Biggie Fries

I have to agree with Steve001 and others. Whether you call it discouraging people, or not encouraging them ... isn't the purpose of all of these points, status, etc. to foster behaviors at the margin that might not have occurred "naturally"?

Much to my amazement -- the shift to points stays counting as credits as of the beginning of the year, getting a new WOH Chase Visa toward year's end -- I found myself over 70 nights in early December. Fashioned a few more Hyatt stays (and credit card spend) that might not have come about otherwise (location, motivation, timing) to hit 80 on the number. Substitute "100" for "70" and "110" for "80" and -- to me at least -- the same logic would obtain. I mean, if the argument is that the 100+ crowd have been rewarded "enough" already... well, that's the kind of thing my mother would say to us; i.e., a moral, not a commercial argument.

Not saying any of us deserve it... just wondering why the logic that obtains between 70 and 80 (for Hyatt) shouldn't keep on keeping on? In fact -- and here I am just speculating -- might Hyatt's gains on breakage (awards, points, TSUs never used) be somewhat higher among the folks who are staying in hotels all the time anyhow?

joe_miami

I explained the logic one post above: With rare exceptions, people staying more than 100 nights in a year in a hotel(s) are long-term stay people on cut rates. Giving huge rewards to long-term stay people — e.g., two free nights after each 10 nights* — so that a few disgruntled people don't spend 100 nights at Hyatt and 80 nights at Marriott would likely be a net loser for Hyatt (or any other chain).


(* Most long-term Hyatt stays are likely at places like Hyatt Place, which can be found for as few as 5,000 points/night.)

LASUA1K

joe_miami

You're one of the exceptions I mentioned. People averaging 1.5 nights on ~100 different stays are a small minority of the people in the 100+ night club.

LASUA1K

joe_miami

Yes, and people in other industries often average 40 nights per stay.

If hotel chains thought that rewarding people past 100 nights would be a net winner for them, at least one of them would be doing it. But none are doing so, are they?

It would be possible to live in various Hyatt hotels for ~$1,200/month if Hyatt started rewarding people for every 10 nights.

skj

I have no idea how rare or common it is, but one of the Houston based properties where I occasionally stay told me about 20% of their rooms have been continually occupied by the same people since hurricane Harvey, more than 16 months ago. These aren't displaced persons on some sort of subsidized rate, but are insurance and disaster recovery folks paying long term rates. They are earning WoH benefits and the front desk agent joked that every one of her guests was a Glob. I'm just guessing here, but I don't think Hyatt would want to give these guests a 300K point bonus for this year.

joe_miami

That reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask: Anyone know when Hyatt got rid of its maximum-points rule when it came to points-earning? Hyatt used to cap points-earning past a certain amount per stay. I can't remember if it was a points maximum or if points stopped being earned after a certain number of nights. I assume Hyatt dropped it during the last recession but maybe not. Thanks.

mnredfox

VegasGambler

I've always been curious about this. Would a mid-to-high end hotel (say a cat 5 or 6 GH) offer long-term rates like this? How much cheaper than "regular" rates are they? And would you get full WoH benefits as if they were "regular" nights?

joe_miami

In my experience, long-term rates don't get much cheaper than a hotel's published long-term rate, which is generally 30 nights. In some states, stays past a certain number of nights will make one a resident, which means the taxes aren't charged anymore. It's also possible to negotiate a little better rate if, e.g., one only has housekeeping every third or fourth night. As always, it's going to be highly dependent on the property and time of year.

In the past, Hyatt stays past a certain number of nights stopped accruing GP points, but that cap seems to have gone away. I asked above when that happened, but no one has replied.

esquesk

I'll be another exception. I got up to 100 in early September and switched my stays to Marriott to make sure I made 75 there, which will have an impact on my stays this year. It's not only the 30 nights they lost in Q4, it's also that I will now split my stays in 2019 as well. If they kept the bonuses rolling, I would have likely shifted all business to Hyatt and would be in the 180-200 a night range. I don't have any stays longer than 4 nights and have an ADR of 300+.

I think you're overestimating the long-term pool and underestimating the number of people who travel for the Big 3, Big 4, and all the smaller consulting firms that make up the bulk of your road warriors in the 100+ range.

CloudCoder

Ditto. I almost never say more than 5 nights: my weekend rate is so high that even *I* am not worth that much money, LOL

I often travel to places with no Hyatt properties, so I'll never be able to give Hyatt 100% of my room nights. Therefore, a second hotel program is a necessity. I choose to fill this necessity with Starwood (now Marriott). I probably stay 40 nights a year in places with no Hyatt. But decent status at Marriott occurs at 50 (min) to 70 (decent) nights a year. So, I do exactly as others in this forum have posted: max out the Hyatt bonuses at 100 nights, then Starriott gets the rest. I stay in a hotel about 185 nights a year.

If Hyatt were to continue their incremental bonus program past 100 nights, then Hyatt would probably get more of my business, at least another 30 nights a year.

joe_miami

Again, these numbers are easy to run. If this was a clear win for hotel chains, why are none doing it?

esquesk

So your logic is that because people aren't doing something, it's not a good idea? By that logic, all hotel chains are operating at their peak efficiency, never making any mistakes or under serving specific markets or clientele.

I guess you'd never encourage anybody to be the first to do anything.