Ko Olina room assignment, II vs Marriott

[sdtugger]

If it's an owner using his/her week, then of course they shouldn't be upgraded. Owners using their own weeks should ALWAYS be placed into the type of unit they purchased. Has anyone ever heard of owners being upgraded while staying on their own weeks?

But at Maui they won't upgrade a Maui owner if s/he's using an exchange or AC back into the home resort, either? That's harsh.

In Maui, I was told that you get the view that was deposited. It may be that Maui is always full enough that it isn't practical to "upgrade" owners on exchange. I do know that I've always received the view on the II website/Marriott website when I exchange back into Maui.

 

[Latravel]

It's important to note that the GM is only talking about Barony's policy only. Other resorts could be completely different.

 

[SueDonJ]

It's important to note that the GM is only talking about Barony's policy only. Other resorts could be completely different.

I would like, though, for MVCI to establish and state one policy for all of the resorts across the board, whatever that policy would be. As it is now, depending on how the individual resorts' GMs interpret for themselves, there are too many variables for any of us to answer the "if it says XYZ on my II confirmation certificate, what unit am I exchanging into?" questions. Unless we answer, "well, that's an XYZview, but you may or may not be placed into that unit."

 

[sdtugger]

I would like, though, for MVCI to establish and state one policy for all of the resorts across the board, whatever that policy would be. As it is now, depending on how the individual resorts' GMs interpret for themselves, there are too many variables for any of us to answer the "if it says XYZ on my II confirmation certificate, what unit am I exchanging into?" questions. Unless we answer, "well, that's an XYZview, but you may or may not be placed into that unit."

Can't you simply say that everyone will get the deposited view unless an owner is upgraded by their resort when it isn't completely full?

By the way, MOC follows the same rules that Barony outlined, but within the views deposited.

 

[Dean]

But wouldn't you want a priority at your home resort if you exchange back in or use an AC? I've always figured that nothing is guaranteed with any exchange but like the possibility of a home resort or MVCI-owner "advantage."

Barony may (or may not actually) be an exception but as a rule, you will get the unit type that was deposited and as correctly noted, be treated as a Marriott exchanger if trading back in even as an owner there. If you read between the lines, you'll see that it's unlikely to get a view upgrade as an owner exchanging back in for busier seasons but more likely for off season. You should read the statement as being an owner but trading back in is a tie breaker at best for that last available unit. The one problem with units assignments is it is done by humans and as such will vary somewhat from one experience to another.

 

[SueDonJ]

All I know is that at Barony as an exchanger, I received a different type unit than the one that was on my II confirmation certificates for two different stays there during gold season - once on an exchange and once using an AC. Because of those exchanges, things that had been posted to me on TUG about previous Waiohai trades, things I'd been told by the Barony front desk staff as well as the stated policy in Barony's recent newsletters, I thought before and still do that it's incorrect to say as a blanket statement, "When you trade into a property that has view categories, you get what was deposited."

That's what I was responding to here, but then when you folks questioned me I thought maybe you were right and I had it wrong, so I took it to the Barony BOD/GM. I noticed that he mentioned "Platinum Season/Gold Season" as times when occupancy might be too high to honor requests and/or use the priority list for owners exchanging back in, but it happened to me during gold season. I noticed also that he mentioned that they try to honor the priority for owners at all times, which means to me that they will still shuffle exchangers if at all possible even if the resort is at capacity.

Yes, everything that's been posted here could be correct, too - not all resorts follow the same policy, what happened with my exchanges should happen infrequently, a resort at capacity may not allow for owner priorities, it depends on the front desk staff, etc...

But honestly, I'm getting the impression here that you all are determined to find some way to prove that what I've posted here is wrong, that it is incorrect for me to disagree with hot2trot's blanket statement. It appears to me, and I could be completely off-base, that the replies are so contentious when there isn't any need for it.

That isn't how I want to be projecting, and I sure hope it isn't what you all want either. All of this is confusing enough without adding that to the mix.

If I have offended or upset anyone, I'm sorry. That wasn't my intent at all.

 

[Dean]

All I know is that at Barony as an exchanger, I received a different type unit than the one that was on my II confirmation certificates for two different stays there during gold season - once on an exchange and once using an AC. Because of those exchanges, things that had been posted to me on TUG about previous Waiohai trades, things I'd been told by the Barony front desk staff as well as the stated policy in Barony's recent newsletters, I thought before and still do that it's incorrect to say as a blanket statement, "When you trade into a property that has view categories, you get what was deposited."

That's what I was responding to here, but then when you folks questioned me I thought maybe you were right and I had it wrong, so I took it to the Barony BOD/GM. I noticed that he mentioned "Platinum Season/Gold Season" as times when occupancy might be too high to honor requests and/or use the priority list for owners exchanging back in, but it happened to me during gold season. I noticed also that he mentioned that they try to honor the priority for owners at all times, which means to me that they will still shuffle exchangers if at all possible even if the resort is at capacity.

Yes, everything that's been posted here could be correct, too - not all resorts follow the same policy, what happened with my exchanges should happen infrequently, a resort at capacity may not allow for owner priorities, it depends on the front desk staff, etc...

But honestly, I'm getting the impression here that you all are determined to find some way to prove that what I've posted here is wrong, that it is incorrect for me to disagree with hot2trot's blanket statement. It appears to me, and I could be completely off-base, that the replies are so contentious when there isn't any need for it.

That isn't how I want to be projecting, and I sure hope it isn't what you all want either. All of this is confusing enough without adding that to the mix.

If I have offended or upset anyone, I'm sorry. That wasn't my intent at all.

Not wrong, just not the usual. As I said, tiebreaker, but dependent on human variation for the room assigner.

 

[dioxide45]

Interesting, but I'm not sure he answered one of the key questions, i.e., do owners exchanging in trump non-owners? I think he is saying that if they aren't full they will do their best to move an owner up from the view category given to them by II. But, if they are full, then they may not be able to move the owner up to a better view category. In other words, he appears to be saying that a non-owner will get the view category given to them by II over an owner. But, the owner will get an upgraded view if they aren't full. Am I misreading this?

I agree. The GM sort of danced around the real question. Not sure if it was asked the right way or not. While they may upgrade you to a better view when the resort is not at capacity I find it unlikely that someone confirmed in to an ocean view is put out in to a garden view in favor of an owner. Also if I own GV at Barony but my Marriott.com reservation shows Ocean View is it likely that they would move me to a GV when exchanging in to Barony just because that is what I own there. I find it unlikely that they would do that.

It appears possible to be upgraded when the resort is below capacity. They are more likely to do this if one owns there over a non owner exchanging in.

 

[Ann in CA]

Have to agree with SueDonJ, from my personal experience only, that Hot2trot's statement about always getting what you deposited (view wise) has not proved to be true for us. As I mentioned earlier, since we are exchanging Mountainside ( a ski resort) there was no option of exhanging ocean view for ocean view. There just is no ocean view there! So we were not trying to put anything over on the resort by buying a mountain view, and expecting an ocean view. And yet, every exchange ( I went back and looked at our II history) we have received an ocean view in exchange for Mountainside. That has, however, been as owners at Waiohai, so that does seem to indicate that owners have a bit of an advantage.

However, my main question was if II designates an ocean view, it seems that they should coordinate with Marriott so that those of us who thought we really have an ocean view from the II info would not be disappointed. ( or if it means nothing, maybe II should not put that on the paperwork.

Since I still do not know what DTOVI really means ( there was a thread a few months ago that said DTOV was in the new building meaning "Dedicated two bedroom ocean view"), I realize it may never have meant ocean view. However whenever "OV" has appeared in any form in our previous II info, we have, with one exception (Phuket) received ocean view. Just lucky I suppose. Now I'll always be afraid to look at the Marriott.com res info!!

Thanks again for all the research and opinions.

 

[Ann in CA]

edit

edit .Any way to completely remove a duplicate post? Hit the back arrow to go back to the Marriott threads, and somehow posted again. Can't find any way to delete. Thanks. Ann

 

[Latravel]

"But honestly, I'm getting the impression here that you all are determined to find some way to prove that what I've posted here is wrong, that it is incorrect for me to disagree with hot2trot's blanket statement. It appears to me, and I could be completely off-base, that the replies are so contentious when there isn't any need for it."


Oh no! I hope you don't get that impression at all! I think this is a very interesting thread and people are trying to figure out a very complicated process. Part of that means we dissect and discuss key pieces of the GM's response. Discussion is a good thing! Thanks for getting the info from the GM.

 

[thinze3]

Sue, I can definately understand your interpretation even after reading the response from the resort. Let's hope your interpretation is correct each and every time you trade back into Barony.

Question for all:
Has anyone ever been assigned a lesser room view at a Marriott resort than what they were given from their II exchange?

 

[SueDonJ]

Sue, I can definately understand your interpretation even after reading the response from the resort. Let's hope your interpretation is correct each and every time you trade back into Barony.

I admit it. I like that as an MVCI owner, it may be possible for me to be placed higher on a priority list when exchanging into any MVCI property, not just Barony. I think it's a fair policy and don't have any problem at all with it being implemented for all owners at all of the resorts. Of course it means that when I exchange anywhere it may be possible for an/another owner there exchanging in, and/or an MVCI owner who owns more weeks than me, to get first dibs on the "better" unit that's attached to my II confirmation certificate. I'm okay with that. Since I've never thought that a view could be guaranteed with an exchange, even at the resorts where I do own, it really doesn't feel like I'm being cheated out of something.

Question for all:
Has anyone ever been assigned a lesser room view at a Marriott resort than what they were given from their II exchange?

I've never seen that complaint here. But I wonder how many people do actually know what those unit type codes on the II certificates mean, and how many do actually attach their MR number to their stays prior to check-in. Practically everybody on TUG, sure, judging by how often the question comes up, but how many across the board?

Hmmmm. Come to think of it, I wonder if this confusion is one of the reasons for the recent problem that folks are encountering, with it now being so difficult to attach an MR number to II exchanges prior to check-in. (Check out this thread, beginning Post #28.)

 

[SueDonJ]

Oh no! I hope you don't get that impression at all! I think this is a very interesting thread and people are trying to figure out a very complicated process. Part of that means we dissect and discuss key pieces of the GM's response. Discussion is a good thing! Thanks for getting the info from the GM.

Thanks, Heidi.

 

[LAX Mom]

Question for all:
Has anyone ever been assigned a lesser room view at a Marriott resort than what they were given from their II exchange?

I exchanged into Grande Ocean (July 4 week) about 5 years ago. I recall I was expecting a better view than I received. I think I was supposed to get "oceanview" but figured it would probably be on a low floor with limited ocean view.

I just checked my exchange history with II and the unit I received in exchange was listed as "OCEO". Not sure what unit type that is supposed to be?

I ended up in the Sand Piper building on the 2nd floor (definitely not an ocean view). I'm sure they were completely full that week and although I was a Marriott owner, I don't own at Grande Ocean. I would fully expect that Grande Ocean owners exchanging in would have priority over me for upgrades in view.

It's a beautiful property and I was very happy with my exchange. If you don't go expecting an amazing unit on exchange then you won't be disappointed.

 

[Dean]

I exchanged into Grande Ocean (July 4 week) about 5 years ago. I recall I was expecting a better view than I received. I think I was supposed to get "oceanview" but figured it would probably be on a low floor with limited ocean view.

I just checked my exchange history with II and the unit I received in exchange was listed as "OCEO". Not sure what unit type that is supposed to be?

I ended up in the Sand Piper building on the 2nd floor (definitely not an ocean view). I'm sure they were completely full that week and although I was a Marriott owner, I don't own at Grande Ocean. I would fully expect that Grande Ocean owners exchanging in would have priority over me for upgrades in view.

It's a beautiful property and I was very happy with my exchange. If you don't go expecting an amazing unit on exchange then you won't be disappointed.

Marriott lists units more by location within the resort than actual view. Basically what the view would be without vegetation or semi permanent later additions. As such, 2 buildings are only OF even though they are L shaped and 6 have only OS units. Also 2 are T shaped and have OF parallel to the ocean and OS perpendicular to the ocean. Sandpiper is OS units only and has no real view due to the vegetation, grill area, etc. You actually did pretty well because exchangers (including those from other Marriott's) are usually given first floor during busier times.

 

[LAX Mom]

You actually did pretty well because exchangers (including those from other Marriott's) are usually given first floor during busier times.

I was very pleased with the location of the unit. It was quiet and the view from the balcony was of the gardens and ponds. I loved Grande Ocean, but it was too hot in July (first time to Hilton Head). Next time I'd try to visit in spring or fall.