WEEKS owners - FACTS/QUESTIONS - new RCI Program

[Carolinian]

"It is RCI and NOT resorts that determine what is red time."

I have to agree with that remark.

We have been told in the past by RCI that the demand for a week in a particular resort determines its "Colour" Red, White or Blue. This will depend upon local weather, school vacations and general desirability. Only RCI will know that demand, not the resorts.

This and other factors put together should then determine the Trading Value of a specific week in a specific apartment.

The RCI Points to Weeks exchange grids use the above colours in blocks for the Americas, Asia etc. A little odd that they don`t use the colour blocks for Europe though.

That grid is a sore point with Weeks members, as it averages down the value of prime red, making it cheaper than it should be for Points members to take Weeks inventory, thus the term ''raiding'' of Weeks.

That Points to Weeks crossover grid is one of the things that RCI should have corrected in this change but obviously has not.

 

[FrmrVacGuide]

Hmmm! Just the opposite answer from what Bootleg and Anon told us!

And didn't Bootleg stop posting about 3 years ago? I'm pretty sure I knew anon, and if it is who I think it is, he started posting about a month after he started working at RCI.

The growth of that segment of rental inventory denoted with an R at the beginning of the ID is relatively recent. So your comment really doesn't make sense. I was saying that the inventory so denoted isn't being deposited by TS owners. It is coming from a completely different source.

And when I'm talking about the resort making it red time, I'm talking about the way they market and sell it to you. RCI and the resorts need to do something about the whole color coding system. It is an extremely out dated way of thinking about travel times. Because RCI evaluates travel patterns throughout the year and adjusts based on that information, trying to use a color system is pretty silly.

 

[FrmrVacGuide]

Current market value? When I look at many high demand, low supply areas, that is laughable. Oh, and I am not surprised that they changed value numbers. There has been an ongoing battle on these boards between a group of staunch RCI defenders who swore RCI was telling the truth when they promised that the values would not change. I was one who said that they almost assuredly would.

You have no basis of comparison to back up your statements. Because you don't know what the numbers were before, how can you possibly compare them now? Of course, everyone had an idea, but now you can look at numbers and just make something up to back up your claim.

I don't believe that RCI has ever said that trading power is static. I'm pretty sure they've always said that it is a fluid system. And why shouldn't it be? Travel patterns change over time, and the system has to adjust.

One other point, that I've seen you harp on quite a bit. Yes, I'm sure RCI gives a higher value to large developers. It only makes business sense. If they took a hard line approach with someone like Vacation Village, then they would lose a huge amount of members and resorts the next time that contract came up for renewal, because II would make them a sweetheart deal to switch companies. In the long run, to make as many vacation destinations available as possible, they have to do things like that. In a perfect world, there would only be one exchange company that worked with every resort, and they would be a non-profit entity. Unfortunately, that is never going to happen, so you're going to have to learn to deal with the realities of capitalism.

 

[Carolinian]

I may be a sucker for timeshare tours but I have been on enough of them (and some like The Crane in Barbados did not even offer a reward for doing so) and I have NEVER yet seen any developer show any color code grid that was any different from the color code grid in the RCI directory that was devised by RCI. I would challenge any Tugger who has ever had a developer do that to post it. Nice dodge but it doesn't flush!

Bootleg vanished suddenly from here, and a couple of other boards during the time the class action was hearing up. His postings probably got a bit embarassing for RCI and he had to lay low. I am sure the heat would have been on with the lawsuit. Since Anon was posting from home and keeping his powder dry at the office, I really suspect that you would probably not have known him.

And didn't Bootleg stop posting about 3 years ago? I'm pretty sure I knew anon, and if it is who I think it is, he started posting about a month after he started working at RCI.

The growth of that segment of rental inventory denoted with an R at the beginning of the ID is relatively recent. So your comment really doesn't make sense. I was saying that the inventory so denoted isn't being deposited by TS owners. It is coming from a completely different source.

And when I'm talking about the resort making it red time, I'm talking about the way they market and sell it to you. RCI and the resorts need to do something about the whole color coding system. It is an extremely out dated way of thinking about travel times. Because RCI evaluates travel patterns throughout the year and adjusts based on that information, trying to use a color system is pretty silly.

 

[Rene McDaniel]

Renee - I fully understand your arguement and your frustration.....however I think the "fault" is with the resorts not RCI. Resorts have set up floating weeks in a "red" season pool that is too broad - June 1 - Aug 30. Reality is that there is Pink and HOT RED with HOT being late June - first week august. RCI recognizes this. So does wyndham in their point evaluation. Mid/late august is far easier to get into Alexandria than any time in late June/july.

You have actually already expressed this - you dont want late august - which you can "more easily" get than the july weeks that go for the first 5 minutes of reserve day. Why should RCI give late August the same trades value as July weeks, when what more folks really want is July?

I think RCI has got it right.......

(i also own a floating summer - I will be on that phone every day at 8 am....)

Okay, I appreciate all the replies to my concerns, including those from FrmrVacGuide. Maybe I am one of the few Tuggers here who really counted on using the "owner preference" to get back into my home resort, if my RCI searches never came through. It was always my fallback -- my Plan B.

I think I understand FrmrVacGuide to say that the trade power of your week has always been a factor in getting back into your home resort, which is something I'd never heard before. So, that was news to me. I'm just one person, one opinion. But we have owned at our resorts many, many years. We've been through a lot with them, including several years of expensive special assessments.

When I make an RCI exchange, and the resort gives me the parking lot view, because the best views are reserved for their owners -- I'm okay with that. I am a person that thinks that resorts should value their owners, more than an exchanger who will visit the resort only once.

I don't know how RCI did home resort preference previously. But if it is true that red season owners can trade back into their own resort anytime during red season at their resort, (irrespective of point values) that would be great news! I hope that is what RCI will do, but I would like an official answer on that.

Response to Conan:
I called my resort on every call-in day, trying to reserve the peak summer weeks, but couldn't I get one until the last week of August. The difference between peak summer & late August is 18 points. Now, if RCI has 1 deposit available for the 1st week of August, and no other owners want it, besides me, who is 18 points "short". You feel should go to an exchanger who has enough points, not the red season owner at that resort - who doesn't? Even though owners have paid expensive maintenance fees and several thousand dollars in special assessments at that resort? See, I totally disagree with that.

For example, if there is 1 Manhattan Club week available, and I have enough points for it, but the Manhattan Club owner is shy the # of points needed -- I think that MC owner should get that unit over me. That is his resort, he/she pays high maintenance fees to own there. To think that I can combine up my much cheaper weeks, pay RCI $99 to combine them, and get my search fullfilled ahead of a Manhattan Club owner who pays almost $2,000 a year in maintenance fees -- just doesn't seem right to me.

In these scenarios, it just feels like RCI will be making more money off that one exchange week ($189 exchange fee + the new $99/fee) if it goes to an exchanger combining their credits than to the MC owner. I would hate to think that RCI is giving incoming exchangers that trade because RCI might make an extra $99 on it, instead of just the MC owner's exchange fee. Also, with this scenario there are lots of happy RCI exchangers (who bumped out that Manhattan Club owner who was shy of points getting back into his own resort), assuming he had a July week (46 pts), but needs to come in June (56 pts). So, is this really fair to the resort owners? Is it really fair to ask a MC owner to combine 2 weeks to get 1 week at his resort in exchange? (Let's assume he only owns 2 MC weeks, nothing else) Let's see: $2000+$2000+$189+$99 = $4,288. Oh my, he can't get back in at a reasonable cost, can he?

Play this scenario out further: He should probably dump his MC weeks & buy a cheaper ones. More people at his resort might also figure out the same thing. They all start dumping their non-peak weeks, so eventually there are fewer owners left to pay the maintenance fees & make the deposits into RCI. Maybe RCI can start to bail out all these resorts, when people figure out it is easier, cheaper, and a lot less hassle to exchange in, rather than own there. But that would lead to more rentals (for the resorts to recoup the cost of unpaid maintenance fees) rather deposits for exchangers. So, I guess really RCI wins in just about any scenario.

Like many timeshare owners, I am both an exchanger, as well as a owner-user of my home resort. I preferred the way RCI handled trade power more fairly before it became Cendant. Mind you, I don't know what actually went on behind the curtains, but pretty much any red week could trade for any other red week. There was not the cat-fighting (at floating resorts) to try to book the peak 6 weeks of the year, like there is now. This competition may work best for RCI -- ensuring that those planning to exchange will nab the very best weeks to deposit with RCI. But I think RCI needs to throw a bone back to the owners as well (if they want these timeshares to stay afloat), that all red week owners at that resort should have 1st shot at those weeks if they are willing to pay the $189 RCI exchange fee.


--- Rene

 

[FrmrVacGuide]

I may be a sucker for timeshare tours but I have been on enough of them (and some like The Crane in Barbados did not even offer a reward for doing so) and I have NEVER yet seen any developer show any color code grid that was any different from the color code grid in the RCI directory that was devised by RCI. I would challenge any Tugger who has ever had a developer do that to post it. Nice dodge but it doesn't flush!

Bootleg vanished suddenly from here, and a couple of other boards during the time the class action was hearing up. His postings probably got a bit embarassing for RCI and he had to lay low. I am sure the heat would have been on with the lawsuit. Since Anon was posting from home and keeping his powder dry at the office, I really suspect that you would probably not have known him.

Okay, this is the last time I'm going to respond to this type of stuff from you, but I might as well get it all out.

Although the timeshares and RCI use the same grids, do you honestly believe RCI just pulled that grid from out of thin air? Do you think it feasible that there was research? Maybe even that the major developers all had a hand in creating it so they could maximize their profits? Wasn't that grid around before RCI was purchased? It is an outdated system. Internally, RCI doesn't really discuss it or use it. We all knew what it was, because members lived and died by the thing.

As far as knowing who anon was, you do realize that employees socialize, right? I know that someone I went out to smoke with talked about posting on this board. I'm assuming he was anon. With regards to bootleg, I had no idea who that was until you started pining for him. I looked him up on the boards, and it looked like his last post was in 2007. If that is correct, the info he provided is hopelessly out of date at this point.

 

[Carolinian]

On another thread, you were apparently calling that a ''conspiracy theory'' but now you agree with it and try to defend it.

One can see what traded even before and now doesn't, which is a pretty darn good indicator that things have changed. Some places like South Africa have dramatically changed. JLB on another board mentioned a week he had been trading to the same area for 20 years even, that with the new numbers would require three of those weeks to trade to a smaller unit in a lesser resort in the same area. That is a dramatic change. One does not need to have all the actual numbers to see strong circumstantial evidence that RCI has moved the goal posts. South Africa is another example. Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone of murder, so it certainly is enough to determine than RCI has in fact done what it said it would not. What RCI said is that the trading power would not change, only that members could see it, and that is obviously not true.

Allen House is one I always look at as a bellweather on what RCI is doing. Not only is it common knowledge that London is right at the top of the food chain in terms of hard to get trades but RCI itself acknowledges that for any HOA board member who has ever been a member of their VIP program. VIP lets its members trade into anything in the system regardless of trading power, with only one exception and that is London. I asked why and was told by one of the women who works with VIP that it was because of the huge demand for London and very limited supply, more so than any where else. I don't own at Allen House, but when I see a top Vacation Village at Parkway, in heavy oversupply exceed a top Allen House, that tells me that something other than supply and demand is at play.

I have always supported a dynamic exchange system but the level of changes that have occured with the imposition of Points Lite are indicative of something far beyond a normal fluctuation of values. Also, it is far from clear at this point that the values for deposits are very dynamic, although the values to exchange for a week appear to be.

You have no basis of comparison to back up your statements. Because you don't know what the numbers were before, how can you possibly compare them now? Of course, everyone had an idea, but now you can look at numbers and just make something up to back up your claim.

I don't believe that RCI has ever said that trading power is static. I'm pretty sure they've always said that it is a fluid system. And why shouldn't it be? Travel patterns change over time, and the system has to adjust.

One other point, that I've seen you harp on quite a bit. Yes, I'm sure RCI gives a higher value to large developers. It only makes business sense. If they took a hard line approach with someone like Vacation Village, then they would lose a huge amount of members and resorts the next time that contract came up for renewal, because II would make them a sweetheart deal to switch companies. In the long run, to make as many vacation destinations available as possible, they have to do things like that. In a perfect world, there would only be one exchange company that worked with every resort, and they would be a non-profit entity. Unfortunately, that is never going to happen, so you're going to have to learn to deal with the realities of capitalism.

 

[FrmrVacGuide]

Okay, I appreciate all the replies to my concerns, including those from FrmrVacGuide. Maybe I am one of the few Tuggers here who really counted on using the "owner preference" to get back into my home resort, if my RCI searches never came through. It was always my fallback -- my Plan B.

--- Rene

I know I cut a lot of your response out, but that was to save space. I just want to clarify my opinion on this particular subject.

Owner A owns at resort X and deposits a week worth 25.
Owner B owns at resort Y and deposits a week worth 30.

A and B want to go to resort X the same week. The week they want costs 20. Owner B starts an ongoing search first. Owner A still gets it when the week comes in.

I could be wrong about this, and I'll try to remember to double check with a friend that should know the answer. That was how I remember the basics being explained back in the summer when they first told the guides that this change was coming.

 

[Mel]

Outer Banks Resort Rentals should not have any problem with renting that week 32 for you if RCI cheats you on deposit value. And a week 32, whether it starts August 9 or 12 will always rent a heck of a lot quicker and for a lot more money than a week 36. RCI is way off base in lumping these together on a grid. Just like they are way off base in lumping week 11 and week 21 together at the same value on their grid. Published points systems seem to always involve such overaveraging. The desirability and value of weeks increase incrementally week by week in the spring and decrease incrementally week by week in the fall. Grids that lump lots of those weeks together but then have big jumps between weeks that are only incrementally different, like 21 and 22 do not reflect the real market.

Last week you wanted RCI to use a small number of bands, but now that the number of bands has increased you don't think they should place weeks into bands? That's the essence of what you're saying - if they use a system of bands, that week 32 is sometimes going to fall with the peak summer weeks, and other times it will fall with the late summer/each autumn weeks.

More reason to think RCI really didn't change much.

 

[FrmrVacGuide]

On another thread, you were apparently calling that a ''conspiracy theory'' but now you agree with it and try to defend it.

One can see what traded even before and now doesn't, which is a pretty darn good indicator that things have changed. Some places like South Africa have dramatically changed. JLB on another board mentioned a week he had been trading to the same area for 20 years even, that with the new numbers would require three of those weeks to trade to a smaller unit in a lesser resort in the same area. That is a dramatic change. One does not need to have all the actual numbers to see strong circumstantial evidence that RCI has moved the goal posts. South Africa is another example. Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone of murder, so it certainly is enough to determine than RCI has in fact done what it said it would not. What RCI said is that the trading power would not change, only that members could see it, and that is obviously not true.

Allen House is one I always look at as a bellweather on what RCI is doing. Not only is it common knowledge that London is right at the top of the food chain in terms of hard to get trades but RCI itself acknowledges that for any HOA board member who has ever been a member of their VIP program. VIP lets its members trade into anything in the system regardless of trading power, with only one exception and that is London. I asked why and was told by one of the women who works with VIP that it was because of the huge demand for London and very limited supply, more so than any where else. I don't own at Allen House, but when I see a top Vacation Village at Parkway, in heavy oversupply exceed a top Allen House, that tells me that something other than supply and demand is at play.

I have always supported a dynamic exchange system but the level of changes that have occured with the imposition of Points Lite are indicative of something far beyond a normal fluctuation of values. Also, it is far from clear at this point that the values for deposits are very dynamic, although the values to exchange for a week appear to be.

I'll reply to this as it is a different topic.

When you get into VIP programs and things like that, I don't know much about it. The only thing I know about anything similar is in the points world, where a developer with a private account has a few special rules about point totals.

As far as VV@Parkway getting more credits than Allen House, I figure there a couple of things playing into it. One, there is a higher demand in pure volume for Orlando at Christmas. (For clarity, that was the week I checked.) Two, RCI is trying to make VV happy because they don't want to lose the member base and resorts. Three, RCI gets more return from offering the high exchange credit in Orlando. There are more units that will actually be deposited, which in turn makes more exchangers happy.

 

[Rene McDaniel]

If in the real world a late August week has less demand or more supply, why should it exchange one-to-one with an early August week?

And if RCI or an internal exchange system formerly allowed that, why is it wrong for them to change?

Conan,
My issue on this is that the tiny nuances of 1 week before, or 1 week later -- you have these different values, and now you can't trade back into your home resort if you are *shy* a few points. It's not a true points system, where when I am short a few points I can stay 6 nights instead of 7. Having to pony up an entire extra week, just to get back into your home resort sucks.

At one of my resorts, the maintenance fee is now over $1,100 for 1 week. Obviously, "pony up another week" can be a very expensive option if you have high maintenance fees.

-- Rene

 

[Carolinian]

Well, if this person you say mentioned posting on TUG is who you think was Anon, then you are wrong. Anon posted on a European-based board.

While I am sure that in someplace like overbuilt Orlando, where there are a lot of major developers, they may well politick RCI for such things as a ''red all year'' designation, that probably only plays into a small part of RCI's decisions on its color code grids. Many resort areas had no major developers at the time these color codes were set and RCI has not changed them since, in the first place. I am aware that Barrier Island Station was at one time politicking RCI for a change in the color gird on the Outer Banks to add more red time both spring and fall, but they did not succeed. So RCI did obviously make its own decisions on such matters. I am also aware that Barrier Island Station did later successfully politick RCI for more points for its Kitty Hawk resort for joining RCI Points (and threw their sold out resorts under the bus as part of the deal) but from what I was told, that deal involved them working in a coalition with other developers from other resort areas.

In short your comments on resorts setting color code charts instead of RCI was way off base, and your excuses fall way short, and that statement raises a real question of one of two things; 1) if you are what you say you are, or 2) if you are shooting straight with the facts. Your remark on that issue certainly was not shooting straight.

Okay, this is the last time I'm going to respond to this type of stuff from you, but I might as well get it all out.

Although the timeshares and RCI use the same grids, do you honestly believe RCI just pulled that grid from out of thin air? Do you think it feasible that there was research? Maybe even that the major developers all had a hand in creating it so they could maximize their profits? Wasn't that grid around before RCI was purchased? It is an outdated system. Internally, RCI doesn't really discuss it or use it. We all knew what it was, because members lived and died by the thing.

As far as knowing who anon was, you do realize that employees socialize, right? I know that someone I went out to smoke with talked about posting on this board. I'm assuming he was anon. With regards to bootleg, I had no idea who that was until you started pining for him. I looked him up on the boards, and it looked like his last post was in 2007. If that is correct, the info he provided is hopelessly out of date at this point.

 

[Carolinian]

I'll reply to this as it is a different topic.

When you get into VIP programs and things like that, I don't know much about it. The only thing I know about anything similar is in the points world, where a developer with a private account has a few special rules about point totals.

As far as VV@Parkway getting more credits than Allen House, I figure there a couple of things playing into it. One, there is a higher demand in pure volume for Orlando at Christmas. (For clarity, that was the week I checked.) Two, RCI is trying to make VV happy because they don't want to lose the member base and resorts. Three, RCI gets more return from offering the high exchange credit in Orlando. There are more units that will actually be deposited, which in turn makes more exchangers happy.

I guess the best way that Allen House could get happy is to do what one other London resort has already done, and that is switch to a different exchange company.

 

[Carolinian]

Last week you wanted RCI to use a small number of bands, but now that the number of bands has increased you don't think they should place weeks into bands? That's the essence of what you're saying - if they use a system of bands, that week 32 is sometimes going to fall with the peak summer weeks, and other times it will fall with the late summer/each autumn weeks.

More reason to think RCI really didn't change much.

You are confusing an exchange system with valuation, and as I have posted before, combining a valuation system based on large grouping with an exchange system based on single points is the worst of both worlds.

Bands make sense for the exchange system as it is just about impossible to accurately and fairly nitpick value down to a single number, so the trading bands make up for that. Those are the parameters for matching weeks for an exchange rather than setting the values.

In terms of valuation of weeks, both in and out, however, overaveraging can be a big problem if you put too many dissimilar weeks together, a common problem in any published points system. That is particularly true in spring when weeks gradually gain value incrementally and in fall when they gradually lose value incrementally. For valuation, there are some periods that are rather static and in those, usually deep off season and the height of high season, a grid of a number of weeks would be appropriate.

If you are going to nitpick the trading value down to an exact number, it is absolutely imperative to value each week individually if the system is going to be in any way fair.

 

[FrmrVacGuide]

I guess the best way that Allen House could get happy is to do what one other London resort has already done, and that is switch to a different exchange company.

Good job ignoring everything I said and just launching a random attack.

How hard would it have been to simply respond to what I was saying?

Oh, and you might want to clean out your Private Message folder. I attempted to shift the conversation you insist on having about the validity of my RCI employment there where it wouldn't bother others.

 

[Conan]

now you can't trade back into your home resort if you are *shy* a few points. It's not a true points system, where when I am short a few points I can stay 6 nights instead of 7. Having to pony up an entire extra week, just to get back into your home resort sucks.

At one of my resorts, the maintenance fee is now over $1,100 for 1 week. Obviously, "pony up another week" can be a very expensive option if you have high maintenance fees.

-- Rene

I think the new scheme will encourage people who own multiple weeks to deposit all their weeks with RCI (excepting the weeks they want to use for themselves), rather than split their deposits among RCI, DAE, SFX, etc. [and in greater numbers than people who might leave RCI altogether if they're not happy with the new scheme].

Since the new system gives you 'change' when you book a week that's cheaper than the week you deposited, you might decide to apply the missing point from deposit #2 to get the summer week you want from deposit #1, after which you have two years to find a way to spend the one-point-short deposit that you're left with.

 

[Dottie]

Removed my question as I resolved the issue myself

 

[Carolinian]

Good job ignoring everything I said and just launching a random attack.

How hard would it have been to simply respond to what I was saying?

.

Not too hard, but I thought my point covered it. One other London resort has already plowed that ground.

As to VV@Parkway and its alleged demand at Christmas, another Tugger has already discovered and posted that for Christmas 2011, over a year away, RCI offers 50 points lite for deposit of a 1BR week, but on the other hand if you want to trade into the very same week charges only 11 points lite. I think this speaks volumes about the real value of that resort versus the corrupt inflated value given to its members by RCI in an underhanded deal with its developer.

It is things like that which cry out for full transparency of the system of setting values. It shows that a combination of published numbers and a hidden method of setting those numbers creates both the incentive and the mechanism to rig the system.

 

[Rene McDaniel]

.
Owner A owns at resort X and deposits a week worth 25.
Owner B owns at resort Y and deposits a week worth 30.

A and B want to go to resort X the same week. The week they want costs 20. Owner B starts an ongoing search first. Owner A still gets it when the week comes in.

I could be wrong about this, and I'll try to remember to double check with a friend that should know the answer. That was how I remember the basics being explained back in the summer when they first told the guides that this change was coming.

FrmrVacGuide,
Thanks for your reply. Okay, but in your scenario, both owners A & B have enough credits for a 20-credit exchange. You told me in an earlier post that, "if you have sufficient points for the exchange, owner preference is still in place". I get that.

That's not the same scenario I'm concerned about, or raising as an issue. My issue is when the resort week they both want, costs 30 credits. They both want to go to resort X, but owner B (an exchanger) has 30 credits. But the family that owns at that resort (owner A), was only given 25 credits for their deposit at resort X. I was told by RCI just this week that if the owner does not have enough points for the exchange, they would not get in over an exchanger who does.

Yes, yes. I know if they both have sufficient points, owner preference kicks in. But forget about me. What about poor Mr. Manhattan Club owner, who has a July week (46 credits), but needs to come in June next year (56 credits). He puts in an ongoing search for MC in June, although he only has 46 credits on deposit. Someone who has combined their weeks to have 56 credits (and paid RCI an extra $99) also puts in an ongoing search for MC in June. A June MC week gets deposited (worth 56 credits) into RCI, who will get it? The MC owner, who has given only 46 credits for his July MC week, or the exchanger who has 56 credits?

Wouldn't RCI give that week to the exchanger who has 56 credits, over the Manhattan Club owner who received less points (46) for his July deposit?

This is the question I would like you to ask your RCI friend about.

Thanks much!

 

[5875racing]

Diamond Resorts and RCI Exchanges

Need some help. I am a new TUG memeber and we are a Diamond Resorts Intl Owner on Kaui HI with a EOY week. There is another DRI resort on Maui that we like to exchange for. With the new RCI system we get a max of 23 credits for our Kaui week and it takes 40 to get into the DRI resort at Maui? So with the new RCI system we are losing but RCI says it is more fair??? It may be for some exchanges but I feel we are really losing out from what we had. They both use to be owned by Emassy, then Sunterra and now DRI and we had priority booking with an even exchange with DRI but now that is all changed. We are told that RCI memebers will not be able to get into the DRI Maui resort anymore because of very low owner room like 4% left. When I talked to RCI this morning they said it will now cost me two weeks for one week at the Maui resort with a few credits left over. I would be paying double for what I was getting two years ago. Current maintenace fees are $1400 for the EOY and under the new every year plan it would be $1288 per year. DRI is offering for an additoional $7000 to convert to their points system with an additional 1500 points and have a week every year which we are not entirely crazy about the extra money for the switch. This puts us in a collectoion of four DRI resorts at Maui, Kaui, Sedona AZ, and Las Vegas as home resorts they call them. Looking for some assitance by others on what options I have and suggestioins. Need some Quick Help because we are in HI and if I have to do something I have to do it quickly. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER and I need some knowledge for fellow TUG memebers. Thanks

 

[sandkastle4966]

good gosh - what happened to this being a FACT and QUESTON thread......so many opinions (ok, mainly 2 peoples opinions) - can we get this back to FACT and QUESTION, and take everything else to the opinions thread?

 

[5875racing]

Diamond Resorts and RCI Exchanges

Again I am a new TUG Member and learning the system so please bear with me.

To rephrase my questions, $7000 for additional 1500 points and a every year program with DRI. They are giving us 5000 points for our old property so we would have 6500 points barely enough to get into Maui for a garden view. $1288 for annual maintneance fee. Is this a fair price fro exchanging to the points system?

RCI new points program only getting 23 credits for Kaui and would need 40 to get into DRI resort on Maui. No more weeks exchanges becasue of the new RCI credit system. Is this a fair amount? Seems low ot me?

Appreicate the assistance

 

[london]

Too Much

Again I am a new TUG Member and learning the system so please bear with me.

To rephrase my questions, $7000 for additional 1500 points and a every year program with DRI. They are giving us 5000 points for our old property so we would have 6500 points barely enough to get into Maui for a garden view. $1288 for annual maintneance fee. Is this a fair price fro exchanging to the points system?

RCI new points program only getting 23 credits for Kaui and would need 40 to get into DRI resort on Maui. No more weeks exchanges becasue of the new RCI credit system. Is this a fair amount? Seems low ot me?

Appreicate the assistance

Way too much money. You will never get your investment back. Not a fair price.

 

[FrmrVacGuide]

@Renee

Sorry, guess it got confused for me with all the other conversations going on. I'll ask, but I think the answer is going to be that it goes to the person with the credits necessary.

Now, what we might see is that the cost changes as time goes by for unused space. I'm thinking that Manhattan club won't be one of those unused places.

I honestly believe that some resorts like MC are going to like this change. Before, the pool of people who could exchange there was so limited, it probably hurt their sales. I would like to think that now it will be open to a larger group of people to experience that.

I will definitely check. You might want to send me a PM to help me remember. I know my friend is working a lot of overtime and then going home for the holidays, so it probably won't be until next week that I can get her on the phone.

 

[FrmrVacGuide]

Not too hard, but I thought my point covered it. One other London resort has already plowed that ground.

As to VV@Parkway and its alleged demand at Christmas, another Tugger has already discovered and posted that for Christmas 2011, over a year away, RCI offers 50 points lite for deposit of a 1BR week, but on the other hand if you want to trade into the very same week charges only 11 points lite. I think this speaks volumes about the real value of that resort versus the corrupt inflated value given to its members by RCI in an underhanded deal with its developer.

It is things like that which cry out for full transparency of the system of setting values. It shows that a combination of published numbers and a hidden method of setting those numbers creates both the incentive and the mechanism to rig the system.

Instead of throwing around conjecture, why don't you just call RCI and ask why it is set that way? I'm sure if you ask to speak with a supervisor you'll have a pretty good chance at getting that question answered.

BTW, the maximum for a 2BR at VVPark is 58 for Christmas and right now they are giving 46. Maybe I should try and buy one of those weeks on eBay.

Oh, and please stop calling it Points lite. We get it. You think points are evil, and that this is just another part of the master plan to make everyone switch to points.

Of course, I do remember a survey that was done within RCI that showed a higher satisfaction rating from Points members than from Weeks members.