I guess I am feeling ornery today. OLCC does not have to follow rules?????

[shopgirl Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close shopgirl]

Madge has stated over and over again that all points resorts through points transactions are exempt from the one-in-four/three rules that resorts place on weeks. In other words, as long as you choose points transactions, no rules apply, all gates are open, all horses ready to race, with no exceptions.

Well, according to a few on TUG, the only resorts in the world that do not have to worry about such nonsense are Vistana and Orange Lake. I guess the one-in-four/three rules do apply to those resorts, even within points.

How does that make sense, that the two mega resorts, with tons and tons of inventory, are allowed to enforce that ridiculous rule with points? What exactly do they give to RCI to allow such crap to happen to the points exchangers and where will it stop? The point of points was to get rid of such rules and have fairness within the system, not that it is entirely fair. Points are inflated for Orlando! When a week at a Gold Crown in Kauai in the points' system gets the same as Vacation Village at Parkway, it is all total and complete nonsense.

Gary had an exchange for Vistana with points and was turned down because it was only a year since he had visited. Well, just because one person at RCI says it is so does not mean it is so. I would have argued with everyone at RCI and used Madge's posts as my proof that points transactions are exempt from those goofy rules. I guess Gary should have gotten his exchange through II, where literally no rule exists anywhere within the system, even at those great Disney Vacation Club resorts.

Another reason that RCI is going to lose lots of customers. I may just sell those Aussie points and get out of RCI altogether, or just trade those weeks with another company and forget the points. If they are going to let crappy resorts make their own rules. GEEESSSHHHH

Someone PM'd me and said I was defending RCI and attacking him. That is not true at all. I was saying that RCI should not be allowed to change their rules for anyone and that will lose them customers. How is that defending RCI?

[Keitht Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Keitht]

The argument about Points users not being limited by the 1-4 rule can easily be stood on its head. If a resort restricts Weeks owners to 1-4, why should Points be given advantageous treatment by not being restricted? At least OLCC seem to be giving everybody equal treatment.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

HGVC also enforces the 1 in 4 rule for RCI Points exchanges.

This inconsistency in rules is one of the reasons I don't use RCI Points any longer.

The other reason are the excessive fees. $99/year membership, $99 to exchange, extra housekeeping fees for parial week stays. Yuck.

[shopgirl Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close shopgirl]

Well, Madge is looking into the confusion. She answered my question very quickly, the same day! I would bet Dave wanted to get the answer as well, since he is wary of OLCC controversy. I am grateful that Dave is getting to the bottom of it. I plan to drop it, even though I innocently started the debate by stating what I thought was true. Strange that an offhand remark would get someone's dander up like that. It really is no big deal, even if OLCC did have a special arrangement with RCI. This does not affect me at all. I guess I should just stop posting, but it is just difficult to let misinformation go unchallenged. I guess I will be a little embarrassed if what I assumed to be true just isn't, but that would be RCI's fault--not mine.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

Cindy,

Don't worry. OLCC studios still trade up to 3 bedroom units. I'm not sure why Vickie has a problem with this. Studio unit owners pay the same maintenance fees as 3 bedroom unit owners. The only difference is the taxes are higher for the larger units.

Seems strange that you would allow blue week owners from any resort in the world get a trade advantage over an owner who pays maintenance fees at the resort.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 1 in 3 enforced at OLCC for RCI POints. Like I said, HGVC does it, too.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

If there is one really positive thing to be said about RCI it is that, right or wrong, they are consistent. If the rule is no 1 in 3, 4, 5 or 50 for pure points transactions then they will do everything they can to enforce that. It is notable as II is the reverse. It seems they will do anything to keep or obtain a brand they covet. The rules prohibit extra fees charged only to exchange guests? Oh, don't worry if you want we'll ignore it. Time, location , use limitations? Tell us what benefits you want our members prohibited from having while your owners get free access to our inventory. No problem! II will change anything, anytime if it will get or keep a major account in their book. Too bad they aren't as picky when it comes to awarding the 5* - maybe it would mean something as the RCI awards do if they did. Whatever problems RCI may have they do hold to the rules. If OLCC decides to try to branch out with their own "interpretation" of how points work they will find out RCI doesn't allow that. And they mean it.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

As I said OY recently, I think the to-do over favortism shown by OL to their owners is over-hyped, perhaps by a certain owner who likes to over-hype all things OL.

In the greater scheme of things, OL's (or Vistana's or Wetsgate's) 100-200K owners each (m/l) pales in comparison to the approximately 11 million weeks owned by around 7 million households. I realize that Westgate and some at OLCC like folks to think that they are the Big Kahunas, bigger than all the rest of timesharing combined.

But.

In those resorts that are still selling, the big money is coming from new sales. Annual fees just pay to run the place, with a small profit, of course. Management of those resorts is not going to be so shortsided as to do things to piss off their prospect base, the millions of people who are already sold on the concept of timesharing, and who may well wind up visiting their resort.

There will be little things that make it appear to be attractive to buy, but not big things.

As we all know, at least at Westgate and OLCC, everyone who checks in is a sales prospect.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

If there is one really positive thing to be said about RCI it is that, right or wrong, they are consistent. If the rule is no 1 in 3, 4, 5 or 50 for pure points transactions then they will do everything they can to enforce that. It is notable as II is the reverse. It seems they will do anything to keep or obtain a brand they covet. The rules prohibit extra fees charged only to exchange guests? Oh, don't worry if you want we'll ignore it. Time, location , use limitations? Tell us what benefits you want our members prohibited from having while your owners get free access to our inventory. No problem! II will change anything, anytime if it will get or keep a major account in their book. Too bad they aren't as picky when it comes to awarding the 5* - maybe it would mean something as the RCI awards do if they did. Whatever problems RCI may have they do hold to the rules. If OLCC decides to try to branch out with their own "interpretation" of how points work they will find out RCI doesn't allow that. And they mean it.

I don't think this logic changes the fact the RCI Sucks.

I believe that II's strategy for attracting and catering to high quality brands is helping them out a lot. By having those brands in the exchange, II inherits some of the attributes of those brands in the eyes of consumers.

There aren't a lot of companies within timesharing that consumers can trust. But, they do trust the hotel brands. The hotel brands create an excellent vacation experience in general. On average, it is a cut above other timeshare experiences I have encountered.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

The future has no need for general exchange

I believe that II's strategy for attracting and catering to high quality brands is helping them out a lot. By having those brands in the exchange, II inherits some of the attributes of those brands in the eyes of consumers.

There aren't a lot of companies within timesharing that consumers can trust. But, they do trust the hotel brands. The hotel brands create an excellent vacation experience in general. On average, it is a cut above other timeshare experiences I have encountered.

The first is true until the average member discovers those brands they were baited in with aren't available to them unless they are satisfied with small units and/or off season use. The frustration of seeing that golden time dangling in front of them but always out of reach like the carrot on a string in front of a horse soon leads to disenchantment. No doubt the names do carry weight and II uses it to the fullest extent with the "quality" motto. Too bad most of what an average member sees in prime times isn't even close to that level.

I agree that the hotel brands do seem to offer an upscale experience in general. There is a consistency offered that can be enticing. But if that is the goal it is better to own in those groups or one of the blessed minis that attach to II rather than messing around trying to obtain them as an individual member of II. The minis hold all the cards and the individuals carry no clout at all. I think from what I've read from you in the past we're in agreement that the future belongs to the mini systems and eventually to some type of rental brokerage system that will evolve. The dedicated general exchange systems are dinosaurs that are becoming increasingly irrelevant. There are too any other good options for owners to use to risk the unknown of the old school exchange process.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

The first is true until the average member discovers those brands they were baited in with aren't available to them unless they are satisfied with small units and/or off season use. The frustration of seeing that golden time dangling in front of them but always out of reach like the carrot on a string in front of a horse soon leads to disenchantment. No doubt the names do carry weight and II uses it to the fullest extent with the "quality" motto. Too bad most of what an average member sees in prime times isn't even close to that level.

I agree that the hotel brands do seem to offer an upscale experience in general. There is a consistency offered that can be enticing. But if that is the goal it is better to own in those groups or one of the blessed minis that attach to II rather than messing around trying to obtain them as an individual member of II. The minis hold all the cards and the individuals carry no clout at all. I think from what I've read from you in the past we're in agreement that the future belongs to the mini systems and eventually to some type of rental brokerage system that will evolve. The dedicated general exchange systems are dinosaurs that are becoming increasingly irrelevant. There are too any other good options for owners to use to risk the unknown of the old school exchange process.

Yes, we are in agreement.

I firmly believe that mini-systems and points based systems are the future of timesharing. I believe it primarily for macro-economic reasons. A point system can do a better job at matching supply and demand than a week for week exchange system. So, the market will naturally move to the most efficient market over time.

I also agree with the problem of lots of studios and lack of availability in prime time. Those are also problems caused by the weeks exchange system.

[gjw007 Member Find all posts View Profile Close gjw007]

Yes, we are in agreement.

I firmly believe that mini-systems and points based systems are the future of timesharing. I believe it primarily for macro-economic reasons. A point system can do a better job at matching supply and demand than a week for week exchange system. So, the market will naturally move to the most efficient market over time.

I also agree with the problem of lots of studios and lack of availability in prime time. Those are also problems caused by the weeks exchange system.

Boca;

I don't believe that the points system does a better job of matching the resources and it is, in my view, more inefficient. This can be seen when exchanges are made for short periods of time, such as Sunday through Thursday or Thursday through Sunday where there are resources that are left unmatched and unused. Whether or not an individual uses the entire week during a week exchange, at least the resources were allocated and not left wasting away as they can be with the points system. The points system is also more costly as there is the need to be prepared for check-ins and check-outs at any given day. Whether this is better or worse is a personal choice but it is not economically more efficient as there is waste (units sitting unused) and additional costs (front desk, housekeeping) involved in the points system. Like everything, there are always multiple ways of viewing the situation.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

Boca;

I don't believe that the points system does a better job of matching the resources and it is, in my view, more inefficient. This can be seen when exchanges are made for short periods of time, such as Sunday through Thursday or Thursday through Sunday where there are resources that are left unmatched and unused. Whether or not an individual uses the entire week during a week exchange, at least the resources were allocated and not left wasting away as they can be with the points system. The points system is also more costly as there is the need to be prepared for check-ins and check-outs at any given day. Whether this is better or worse is a personal choice but it is not economically more efficient as there is waste (units sitting unused) and additional costs (front desk, housekeeping) involved in the points system. Like everything, there are always multiple ways of viewing the situation.

I wasn't speaking of RCI Points. That system was not designed very well. I was speaking conceptually that a properly designed point system would do a much better job at matching supply and demand that the best possible weeks exchange system.