Where do all the unused weeks go?

[John Cummings]

The key, of course, is WHERE the developer weeks are FROM. If they are from overbuilt areas where there is plenty of inventory, anyway, who cares? If they are from mediocre locations within a decent resort area, then ho-hum. If they are from a super hot destination, then yes they matter. Location, as always, is the key.

I look at the areas I trade into and I really don't see developer inventory from new resorts as making much difference. I can't think of any resort I would trade into just because it is ''new''. In fact, I could name a long list of ''old'' resorts I would much rather have than anything ''new'' I can think of. It is all about location.

Everybody has their own preferences. You obviously have your preferences but others have theirs and they are equally as valid. You only speak for yourself, not the timeshare community. Personally, location is very important to me which is one of the main reasons why many of our vacations are non-timeshare. I don't care about the areas where you trade into as they have no interest for me. I imagine you probably aren't interested in my preferences. Each person should do what is best for them. Again, I do not care where the week comes from as long as it satisfies my request. Yes, resort quality does matter to me which is one reason why we like the Grand Mayans so much. I want a luxury resort, not just some condo. I would rather stay in an upscale hotel than most timeshares. But like I said, that is our preferences and it is right for us but may not be for others.

 

[Carolinian]

John - Perhaps I should have been a little more clear. It is not just my personal preferences.

There have been threads at various times on various t/s boards on the Location vs. ''Quality'' issue, and it is location that has always won hands down.

Further, I look to comments at various times from the So Cal experts that it is better to buy location, such as oceanfront, for trading over Gold Crown because it is the location that has the big demand, not the ''quality''. I am myself aware that the same is true on the Outer Banks, where the newest resort witht he most bells and whistles also is by far the lowest demanded because of location so far from the beach compared to others.

My comments are about overall demand, not my personal preferences.

Everybody has their own preferences. You obviously have your preferences but others have theirs and they are equally as valid. You only speak for yourself, not the timeshare community. Personally, location is very important to me which is one of the main reasons why many of our vacations are non-timeshare. I don't care about the areas where you trade into as they have no interest for me. I imagine you probably aren't interested in my preferences. Each person should do what is best for them. Again, I do not care where the week comes from as long as it satisfies my request. Yes, resort quality does matter to me which is one reason why we like the Grand Mayans so much. I want a luxury resort, not just some condo. I would rather stay in an upscale hotel than most timeshares. But like I said, that is our preferences and it is right for us but may not be for others.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Vacation Destination Statistics -- Relevant Or Shmellavent ?

''The Beach'' - top vacation experience choice of RCI members, with 37% - compared to 5% for amusement parks.

How current is that statistic?

What about I-I members.

What about minisystem members?

And what about TUG & TUB-BBS members?

The thing is, "the beach" cover lots & lots of geography. That is, if I say "the beach," I could be talking about Coney Island, Cape Cod, Spray Beach, Atlantic City, Delaware Seashore State Park, Ocean City, Virginia, Beach, OBX, Jacksonville Beach, Ponte Vedra Beach, Fort Lauderdale, the Keys, & plenty more north & south & in between -- not to mention the Gulf beaches, various lakeside & bayside locations, & the Pacific coast. And that's just USA. Plenty of other countries have beach locations as well -- all of'm the same yet no 2 alike.

As for "amusement parks," that doesn't quite describe complexes like the Disney establishments in Orlando FL & Southern California, not to mention the copycats & the wannabe theme parks that have sprung up here & there. I mean, The Magic Kingdom isn't exactly Six Flags Over Central Florida, if you get my drift.

The Dream Book has enough pages to offer resorts & locations to fit just about anybody's preference(s). If your favorite timeshare vacation spot is somewhat farther down on my list, that's no reflection on you or on that particular vacation spot -- & vice versa.

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

 

[Carolinian]

RCI did the survey. It was announced not too many months ago, so it is fairly current. As to the other questions, ask them!

How current is that statistic?

What about I-I members.

What about minisystem members?

And what about TUG & TUB-BBS members?

The thing is, "the beach" cover lots & lots of geography. That is, if I say "the beach," I could be talking about Coney Island, Cape Cod, Spray Beach, Atlantic City, Delaware Seashore State Park, Ocean City, Virginia, Beach, OBX, Jacksonville Beach, Ponte Vedra Beach, Fort Lauderdale, the Keys, & plenty more north & south & in between -- not to mention the Gulf beaches, various lakeside & bayside locations, & the Pacific coast. And that's just USA. Plenty of other countries have beach locations as well -- all of'm the same yet no 2 alike.

As for "amusement parks," that doesn't quite describe complexes like the Disney establishments in Orlando FL & Southern California, not to mention the copycats & the wannabe theme parks that have sprung up here & there. I mean, The Magic Kingdom isn't exactly Six Flags Over Central Florida, if you get my drift.

The Dream Book has enough pages to offer resorts & locations to fit just about anybody's preference(s). If your favorite timeshare vacation spot is somewhat farther down on my list, that's no reflection on you or on that particular vacation spot -- & vice versa.

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

 

[timeos2]

The overaveraging of location

John - Perhaps I should have been a little more clear. It is not just my personal preferences.

There have been threads at various times on various t/s boards on the Location vs. ''Quality'' issue, and it is location that has always won hands down.

Further, I look to comments at various times from the So Cal experts that it is better to buy location, such as oceanfront, for trading over Gold Crown because it is the location that has the big demand, not the ''quality''. I am myself aware that the same is true on the Outer Banks, where the newest resort witht he most bells and whistles also is by far the lowest demanded because of location so far from the beach compared to others.

My comments are about overall demand, not my personal preferences.

Talk about points being "over averaged". To take a (unknown) poll result that "location" is the most important factor in exchange and then extrapolate it to mean that a non-seasonal beach week somehow equates to a high end, top ranked warm weather or theme park location is really stretching things.

I'm sure most people, given the carefully crafted polls we all see, would say the general term "location" is important or even very important to them. But does that mean they would pick an off season beach front resort over a south Florida one in February? Of course not. Location as a term simply means they get into the area they desire. For some it may be down to the 100 yards of beach front or at the entry gate to WDW and for that they may give up more or pay extra. But for others it's simply being within a few miles of the desired activities or landmarks or whatever and their location desire is satisfied. While quality may not rank quite as high on that poll it certainly plays a part (see John Cummings post above - quality may trump timesharing overall for some). Tell the exchange guest they can stay at the Motel 6 on the beach or at the gate of WDW or that they can have a Marriott a mile away from that gate and a block off the beach. 9 out of ten will take the Marriott all else, such as cost, being equal. But of course it isn't equal. The Marriott will cost more - on the beach or next to the gate or not. And not only will people take it they will pay MORE to get the quality.

As usual trying to use a simple generality like "location" to justify demand or exchange value doesn't cut it. It certainly plays a part - maybe even a big part - but it is not the factor that it would be if this were a real estate purchase or locating a business. These are usually once or twice in a lifetime visits to an area not a lifelong commitment. When most people visit they are looking for the whole package of loaction, quality, unit size, activities, and more not just if the sand is at their door or a few yards away. Different if you planned to buy a cabin or a condo.

The protest that this is not a personal view but somehow reflects the traveling masses at large has zero basis in fact. Just like using overseas locations as examples to justify twisted values for lower quality or smaller timeshares doesn't reflect the common way a North American timeshare owner usually use their ownerships. If you want to compare London timeshares then use urban timeshares in the US like NYC, Boston or Washington. The size shrinks, the demand skyrockets yet, somehow, in the US the quality tends to be very high. Is a non-ranked, small beach front condo, despite the high seasonal demand that may see, an equal trade to the Custom House? I don't think many would say it is. So location - in both cases high demand at least in some seasons - can't wipe out the quality difference of those two locations. The same is true in every trade where it is a delicate balance - seldom equal - between the location, quality and size you give up as compared to the location, size and quality you get in return. It is usually downward in most peoples eyes and thats one reason week for week exchanges disappoint so often. The fact that the values used to determine those critical items is hidden makes it all the worse.

 

[bluehende]

Score

Lets see.

We have Delta and Us Air.
Ford with the Pinto was a pretty famous case.
I also have paperwork (proof that would even stand up in a criminal court) for settlements from Amazon, Enterprise, Netflix, and Motorola.

new score...

Consumers 7 big companies........ZILCH. I see no proof of any win let alone 1,432 of them.

Now for the serious side.

Lawsuits are a vital part of our society. The instances or even the threat of a lawsuit keeps corporate america in check. Without them they would definitely run amuck. Having said that I believe that many are brought for frivolous reasons. The high cost of these suits from a corporate side are a burden. Also the high cost to bring one of these suits probably stiffles some from the other side. I believe we are pretty close to balanced with a slight advantage to the consumer.

As for RCI. I do not use them. My timeshare is cheap and the added cost with RCI is prohibitive. Even if it was economically feasible I would not use them. This is due to the practice of occasionally depositing a week by "mistake". This type of business practice, even rare, would keep me from doing business with them.

The most interesting theme in this thread is the effect on timeshares of rentals. I am a perfect example. I always hated the concept of timeshares due to the horrible public image it possessed. A few years ago I rented an exchange week through ebay. This brought me to tug and eventually to be a timeshare owner. However on the other side, I have gone for many cheap rentals. Many of these places I would love to own but will not pay anywhere near what they are probably worth due to the fact that a cheap rental always seems to be right around the corner. I am sure this will eventually balance out too, but right now timeshare economics are being severely depressed by cheap rentals that should dry up as more people take advantage of them and the prices rise.

Score: consumers 1, big companies 1,432.

I know you like to continually use the Delta situation as an example, but even just in the airline industry, the industry has pretty much made change after change that loyal customers hate, but suck up and accept anyway. Examples include standby fees, which are not waived for anyone except those in the very highest tier, and only on some airlines. Premium seat selection fees, removing those seats from the pool elite flyers can chose from until 24 hours prior to departure. The removal of even peanuts in coach, and the reduction of food service in first class. The near-gifting low-tier status to nearly anyone who asks, diluting the value of the bulk of loyal flyers.

 

[Carolinian]

John - The issue between beach resorts and Orlando is not a ''location'' issue. It is a supply issue. Orlando is overbuilt for much of the year. Many US beach areas tend to have an oversupply issue only in the deepest offseason.

Location is an issue two ways. First it is a destination issue. More people are going to want to go to the beach, cities like London or New York or San Francisco, or a major tourist attraction area like, yes, Orlando. Inland non-mountain areas like the resort in flatland Franklin County in central North Carolina are simply not going to generate the interest. Secondly it is an issue of the best location within that destination. Central London is going to beat an outlying area hands down. On the beach is going to beat having to drive to the beach hands down. A resort where you can walk to Disney World (if there is one) is going to beat one where you have to drive an hour to get to the park.

Talk about points being "over averaged". To take a (unknown) poll result that "location" is the most important factor in exchange and then extrapolate it to mean that a non-seasonal beach week somehow equates to a high end, top ranked warm weather or theme park location is really stretching things.

I'm sure most people, given the carefully crafted polls we all see, would say the general term "location" is important or even very important to them. But does that mean they would pick an off season beach front resort over a south Florida one in February? Of course not. Location as a term simply means they get into the area they desire. For some it may be down to the 100 yards of beach front or at the entry gate to WDW and for that they may give up more or pay extra. But for others it's simply being within a few miles of the desired activities or landmarks or whatever and their location desire is satisfied. While quality may not rank quite as high on that poll it certainly plays a part (see John Cummings post above - quality may trump timesharing overall for some). Tell the exchange guest they can stay at the Motel 6 on the beach or at the gate of WDW or that they can have a Marriott a mile away from that gate and a block off the beach. 9 out of ten will take the Marriott all else, such as cost, being equal. But of course it isn't equal. The Marriott will cost more - on the beach or next to the gate or not. And not only will people take it they will pay MORE to get the quality.

As usual trying to use a simple generality like "location" to justify demand or exchange value doesn't cut it. It certainly plays a part - maybe even a big part - but it is not the factor that it would be if this were a real estate purchase or locating a business. These are usually once or twice in a lifetime visits to an area not a lifelong commitment. When most people visit they are looking for the whole package of loaction, quality, unit size, activities, and more not just if the sand is at their door or a few yards away. Different if you planned to buy a cabin or a condo.

The protest that this is not a personal view but somehow reflects the traveling masses at large has zero basis in fact. Just like using overseas locations as examples to justify twisted values for lower quality or smaller timeshares doesn't reflect the common way a North American timeshare owner usually use their ownerships. If you want to compare London timeshares then use urban timeshares in the US like NYC, Boston or Washington. The size shrinks, the demand skyrockets yet, somehow, in the US the quality tends to be very high. Is a non-ranked, small beach front condo, despite the high seasonal demand that may see, an equal trade to the Custom House? I don't think many would say it is. So location - in both cases high demand at least in some seasons - can't wipe out the quality difference of those two locations. The same is true in every trade where it is a delicate balance - seldom equal - between the location, quality and size you give up as compared to the location, size and quality you get in return. It is usually downward in most peoples eyes and thats one reason week for week exchanges disappoint so often. The fact that the values used to determine those critical items is hidden makes it all the worse.

 

[Aldo]

Hmmm. Has anyone noticed how Madge's departure has been accompanied by an increase in RCI apologists and enablers?

 

[Carolinian]

Hmmm. Has anyone noticed how Madge's departure has been accompanied by an increase in RCI apologists and enablers?

Interesting, isn't it!

 

[bruwery]

Hmmm. Has anyone noticed how Madge's departure has been accompanied by an increase in RCI apologists and enablers?

No, I haven't noticed that. What I have noticed is that we have several people here who are unhappy with RCI for various reasons. I've also noticed that a few of the disenchanted have chosen to put labels on those who don't share their point of view.

Personally, I have my own opinions on this whole racket, which I will now share, being the generous fool that I am...

A) RCI is in over their heads. Timesharing has become more complex than it was 20 years ago (points, mega resorts, hotel chains, etc.), and their business model hasn't appropriately adjusted, in spite of their efforts.

B) The problems with timeshare exchanging are not solely, or even primarily, the fault of the exchange companies. The problem lies with:

1) Developers building resorts in highly seasonal locations.
2) The "caught up in the moment" folks who bought dog weeks at these locations under the sales pitch of "you can trade for anything you want and travel all over the world", without stepping back to reason through the relatively simple concept of supply/demand. This causes a massive influx of dogs into the exchange systems. At the same time, a smaller percentage of prime weeks are never entered into the exchange system due to the increased array of options available to the holders of prime weeks (personal use, rentals, private exchange, internal exchange).

As a result of the sales pitches, the mindset is that fixing this problem is the responsibility of the large exchange companies.

C) The RCI lawsuit will solve nothing. Y'all can continue to debate the merits of it, because this is a very enjoyable thread, but the end result is as the "apologists" have said: the lawyers will get paid, and everybody else will get a coupon for a free RCI Souvenir Cup upon their next exchange.

By all means, though, let's make them spend millions defending the lawsuit. Then, let's all hop over to another thread and complain about RCI's fees being too high.

 

[John Cummings]

John - Perhaps I should have been a little more clear. It is not just my personal preferences.

There have been threads at various times on various t/s boards on the Location vs. ''Quality'' issue, and it is location that has always won hands down.

Further, I look to comments at various times from the So Cal experts that it is better to buy location, such as oceanfront, for trading over Gold Crown because it is the location that has the big demand, not the ''quality''. I am myself aware that the same is true on the Outer Banks, where the newest resort witht he most bells and whistles also is by far the lowest demanded because of location so far from the beach compared to others.

My comments are about overall demand, not my personal preferences.

I agree with you 100% about location vs resort quality. That is why Hawaii timeshares are such great traders. The same goes for Coastal California. With a few exceptions the resort quality in Hawaii is pretty mediocre to say the least. I can't imagine somebody choosing a vacation destination simply because of the resort. I am sure there are some that do, but they have to be a small minority of vacationers.

As I have said many times, we love the Grand Mayan resorts because they are about the closest you can get to a luxury resort hotel. However, I would never choose to stay in one unless it was in a location that we wanted to visit.

I also agree that the beach is in much greater demand than amusement parks. With the exception of Orlando, I can't think of any places that have a lot of timeshares because there is an amusement park nearby. Orlando is popular but it pales in comparison to all the beach area timeshares around the world.

 

[Mel]

Because we want something different from what you want out of the exchange system, that make us RCI apologists?

Most of us agree that RCI pulls weeks from the exchange pool for rentals.

Most of us agree that the process is not open, so we don't know they criteria for determining which weeks are pulled, and how the exchange pool is compensated, if it is.

But the changes in perceived exchange power have happened over time. There have been many other changes at RCI that could be equally responsible for the perceived reduction in trade power, that some seem to ignore.

RCI has a membership agreement that allows them to use deposited weeks in any way they see fit. Some would call that an unreasonable contract of adhesion, but nobody is required to join RCI, and RCI is not the only way to exchange timeshare weeks, even if the weeks are not affiliated with II (which engages in similar activities anyway).

You and Carolinian ask us all to dump RCI and use the smaller exchange companies, but perhaps we should consider how they get their inventory too. Some of them pledge to use thier resources to aquire the week you want in trade. When they do this, are they giving YOUR week to their partner, or perhaps something else their partner needs to fulfil one of their own requests? And what if that week they gave to their partner was MY deposit?

If you see RCI renting your week, and they can't come up with a fair exchange, I can see your complaint. But you are complianing that they aren't holding onto weeks you want as exchanges. What if they don't have any requests from people who qualify for those exchanges? Are you saying they have to give it to someone with lower trade power than they deem appropriate?

I don't see RCI changing their methods without an injuction. Any settlement outside of court will be something like everyone gets one free exchange, or one free year of membership. They won't stop the rentals you so hate. I suspect RCI is confident enough in how they conduct business that they will allow any demands to stop the rentals to go to court, and unless RCI is blatantly abusing the system, I don't see a court ruling against them. And if they do, I can't picture any relief that will make everybody happe (or even that will make most happy only at the expense of those that have learned to use the existing system to their advantage).

 

[bruwery]

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.

I don't know where the evidence came from. You don't know where it came from, either, unless you're directly involved in the litigation, in which case you wouldn't be discussing it (unless you were itching to be disbarred or fired).

I don't doubt that a mountain of discovery may have come from this site, but I believe the defense counsel would have an absolute field day discrediting it. For one, nearly everybody on this site has contradicted themselves at one point or another. Even the greenest attorney on the team could ferret out these contradictions and feast upon them.

Another factor is that as intelligent as we may think we are - and most of you truly are quite astute (I am not, unfortunately) - this site comprises but a few of thousands upon thousands of RCI members. I don't believe the judge will extrapolate the opinions expressed herein across the general population. In his eyes, we're just a bunch of people engaged in a debate, and he'd likely treat it as hearsay.

 

[chris5]

I don't know where the evidence came from. You don't know where it came from, either, unless you're directly involved in the litigation, in which case you wouldn't be discussing it (unless you were itching to be disbarred or fired).

I don't doubt that a mountain of discovery may have come from this site, but I believe the defense counsel would have an absolute field day discrediting it. For one, nearly everybody on this site has contradicted themselves at one point or another. Even the greenest attorney on the team could ferret out these contradictions and feast upon them.

Another factor is that as intelligent as we may think we are - and most of you truly are quite astute (I am not, unfortunately) - this site comprises but a few of thousands upon thousands of RCI members. I don't believe the judge will extrapolate the opinions expressed herein across the general population. In his eyes, we're just a bunch of people engaged in a debate, and he'd likely treat it as hearsay.

Mark,

I wish I had your wit; your posts are cracking me up! This has got to be one of the more entertaining threads I've seen in years here at Tug. It is so amusing to me to hear the simple-minded, proclamations of authority on this thread.

Hearsay, this is triple-ranked hearsay, squared, at best!

I think the RCI folks who think this lawsuit will result in substantial changes to RCI's operations are just taking a long trip to coupon city, if the case doesn't get tossed at the class certifcation stage. If certifcation is awarded, the lawyers on both sides will make out like fat rats, as they will navigate themselves to a settlement. And the customers will be holding $25 coupons off their next exchanges, along with token adjustments to RCI operations.

Mark my words.

 

[John Cummings]

...The problem lies with:

1) Developers building resorts in highly seasonal locations.

C) The RCI lawsuit will solve nothing. Y'all can continue to debate the merits of it, because this is a very enjoyable thread, but the end result is as the "apologists" have said: the lawyers will get paid, and everybody else will get a coupon for a free RCI Souvenir Cup upon their next exchange.

By all means, though, let's make them spend millions defending the lawsuit. Then, let's all hop over to another thread and complain about RCI's fees being too high.

1. This is not a problem but are the facts of life. Developers build resorts where they think there will be able to sell their units. Often these are seasonal locations such as ski areas, beach locations, warm winter areas, etc. Some areas, such as Palm Springs, etc. are highly seasonal. Other areas, such as Hawaii, Las Vegas, Coastal California, etc. are not as seasonal. However it all boils down to where the tourists choose to vacation and that is hardly the developers fault.

C. I agree that for the most part this is a rather entertaining and enjoyable thread. I don't take it seriously and I am sure that RCI doesn't either.

 

[Mel]

I finally waded back through some of the newer posts I missed while away on vacation, and felt a need to respond

A company can essentially be sued for any of its acts and practices that are ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' and the terms and conditions THEMSELVES may be the items that are unfair or deceptive. Indeed that is exactly what is happening with the current class action suit against RCI.

Maybe we can get down to the datails. Which parts of the terms of membership do you consider unfair or deceptive? While I would call most of the sales presentations I've attended deceptive, I would not say the same of the RCI terms of membership. I realize many RCI members don't ever read those terms, but that is not RCI's fault.

I know one part you find infair is the idea of members not being allowed to rent out weeks, but that is not the purpose of the exchange system. Further, I don't want you, or any other member renting out the week I own. Those same terms of membership would need to be amended to include a clause stating that not only do I agree to allow RCI to do as it sees fit with my week, but that I also agree to the same for anyone they assign my week to. No way, I don't agree.

I also fully understand that the shrill postings of some of the RCI defenders on these boards over the years have led some Weeks supporters to either move to other boards or to refrain from posting. I appreciate the email encouragement I have received in the course of this thread, and I can understand why some people would rather not jump into the fray.

It works both ways. There are those who are tired of your unsupported claims of RCI's abuses, and who no longer post here, but converse with me by email.

 

[Carolinian]

The problem with oversupply is primarily in the overbuilt areas, which when you get down to it are really seasonal, too, rather than resorts in ''seasonal'' areas. Overpointing the overbuilt areas in RCI Pooints doesn't solve that problem even if it makes developers happy.

As to the lawsuit, the key is what the lead plaintiffs will sign off on, and one lead plaintiff who I have learned a bit about since the lawsuit was filed, seems to be very firmly committed to real reform at RCI. Based on that the ''coupon result'' contention is just the RCI supporters whistling past the graveyard. No, you will either see 1) a settlement that achieves real reform, 2) a full scale trial in which the chips will fall with who has the evidence, or 3) someone bumps off the lead plaintiff (which is not likely).

The problem is exchange companies putting their hands in the till to rent out the weeks that have been deposited in good faith by members who thought they were using an exchange system. The developers may not be angels in other ways, but they have absolutely nothing to do with that.

No, I haven't noticed that. What I have noticed is that we have several people here who are unhappy with RCI for various reasons. I've also noticed that a few of the disenchanted have chosen to put labels on those who don't share their point of view.

Personally, I have my own opinions on this whole racket, which I will now share, being the generous fool that I am...

A) RCI is in over their heads. Timesharing has become more complex than it was 20 years ago (points, mega resorts, hotel chains, etc.), and their business model hasn't appropriately adjusted, in spite of their efforts.

B) The problems with timeshare exchanging are not solely, or even primarily, the fault of the exchange companies. The problem lies with:

1) Developers building resorts in highly seasonal locations.
2) The "caught up in the moment" folks who bought dog weeks at these locations under the sales pitch of "you can trade for anything you want and travel all over the world", without stepping back to reason through the relatively simple concept of supply/demand. This causes a massive influx of dogs into the exchange systems. At the same time, a smaller percentage of prime weeks are never entered into the exchange system due to the increased array of options available to the holders of prime weeks (personal use, rentals, private exchange, internal exchange).

As a result of the sales pitches, the mindset is that fixing this problem is the responsibility of the large exchange companies.

C) The RCI lawsuit will solve nothing. Y'all can continue to debate the merits of it, because this is a very enjoyable thread, but the end result is as the "apologists" have said: the lawyers will get paid, and everybody else will get a coupon for a free RCI Souvenir Cup upon their next exchange.

By all means, though, let's make them spend millions defending the lawsuit. Then, let's all hop over to another thread and complain about RCI's fees being too high.

 

[Carolinian]

Lawsuits are decided upon the evidence presented, not the opinions of litigants. Most of that evidence will likely come through the discovery process. I doubt anything from these boards will directly end up in evidence, but it might be extremely useful in pointing the attorneys where to look as they turn over the rocks in RCI's records.

I don't know where the evidence came from. You don't know where it came from, either, unless you're directly involved in the litigation, in which case you wouldn't be discussing it (unless you were itching to be disbarred or fired).

I don't doubt that a mountain of discovery may have come from this site, but I believe the defense counsel would have an absolute field day discrediting it. For one, nearly everybody on this site has contradicted themselves at one point or another. Even the greenest attorney on the team could ferret out these contradictions and feast upon them.

Another factor is that as intelligent as we may think we are - and most of you truly are quite astute (I am not, unfortunately) - this site comprises but a few of thousands upon thousands of RCI members. I don't believe the judge will extrapolate the opinions expressed herein across the general population. In his eyes, we're just a bunch of people engaged in a debate, and he'd likely treat it as hearsay.

 

[timeos2]

I guess the supporters want RCI weeks to end. Not that it's a bad thing

Lawsuits are decided upon the evidence presented, not the opinions of litigants. Most of that evidence will likely come through the discovery process. I doubt anything from these boards will directly end up in evidence, but it might be extremely useful in pointing the attorneys where to look as they turn over the rocks in RCI's records.

The fallacy of thinking a lawsuit can make a company change is that they can simply walk away from an unworkable model despite any agreement, as unlikely as an agreement or court order is. If they agree not to rent from the spacebank - virtually insuring that the system will be buried in unwanted white and blue time - they cannot be forced to continue to offer week for week trades under those rules. They could simply say we now do all trades in points (not a part of the suit) or that we no longer accept the dog times since we have no way to move them. They could also agree to enforce the like for like rule - another way to ensure there will be no leftovers as you can't trade up but only get something equal (mud for mud). But I'd expect they would simply shut down the week for week system rather than have some heavy and even less knowledgeable (if THATS possible) group tell them how it has to operate. It would not be the "victory" those who support lawsuits as a management tool think it would be but most likely spell the end to the whole weeks system at RCI. I laugh when I read that the "plaintiffs" won't settle or accept anything but "real reform". They don't get the chance to decide if it's a court ruling and RCI isn't likely to settle anything if it leaves them in an unsustainable model. So, like opinions here, it doesn't matter what the parties think they'll accept its what the court decides that will matter. And that isn't likely to be much beyond a token slap on the wrist.

How much easier and less costly if those who feel they are being cheated simply helped themselves and cut off RCI at the knees. Just like you can't force a company to operate in a model they don't find workable neither can a company rent timeshares they don't have.

 

[Mel]

Who cares about ''new'' resorts? Most care about resorts located where they want to go. Often the better locations are already taken and the ''new'' resorts don't get them.

RCI seems big into ''flexibility'' and the concept of ''excess inventory'' is extremely ''flexible''. It can be anything RCI wants it to be and to adjust the numbers to accomplish that. Renting spacebank inventory to the general public is simply a huge conflict of interest and needs to be brought to a screaching halt.

I'm not going to respond on the other thread, I want it to go forward with people having a chance to answer the original question. You say this here, yet on the other thread you obviously don't want anyone to voice an opinion about the new resorts.

You say the developers will never stop putting them into the exchange pool, so why should we even consider it a possibility. I for one would like to know what you think will happen if RCI is told they cannot remove weeks to use for rentals? Will developer sit idly by and accept more and more useless bonus weeks? (Yes they are useless to them as well as to us, because they don't add value to the package they are selling)

Will you get off the fence?

Do you support moving to a system where the only weeks in the system are exchange weeks? Where Developer weeks are handled in a different program, and exchangers no longer have access to those weeks as exchanges? Yes, or no?

 

[Aldo]

The fallacy of thinking a lawsuit can make a company change is that they can simply walk away from an unworkable model despite any agreement, as unlikely as an agreement or court order is. If they agree not to rent from the spacebank - virtually insuring that the system will be buried in unwanted white and blue time - they cannot be forced to continue to offer week for week trades under those rules. They could simply say we now do all trades in points (not a part of the suit) or that we no longer accept the dog times since we have no way to move them. They could also agree to enforce the like for like rule - another way to ensure there will be no leftovers as you can't trade up but only get something equal (mud for mud). But I'd expect they would simply shut down the week for week system rather than have some heavy and even less knowledgeable (if THATS possible) group tell them how it has to operate. It would not be the "victory" those who support lawsuits as a management tool think it would be but most likely spell the end to the whole weeks system at RCI. I laugh when I read that the "plaintiffs" won't settle or accept anything but "real reform". They don't get the chance to decide if it's a court ruling and RCI isn't likely to settle anything if it leaves them in an unsustainable model. So, like opinions here, it doesn't matter what the parties think they'll accept its what the court decides that will matter. And that isn't likely to be much beyond a token slap on the wrist.

How much easier and less costly if those who feel they are being cheated simply helped themselves and cut off RCI at the knees. Just like you can't force a company to operate in a model they don't find workable neither can a company rent timeshares they don't have.

The proposed model was certainly workable under the direction of DeHaan.

It was fair, it moved weeks, it gave value to the mud weeks, and was profitable enough that Cendant bought it in the first place.

If one can make MORE money by treating people unfairly, by looting the Spacebank, that is no justification for doing so. Ripping people off is easy; in fact my experience is that many people ask for just that; and it is indeed quite profitable. It is, however, never justified.

At any rate, it has been proven beyond any doubt that garnering a fair and reasonable return for a timeshare exchange company CAN be done without ripping off the members of the system.

 

[Carolinian]

The fallacy of thinking a lawsuit can make a company change is that they can simply walk away from an unworkable model despite any agreement, as unlikely as an agreement or court order is. If they agree not to rent from the spacebank - virtually insuring that the system will be buried in unwanted white and blue time - they cannot be forced to continue to offer week for week trades under those rules. They could simply say we now do all trades in points (not a part of the suit) or that we no longer accept the dog times since we have no way to move them. They could also agree to enforce the like for like rule - another way to ensure there will be no leftovers as you can't trade up but only get something equal (mud for mud). But I'd expect they would simply shut down the week for week system rather than have some heavy and even less knowledgeable (if THATS possible) group tell them how it has to operate. It would not be the "victory" those who support lawsuits as a management tool think it would be but most likely spell the end to the whole weeks system at RCI. I laugh when I read that the "plaintiffs" won't settle or accept anything but "real reform". They don't get the chance to decide if it's a court ruling and RCI isn't likely to settle anything if it leaves them in an unsustainable model. So, like opinions here, it doesn't matter what the parties think they'll accept its what the court decides that will matter. And that isn't likely to be much beyond a token slap on the wrist.

How much easier and less costly if those who feel they are being cheated simply helped themselves and cut off RCI at the knees. Just like you can't force a company to operate in a model they don't find workable neither can a company rent timeshares they don't have.

The Weeks model made Christel deHaan a rich lady. It works.

The Points mini-system model came out of the gate first in timesharing (Hapimag of Switzerland) but was quickly ecliped when French developers came up with the superior Weeks model.

There are lots of comparable things that blue and white weeks can trade for, that are also in oversupply compared to demand, and that is weeks from the overbuilt areas - an equal trade based on supply and demand.

If you really want like for like, maybe overbuilt areas should only trade for other overbuilt areas.

Weeks is necessary for Points to loot to prop up the otherwise unsustainable Points system. If they pull the plug on Weeks, they kill Points.

 

[Carolinian]

Maybe I should ask if you support adding trips to the center of the earth to points partners.

Your proposal is purely rhetorical, and your screaming in this post clearly illustrates it.

Would an exchanger support that? Of course not. Would a developer? Of course not. An exchange company? probably not, unless there were an ulterior motive.

Some developers want, for their own purposes, to put weeks into the exchange pool. They should have a right to do so. I would not support an exchange company requiring them to only put their weeks somewhere else. Developers should have the right to place their weeks where they want to. If that means developer renting to the public, that is fair game. Developers created the weeks themselves, unlike an exchange company which took them in trust for exchange purposes, which is a huge difference. When developers want to put them in the exchange pool, that is great and they should not be discouraged from doing so.

I'm not going to respond on the other thread, I want it to go forward with people having a chance to answer the original question. You say this here, yet on the other thread you obviously don't want anyone to voice an opinion about the new resorts.

You say the developers will never stop putting them into the exchange pool, so why should we even consider it a possibility. I for one would like to know what you think will happen if RCI is told they cannot remove weeks to use for rentals? Will developer sit idly by and accept more and more useless bonus weeks? (Yes they are useless to them as well as to us, because they don't add value to the package they are selling)

Will you get off the fence?

Do you support moving to a system where the only weeks in the system are exchange weeks? Where Developer weeks are handled in a different program, and exchangers no longer have access to those weeks as exchanges? Yes, or no?

 

[chris5]

As to the lawsuit, the key is what the lead plaintiffs will sign off on, and one lead plaintiff who I have learned a bit about since the lawsuit was filed, seems to be very firmly committed to real reform at RCI. Based on that the ''coupon result'' contention is just the RCI supporters whistling past the graveyard. No, you will either see 1) a settlement that achieves real reform, 2) a full scale trial in which the chips will fall with who has the evidence, or 3) someone bumps off the lead plaintiff (which is not likely).

I have no finanical or even a mild academic interest in the never-ending debate about the RCI's practices that appear to upset several RCI customers. Heck, I'm not even in the RCI system. So, I'm not an "RCI supporter" (that's really a funny name by the way). However, I do enjoy the entertaining silliness that these threads often display, especially since many of you posters make such authoritative statements about the out-come of things.

Your statement above is not grounded in the reality of class action litigation. Over the course of my professional career, I've been involved in a few of these actions. In consumer protection cases, a lead plaintiff has little, if any, influence over the course of the litigation or the settlement negotiations. You are completely off-base if you really think the named plaintiff class representatives can drive the litigation.

Additionally, there is seldom a full-scaled trial on the merits for these cases. If the case is not tossed at the certification stages, which defense counsel will vigorously pursue, then the parties have a strong business incentive to reach a settlement. Plaintiff's class counsel has a built-in bias to reach a settlement for obvious reasons, and a lead plaintiff cannot really countermand the wishes of class action counsel whose representation is broader than those named as lead plaintiffs!

Yep, I think you're heading, at best, to coupon city.

 

["Roger"]

The proposed model was certainly workable under the direction of DeHaan.

It was fair, it moved weeks, it gave value to the mud weeks, and was profitable enough that Cendant bought it in the first place.

....

Oh Aldo, do I have to post this once again.

When I first bought my timeshare, I could not find a single person who thought that I was doing the right thing. Everyone I talked to either had been burned or knew someone that had been burned. Several years later, I did run into a happy owner (points system - Fairfield). I asked her how I didn't know that she owned a timeshare before. Her answer was that she didn't tell people because she didn't want them to think she was gullible. The going figure on TUG was that somewhere between 75% and 80% of the depositors never got anything in return.

Fair? That certainly was not the reputation of timesharing back in the DeHahn days (lower than low in the press as well as with people that I talked to). What raised its reputation was hotels like Marriott moving into the business and treating people better. Oh yes, those hotel chains included Hyatt and Hilton which established points systems. (By the way, they tried to run away from being called timeshares because of the connotation of the word.)