The proposed system, as outlined, seemingly attempts to level the fairness of all trades, so to speak, with Marriott determining the relative value. I think a large part of the problem here is that purchases have been made with the understanding that exchanges could be made by giving up one week for another, with the ability to "trade up" being determined by the free market (supply and demand) rather than an externally imposed valuation.
Marriott clearly intends to differentiate between resorts, seasons and even view. Buying a Platinum week one place will no longer give you at least the possibility of trading for a Platinum week elsewhere and owners of lesser weeks will certainly be downgraded in either length of stay or unit size, or both. While the current system never guaranteed trades, the option of "trading up," either in size or season or location was always at least a potential option (again, dependent on market conditions); under the proposed system even if such upgrades were, in fact, available, they would lie fallow.
Marriott seems to be clearly saying that even Platinum weeks vary in value between resorts. While this has been in effect previously, reflected in trade value, it was the fluctuating marketplace (again, the demand at any given time for any given property) that helped determine valuation, and not artificially determined by Marriott. What is particularly worrisome to me, especially in light of the recent devaluation of reward points, is what happens 5 or 10 years down the road. Any new resort will cost Marriott more and will likely sell for more money. We bought with the understanding/promise that we would be able to exchange into new resorts as they become available. In an effort to sell new properties, will Marriott assign more points to new developments in the future, so that even a top Platinum week now may only have enough value to trade for 4 or 5 days at newer resorts?
So, while on one hand there is some sense in assigning different values to weeks at different resorts (after all, purchase prices differed), I personally think that current owners will suffer and, as time goes on, will find their property values dwindle (much like the way Marriott has devalued the benefit of trading for reward points). A basic attraction of the Marriott system heretofore has been the concept of a week for a week, and letting market demand determine the outcome of trade requests. Personally, I think Marriott assigning valuation will be bad for owners.
I know people have mentioned that Hyatt and Hilton have done this with some success. However, keep in mind the number of properties. I think given Marriott's vastly greater size the logistics of this will potentially be a nightmare and I also think that many owners will get shafted.
I think anyone who owns less than a premium property (as determined by Marriott) will land up getting short-shifted under this plan. As Marriott tries to equalize trades, a lot of units will sit empty that would otherwise have had happy owners trading into, either under Flexchange or off-season vacationers, who managed to trade up. Let's face it- while trading up was never guaranteed, as pointed out, the ability to do so on occasion is due to the fact that someone with higher trade power, for whatever reason at any given time, didn't make the request. The marketplace changes and demand varies from day to day. Marriott would be artificially setting value and not allowing fluctuations in demand determine value.
And, while varying days of arrival and lengths of stay would be theoretically nice, I am concerned about its implementation on a practical basis. Would it make reservations during prime-time even more difficult? Narrowing reservation days and having reservations of uniform lengths streamlines the process. I'm not sure that increased flexibility is worth risking making reservations more difficult to obtain. Something at least to consider.
