Where do all the unused weeks go?

[BocaBum99]

You obviously have a selective memory. Let me remind you of the proactive posts I made when it was learned that RCI was reworking the crossover grids. I posted a number of thoughts on how RCI could improve them to make them more fair for the exchange system. I didn't even say they should just abolish them, because some significant reforms were better than nothing. However, RCI didn't touch any of the problems with the basics and just tweaked the numbers a bit.

Let me also remind you that I am no more ''anti-RCI'' than I was anti-Delta in the Save Sky Miles campaign. I oppose some policies that have substantially deviated from the traditions of RCI prior to the Cendant takeover, specifically their widespread rental campaign from the spacebank to the general public, and the interface between points and week which is unfair to Weeks. IMHO RCI under the Christel deHaan plan was a great company with the best exchange program ever devised. I would love nothing better in timesharing than to have the old, customer-oriented RCI back!

If you don't agree that an exchange company should operate honestly without cheating any category of its members, then I guess we do have a difference of perspective.

Your recommendations fall short of reasonable suggestions, so nobody in RCI takes them seriously, nor should they. They come across as hallow recommendations to prove that RCI is a bad and evil company when indeed your proposals for pricing could not be reasonably met by any company.

Your limited understanding of how pricing is done for products leads you to the wrong conclusions about how to fix them. It would be like David Boies coming to me for suggestions on how to argue a supreme court case. I may have an opinion, but it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on in helping him win the case.

On the specific point of one-way crossover grids. Your initial assumption is completely wrong. You claim that they are somehow illegal. They are not and they are employed across the timeshare industry as a reasonable method of pricing a request first exchange.

The ironic thing is that in all the various versions of the RCI Class Action Suit, none of the complaints seriously consider your idea about crossover grids being the source of any misconduct. They all excluded it when push came to shove. Even you complained about it. Why don't you admit that you could be wrong about it?

Could it be that many very sharp legal experts looked at the argument you have make ad nauseum regarding crossover grids and those arguments fell on deaf ears. If there were any chance that that argument could remotely help them with their case, they would have included it. Obviously, it can't.

RCI may be guilty of a lot of wrong doing. Creating a one-way crossover grid is certainly NOT one of them.

 

[BocaBum99]

If you don't agree that an exchange company should operate honestly without cheating any category of its members, then I guess we do have a difference of perspective.

I do believe they should operate honestly. And, I want for them to be severely penalized for any and ALL illegal activity. What I don't want is for them to be hung out to dry for baseless allegations such as those you make regarding their crossover grids.

Where we differ is you just want RCI to be convicted or held liable for acts they YOU believe are illegitimate because YOU BELIEVE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN. Let me remind you. IT HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVEN. And, NOT EVERYBODY agrees with you about your allegations. I, for one, COMPLETELY DISAGREE with your assertions about crossover grids. Apparantly, so do all the attorneys who make decisions on the class action lawsuits.

You don't even allow for the possibility that you could be wrong about RCI. Well, I believe you are. And, so do many others.

Your agenda appears to be to do anything you can to get our legal and judicial system to force RCI to do business they way you want it done regarding crossover grids. Unless you become a product manager for RCI who makes that decision or one of the executives accountable for that decision, it's NOT YOUR CALL.

I am fine with you stating your opinion that others should avoid RCI if they keep the crossover grid. I have no problem with that. All consumers should vote with their wallets. That is the BEST way to get a company to change their ways. My problem is you go too far by making what I believe are false allegations of wrong doing. Obviously, others here believe that as well which is in my view the real reason why they continue to post counterarguments to your assertions.

 

[BocaBum99]

You need to understand the impact of overaveraging on the RCI generic grids.

Actually, it's YOU who needs to understand the FACT that there is NO perfect pricing mechanism. In 100% of ALL pricing methods ever created, including Bid/Ask auctions, there are prices that do not make sense.

Underpricing prime weeks only leads to faster out of stock conditions where supply cannot meet demand.

Over pricing non-prime weeks simply leads to inventory that doesn't move.

You could create any pricing methodology you wanted for any product and I could find fault with it.

The system that cheats consumers the least is the one that provides them with the most information on which to make a purchase decision. Then, they can make a decision to make or not make an exchange with full knowledge of what they are doing.

The system that cheats them the most is the one where they are clueless about the value of what they own such as a weeks based trading power formula system and they end up taking anything they can to avoid a complete loss of their week. That is the epitome of corrupt systems.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Tolerating Imperfection.

The system that cheats them the most is the one where they are clueless about the value of what they own such as a weeks based trading power formula system and they end up taking anything they can to avoid a complete loss of their week.

It's hard to get much into the Yea-Boo kerfuffle over whether RCI is good guys or bad guys -- that's too much like cheering or razzing the local video store. I mean, sheesh, who cares?

Sidestepping all that as much as possible, I think what it boils down to for regular walking-around people who just want luxury vacation accommodations for roughly Motel 6 & Super 8 costs is that week-for-week timeshare exchanging is becoming more & more a shot in the dark while points-based timeshare exchanging -- flawed, not to say corrupt, as it may be -- at least shows what the values are on both ends (depositing & reserving) in advance of committing to an exchange.

If too many folks come round to seeing it as a raw deal, the customers will stay away in droves & the system will be forced to improve or wither away.

If enough folks are OK with it more or less as it is, then it's apt to muddle along pretty much unchanged.

Meanwhile, what make the imperfections tolerable is the huge margin between the prices that the timeshare companies sell their used* timeshares for & the minimal prices for used* timeshares on the secondary market. The difference -- thousands of dollars -- means the full-freight buyers who exchange are getting hosed from the get-go while the resale buyers who exchange are merely seeing their gigantic advantage trimmed down to enormous. (Not all timeshare owners exchange. For non-exchangers, this whole kerfuffle is pretty much mox nix.)

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

* By the time anybody shows up & checks in, all timeshares are used -- even the 1s sold full-freight for big bux by the timeshare companies. So it goes. ​

 

[bruwery]

If you say you have theories and that RCI "Might" be guilty of crimes I would not be upset in the slightest - but that's not what you are saying. You are stating, without any proof or anyone else on this planet to back you up, that RCI is a crook. There is a huge difference.

I use RCI Points and this affects me. Others on this web site relied on RCI to answer questions, they stopped abruptly - I believe a direct result of your unsubstantiated and baseless charges. You are impacting many of us here.

I believe you owe TUG members an apology for your relentless attacks against RCI.

Let's put things in perspective. Well first, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not attacking you, Perry. I chose to quote you because there were a couple of points I want to specifically discuss, but in all honesty, I could have quoted a dozen different posts by several members.

Okay, the disclaimer's out of the way, so now, the perspective. This is merely an internet forum, where opinions are expressed. It's not the Chamber of Commerce, or the Better Business Bureau, or some large Washington lobbying agency. Our assertions on this website don't have to be based in facts, and we really don't possess that much clout. We all post our opinions; likewise Carolinian can post his opinions however he chooses, within the rules of the forum. His assertions may seem ridiculous to some, but demanding proof in an internet forum seems equally absurd.

Interestingly, the people on here calling for apologies are the same ones who have been the most bullheaded about this issue.

In any case, I'm glad for all the people posting on this topic, because it shows that this is a complex situation. At the end of the day, probably nobody's completely right, and nobody's completely wrong.

Let's keep in mind that all of us here want the same thing: positive and predictable timeshare experiences. Clearly, we don't all agree on how best to obtain them, or even what the problems are, but I'm not sure we need to be adversarial about it.

For me, it's simple. If I go to a restaurant and have an unpleasant experience, I simply don't go there anymore. I don't sue them. (My wife's the pickiest eater on the planet; I'd be in court constantly...) I figure the marketplace will punish them if they continue to disappoint others.

I am not confident that RCI can get me the exchange I want, so I'm not depositing my week with them. If somebody wants to sue them, that's fine, but I'm not going to help. Nor am I going to defend them.

For what it's worth, I don't think Madge disappeared because of Carolinian. Maybe RCI decided that we're all way too full of ourselves and opted to distance themselves from us.

Or, with the lawsuit pending, perhaps legal counsel advised them that it was best to avoid having sponsored representation in places where speculation regarding said lawsuit is being freely tossed about.

Thanks to all for posting. This has been a most enjoyable topic, although I honestly can't remember what the OP's question was...

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

For me, it's simple. If I go to a restaurant and have an unpleasant experience, I simply don't go there anymore. I don't sue them. (My wife's the pickiest eater on the planet; I'd be in court constantly...) I figure the marketplace will punish them if they continue to disappoint others.

I am not confident that RCI can get me the exchange I want, so I'm not depositing my week with them. If somebody wants to sue them, that's fine, but I'm not going to help. Nor am I going to defend them.

That's the attitude I've always taken and propounded. My personal RCI membership is ending in a couple of months, and I have no intention of renewing it. I've not been dissatisfied with exchanges I've received through RCI - I simply have better alternatives. With my minis I can get to 75% of the locations I want to visit, I can reserve directly without having to wait for an exchange, I can swap one week in prime time for two weeks in shoulder seasons, and I don't have to pay an additional fee.

For the times when I want to venture outside the minis, independent exchange companies work just fine and cost less than RCI. Or I can access II or RCI through my mini and receive preferred treatment.

***

For people in my situation - and I believe there are a growing number of us - RCI and II aren't bad - they're just increasingly irrelevant.

If I were managing RCI and I saw the market heading this direction, I would be scrambling to try to get a new business model in place before my current one crumbled. Which is one of the reasons I believe that RCI is endeavoring to become more than just an exchange company. And it's why I believe RCI perceives their biggest competitor to be ResortQuest, not II.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Niche Marketing ? (Not That There's Anything Wrong With That.)

I believe RCI perceives their biggest competitor to be ResortQuest, not II.

Looks like ResortQuest is letting RCI & I-I handle overbuilt Orlando & is just renting out resorts itself in the rest of Florida.

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

 

[PerryM]

Stand around if you want...

Let's put things in perspective. Well first, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not attacking you, Perry. I chose to quote you because there were a couple of points I want to specifically discuss, but in all honesty, I could have quoted a dozen different posts by several members.

Okay, the disclaimer's out of the way, so now, the perspective. This is merely an internet forum, where opinions are expressed. It's not the Chamber of Commerce, or the Better Business Bureau, or some large Washington lobbying agency. Our assertions on this website don't have to be based in facts, and we really don't possess that much clout. We all post our opinions; likewise Carolinian can post his opinions however he chooses, within the rules of the forum. His assertions may seem ridiculous to some, but demanding proof in an internet forum seems equally absurd.

Interestingly, the people on here calling for apologies are the same ones who have been the most bullheaded about this issue.

In any case, I'm glad for all the people posting on this topic, because it shows that this is a complex situation. At the end of the day, probably nobody's completely right, and nobody's completely wrong.

Let's keep in mind that all of us here want the same thing: positive and predictable timeshare experiences. Clearly, we don't all agree on how best to obtain them, or even what the problems are, but I'm not sure we need to be adversarial about it.

For me, it's simple. If I go to a restaurant and have an unpleasant experience, I simply don't go there anymore. I don't sue them. (My wife's the pickiest eater on the planet; I'd be in court constantly...) I figure the marketplace will punish them if they continue to disappoint others.

I am not confident that RCI can get me the exchange I want, so I'm not depositing my week with them. If somebody wants to sue them, that's fine, but I'm not going to help. Nor am I going to defend them.

For what it's worth, I don't think Madge disappeared because of Carolinian. Maybe RCI decided that we're all way too full of ourselves and opted to distance themselves from us.

Or, with the lawsuit pending, perhaps legal counsel advised them that it was best to avoid having sponsored representation in places where speculation regarding said lawsuit is being freely tossed about.

Thanks to all for posting. This has been a most enjoyable topic, although I honestly can't remember what the OP's question was...

I understand that the topic “RCI is a crook” has been now associated with TUG – I’d be very surprised if RCI quit participating for any other reason but the constant, daily attacks against them and these are vicious attacks. Why should they feel welcomed here?

I merely ask someone who calls me, a company, or a fellow Tugger, a crook to supply verifiable information – I have a long track record of doing this on TUG. Some may remember Herb from South Africa – I asked for proof there – and it was eventually provided.

If we don’t do this we simply become a bystander watching a mugging going on and could care less. And that’s what is happening – the high tech version of a mugging. I choose to not stand by idly. If you don't ask for proof - how long before you become the target?

 

[mshatty]

. . . . .Or, with the lawsuit pending, perhaps legal counsel advised them that it was best to avoid having sponsored representation in places where speculation regarding said lawsuit is being freely tossed about.

Thanks to all for posting. This has been a most enjoyable topic, although I honestly can't remember what the OP's question was...

If RCI were my client, you can bet that discontinuing the Ask RCI Forum would have been a high priority, especially with the questions being asked that specifically related to causes of action alleged in the class action. To me it was astonishing that Madge continued here as long as she did after the lawsuits were filed.

 

[JLB]

I equivocated, saying if and perhaps.

And, I no longer have a A game.

I have no answer to your question, Jim. You point to a real loss (and, the cause); people should go back to read your post. In fact, you brought your A-game to this entire thread.

 

[bruwery]

I understand that the topic “RCI is a crook” has been now associated with TUG – I’d be very surprised if RCI quit participating for any other reason but the constant, daily attacks against them and these are vicious attacks. Why should they feel welcomed here?

I merely ask someone who calls me, a company, or a fellow Tugger, a crook to supply verifiable information – I have a long track record of doing this on TUG. Some may remember Herb from South Africa – I asked for proof there – and it was eventually provided.

If we don’t do this we simply become a bystander watching a mugging going on and could care less. And that’s what is happening – the high tech version of a mugging. I choose to not stand by idly. If you don't ask for proof - how long before you become the target?

...and you're the self-appointed police?

I don't necessarily agree that this is a mugging. I see it as a few people who have a problem with RCI and have vented their frustrations.

I do not believe, for one moment, that the items posted here have any overall impact on RCI's business. We are but a handful of people in a giant world. Additionally, no conclusion is ever reached on this topic. One post says RCI is bad, the next says RCI is good. It's a wash.

Microsoft takes a serious bashing every day on a multitude of websites. Are you rushing to their defense?

Is there any proof that the topic RCI is a crook has now been associated with TUG? Or can you merely point me to a website where a couple of people may have expressed that opinion?

When I talk to people about timesharing, nobody has ever come back to me and said "Hey, avoid that TUG website, because their official opinion is that RCI is a scoundrel".

Rather, as a general rule, they say "Timesharing is stupid. Why would you buy one of those? Umm, by the way, what the @#$% is TUG?"

It doesn't appear to me that TUG is an enemy of RCI. The reputation of the industry itself is a much more real problem.

 

[PerryM]

...and you're the self-appointed police?

I don't necessarily agree that this is a mugging. I see it as a few people who have a problem with RCI and have vented their frustrations.

I do not believe, for one moment, that the items posted here have any overall impact on RCI's business. We are but a handful of people in a giant world. Additionally, no conclusion is ever reached on this topic. One post says RCI is bad, the next says RCI is good. It's a wash.

Microsoft takes a serious bashing every day on a multitude of websites. Are you rushing to their defense?

Is there any proof that the topic RCI is a crook has now been associated with TUG? Or can you merely point me to a website where a couple of people may have expressed that opinion?

When I talk to people about timesharing, nobody has ever come back to me and said "Hey, avoid that TUG website, because their official opinion is that RCI is a scoundrel".

Rather, as a general rule, they say "Timesharing is stupid. Why would you buy one of those? Umm, by the way, what the @#$% is TUG?"

It doesn't appear to me that TUG is an enemy of RCI. The reputation of the industry itself is a much more real problem.

You bring up the perfect example “and you're the self-appointed police” now I’m expected to demonstrate that I am not the police. You make my case perfectly – just saying a phrase like “RCI is a crook” results in it becoming the “Internet truth” unless someone asks for it to be proven.

You make my case – thanks.

 

[bruwery]

You bring up the perfect example “and you're the self-appointed police” now I’m expected to demonstrate that I am not the police. You make my case perfectly – just saying a phrase like “RCI is a crook” results in it becoming the “Internet truth” unless someone asks for it to be proven.

You make my case – thanks.

Deleted. It isn't worth it.

 

[Aldo]

I do not believe, for one moment, that the items posted here have any overall impact on RCI's business. We are but a handful of people in a giant world.

Where do you think the lead plantiffs were found, anyway? By attorneys discussing timesharing with the neighbors over the backyard hedge?

And where do you think the literally tens of thousands of emails the class action attorneys have received from other disgruntled RCI members which collaborate the charges of the lead plantiffs came from? Where do you think they heard about this class action suit?

Give you a hint. It wasn't from "Endless Vacations" magazine.

 

[taffy19]

The system that cheats consumers the least is the one that provides them with the most information on which to make a purchase decision. Then, they can make a decision to make or not make an exchange with full knowledge of what they are doing.

The system that cheats them the most is the one where they are clueless about the value of what they own such as a weeks based trading power formula system and they end up taking anything they can to avoid a complete loss of their week. That is the epitome of corrupt systems.

I hope that RedWeek is listening and taking notes. I also hope that they will make the system transparent so we know that we are treated fairly.

I like the idea very much that weeks are given a number of points so you know immediately what your week is worth and can accept or reject the offer. I also understand that they have to give you a limited time for accepting the offer or not. All they need now is some good inventory.

 

[Carolinian]

The old command economies of the eastern bloc provided plenty of information on prices, but it wasn't a pro-consumer arrangement. You need a market that responds to supply and demand not a calcified schedule of prices.

Actually, it's YOU who needs to understand the FACT that there is NO perfect pricing mechanism. In 100% of ALL pricing methods ever created, including Bid/Ask auctions, there are prices that do not make sense.

Underpricing prime weeks only leads to faster out of stock conditions where supply cannot meet demand.

Over pricing non-prime weeks simply leads to inventory that doesn't move.

You could create any pricing methodology you wanted for any product and I could find fault with it.

The system that cheats consumers the least is the one that provides them with the most information on which to make a purchase decision. Then, they can make a decision to make or not make an exchange with full knowledge of what they are doing.

The system that cheats them the most is the one where they are clueless about the value of what they own such as a weeks based trading power formula system and they end up taking anything they can to avoid a complete loss of their week. That is the epitome of corrupt systems.

 

[Carolinian]

What I want is for the system to be FAIR with the Weeks members who are getting royally screwed by the crossover grids. You are into Points so you simply don't seem to care that people on the Weeks side are getting hosed. It really depends on which side of the fence you are on. The big advocates of the crossover grids are Points members who can snatch our prime inventory with those grids at bargain basement prices. It is all self interest.
Those of us in Weeks want to protect our inventory from being poached, and at least some of those in Points want to continue to be able to poach our inventory.

As to how downright fraudulent the crossover grids can be, I will use an example from the Points book I inherited from a member who bailed out because he was getting hosed by RCI Points on international air tickets and just got a bellyfull of it. This is not the current book and the grids have changed some, but not that much.

British Virgin Islands caramaran cruise resorts - Gold Crown:

in Points - Trade Winds Cruise Club - BVI, Tortola, week 5-17 116,000 points

in Weeks - The Yachting Club, Tortola, week 5-17 24,000 points

That is a big ripoff if I have ever seen one. Of course since that directory, I understand The Yachting Club has swtiched to points. They had to, as RCI was royally hosing their members with the crossover grids.

I have posted numerous other examples on these boards before. The points advocates simply don't care whether the system is fair or not to Weeks members.

I do believe they should operate honestly. And, I want for them to be severely penalized for any and ALL illegal activity. What I don't want is for them to be hung out to dry for baseless allegations such as those you make regarding their crossover grids.

Where we differ is you just want RCI to be convicted or held liable for acts they YOU believe are illegitimate because YOU BELIEVE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN. Let me remind you. IT HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVEN. And, NOT EVERYBODY agrees with you about your allegations. I, for one, COMPLETELY DISAGREE with your assertions about crossover grids. Apparantly, so do all the attorneys who make decisions on the class action lawsuits.

You don't even allow for the possibility that you could be wrong about RCI. Well, I believe you are. And, so do many others.

Your agenda appears to be to do anything you can to get our legal and judicial system to force RCI to do business they way you want it done regarding crossover grids. Unless you become a product manager for RCI who makes that decision or one of the executives accountable for that decision, it's NOT YOUR CALL.

I am fine with you stating your opinion that others should avoid RCI if they keep the crossover grid. I have no problem with that. All consumers should vote with their wallets. That is the BEST way to get a company to change their ways. My problem is you go too far by making what I believe are false allegations of wrong doing. Obviously, others here believe that as well which is in my view the real reason why they continue to post counterarguments to your assertions.

 

[Carolinian]

Amusing! Don't you comprehend that it is you who is saying ''RCI is a crook''.
Those of us who question RCI's policies and the class action plaintiffs are simply saying ''RCI is violating civil consumer protection laws'', which is a huge difference. It is the RCI defenders who are suggesting that RCI may have violated the criminal law.

And Perry, you still haven't proven to us that state governments are telling gas stations how much to charge! That is an amusing one, and I am still waiting for your proof!

You bring up the perfect example “and you're the self-appointed police” now I’m expected to demonstrate that I am not the police. You make my case perfectly – just saying a phrase like “RCI is a crook” results in it becoming the “Internet truth” unless someone asks for it to be proven.

You make my case – thanks.

 

[Carolinian]

If we don’t do this we simply become a bystander watching a mugging going on and could care less. And that’s what is happening – the high tech version of a mugging. I choose to not stand by idly. If you don't ask for proof - how long before you become the target?

I quite agree that we should not be mere bystanders while RCI is cheating its members with the rentals and one-sided points/weeks interface. You may call it a mugging (which is criminal) but I will only call it cheating which is civil.

Hooray for the class action plaintiffs. They took a stand to make a difference!

Hooray for timeshare resorts which speak out strongly on these problems like Seasons.

 

[Carolinian]

You are making assumptions about those posts of mine on that subject. Your assumptions are wrong.

I knew RCI wasn't going to go as far as it really should to make things right, so my suggestions were an incremental step and were based on the way RCI Points grids already work in the European market for crossovers and taking it a relatively small step farther. While that wouldn't have completely cured the problem, it would have made it a whole lot better by easing the overaveraging discrepancies. Instead, they just tweaked the numbers a little while leaving the grid format intact.

Your recommendations fall short of reasonable suggestions, so nobody in RCI takes them seriously, nor should they. They come across as hallow recommendations to prove that RCI is a bad and evil company when indeed your proposals for pricing could not be reasonably met by any company.

Your limited understanding of how pricing is done for products leads you to the wrong conclusions about how to fix them. It would be like David Boies coming to me for suggestions on how to argue a supreme court case. I may have an opinion, but it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on in helping him win the case.

On the specific point of one-way crossover grids. Your initial assumption is completely wrong. You claim that they are somehow illegal. They are not and they are employed across the timeshare industry as a reasonable method of pricing a request first exchange.

The ironic thing is that in all the various versions of the RCI Class Action Suit, none of the complaints seriously consider your idea about crossover grids being the source of any misconduct. They all excluded it when push came to shove. Even you complained about it. Why don't you admit that you could be wrong about it?

Could it be that many very sharp legal experts looked at the argument you have make ad nauseum regarding crossover grids and those arguments fell on deaf ears. If there were any chance that that argument could remotely help them with their case, they would have included it. Obviously, it can't.

RCI may be guilty of a lot of wrong doing. Creating a one-way crossover grid is certainly NOT one of them.

 

[CarolF]

They had a brochure with a list of t/s resorts from various areas - quite substantial - some II properties but a lot that I think belong to RCI. No Marriotts, HGVC or Disney but saw a couple of Sheratons.

Thought I would also let you know that the same company ran promotions here (a couple of weeks ago I think). The person who told me is not aware of timeshares and I didn't ask about the resorts that were listed. Did you notice any of the APVC listed?

 

[sage]

Carol,
Fortunately there were no APVC resorts listed. I think this would be because APVC sells their unused time directly to members or possibly through the Accor website (although I'm not sure about the latter).
We have enough trouble getting prime weeks at short notice so I doubt they would need to sell them off elsewhere.
Gillian

 

[John Cummings]

I canceled my membership with RCI several years ago. I let my II membership lapse a couple of years later. That is how I deal with anybody that is not giving me what I want. I simply do NOT do business with them. Personally. I don't care what RCI or II are doing or not doing. If one doesn't like them, then don't use them. There are plenty of alternatives.

Most of this whole thread is nothing but allegations about wrong doing because somebody doesn't agree with how they conduct their business. I have been a member of TUG for several years and the same old ranting and raving about RCI goes on all the time. It is such a waste of time and effort. If you feel that you have a case then contact an attorney and start a class action suit. Ranting and raving on TUG is not going to accomplish anything. Better yet, if RCI or II isn't providing the service you want then don't do business with them.

 

[Carolinian]

Just burying your head in the sand and personally not using RCI doesn't work.

The financial health of timesharing is significantly dependent on the exchange system. If exchangers start bailing, as is already happening to some extent from RCI's actions, to the point that it raises m/f's significantly and undermines the financial underpinnings of resorts, it will impact everyone including those who just bought to use and have never cared about exchanging.

Just personally not using a particular company in this instance is a simplistic solution that just doen't get it.

We need to be proactive and get alternatives out there in front of our fellow timesharers. And we need to give at least moral support to those who are trying to deal with the problem through the class action lawsuit that has been filed.

 

[timeos2]

Why is voluntary so hard to grasp? Forget adhesion, you don't have to use them

The financial health of timesharing is significantly dependent on the exchange system. If exchangers start bailing, as is already happening to some extent from RCI's actions, to the point that it raises m/f's significantly and undermines the financial underpinnings of resorts, it will impact everyone including those who just bought to use and have never cared about exchanging.

Even if this were the case, and I'm not at all ready to agree it is, the point is there are plenty of alternatives to RCI. It is voluntary to be a member and use the system. That is why simply walking away from any company including II or RCI if they don't meet your or your resort's needs is the most effective answer. Trying to force things to operate the way we think they should - and heaven knows we can't even agree on that - is never going to result in a viable system.