RCI operates, and they have a vested interst in learning. It must be even more difficult for a Federal Judge to grasp all the nuances, especially when the plaintiffs have been doing such a poor job of fighting for meaningful change.

Reading an article prepared by a major European chain fed up with RCI's nonsense could shed much needed light on this complex subject.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Pouring Cold Water On R. C. I. Points.

While the Seasons was probably on the financial edge, I suspect (opinion again) that was not the real reason for the Seasons pullout. Rather, the Seasons was trying to establish a points based vacation club and felt betrayed that RCI was setting up a competing alternative.

I am sure you're right that timeshare companies hate competition -- specially on-site competition.

That's why I doubt my Orlando timeshares, which both are part of the DRI "club" chain & which both are cross-affiliated with both RCI & I-I, will ever move to RCI Points.

DRI's "club" operates on its own internal proprietary points system & surely would not welcome RCI's points system operating right alongside DRI's.

Although DRI does not call the shots at those owner-controlled timeshares, DRI nevertheless is Developer Of Record & as such is represented on the HOA-BODs. No doubt they will be able to make a persuasive case why RCI Points is a bad idea if either HOA-BOD ever considers taking the points plunge.

Full Disclosure: I have no reason to believe (or even suspect) that anybody on either of the 2 owner-controlled HOA-BODs is interested in going with RCI Points.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a quick note.

You are pointing a far too rosy picture of how the Hawaiian owners were treated. When you tried to use the bonus weeks, the only things available was left over inventory. The same inventory was available to every RCI member under some other program (I forgot the name) that allowed them to buy the very same weeks for under $200. By the time the Hawaiian owner paid the exchange fee, what the bonus weeks amounted to was about a $75 ot $100 discount on junk inventory.

I disagree, Roger. I joined RCI in 2000. The bonus weeks used to trade like blue weeks, and I tried it and it worked. I used the first bonus week for Sedona (Sunterra Sedona Summit) for Easter. I had the choice of a 1BR or a studio. I used an actual blue week for the 1BR, and the bonus week for the connecting studio. The second trade I made on the bonus weeks was for a 2BR on the Big Island of Hawaii (Waikoloa), Paniolo Greens. (Also a second unit.)

Then, suddenly, the bonus weeks were worth nothing. I called RCI to complain about the downgrading of the bonus week, and basically was told it was all in my imagination and that, contrary to the prior representations of the RCI Vacation "counselors" as they were then called, the bonus weeks "never" traded as well as blue weeks. I got nowhere that way, so I wrote to the CEO. In response, I got a call from an RCI person who pretty much accused me of suborning the RCI vacation counselors! (AS IF! How DOES one do that?) She took away the bonus trade and made me book it immediately on a regular week or lose it. She claimed she had no supervisor to talk to. So I wrote another letter. RCI denied they had any such person working for them or any such department! (Like they couldn't trace who did the transaction???!!!)

I would be interested to hear from people who traded bonus weeks prior to 2000. Most of what I've heard is similar to my experience.

 

[Carolinian]

There were also some posts on the old TUG board that at least at one time, a European RCI member trading into North Amercia with a European deposit was given two weeks for one.

I disagree, Roger. I joined RCI in 2000. The bonus weeks used to trade like blue weeks, and I tried it and it worked. I used the first bonus week for Sedona (Sunterra Sedona Summit) for Easter. I had the choice of a 1BR or a studio. I used an actual blue week for the 1BR, and the bonus week for the connecting studio. The second trade I made on the bonus weeks was for a 2BR on the Big Island of Hawaii (Waikoloa), Paniolo Greens. (Also a second unit.)

Then, suddenly, the bonus weeks were worth nothing. I called RCI to complain about the downgrading of the bonus week, and basically was told it was all in my imagination and that, contrary to the prior representations of the RCI Vacation "counselors" as they were then called, the bonus weeks "never" traded as well as blue weeks. I got nowhere that way, so I wrote to the CEO. In response, I got a call from an RCI person who pretty much accused me of suborning the RCI vacation counselors! (AS IF! How DOES one do that?) She took away the bonus trade and made me book it immediately on a regular week or lose it. She claimed she had no supervisor to talk to. So I wrote another letter. RCI denied they had any such person working for them or any such department! (Like they couldn't trace who did the transaction???!!!)

I would be interested to hear from people who traded bonus weeks prior to 2000. Most of what I've heard is similar to my experience.

 

["Roger"]

Susan,

In the end, we will just disagree on this one based upon our own experiences.

My experience using bonus weeks was prior to 2000. One typical example was that I called (there was no online at the time) and asked for something in Arizona during August. While this was a request for summer, given that it was Arizona where luxury hotels were renting rooms for around $70, I thought that this request might have a chance. The VC checked her computers for a while and finally came back and told me that the best she could find was a week in Brownsville (yes, Brownsville Texas) for October.

At the time, there were many cries for help on TUG from people who had bonus weeks and could not find anything. What I describe in my prior post is what they were told by others (not myself).

I am glad that you had a better experience, but it was certainly different from mine.

PS - I just pulled out my original bonus certificate and here and some of the suggested trades "subject to availability":

Western Canada: Jan, Oct, Nov, Dec (My bet is that Whistler as a ski week was not one of the things subject to availability, but I can't prove it.)
New England, Vermont, New Hampshire: Apr, May Nov, Dec
Virginia Williamsburg: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, Oct, Nov, Dec (Worth mentioning because Williamsburg used to be one of the areas at the top of the list as overbuilt. It was not overbuilt for summer months. In fact, owners of summer months were given bonus certificates.)

The better stuff that I see (subject to availability, of course) is Cape Cod during the Winter, Lake Tahoe Sep thru Dec, West Central Florida (Orlando, I presume, another classic overbuilt area) during the off season months. Interestingly, Mazatlan and Tenefife were listed year around.

I go back to the fact that all this stuff was also available to the regular membership through another program, but they needed to pay somewhere between $75 to $100 more. That, in my mind, was the real worth of the bonus program.

 

[Carolinian]

Susan and Jennie, I really suggest you post over on the www.timeshareforums.com board. There are some regulars over there who systematically search certain areas who might be good sources of information. One has even posted that he tried to offer his records of searches to the attorneys of record and was met with disinterest. The message on what is going on with the lawsuit needs to get out as widely as possible. Some of us post both here and there, but many concentrate on just one site or the other.

 

[Mel]

I agree, Melanie, that a "points" system would be a fairer system than the current "weeks" system, if it were honestly handled. However, the problems with the original points programs are legion.

One huge problem is that the Points values for weeks resorts were absurdly weighted in favor of Points resorts and against "weeks" resorts. I can give you a personal example: My resort in Arkansas went to Points, and my 1BR week 50 (SOLIDLY "BLUE" time) was assigned a value of 23,500. Yes, it's a Gold Crown resort, but it's also the week BEFORE Xmas. (Not the most popular vacation time!).

I agree that there is an issue of the balance between Points and Weeks. If RCI wanted a generic grid for weeks resorts, the values should have been an average of values assigned to similar points resorts. It is obvious that part of the reason for this was to allow for more points when a resort affiliated. The idea was probably that owners using PFD would encourage their resorts the affiliate to have access to those points. But then the developer saw a goldmine in conversions, and quashed that idea.

The other problem I see with Points is that RCI tried to make it work for alternate types of services: hotels, airfares, rental cars, etc. IMO, this was a really bad business decision, founded in the greed of company executives all over the travel industry (who wanted to take entirely free vacations and could only do that if their companies offered all the products), and will haunt RCI for years to come. The economy went south soon after that. Already, RCI has had to vastly scale back the number of points that can be used on such alternatives, and the actual value received on "points partners" has become pitiful.

In doing this, RCI was trying to make their system similar to the various other loyalty programs in the travel industry - the problem for RCI was that they had to purchase the inventory to satisfy the requests, rather than trade with other programs. Even so, the value of those services for points was no worse than using frequent flyer miles other than for flights - not a great deal, but if you have points that are going to expire, you used them for something rather than nothing. The problems is that frequent flyer miles don't really have a set value because they were earned as loyalty rewards, while RCI points are paid for with maintenance fees, and DO have a moneytary cost/value.

None of that means that Points could not be used to equalize trades, though. Let's face it, when RCI was founded, there were no seasonal or quality (Gold Crown, Silver Crown) variations. (Just like TPI works now.) Used appropriately, with fair values assigned, it would be a superior system. (And BTW, I think that instead of constant re-rating the resorts, there could be "sales" now and then -- just like EVERY industry uses to unload inventory that proved to be less popular than predicted.)

While the points values assigned to resorts might not start out fair, over time RCI would need to adjust them. As Carolinian loves to point out, the BIS resorts were valued poorly. But if exchangers don't see the value in paying more points for a certain property, they won't spend the points, and RCI is left with excess inventory, as well as excess outstanding points. Further, if they undervalue a resort, the demand will be that much greater, and owners are less likely to deposit them because they want more points. It is in RCI's best interest to balance the equation by assigning a point value where the number of deposits approximates the demand at the same value.

Perhaps part of the issue is that developers are claiming to sell "points" packages based on the number of points, when in reality they are selling an underlying ownership that is currently valued at a certain number of points. This is not the same as developers selling packages in their own points programs, where they can in fact sell pure points.

 

[Carolinian]

The reason for all the imbalances whether in Points or Weeks is to generate ''excess'' inventory for rental. The key is to get the rental conflict of interest out of the equation.

What is wrong with the points partner concept is that it requires rentals of timeshares to purchase those items. It is much better to cut out points partners to help cut out the rentals.

Also the whole points concept is based on timesharing primarily being based on exchangers, while the reality many places is that the majority of members own to use. A point or some number of points is an absolutely useless concept to an own-to-use timesharer. On the OBX, own to use timesharers outnumber exchangers over two to one, while at resorts I have traded into recently in Germany and France, the managers have told me that exchangers are an even smaller part of their member base.

I agree that there is an issue of the balance between Points and Weeks. If RCI wanted a generic grid for weeks resorts, the values should have been an average of values assigned to similar points resorts. It is obvious that part of the reason for this was to allow for more points when a resort affiliated. The idea was probably that owners using PFD would encourage their resorts the affiliate to have access to those points. But then the developer saw a goldmine in conversions, and quashed that idea.

In doing this, RCI was trying to make their system similar to the various other loyalty programs in the travel industry - the problem for RCI was that they had to purchase the inventory to satisfy the requests, rather than trade with other programs. Even so, the value of those services for points was no worse than using frequent flyer miles other than for flights - not a great deal, but if you have points that are going to expire, you used them for something rather than nothing. The problems is that frequent flyer miles don't really have a set value because they were earned as loyalty rewards, while RCI points are paid for with maintenance fees, and DO have a moneytary cost/value.

While the points values assigned to resorts might not start out fair, over time RCI would need to adjust them. As Carolinian loves to point out, the BIS resorts were valued poorly. But if exchangers don't see the value in paying more points for a certain property, they won't spend the points, and RCI is left with excess inventory, as well as excess outstanding points. Further, if they undervalue a resort, the demand will be that much greater, and owners are less likely to deposit them because they want more points. It is in RCI's best interest to balance the equation by assigning a point value where the number of deposits approximates the demand at the same value.

Perhaps part of the issue is that developers are claiming to sell "points" packages based on the number of points, when in reality they are selling an underlying ownership that is currently valued at a certain number of points. This is not the same as developers selling packages in their own points programs, where they can in fact sell pure points.

 

[AwayWeGo]

No Need Putting The Cart In Front Of The Horse.

The reason for all the imbalances whether in Points or Weeks is to generate ''excess'' inventory for rental. The key is to get the rental conflict of interest out of the equation.

If I were setting out to rip off members by renting out the choicest weeks, I'd just go ahead & do that without bothering to generate excess inventory in advance.

I'd just point to all the dogs & cats nobody wanted & say I've Got Your Excess Inventory Right Here (or words to that effect).

On the OBX, own to use timesharers outnumber exchangers over two to one, while at resorts I have traded into recently in Germany and France, the managers have told me that exchangers are an even smaller part of their member base.

In cases like that, the exchange companies are pretty much irrelevant, points & weeks mox nix.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[Mel]

Also the whole points concept is based on timesharing primarily being based on exchangers, while the reality many places is that the majority of members own to use. A point or some number of points is an absolutely useless concept to an own-to-use timesharer.

Not necessarily. Points are the next logical step following floating weeks, and also a way to balance the costs of running a seasonal resort.

For some resorts, you can justify charging the same fee to the blue week owner as the red week owner. But in others, the blue weeks just can't come close in value to the red weeks. If you use a fixed week system, or even a floating week system, in most cases all owners still pay the same fees (and in some resorts, all unit sizes still pay the same fees).

Floating weeks and points also have benefits to families, many of whom cannot always travel the same week every year. Yes, many do, but many others cannot, and flexibility allows for a product suited to a larger client base. I would be glad to pick a home resort to visit each year during spring vacation - but the dates change each year. I would love to travel on the 4th of July every year, but you can bet DH can't get it off every single year, other people want that week too.

Besides, RCI is an exchange company. It does not exist to service those owners who choose to use their own unit-week. If exists to facilitate the exchange of timeshare ownerships. Perhaps the smartest move on RCI's part would be to eliminate the weeks program entirely, and move EVERYONE over to points. When you choose to deposit your week, you will be told the value in points, and have a set amount of time to exercise that deposit, or that number can change (if you haven't paid you fees yet, you risk it changing before you can deposit). When you wish to make an exchange, you are told the going price for the week you want, with the system remaining dynamic as it is with week currently. Of course anyone who paid to convert will be unhappy, as will the developers, who will lose a revenue source.

 

[timeos2]

They should bite the bullet and go 100% Points. Period

Perhaps the smartest move on RCI's part would be to eliminate the weeks program entirely, and move EVERYONE over to points. When you choose to deposit your week, you will be told the value in points, and have a set amount of time to exercise that deposit, or that number can change (if you haven't paid you fees yet, you risk it changing before you can deposit). When you wish to make an exchange, you are told the going price for the week you want, with the system remaining dynamic as it is with week currently. Of course anyone who paid to convert will be unhappy, as will the developers, who will lose a revenue source.

Absolutely! "Weeks" is already a points system but it's one that doesn't reveal the values OR give owners a chance to decide how to use the points. Switching the whole thing over to Points would be a great move and would solve the never ending issue of the inflexible and unsustainable week for week model (for the reasons given above & many times in the past).

But the unfortunate decision to allow charges of up to $3000 or more to "convert" - when the actual cost was $200 - poisoned the switch. They should still do it wholesale BUT how would they handle those that got ripped off for thousands of dollars while others paid $200 or nothing? What a mess but not as bad as the flawed and unworkable weeks system. Get rid of it.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Re-Gruntling The Disgruntled.

BUT how would they handle those that got ripped off for thousands of dollars while others paid $200 or nothing?

When Erols Video Club went to free memberships after charging all previous members $50 or so to join, the company faced a similar problem because all their existing members had paid to join while all the new members were joining freebies.

So to all the old members, Erols send coupon booklets good for 10 or so free video rentals -- more as a goodwill gesture to the old members than as anything actually equalizing the equation. Even so, the gesture was appreciated & (far as I know) there was minimum grumbling from old members.

Maybe RCI could offer something similar to Points members who paid big bux for conversion before the system changed over to free or nominal-charge points-conversion (like that's actually going to happen) -- say a coupon booklet good for 10 or so exchanges at $45 each instead of the going rate for exchange fees, or some such.

Wouldn't that be something ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[Carolinian]

You don't seem to know the history of points if you call it a ''next step''. In reality, Weeks is the younger system, and largely shut down the older points timeshare concept when it came out. The very first timeshare developer was Hapimag, a Swiss company, which has always been points based. Soon, a rival French developer came out with the Weeks concept to compete with Hapimag's points. The market clearly prefered the newer Weeks concept and it quickly eclipsed points, although Hapimag kept plugging away and is still in business. It was the more popular Weeks concept that crossed the Atlantic.

The fact that most points marketers, whether for RCI Points, Festiva, or whoever, have to resort to lies to sell conversions shows why it is not driven by market demand, but is instead something that has to be crammed down most people's throats. Granted there IS a niche market out there that likes it, just as there was for Hapimag. And it is not surprising that some points advocates would like to see RCI force it on all their members.

Your argument on blue weeks just doesn't hold water. As has been mentioned a number of times on these boards, some states do not allow different m/f's for blue weeks. For existing resorts in states where it would be legal, such a proposal would have to obtain a supermajority to amend condo docs, something that is almost impossible on any issue at most resorts, but particularly so when one can depend on the own-to-use majority to vote it down.

If RCI tried to migrate their members forcibly to points, I suspect they would instead migrate many of their resort affiliates to other exchange companies.

There is no perfect exchange system, but points is more flawed than most.

However, the main point is that certain posters who regularly defend RCI are trying to change the subject away from the RCI class action to discuss the points vs. weeks issue instead. If we can't get this thread back on topic, I am going to start another points vs weeks thread and ask you to take that discussion to it rather than continuing to hijack this thread. The lawsuit issue is too important for RCI's defenders to take it off on a tangent

Not necessarily. Points are the next logical step following floating weeks, and also a way to balance the costs of running a seasonal resort.

For some resorts, you can justify charging the same fee to the blue week owner as the red week owner. But in others, the blue weeks just can't come close in value to the red weeks. If you use a fixed week system, or even a floating week system, in most cases all owners still pay the same fees (and in some resorts, all unit sizes still pay the same fees).

Floating weeks and points also have benefits to families, many of whom cannot always travel the same week every year. Yes, many do, but many others cannot, and flexibility allows for a product suited to a larger client base. I would be glad to pick a home resort to visit each year during spring vacation - but the dates change each year. I would love to travel on the 4th of July every year, but you can bet DH can't get it off every single year, other people want that week too.

Besides, RCI is an exchange company. It does not exist to service those owners who choose to use their own unit-week. If exists to facilitate the exchange of timeshare ownerships. Perhaps the smartest move on RCI's part would be to eliminate the weeks program entirely, and move EVERYONE over to points. When you choose to deposit your week, you will be told the value in points, and have a set amount of time to exercise that deposit, or that number can change (if you haven't paid you fees yet, you risk it changing before you can deposit). When you wish to make an exchange, you are told the going price for the week you want, with the system remaining dynamic as it is with week currently. Of course anyone who paid to convert will be unhappy, as will the developers, who will lose a revenue source.

 

[Jennie]

I don't agree with them only holding deposited weeks for 31 days before it is up for grabs for rental. "

It's even worse than that. The proposed settlement is that they would hold deposits aside for 31 days for exchanges to members (and not rent them) but only when the deposit was made more than one year in advance of the check-in date.

There are two major problems with this scenerio:

1) Most resorts require owners to pay the maintenance fees in advance before they allow the week to be space-banked. Thus, to make such an early deposit, members would have to pay the m/f up to a year before it would otherwise be due.

2) Many RCI Weeks members own "floating time" (a particular season or range of weeks e.g Weeks 22-37). The earliest date they can reserve a week is generally one year prior to the check-in date. A reservation made at that time could not be be deposited "more than a year" in advance, and would therefore not receive the 31 day exclusivity benefit.

And aside from that, there is no justification for RCI moving any weeks to a rental venue one year before the check-in date, no matter when they were deposited. They must have statistics showing that the vast majority of their members do not make vacation plans that far in advance.

A precedent already exists for owners of VRI managed resorts (and others, I'm sure). Any week at a VRI resort that is deposited with RCI, remains available for exchange only to VRI owners , for 30 days. This has been known by different names through the years, one of which was the "internal exchange advantage." There is no time limit--the 30 day clock begins ticking whenever the deposit is made.

 

[timeos2]

Do the dirty work and it will get done

It's even worse than that. The proposed settlement is that they would hold deposits aside for 31 days for exchanges to members (and not rent them) but only when the deposit was made more than one year in advance of the check-in date.

There are two major problems with this scenerio:

1) Most resorts require owners to pay the maintenance fees in advance before they allow the week to be space-banked. Thus, to make such an early deposit, members would have to pay the m/f up to a year before it would otherwise be due.

2) Many RCI Weeks members own "floating time" (a particular season or range of weeks e.g Weeks 22-37). The earliest date they can reserve a week is generally one year prior to the check-in date. A reservation made at that time could not be be deposited "more thab a year" in advance, and would therefore not receive the 31 day exclusivity benefit.

And aside from that, there is no justification for RCI moving any weeks to a rental venue one year before the check-in date, no matter when they were deposited. They must have statistics showing that the vast majority of their members do not make vacation plans that far in advance.

A precedent already exists for owners of VRI managed resorts (and others, I'm sure). Any week at a VRI resort that is deposited with RCI, remains available for exchange only to VRI owners for 30 days. This has been known by different names through the years, one of which was the "internal exchange advantage." There is no time limit--the 30 day clock begins ticking whenever the deposit is made.

Great points and it gets to the very heart of what the remaining issues are regarding this pending settlement. All that remains is the question of RCI's right to rent and when. I completely agree that the "more than 1 year advance" time frame is ludicrous! RCI wins big on that as few great weeks will be deposited that far ahead and if they aren't the settlement is moot.

The 31 day rule, if it is to mean anything, should apply to any deposit at anytime with the possible exception of under 90 days when the ability to get any use - trade or rental - can be problematic. The two year time limit for even the weak proposal being considered is yet another reason to reject it.

Of course the real issue is why is RCI allowed to rent ANY deposit prior to proving it wouldn't have been taken with a legitimate trade using the already suspect trade power rules they control? To say that is the basis AND that they can predict the use or non-use based on historical data is a complete sham. It goes beyond the fox in the hen house to supplying the grill, making the fox the chef and a free pass to the inventory.

Since it is clear the original lawsuit wasn't being handled by the owner caring legal team some thought the best answer remains the one that has always been available. Stop the pillage by stopping the free inventory given away under unacceptable terms. That means YOU as the owner stop giving RCI (or II or any other exchange company that has a proven record of being incompetent at their base job they are being paid for of obtaining an equal trade) your week(s) until they change the terms. No court is going to accomplish that as there is no dirty deed if it is clearly in the agreement terms (adhesion etc doesn't change the fact that no one HAS to deposit their time thus they are not forced into acceptance of terrible terms). Cutting the flow of inventory can and would force the changes we all seem to agree are needed, yet everyday I see posts that people gave away their time and now wonder why they aren't getting a fair trade. Of course that doesn't apply to those who are depositing weak time and expecting much better time in return - like for like not an upgrade should always be the expected return.

Lets rally the outrage to support Sue & Shep to get whatever may be possible out of this doomed class action - and hopefully reduce the outrageous amount being paid to the shysters that clearly wanted nothing but dollars from the start - and instead figure out how to get RCI / II and others to become a useful service rather than an ATM for their owners. I propose it start with withholding your best deposits if you feel you aren't getting a fair return. Let them know why and lets see if it's enough to force the change. If not then the users will have spoken with their actions and endorsed the RCI / II policies. If not we'll see a change and we can all take credit for making it happen. No shysters needed or paid.

 

[Carolinian]

John, This time I agree with most of what you have to say. One of the things we need to do in objecting to the settlement / sellout is to object to paying any lawyers fees for no result worth a darn in terms of injunctive relief. If these lawyers think trinkets are so great, let THEM be paid in trinkets as that is about all they are worth.

I am already primarily using DAE for exchanges, and I gave them my summer UK week this year. I am using my summer Outer Banks weeks or letting family use it if I can't get back to the states or renting it.

We also need to push our resorts to open up competition for exchanges by dual affiliating with II, and spreading the word among their members about independent exchange companies like DAE, TPI, HTSE, SFX, PI, and UKRE. The key is growing the competition. As long as owners know they have alternatives to RCI for exchanging, RCI will not be able to get away with running over them with ripoff rental policies.

 

[Susan2]

Update!!!!

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Sheridan is holding a hearing on the issue of Notice. The hearing will be held in his regular courthouse in Trenton, NJ on August 12, 2009 at noon.

As far as I am concerned, this is big.

I spoke extensively to Jenelle Welling (co-lead counsel for the Plaintiff class) today. I will have more to post as soon as I have time.

I'm going to try to get to the hearing. I'll be on vacation on Cape Cod -- at least it's not California or somewhere worse!

 

[Larry6417]

Susan, thanks for all your work on behalf of TS owners. You've been great!

 

[bass]

Susan,

Thanks for all of your hard work. It is much appreciated by all RCI members.

Sincerely,
Nancy

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are [all] quite welcome. It's important to me, too, but the feedback I get makes me feel it's worth the time and trouble.

I believe that together we can do this. It's going to need a lot -- even just members talking to other members and to their home resorts. And if we can't do this exactly what we want, together we'll accomplish our goals another way. IMO, RCI has just gone too far, and it's here we stand our ground.

In the meantime, I would like to post a survey to gauge the importance of different issues to members, so that I have numbers to report to the judge. Stay tuned. (I need to figure out how to do that!)

 

[sandkastle4966]

Susan (et al) -

I am in the DC area and may be able to spend the day up and back to Trenton. What is on the docket with the judge that day? (I am no lawyer, but quite against this rental issue, etc.)

Can you give specifics on when and where and the agenda?

thanks,

sjk

(FYI - My latest ralling cry against RCI was that I deposited an Aruba week, it was not booked by anyone per the VC, but I could not pull it back with itself or any of my tigers.....guess where it was.......)

 

[london]

RCI In 5 Years

My membership in RCI expires in 2014.

It will be interesting to see how RCI operates fives years from now.

We are only weeks owners, and not into RCI points.

What we have done is purchase floating weeks at the resort we enjoy most in Cocoa Beach.

Since we can rent many timeshare weeks via Redweek etc and other sites, why trade.

For some RCI members, the RCI rentals can be an attractive feature.

Perhaps the class action suit will be finalized by this fall.