On Megarenters - and why hasn't Worldmark fixed this...

[chemteach]

I just looked at Kihei againi. This morning at 6:03 there were no units left for the 2 BR queen for 12/23 check-in. No surprise there. 2-4 units showed availability for 12/24&12/25. Three hours later no units show availability for those dates. Oly 1 unit is available for 12/26 and 5 or more are available for 12/27. So on 11/26, the units for 12/27 should go down by 1. But likely what will happen is that owners who had a waitlist game going will get a reservation off the wait list that will use up the other 12/27 units. It's becoming very predictable. I have watched this happen with all the 2 and 3 bedroom units for Kihei over the last week.

If worldmark only allowed waitlist requests at 11 months in advance, perhaps that would solve the issue. The owners abusing the system are taking advantage of dropping off a few dates at the end of a reservation which appears to kick in the ability of a waitlist request to use those days to begin a new reservation that uses up the dates 13 months plus one or two days. Cut off that workaround and the playing field should be more level.

It's not getting rid of a waitlist ability. Just disconnecting the waitlist from the reservation system. Everyone would have the same ability to make requests for the waitist at the same time.

Worldmark could also decrease the maximum number of reservation days below 30 for the top 5% of requested units. From what I have read, these problems have been going on for years. The other points systems seem to have figured it out. Worldmark really needs to figure something out because they are selling a faulty product if they know the issue exists and don't fix it.

 

[ecwinch]

In the absence of the waitlist 11-13 months out, what is prevent them from doing a cancel/rebook inside 13 months?

But keep working on it. The BoD has proven they are very receptive to well-designed solutions that solve this problem. If you come up with something that will work - they certainly would consider it.

For instance you might consider a rule that a match from the waitlist cannot be extended past the 13 month window. But then people will use it to circumvent the 7 night red season rule.

Remember when you thought it was a simple problem to solve?

And underlying deeded ownership, home resorts, lotteries, and semi-enforceable bans on commercial rental activity are some of the differences between WM and other systems. And to that list - transaction fees, cancellation fees, etc.

 

[chemteach]

In the absence of the waitlist 11-13 months out, what is prevent them from doing a cancel/rebook inside 13 months?

Isn't there a rule that if you cancel a reservation, you can't rebook the same unit within 48 hours? I guess you can get around that if someone owns two accounts. Yes-it is more difficult than I originally thought! Many nuances I don't understand. Maybe worldmark could have a sit-down with 5-10 savvy owners who create scenarios and try to find loopholes to any solutions- and keep working until a solution is found. Naive thinking I realize. But wishful thinking... I am an optimist.[/QUOTE]

 

[ecwinch]

Maybe worldmark could have a sit-down with 5-10 savvy owners who create scenarios and try to find loopholes to any solutions- and keep working until a solution is found. Naive thinking I realize. But wishful thinking... I am an optimist.

That is exactly what they are doing.

 

[chemteach]

It seems that perhaps people are looking at the problem from the wrong viewpoint. The problem is not megarenters (regular owners have also figured out how to use loopholes - and they also probably don't want the system changed - it's working for them); the problem is that the system has loopholes. If every owner had the same probability of getting a high demand week, the system would be working properly. Right now, megarenters and regular owners are using the loophole. Not all owners know about the loopholes - so these owners are disadvantaged and don't even know it. They just know that they can't get a prime week. Just to be clear - I could certainly use the same system that the megarenters use - but I'm not interested in using loopholes. I could stop posting - and that would benefit me because I would ultimately be one of the owners who has figured out how to get prime weeks. But I'd rather be an owner of a system that works the same way for everyone - where we all wake up at 5:55am PST, log on, and try to get the week we want.

So - a different idea (I will keep coming up with ideas that have holes in them, and then hopefully something will stick.)

New idea - for the units that disappear before 13 months out - change the rules around - it might hurt the average owner who IS gaming the system - but it would help all the owners who are NOT gaming the system. (It's pretty clear from what I see each morning for the 13 month availability of Xmas and New Years weeks at about 5 resorts that MOST of the people getting reservations for those weeks are gaming the system - the only way to get 95% of those weeks is to game the system.)

Idea: new rules for the "game the system" weeks (rules applying only to 13 month out reservations, only for ultra prime weeks):

For only those weeks (Worldmark would have to publicize which weeks have the specific rules):

Check-ins allowed only for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and only for 7 days. 1/3 of the units available for Friday, 1/3 for Saturday, 1/3 for Sunday (yes - I realized there are some unit types that have less than 3 available - Worldmark could create some rule about these weeks - the key is that owners could only reserve weekend check-in days at 13 months for these units - and Worldmark needs to be able to clean the rooms, so they have to spread the check-in days out a bit.)

This would hurt owners who try to stay in the same place for a month at a time - but those owners still have the opportunity to get online at 6am 13 months out for each week of the extended period they want to stay somewhere. (And really, shouldn't this be how reservations are done for the high prime weeks - why should someone get 4 prime weeks just because they got lucky and got the reservation at 13 months out - everyone should have the same possibility of getting a reservation for each prime week.)

Possible Nuance - extended reservations could be made for up to "x number of" days ("x" being decided by the BoD), but cancellations/changes are not allowed - if the reservation is cancelled, the points are not returned to the owners account. Guest certificates for these extended reservations would have to be made at the time of the reservation. This would allow people to make extended reservations that could ultimately be a loophole if cancelled, but it would cost the points of the cancelled reservation and the points of the loopholed reservation. Seems better to just not allow reservations beyond 7 days.

This would stop anyone from using the waitlist as a loophole. "Megarenters" and owners would have the same chance of getting the high demand weeks. The Worldmark bylaws allow owners to rent out their units - that can't be stopped - but at least the playing field is leveled and everyone has the same possibility of getting a 13 month out reservation. Days wouldn't randomly disappear at 13 months plus 1 to 5 days out. Monday to Thursday would be gone completely by the previous Sunday, but checkins would not be allowed on those days anyway during the high prime season. Many systems allow only Friday to Sunday checkins. This wouldn't affect all of Worldmark - just the super prime weeks, which would then be treated as many timeshare systems are - Friday to Sunday checkins only...

This system seems to be the easiest way to stop owners from gaming the system. By the time someone has created a reservation all the prime reservations would be gone, and no single owners could somehow access many prime units/weeks for a specific week. Someone would need to have additional computers and hit the "book it" button at exactly 6am to get additional prime weeks. But everyone has the same probability from each electronic device to obtain a specific week. It seems the main owners who would complain about this change would be the ones who know how to game the system. Currently, only people who know how to circumvent the 13 month rule can get multiple prime weeks - probabity-wise, there is no way to get multiple prime weeks for a single date without circumventing the system because 90% of the weeks are gone before they are even reservable at 13 months out.

ecwinch - have they already considered this idea and decided it was too restrictive for the average owner?

 

[chemteach]

That is exactly what they are doing.

NICE!!!

 

[djpotts50]

I do not feel Guest Certificate fees have anything whatsoever to do with mega-renters; for many years, buying to become a TimeShare landlord was on Trendwest, Cendant, & Wyndham's list as a good reason to buy large accounts. Also, the BIGGEST MEGA-RENTER x1000 is Wyndham, not owners themselves. The Guest Certificate Scam is nothing more than an additional money stream. Almost 80% of Wyndham's profits come from new sales of TravelShaft Credits, so this creates another way to generate profits. Wyndham IS NOT EVEN AN OWNER OF WORLDMARK, they are only the Developer & Manger, yet they pay NO GUEST CERTIFICATE FEES when giving away credits or renting out WM units to non-owners, II, RCI, Hotels.com, and on & on. I have been going to WM Updates & Sales Presentations for many years now, and in all those years I have only met two sales people that even owned the minimum 5,000 credit WorldMark account, and you know you talk to at least 2, 3, or even more sales people during each Update/Sales Presentation, and I always ask them if they too are owners. The maintenance fees more than pay for all maintenance costs. Once again, the Guest Certificate Fee Scam is nothing more than another profit stream for Wyndham, if they had to follow that rule themselves, the rule wouldn't exist, because it would cost Wyndham money. haha The money generated by GC Fees do not even go to the WorldMark the Club, they go to WorldMark by Wyndham; if you don't know there is a difference, they you don't know much about WorldMark or Wyndham. That is why they created the GC Fee Scam by use of the Wyndham Controlled WM Board, because the REAL owners of WorldMark would have never voted such a scam into existence. There will likely be a Class Action Lawsuit over this, but Wyndham is bragging that they hire the best & most attorneys that money can buy, so WorldMark owners will lose as usual. I think WM Owners would have a chance at winning ONLY because Wyndham doesn't actually own WorldMark, and the owners never even voted on this BS scam.

 

[bbodb1]

Isn't there a rule that if you cancel a reservation, you can't rebook the same unit within 48 hours? I guess you can get around that if someone owns two accounts. Yes-it is more difficult than I originally thought! Many nuances I don't understand. Maybe worldmark could have a sit-down with 5-10 savvy owners who create scenarios and try to find loopholes to any solutions- and keep working until a solution is found. Naive thinking I realize. But wishful thinking... I am an optimist.

That is exactly what they are doing.

If this is true (and I am NOT saying it is false), three points come to mind:
1) What are the savvy owners getting out of their cooperation? Why would they willingly give over their secrets?
2) If the savvy owners are getting something for their cooperation, what exactly are they getting? Full disclosure would be nice...
3) Who is advocating for the small owners?

 

[ronparise]

It seems that perhaps people are looking at the problem from the wrong viewpoint. The problem is not megarenters (regular owners have also figured out how to use loopholes - and they also probably don't want the system changed - it's working for them); the problem is that the system has loopholes. If every owner had the same probability of getting a high demand week, the system would be working properly. Right now, megarenters and regular owners are using the loophole. Not all owners know about the loopholes - so these owners are disadvantaged and don't even know it. They just know that they can't get a prime week. Just to be clear - I could certainly use the same system that the megarenters use - but I'm not interested in using loopholes. I could stop posting - and that would benefit me because I would ultimately be one of the owners who has figured out how to get prime weeks. But I'd rather be an owner of a system that works the same way for everyone - where we all wake up at 5:55am PST, log on, and try to get the week we want.

So - a different idea (I will keep coming up with ideas that have holes in them, and then hopefully something will stick.)

New idea - for the units that disappear before 13 months out - change the rules around - it might hurt the average owner who IS gaming the system - but it would help all the owners who are NOT gaming the system. (It's pretty clear from what I see each morning for the 13 month availability of Xmas and New Years weeks at about 5 resorts that MOST of the people getting reservations for those weeks are gaming the system - the only way to get 95% of those weeks is to game the system.)

Idea: new rules for the "game the system" weeks (rules applying only to 13 month out reservations, only for ultra prime weeks):

For only those weeks (Worldmark would have to publicize which weeks have the specific rules):

Check-ins allowed only for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and only for 7 days. 1/3 of the units available for Friday, 1/3 for Saturday, 1/3 for Sunday (yes - I realized there are some unit types that have less than 3 available - Worldmark could create some rule about these weeks - the key is that owners could only reserve weekend check-in days at 13 months for these units - and Worldmark needs to be able to clean the rooms, so they have to spread the check-in days out a bit.)

This would hurt owners who try to stay in the same place for a month at a time - but those owners still have the opportunity to get online at 6am 13 months out for each week of the extended period they want to stay somewhere. (And really, shouldn't this be how reservations are done for the high prime weeks - why should someone get 4 prime weeks just because they got lucky and got the reservation at 13 months out - everyone should have the same possibility of getting a reservation for each prime week.)

Possible Nuance - extended reservations could be made for up to "x number of" days ("x" being decided by the BoD), but cancellations/changes are not allowed - if the reservation is cancelled, the points are not returned to the owners account. Guest certificates for these extended reservations would have to be made at the time of the reservation. This would allow people to make extended reservations that could ultimately be a loophole if cancelled, but it would cost the points of the cancelled reservation and the points of the loopholed reservation. Seems better to just not allow reservations beyond 7 days.

This would stop anyone from using the waitlist as a loophole. "Megarenters" and owners would have the same chance of getting the high demand weeks. The Worldmark bylaws allow owners to rent out their units - that can't be stopped - but at least the playing field is leveled and everyone has the same possibility of getting a 13 month out reservation. Days wouldn't randomly disappear at 13 months plus 1 to 5 days out. Monday to Thursday would be gone completely by the previous Sunday, but checkins would not be allowed on those days anyway during the high prime season. Many systems allow only Friday to Sunday checkins. This wouldn't affect all of Worldmark - just the super prime weeks, which would then be treated as many timeshare systems are - Friday to Sunday checkins only...

This system seems to be the easiest way to stop owners from gaming the system. By the time someone has created a reservation all the prime reservations would be gone, and no single owners could somehow access many prime units/weeks for a specific week. Someone would need to have additional computers and hit the "book it" button at exactly 6am to get additional prime weeks. But everyone has the same probability from each electronic device to obtain a specific week. It seems the main owners who would complain about this change would be the ones who know how to game the system. Currently, only people who know how to circumvent the 13 month rule can get multiple prime weeks - probabity-wise, there is no way to get multiple prime weeks for a single date without circumventing the system because 90% of the weeks are gone before they are even reservable at 13 months out.

ecwinch - have they already considered this idea and decided it was too restrictive for the average owner?

I once suggested three changes that would level the playing field. These weren’t original thoughts, it’s the way club Wyndham worked and say what you will about club Wyndham, but at least every unit in every resort was available to every owner at the same time

As it is and was with Worldmark with anyday check in only a few prime weeks open up each day

1) end owner to owner transfer of credits
2) Friday only check in (or Saturday, or Sunday)
3) 7 day reservations

Not only did my ideas fall on deaf ears, club Wyndham has instituted any day check in and up to 14 day reservations

So I would t expect changes like this to be considered. It seems flexibility trumps fairness

I’m pretty sure the megarenters would be happy with a fair system where everyone has an equal shot at every reservation. But that wouldn’t satisfy all the regular owners because the problem for them, isn’t that they can’t get a reservation, their problem is that that non owners get to enjoy the resorts without paying for them. And I believe that that’s wyndhams problem too
For the owners it’s pure selfishness but for Wyndham it’s economic. None of my rental customers were prospects for the sales staff. I mean, why would someone pay Wyndham $20000 for a weeks worth of credits, plus the maintenance fees when they know that they can get a prime week from a megarenter for only a small premium over the maintenance fees

Bottom line in my estimation is that Wyndham will force out the Worldmark megarenters,

 

[ecwinch]

I do not feel Guest Certificate fees have anything whatsoever to do with mega-renters; for many years, buying to become a TimeShare landlord was on Trendwest, Cendant, & Wyndham's list as a good reason to buy large accounts. Also, the BIGGEST MEGA-RENTER x1000 is Wyndham, not owners themselves. The Guest Certificate Scam is nothing more than an additional money stream. Almost 80% of Wyndham's profits come from new sales of TravelShaft Credits, so this creates another way to generate profits. Wyndham IS NOT EVEN AN OWNER OF WORLDMARK, they are only the Developer & Manger, yet they pay NO GUEST CERTIFICATE FEES when giving away credits or renting out WM units to non-owners, II, RCI, Hotels.com, and on & on. I have been going to WM Updates & Sales Presentations for many years now, and in all those years I have only met two sales people that even owned the minimum 5,000 credit WorldMark account, and you know you talk to at least 2, 3, or even more sales people during each Update/Sales Presentation, and I always ask them if they too are owners. The maintenance fees more than pay for all maintenance costs. Once again, the Guest Certificate Fee Scam is nothing more than another profit stream for Wyndham, if they had to follow that rule themselves, the rule wouldn't exist, because it would cost Wyndham money. haha The money generated by GC Fees do not even go to the WorldMark the Club, they go to WorldMark by Wyndham; if you don't know there is a difference, they you don't know much about WorldMark or Wyndham. That is why they created the GC Fee Scam by use of the Wyndham Controlled WM Board, because the REAL owners of WorldMark would have never voted such a scam into existence. There will likely be a Class Action Lawsuit over this, but Wyndham is bragging that they hire the best & most attorneys that money can buy, so WorldMark owners will lose as usual. I think WM Owners would have a chance at winning ONLY because Wyndham doesn't actually own WorldMark, and the owners never even voted on this BS scam.

First off, a lawsuit - while possible - faces an uphill climb, since the governing documents explicitly grant the BoD the authority to establish fees.

Secondly, BoD President John Henley stated over on WMOwners that Wyndham is charged a guest certificate for non-owner usage.

And lastly, the GC is revenue to the Club not Wyndham.

While I doubt any of the above will alter what you believe, those are the facts as I know them.

 

[bbodb1]

I can testify to this:

..Secondly, BoD President John Henley stated over on WMOwners that Wyndham is charged a guest certificate for non-owner usage.....

because when we stayed at WorldMark St. George, we owned only in the RCI and Wyndham systems. We used some of our Wyndham points to reserve time at WM St. George and had to pay an extra $99 for the privilege of doing so.

That did drive me to purchase some WorldMark points thereafter as many of our future desired travel locations are in the west. I am concerned there are places I will NOT be able to go given how few points I have and the current restrictions on my ability to travel due to work. I hope when we retire, we will be able to hit the resorts like Depoe Bay, Yellowstone, etc since we will be able to travel year round....

 

[ecwinch]

I am concerned there are places I will NOT be able to go given how few points I have and the current restrictions on my ability to travel due to work. I hope when we retire, we will be able to hit the resorts like Depoe Bay, Yellowstone, etc since we will be able to travel year round....

I don’t think you have a great deal to worry about... because WM has many cash booking options. We travel year round, and because HK is included - we usual do cash bookings. Saving our credits for flex exchanges and long bookings.

And off-season you can book with FAX - which does not have the $65 min per night. We had some Utah reservations in Oct at around $40 a night with FAX. And no limit on off-season FAX usage.

 

[ecwinch]

I’m pretty sure the megarenters would be happy with a fair system where everyone has an equal shot at every reservation. But that wouldn’t satisfy all the regular owners because the problem for them, isn’t that they can’t get a reservation, their problem is that that non owners get to enjoy the resorts without paying for them. And I believe that that’s wyndhams problem too
For the owners it’s pure selfishness but for Wyndham it’s economic.

Bottom line in my estimation is that Wyndham will force out the Worldmark megarenters,

Of course Megarenters want a “fair system”... only fair to them means one that ensures that they can continue to reap the profits they enjoy and to outbid owners for rentable inventory. Like most businesses, they know the man on the street is no competition.

 

[Marathoner]

How many knowledgeable owners on this forum are not able to get the reservation they are looking for at 13 months? I can get the high demand reservations that I am looking for most of the time, even if it's not all the time. So I bet most can too.

The people who complain are mostly the ones who do not know the booking rules or don't plan exactly at 13 months.

I too see the 13 month manipulation that occurs but I don't worry about it because - surprise, surprise - there is injustice in life.

If you want to make everything fair at the 13 month mark, implement a random lottery system for those high reservation weeks.

What Wyndham is doing is implementing policies - in the name of preventing mega renting - that raise much more money from its owner base and have many more restrictions. No HK transfer. GC fees. No throwaway days beyond 13 months. Credit transfer limits.

So the real question is do you want to have a cheaper and more flexible club with some mega renters or a club with many more restrictions and fees with no mega renters?

I think all the proposals that Eric advocates are against the principles of Worldmark's original founding.

Be very careful that in advocating change in the club, you can permanently accept the fees and limitations that come with reducing mega renting.



Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

 

[chemteach]

7 day reservations seem fair and reasonable. I wonder why the board wouldn't consider that. The GC fees seem unreasonable. It doesn't cost anything to the management company to make them. But gc fees are a separate issue. Manipulation of the 13 month reservation rule is what seems to be the most problematic issue-particularly since the BoD knows about it. It is their responsibility to come up with a plan that works. I am a little surprised that there has never been a class action lawsuit about the issue. A 7 day reservation rule with weekend check-ins only ought to level the playing field.

 

[chemteach]

What Wyndham is doing is implementing policies - in the name of preventing mega renting - that raise much more money from its owner base and have many more restrictions. No HK transfer. GC fees. No throwaway days beyond 13 months. Credit transfer limits.

So the real question is do you want to have a cheaper and more flexible club with some mega renters or a club with many more restrictions and fees with no mega renters?
Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

I think we can agree that the fees have nothing to do with megarenters. That's just smoke and mirrors. Megarenters make a little less money, but the fees won't dissuade them.

It would be nice to level the playing field without introducing new fees. Fees aren't needed to equalize the ability to get prime weeks. Workarounds need to be removed to equalize the ability to reserve prime weeks.

 

[sue1947]

A 7 day reservation rule with weekend check-ins only ought to level the playing field.

No, it just takes a very flexible system and turns it into Wyndham. If you wanted that type of system, you should have purchased that system. You bought into a system with rules and now are complaining that you can't get what you want because others are using those rules to their advantage. But mostly, you can't get what you want because there are more owners wanting them than there are units available. You have unrealistic expectations and are now trying to screw things up for the rest of us. As somebody new to the WM system, perhaps you should get to know it before proposing all these rules.

You missed the main points that Marathoner made:
People who don't know the rules choose not to know the rules. They are there for anybody to learn and use. It doesn't matter how many rules who want to change or implement, those who don't want to take the time to figure it out, won't. And those that purchased without understanding the competition for holiday weeks should not expect the whole system to be rearranged to accommodate your lack of due diligence before purchasing.
Every rule change impacts owners in unexpected ways and makes what used to be a great flexible system less so. Wyndham will impose as many fees as they can to increase their profits. If there is a fee in the Wyndham system (like the guest certs fee) you can expect to see it show up in WM at some time in the future. You can also be assured they will use mega-renters as their excuse.

So the real question is do you want to have a cheaper and more flexible club with some mega renters or a club with many more restrictions and fees with no mega renters?

This is the crux of it. We all purchased based on the rules and flexibility in place at the time. If you wanted a guarantee of being able to book multiple ski weeks at Christmas, then you should have purchased a fixed week. Your poor decision is not a reason to change the club we all purchased into something completely different. Wyndham, the BOD (controlled by Wyndham) and some owners who are also Wyndham owners (like Eric and Ron) seem determined to change WM into Wyndham as much as possible. Again, if I wanted Wyndham, I'd have purchased that system.
And again, learn the system before you start trying to change it. Your unrealistic expectations is not a reason to screw over the rest of us.

Sue

 

[am1]

Isn't there a rule that if you cancel a reservation, you can't rebook the same unit within 48 hours? I guess you can get around that if someone owns two accounts. Yes-it is more difficult than I originally thought! Many nuances I don't understand. Maybe worldmark could have a sit-down with 5-10 savvy owners who create scenarios and try to find loopholes to any solutions- and keep working until a solution is found. Naive thinking I realize. But wishful thinking... I am an optimist.

[/QUOTE]

Wyndham did not want to pay me before for that info so I doubt they would pay wm owners now.

 

[am1]

There was no points imbalance in my account... It looked like I had more points in reservations than my ownership justified so they suspended my accounts pending an audit...but the audit never happened. I was able account for every point. They should have lifted the suspension at that point. But they didnt... so after that, the suspension was kept in place for no reason except that they wanted me (and others) out.. I asked that they give me a number...How many points did they think I wasnt entitled to. and we could talk about that.. They didnt come up with a number, and they wouldnt talk. Bottom line is that they wouldnt pursue any course of action that let me continue renting. You are right, I could have pursued a fairly easy court case but that would take time and money, that I didnt have, and wouldnt have been willing to spend even if I did. Wyndham has fairly deep pockets. I pursued a settlement instead

I think there is probably something in the worldmark docs that wyndham could cite to justify an audit,, and then they could negotiate settlements like they did with us

8 months before the account locks I had 40 - 50 million extra points in my accounts. Unsure as they eventually got mixed into my points but being early December I asked Wyndham about it and people were suppose to look into it but nothing became of it other then the points expiring December 31. No way to push them forward at that point. That was not the only reason for point imbalances. A 200 - 300 million number was thrown out when we were working out a solution but I had very little faith in any number thrown out and at that point the only important number started with a dollar sign.

I did not do any point stripping.

 

[tschwa2]

It's wyndham who wants to turn worldmark into wyndham because it presumably is more profitable for them. They were going to find a way to do this regardless of what owners here or other worldmark owners want or do not want. The moment the BOD opened the door a crack to Wyndham the old club was gone. It was just a matter of time.

 

[bizaro86]

I can testify to this:



because when we stayed at WorldMark St. George, we owned only in the RCI and Wyndham systems. We used some of our Wyndham points to reserve time at WM St. George and had to pay an extra $99 for the privilege of doing so.

That did drive me to purchase some WorldMark points thereafter as many of our future desired travel locations are in the west. I am concerned there are places I will NOT be able to go given how few points I have and the current restrictions on my ability to travel due to work. I hope when we retire, we will be able to hit the resorts like Depoe Bay, Yellowstone, etc since we will be able to travel year round....

You paid the club pass booking fee. That is the fee for a Wyndham to Worldmark exchange (or vice versa) it isn't the guest certificate fee and doesn't go to the club. It really doesn't have anything to do with this issue.

 

[jpegan]

I have been an owner of Trendwest/Worldmark for about thirty years. When I bought in, we were told our ownership could be transferred by WILL to new owners. Since our ownership makes it a part of our ESTATE, why do we have to buy gift certificates for our children to use our credits???

If I remember correctly, when Windham took control they were give a very large amount of credits as part of the deal. I believe, Windham is probably the LARGEST MEGARENTER. The last two times I was at our resort at Daytona Beach I asked people on elevator and hallways if they were with World Mark or Other. Less than three out of ten were World Mark. My 3 visits to Los Vegas are another story.

Why are the employees at our World Mark resorts not wearing World Mark uniforms?

 

[chemteach]

No, it just takes a very flexible system and turns it into Wyndham. If you wanted that type of system, you should have purchased that system. You bought into a system with rules and now are complaining that you can't get what you want because others are using those rules to their advantage. But mostly, you can't get what you want because there are more owners wanting them than there are units available. You have unrealistic expectations and are now trying to screw things up for the rest of us.

You missed the main points that Marathoner made:
People who don't know the rules choose not to know the rules. They are there for anybody to learn and use.



This is the crux of it. We all purchased based on the rules and flexibility in place at the time.
And again, learn the system before you start trying to change it. Your unrealistic expectations is not a reason to screw over the rest of us.

Sue

Sue - I have no problem learning how to utilize the loopholes Worldmark has in place. I'm pretty sure I already know how people are doing it - I have tested a few things and can already get what I want if I start the process a week in advance of the week I want. I have no doubt that I'll be able to get the weeks I want next year if the rules don't change. However - I don't like the idea that I would be basically using loopholes to ensure that I can get a unit for 13.5 months out. It is clear that many people can and do use these loopholes. I just don't think it's right. It is not fair to the rest of the Worldmark owners. Worldmark has a rule that units can be booked 13 months in advance. I knew going in that I'd need to game the system to get what I want. But now that I can see how rampant the problem is - I believe the problem is large enough that the Worldmark BoD has the fiduciary responsibility to the owners to fix the system to make it more fair for all owners - not just the 1% of owners who know how to work the system to their advantage. I'm not suggesting that the entire system should change - I'm suggesting that for the highly desired weeks (the weeks for which 13 month availability changes when it shouldn't be possible unless there is a loophole) there should be a subset of rules that keep people from using loopholes for those weeks. Worldmark knows which weeks those are - they have all the data available to them. I don't care how they do it - I just think the system is broken and needs a fix. Maybe they make checkins available all days of the week, and divide the number of available highly desired weeks by 7 and randomly assign check-in days for those. Everyone could see what is available - the system is still as flexible as it is right now. The only difference is that all owners would have equal access. Look - would I personally do better if I didn't make all this fuss? Quite likely yes - I would just reserve weeks in advance of weeks I want, find someone else to work with me with their account - and we could reserve weeks for each other - cancel, and get each other's units off the waitlist or by coordinating cancelling a reservation and reserving it with the other account just as the week is cancelled. It's not rocket science. But I'd much rather not make reservations this way because I don't think it's ethical. Maybe many people believe there isn't an ethical issue if you work loopholes that don't go against the rules. I personally think it's a problem. So rather than use the loopholes to my own advantage, which I could easily do this spring, summer, next year, etc., I'd much rather work in a way that feels ethical to me. But the only way to do that is if the reservation rules are changed. Currently, the only way to ensure you get the reservation you want is to do things that are within the rules, but go against the spirit of the rules.

The BoD is responsible for creating a system that has rules that work equally for all club owners. That currently is not the situation. I'm making a fuss because I don't want to use loopholes to get the units I want. I want to get those units by waking up at 5:50 PST and taking the risk that others may beat me to the great reservations.

TUG members who own Worldmark are not at all representative of the average Worldmark owner. I'm not concerned about only TUG members getting the weeks they want - I'm concerned about ALL Worldmark members having the same opportunity to get the weeks they want. TUG is a great place to learn about how to work each timeshare system - and I am happy to help TUG members get the weeks they want - through ethical means. I've been helped tremendously over the years with my different ownerships - TUG has been wonderful - but one of the things I've learned from TUG is that we should play within the spirit of the rules - and you can get amazing vacations playing within the spirit of the rules. You have to know some secrets of the game - which systems to buy, which RCI and II resorts can be exchanged into, etc. But ultimately, most people on TUG want to make timesharing work fairly for all owners. That's all I'm trying to accomplish here...

 

[ecwinch]

I can see the "intelligentsia" attitude that was pervasive when the BoD last acted to level the playing field (by closing the grouped reservation loophole) is starting to emerge. The inference that those who do not know how to "work" the system are too lazy to learn how to do it. Ignoring that if everyone had the knowledge, then they would be far less likely to get what they want.

But they know that is unlikely, so prefer to resist any change in order to preserve the advantage that enjoy. After all it is a zero-sum game. For every member that snags those two weeks in Hawaii at XMas, there are many more who miss out. But as long you are in the first group, you certainly dont want that to change.

I guess the counter is that if they wanted a system where the rules dont change, they should have bought a fixed week with real property owner rights that cannot be altered .

 

[chemteach]

I can see the "intelligentsia" attitude that was pervasive when the BoD acted to level the playing field (by closing the grouped reservation loophole) is starting to emerge. The inference that those who do not know how to "work" the system are too lazy to learn how to do it. Ignoring that if everyone had the knowledge, then they would be far less likely to get what they want.

But they know that is unlikely, so prefer to resist any change in order to preserve the advantage that enjoy.

Maybe all the BoD needs to do is to publicize how people are using loopholes - which makes the loopholes themselves no longer loopholes - just part of the reservation process. LOL TOTAL SARCASM here... The one thing that really irked me was a post I read about someone offering to get people the reservations they wanted for a $100 charge. That's INSANE!!!! I have no doubt there are a LOT of Worldmark members who are paying that person to work the system for them. And the person is making $100 for doing about 10 minutes of work. It's crazy! When that sort of thing is happening, you know there is something broken in the system.