Peatisback

I attempted to apply a suite upgrade to a reservation in Aruba with dates that fall within the weeks of Christmas/New Years. At the time I called there were standard suites available for sale. The agent called but was not able to confirm the upgrade. Several days later I received this message from reservations in Omaha:

Thoughts on how to handle this?

Colin

59Impala

Just accept it.
Suite Upgrades have a different inventory than "Suites for Sale". There is no obligation for a hotel to give the suite, even though it shows up for sale. it's a different situation at check-in, but not for the use of TSU.

Kacee

Well that's what certain properties have claimed from time to time, but that interpretation was rejected by corporate several years ago. Whether things have changed under the new loyalty regime (i.e., post-Zidell) I don't know.

Colin

antonius66

Uhhhh...no. Ab-solutely not. This is exactly the kind of thing that can't be allowed or tolerated. Standard suite open, you have to confirm it. That's the ENTIRE point of a DSU. Literally. They can block them out in inventory first, which hotels often do, but to refuse to confirm when open is beyond acceptable. Everytime people just accept it, it gets worse.

MSPeconomist

OsakaWino

Yes, the policy of a TSU always being applicable if the corresponding suite category was available for booking at the standard rate was firmly, and repeatedly, stated by Jeff.

But Jeff is gone, and I do not believe that this policy is backed-up anywhere in the T&C. It might be a bit of a hard sell to complain to the hotel "this is what Jeff Zidell said".

Might be wise of some Glob out there to contact a reliable Hyatt source for confirmation rather than rely on wishful thinking that unwritten policy never changes.

MSPeconomist

antonius66

Are the four suite upgrade awards guaranteed at time of reservation?



These suite upgrade awards must be redeemed when making the underlying reservation and are subject to availability. However, once redeemed for a confirmed reservation, the upgrade is guaranteed.

Subject to availability sounds pretty clear to me. If open, you book it. Not subject to hotels choosing to confirm when available.

MSPeconomist

OsakaWino

I'm afraid that interpreting "subject to availability" as meaning "guaranteed if available" is quite a stretch. It could just as easily be interpreted as "if the hotel makes it available".

Peatisback

I'm in the camp that if a standard suite is available for sale than it should be able to be confirmed with a suite upgrade award- which was the case when I called to have it applied. Of course since then the availability has been taken offline.

MSPeconomist we share the same concierge so I am accustomed to the type of responses you described and I know what expect to come as a result of my 'escalation'.

antonius66

If a hotel can deny a DSU when the suite is open, then WHAT IS THE POINT OF A DSU? That LITERALLY, and I mean, LITERALLY defeats the point of an advanced confirmed suite upgrade upon availability, if WHEN AVAILABLE, a hotel can just say, nahhh, no thanks. An interpretation of the terms that would result in the entire DSU provision being made meaningless is not the correct one. You cannot argue that the intent is to define a benefit in a way so that it is not a benefit at all. If it was completely up to the hotel at any point, then there would be no reason to have a stated benefit at all in your terms, since hotels could just give you a suite at any point if they felt like it. The intent here is clearly that they allow you to CONFIRM a suite in ADVANCE, when the suite is AVAILABLE, and the commonly accepted definition and understanding of available is that it is open and available to be booked, which in this case it was.

"Complimentary Suite Upgrade Awards are only valid for Standard Suites, defined as each participating hotel’s or resort’s introductory suite category, and are subject to availability. There are a limited number of Standard Suites available at each hotel and resort."

That language to me sounds pretty clear that there are LIMITED STANDARD suites and thus, using the award is subject to them being available. Listing them as bookable on the website is CLEARLY available in this sense. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the terms to mention limitation or availability, rather it would just say "Complimentary Suite Upgrade Awards are only valid subject to acceptance by the hotel, and may during certain times or periods of high demand be denied by the hotel, despite being available for sale" or something to that effect.

"Complimentary Suite Upgrade Awards cannot be redeemed for any suite type other than Standard Suites, including Premium Suites, any Specialty, Premier, Presidential or Diplomatic Suites, or similar suite categories, each as designated by the applicable hotel or resort. Complimentary Suite Upgrade Awards are redeemable only where the designated suite to be reserved is available for the entire length of the Member’s stay."

Again, why specify that only certain suites are eligible if a hotel can just say no regardless of what is available? That literally goes against the standard practice by pretty much every hotel (where they block out the standard suites if they do not want to honor this benefit...scummy but at least in line with the terms). Further, why specify that the entire stay must be "AVAILABLE" if available means nothing and the hotel can do what it wants regardless?

The nonsense apologies and defenses for hotels evading obvious benefits and requirements astound me. Every time someone lets this stuff go, it gets worse for all of us because hotels just get emboldened to ignore the terms, and it is easier for Hyatt to let them because they won't have to deal with angry Globs.

spgplat21

Unfortunately, they've already walked back several of things Jeff stated in the past. Back in the old days properties were not allowed to offer standard rooms only at package rates to block redemptions, and I had more than one case where the HGP Concierge forced the offending property to book an award for me. Since then, I've had two or three unsuccessful attempts at pushing that point. And the initial tone from WOH in every discussion I've had on these types of issues lately is to start with the assumption that the property is correct and that I'm looking at something wrong.

So I'm guessing at the end of the day they won't push this with individual properties either, unless it gets bad enough to get some bloggers on their case.