posted 11-12-2002 18:06            

quote:

---

Originally posted by EdB:
In the floor plan, I see two doors to the bathroom, one from the LR and one from the master BR. That would indeed make it a 4/4, wouldn't it?

---

posted 11-12-2002 18:33            

I took a look at this issue myself as it appears the internet support group didn't provide an appropriate response. Thank you for constructively explaining the situation.

Although our internal system reflects your unit sleeps four privately, the resort and internet system reflect a private trade out capacity of two. This would result in the online system displaying units that sleep two privately. Given this fact, most search results would only show efficiencies.

This is an issue that has an impact on other resorts in our system. I have made a change to policy that should resolve the issue. However, it will take a couple weeks to implement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marina_K:
Craig,

In the second last *Ask Craig* thread that was abruptly closed, you advised Maxedout to call Internet Support :

"[b]Can you please call the internet support department for assistance. Your issue needs trouble shooting as your membership reflects your unit trades out with four.

quote:Originally posted by maxedout:
Craig,

Thanks for replying but...

The Boston Custom House was exchanged for by using my Tahoe Beachcomber - very nice exchange - no complaints there.

The resort I have a problem with is is the CAPEWINDS on Cape Cod.

It's a one bedroom townhouse that sleeps 4.

On my personal page it states one bedroom - sleeps TWO!

When I try shopping with it, the system will not let me look at anything above a sleeps 2 unit. It will not allow me to enter more than two persons travelling.

I haven't banked the Capewinds week - I'm only shopping with it, so it is registered with II but not actually banked. I won't bank it until I know what it can 'pull' as a sleeps 4.

[/B]

---

------------------
Craig Urbine
Vice President
Member Services
Interval International

posted 11-12-2002 22:14            

I renewed my membership with II in part based to your participation on this board.

posted 11-12-2002 23:29            

Could it be because, as we have repeatedly stated, our Capewinds units sleep 4 no matter how you configure it. Yes, it only sleeps 2 privately (as per your explanation) but it sleeps 4 total!!

So, by expecting to be able to see one bedroom 'sleeps 4' units in return, instead of the 'sleeps 2 only' studios and hotel units the system now limits me to, I am expecting too much? I think not!

I, and others, are trying to trade a one bedroom 4/2 for a one bedroom 4/2. We are not trying to get a 2 or 3 bedroom or even a one bedroom 4/4. The system only allows us to search for studios and hotel units with a 2/2 capacity. It is NOT an equitable trade!

3 telephone calls last year and 3 more this year failed to get this error rectified or even addressed satisfactorily. Being told that 'sorry, that's the way the system is set up' is not acceptable.

What part of that is it that you are not understanding?

Max

quote:

---

Originally posted by CraigU:
I have repeatedly stated, currently, the online system restricts you to the same trade out capacity as your home resort. I have also stated if you place a vacation request, you may be confirmed to a larger unit. Why is this difficult to understand?

---

posted 11-13-2002 04:38            

quote:

---

Originally posted by maxedout:
Ah, I'm glad you asked!

Could it be because, as we have repeatedly stated, our Capewinds units sleep 4 no matter how you configure it. Yes, it only sleeps 2 privately (as per your explanation) but it sleeps 4 total!!

So, by expecting to be able to see one bedroom 'sleeps 4' units in return, instead of the 'sleeps 2 only' studios and hotel units the system now limits me to, I am expecting too much? I think not!

I, and others, are trying to trade a one bedroom 4/2 for a one bedroom 4/2. We are not trying to get a 2 or 3 bedroom or even a one bedroom 4/4. The system only allows us to search for studios and hotel units with a 2/2 capacity. It is NOT an equitable trade!

3 telephone calls last year and 3 more this year failed to get this error rectified or even addressed satisfactorily. Being told that 'sorry, that's the way the system is set up' is not acceptable.

What part of that is it that you are not understanding?

Max

---

posted 11-13-2002 06:09            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CraigU:
This is an issue that has an impact on numerous resorts in our system. I have made a change to policy that should resolve the issue. However, it will take a couple weeks to implement.

---

Thanks very much, Craig.

I realize this is a small matter in the scheme of life but with Dr. K living elsewhere 70% of the time, vacations are an obsession to us.

Anything you/II can do to make the exchange process easier is much appreciated.

posted 11-13-2002 07:26         

I have the same situation as Dani, I had requested email, notification, yet; I have received US Mail notification. It is not a problem, yet II asks which method of notification you would like, it seems reducing mail, would reduce costs.

posted 11-13-2002 08:22            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dash:
Craig:

I have the same situation as Dani, I had requested email, notification, yet; I have received US Mail notification. It is not a problem, yet II asks which method of notification you would like, it seems reducing mail, would reduce costs.

Dash

---

posted 11-13-2002 13:31            

You are correct, I am focused on the online functionality.

Rightly or wrongly, I conduct almost all my transations online. I shop online, I sell online, I rent property online, I pay all my bills online, I advertise for staff online, I process payroll online, I order meals online (Waiters on Wheels), when Webvan was in business I bought all my groceries online. I aquired all my timeshares online and, 4 years ago, bought a home in Canada online.

In the past 18 months I have made 14 timeshare exchanges and all were conducted online, one of those was done online with the company you work for. To be honest, I haven't even opened the glossy books sent to me by both yourselves and RCI.

To place a 'vacation request' I'd have to know exactly where I want to go and when. I don't. In fact, I have absolutely no idea what I could ask for, and expect to receive, with the week in question. There's nowhere left that I must go to on a certain date. I browse online and if something strikes my interest and I can get a reasonable airfare I'll take it!

So although the 'vacation request' option exists, as you have repeatedly pointed out, I have ignored it because it is one I will probably never use.

This issue of inequitable online trading has become contentious on each of the boards you have participated in. No-one, least of all I, holds you personally responsible, after all you are only customer service.

However, to keep expounding that what we are seeing online are 'like trade-outs' when a one bedroom is only allowed to search for sleeps 2 max and some 2 bedrooms only sleeps 4 max, is insulting and patronizing.

The online part of your company has serious flaws and ommissions that are obvious to anyone who uses it. Do I hold you accountable for that? No, of course not. However, what we, your customer base, wish to know is are these flaws and ommissions being addressed? Are they going to be corrected in time?

To be told, over and over again, that 'that's the way it is' or that these are 'like trade-outs' instills very little confidence that your online service will ever be up to par. Far better if you could admit that the system has gaping holes in it and is, at present, half-assed! At least then we would know to expect it to get better sometime in the future. No-one expects perfection Craig, just honesty.

Max

quote:

---

Originally posted by CraigU:
You always had the option of placing a vacation request which would have given you exactly what you've described. I think you chose not to hear that option and have remained focused on the online functionality.

---

posted 11-13-2002 16:21            

I have a week 25 at the Lawrence Welk Resort in CA. I want to do a REQUEST FIRST with it to see if I can get a match for next winter at a warm resort.

However, the online screen won't allow me to seek a request that would take place after my week has passed. (I called II and this was verified by the VC)

I can understand that I couldn't continue with a REQUEST FIRST once my week had passed - but WHY can't I do a request first AND request an exchange outside of the current travel period? After all, if a match was made before my week comes up - II would still have my week to give to someone else and I would have an exchange that I could enjoy.

It seems to be an arbitrary rule that the user isn't allowed to request a week that would arrive after the t/s week being used in the Request First scenario.

Can you help me understand why this restriction applies?

posted 11-13-2002 17:21            

I can understand how you may consider this an arbitrary rule. However, please consider that we are the only major exchange company to offer this service. We feel the choice of two methods of exchange provides flexibility that cannot be found elsewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janis:
On another note:

I have a week 25 at the Lawrence Welk Resort in CA. I want to do a REQUEST FIRST with it to see if I can get a match for next winter at a warm resort.

However, the online screen won't allow me to seek a request that would take place after my week has passed. (I called II and this was verified by the VC)

I can understand that I couldn't continue with a REQUEST FIRST once my week had passed - but WHY can't I do a request first AND request an exchange outside of the current travel period? After all, if a match was made before my week comes up - II would still have my week to give to someone else and I would have an exchange that I could enjoy.

It seems to be an arbitrary rule that the user isn't allowed to request a week that would arrive after the t/s week being used in the Request First scenario.

Can you help me understand why this restriction applies?

---

------------------
Craig Urbine
Vice President
Member Services
Interval International

posted 11-13-2002 17:34            

Our system is working exactly as expected. I do take responsibility for the way it operates as I participate in writing the business rules associated with the internet functionailty. The fact that you disagree doesn't make it wrong. Clearly there are not a tremendous amount of people affected or there would be more comments stating so.

As it relates to my being just customer service, you are not correct. I am responsible for all aspects of the customer experience. This includes the products and services that are made available as well as the rules associated with the delivery of services. My role takes many forms but it is not limited in scope.

As far as the threads being contentious, I would look at my words and then look at yours. I don't think anything I've said has been argumentative. Quite the contrary, I have stated our policy and have taken responsibility for it. I'm sorry that the only thing acceptable to you is what you want to hear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by maxedout:
Craig,

You are correct, I am focused on the online functionality.

Rightly or wrongly, I conduct almost all my transations online. I shop online, I sell online, I rent property online, I pay all my bills online, I advertise for staff online, I process payroll online, I order meals online (Waiters on Wheels), when Webvan was in business I bought all my groceries online. I aquired all my timeshares online and, 4 years ago, bought a home in Canada online.

In the past 18 months I have made 14 timeshare exchanges and all were conducted online, one of those was done online with the company you work for. To be honest, I haven't even opened the glossy books sent to me by both yourselves and RCI.

To place a 'vacation request' I'd have to know exactly where I want to go and when. I don't. In fact, I have absolutely no idea what I could ask for, and expect to receive, with the week in question. There's nowhere left that I must go to on a certain date. I browse online and if something strikes my interest and I can get a reasonable airfare I'll take it!

So although the 'vacation request' option exists, as you have repeatedly pointed out, I have ignored it because it is one I will probably never use.

This issue of inequitable online trading has become contentious on each of the boards you have participated in. No-one, least of all I, holds you personally responsible, after all you are only customer service.

However, to keep expounding that what we are seeing online are 'like trade-outs' when a one bedroom is only allowed to search for sleeps 2 max and some 2 bedrooms only sleeps 4 max, is insulting and patronizing.

The online part of your company has serious flaws and ommissions that are obvious to anyone who uses it. Do I hold you accountable for that? No, of course not. However, what we, your customer base, wish to know is are these flaws and ommissions being addressed? Are they going to be corrected in time?

To be told, over and over again, that 'that's the way it is' or that these are 'like trade-outs' instills very little confidence that your online service will ever be up to par. Far better if you could admit that the system has gaping holes in it and is, at present, half-assed! At least then we would know to expect it to get better sometime in the future. No-one expects perfection Craig, just honesty.

Max

---

------------------
Craig Urbine
Vice President
Member Services
Interval International

posted 11-13-2002 17:37            

I only became re-involved in this discussion because I was invited to add weight to someone else's concern on this subject.
Craig forgot to point out that with a dual affiliated resort, there are more than two options. So, for this year at least, it is now a mute point.

As for your suggestion that I telephone into II's system, I'll be glad to. That is, as soon as I can tell them that I don't care where I go or when - as I long as I can get a good rate on an airline ticket. Oh, and by the way, make sure it's somewhere interesting that I have never been to before!

That's why I'm only interested in the online system - I can browse until something peaks my interest - check airline schedules and fares (online of course!) and then make my decision.

GinGin, I'll never be offended by anyone disagreeing with me. I may even come back for more.
It's being summarily dismissed or patronized that gets my dander up.

Max

quote:

---

Originally posted by GinGin:
No offense intended Max, and I do agree with you to a certain extent, but there's always the old fashioned, outdated, ancient, Ma Bell instrument called the telephone that many people still use for contact with the exchange companies.

---

posted 11-13-2002 17:41            

Having said that, we are working on a more dynamic search capability for the online system. However that does not mean it will result in displaying a particular unit size. Quite honestly, I think it will make the experience more difficult for the member to understand the results. We are searching for a balance between the issues. As we continue on this process, we will attempt to find a solution that meets your needs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wauhob3:
I'm trying to make a decision on whether to try II since my resort is dual affiliated. I have a 2 bedroom Villa sleeps 6/4 privately. If I understand the above issue online I would only be able to search for a sleeps 4 which would probably be a one bedroom? It also appears there are no plans to change the system. Am I understanding this correctly? I would also like to know if II gives much regard to supply VS. demand in calculating
trade value. I own a high demand week at a standard resort will I be able to trade up like I do with RCI?

---

posted 11-13-2002 18:00            

I do like having the option - I'm just suggesting that an improvement could be made to make it more desirable for the consumer.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigU:
[B]I understand what your saying as it relates to an instant confirmation. However if you do not confirm something instantly, the possibility exists that your week would pass without you cancelling the request.

posted 11-13-2002 18:03            

In the world of customer service, the customer rarely takes responsibility for their own actions.

To address your suggestion, we will not be reviewing our policy as it relates to this issue. We are comfortable with the options offered.

I sincerely hope you can work within the options available.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janis:
I completely understand that in some circumstances the week would pass w/o my cancelling the request. But then that would be MY loss - something I would have to deal with if the situation arose. As long as you make it clear to the customer that they MUST cancel the request before their own week expires - where's the harm?

I do like having the option - I'm just suggesting that an improvement could be made to make it more desirable for the consumer.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigU:
[B]I understand what your saying as it relates to an instant confirmation. However if you do not confirm something instantly, the possibility exists that your week would pass without you cancelling the request.

---

posted 11-13-2002 18:39            

quote:

---

Originally posted by maxedout:
I only became re-involved in this discussion because I was invited to add weight to someone else's concern on this subject.

---

Belated thanks for that, Max. I'm sure this situation affects more than just us Cape Winds owners but you're the only one I know for sure is affected by this.

I just wanted to get in early this time as both times when I finally spoke up, the moderator closed the threads and I didn't feel that the situation had been fully explored. At least now we know that something is being done.

Hopefully, I'll see you back here in two weeks with good news

posted 11-13-2002 18:45            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marina_K:
Belated thanks for that, Max. I'm sure this situation affects more than just us Cape Winds owners but you're the only one I know for sure is affected by this.

I just wanted to get in early this time as both times when I finally spoke up, the moderator closed the threads and I didn't feel that the situation had been fully explored. At least now we know that something is being done.

Hopefully, I'll see you back here in two weeks with good news

---

------------------
Pat

posted 11-13-2002 19:15         

I'm thinking in the future I will continue to shop II online, but will call a VC before depositing to check to see what else might be available in the area I am seeking.

------------------
www.picturetrail.com password:gingin (see many timeshares we've visited, please lighten screen before viewing)

posted 11-13-2002 23:21            

Max

posted 11-13-2002 23:24            

You got me in twubble

anytime,

Max

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marina_K:
Belated thanks for that, Max. I'm sure this situation affects more than just us Cape Winds owners but you're the only one I know for sure is affected by this.

I just wanted to get in early this time as both times when I finally spoke up, the moderator closed the threads and I didn't feel that the situation had been fully explored. At least now we know that something is being done.

Hopefully, I'll see you back here in two weeks with good news

---

posted 11-14-2002 01:53            

It has been my experience that The only thing Interval's online current system is good for is 59 days or less inventory.
The private/Maximum occupancy problem is just one example of a long running problem that should have been simple to correct. The fact that it has not is simply unacceptable.

Interval telephone Reps are hit and mis. I have worked with a couple really great ones but on a whole most were rather poor compared to customer service from RCI.
I get the sense Interval corp. culture breeds the attiude that they are the best exchange company no matter what the customer thinks. Maybe that is a little harsh but I honestly feel I have been on the receiving end of this kind of attiude from them on several occasions.

Even with all the issues raised about RCI here on TUG RCI still offers the better product and customer service where it really counts.

------------------
http://jeffhilburger.tripod.com