Well, from the perspective of the consumer, if the hotel is taking care of billing they should also offer points as a) they advertise the restaurant as part of their property and b) they benefit from the presence of an on-site restaurant.

I don't travel often in North America so I don't have any point of reference there- just the first time a charge didn't accrue points.

That said WOH could be a bit more transparent IMO.

 

I absolutely agree. I myself only learned about those nuances after the fact in many cases, when asking my concierge to investigate bills where I had questions. (Which they did, even though not to the outcome I hoped for.)

Overall, it looks like hotels these days are playing games here and there, trying to save every last point. E.g., it's not uncommon nowadays for them to say that coffee in free Globalists' breakfast only assumes drip coffee, but if you want something else (a mere espresso or cappuccino) it's not included and you have to pay out of pocket.

Not accruing points for dining, parking and other services (besides the bare room rate) just seems as another example of this stinginess. Yes, there are obvious loopholes that formally allows them to do so, but that's not how customers would expect it to work out.

I'm not saying we should give up, though. At very least, we should keep complaining. And preferably, not just here on the forum, but also to our concierges or other feedback channels. There's still a slight chance that if enough folks share the same concern, something would eventually change about how Hyatt manages this program how they tolerate the loopholes.

 

It's certainly doable. I believe you get full Hyatt pts on spend that's billed to the room at MGM properties, and most of those are not owned by the hotel. But they also have a closer relationship with the hotel (or at least, with casino marketing). I know someone who was globalist from base pts one year, with about half of it coming from pools, clubs, and restaurants at MGM.

But the rules at Hyatt are what they are and the terms are clear, so I don't think anything unfair or shady is going on here. One thing about WoH is that the terms are very well written without much ambiguity.

 

Not so sure if I agree with you on this point� the language about earning on incidentals is tenuous at best.

Clear would be the addition of a link there saying �check earnings by property here�� not if, generally or other exclusions may apply�

What is eligible for earning at restaurants and spas?

Eligible changes vary on a hotel-by-hotel basis, but generally include spa and salon services, spa and salon retail items, and food and beverage expenditures (except at outlets not operated by the hotel). Points will not be awarded on tips, service charges, taxes, gratuities and, in certain jurisdictions, alcoholic beverage purchases. Other exclusions may apply.

 

I didn�t get on laundry recently.

 

"Except at outlets not operated by the hotel". That's pretty clear.

 

Except it isn't clear.

How does one know if a restaurant physically within the hotel is operated by the hotel? It's pretty normal to assume it is operated by the hotel unless otherwise specified.

That's my point. They should specify that upfront.

Or what do we do? Guess each time? Make it clear from the get-go.

 

Have you considered asking?

 

Yes. We're not saying it's against the rules. Of course, rules would have allowed that, under an unlimited number of conditions. (As in “Other exclusions may apply.”)

All we're saying is that's counterintuitive and not really transparent, from the end customer point of view.

They could rather say “you won't get points on incidentals, unless these are certain services provided by the hotel employees on hotel property, and are considered part of your stay.” That would be even more accurate. Based on my recent experiences, not earning points on incidentals is the new norm, not an exception. Because everything is specialized, outsourced or contracted these days, and of course it makes ton of sense from the perspective of running a business.

 

So now as customers we should ask which restaurants are participating each time we check in? That would take things to a new level of absurdity.

Sorry but this is on Hyatt and on the individual hotels to be transparent. Not on the customer to dig for exceptions.

 

My point is that saying "other exclusions may apply" is unclear. Saying that you don't get points when the restaurant is not operated by the hotel is extremely clear. It is telling you the exact requirement. It makes it very easy for you to find out if you will get points by simply asking "is this restaurant operated by the hotel?".

 

I get your point, but to me it sounds almost the same. Both options say, effectively, “you may or may not get the points, depending on various circumstances.”

Yes, one can ask, “is this restaurant operated by the hotel?”. (And, by the way, it does not guarantee anything, based on the ubiqutous “Other exclusions may apply.”)

But to me, as a consumer who's not involved in hotel business, that operational question sounds like sausage making. I'm not really interested in who it belongs to, or who it's operated by, or what's the name of the chef's dog. All I'm interested in is whether or not I'm getting the points.

So, I might as well, just ask “will I get points?” instead of pretending I care about how it's run. Which, one might say, is a totally fair question, too. Indeed, it never hurts to ask, one way or another.

But my point is, I don't want to ask whatsoever. I just want to assume that if it's in a Hyatt, and billed to the room, then Hyatt will treat it as itself, and therefore grant points. (Unless there are legal reasons not to, as with alcohol in some areas.) And anything less than that is a nuance and overcomplication to me.

 

Exactly. And on top of that do you really trust the word of someone at the front desk? How's that going to go over when you file for retroactive credit with WOH?

I want to see it in writing... so to cut to the chase Hyatt and its operators should be transparent. Put it on the website. Or maybe asking them to inform all guests of eligible charges would be enough to dissuade them from what is borderline misleading...

 

Exactly. If the points for restaurant (or spa or ...) spend are important, ask. I found a surprising number of restaurants are not operated by the property when I was asking if they were participating in the 3x dining promo offered a few times recently. One flag is if it's a "brand name" restaurant, such as Ruth's Chris Steak House (GH Seattle), Morimoto's (Andaz Maui), and Shula's Steak House (HR Houston). None of these are operated by the property and thus do not earn points.

 

Where there is an exception to the rule, the onus should be on Hyatt and/or the property to clarify. It�s humorous how people can be against full disclosure. Let them state it more clearly on their website and at check-in. I shouldn�t have to dig for the information. The way to determine eligibility now is convoluted.
I don�t trust someone at the front desk to give me accurate information about WOH. Because even if they say yes, it�s eligible and I don�t get credit what�s the recourse? None.