NEW Definition of Eligible Rates????
 

While reading the T&C for a new promo, I cam acress the following:

I've never seen this wording before, and if so, those of us who have been screwed booking some "package" and "special" rates on Hyatt.com should make special note of this new wording. Don't let GP run you in circles by saying a rate is ineligible because it is a package. Apparently, now any rate that is bookable on Hyatt.com IS ELIGIBLE.

How weird. It looks like you copied the above quote from the AMEX $50 Gift Card promo that came out today. The weird thing is that when I looked at the T&Cs earlier today, the word "Expedia" in your quote was actually "Travelzoo". So sometime between this morning and right now, Hyatt changed the wording on the website T&Cs. I noticed it because I thought it was nice that Hyatt FINALLY listed Travelzoo as an ineligible rate even though it could be booked on hyatt.com. That was a step in the right direction I thought. I was going to post it here, but I didn't get around to it. Now the word has changed from "Travelzoo" to "Expedia". Oh well.

Regardless, it still bothers me that you can book a Travelzoo rate on hyatt.com but not get GP points/credit for the stay. That is very misleading. I don't so much have a problem with an Expedia/Travelocity/etc or other 3rd party booking where you are physically booking the stay on another site. That is very easy to comprehend that you wouldn't get GP credit for that stay. However when the rate is bookable on hyatt.com and still doesn't get GP credit, well................Houston, we have a problem.........

Actually, the T&C's state:

1. If a member chooses to receive Hyatt Gold Passport points at check-in, such member will earn five Hyatt Gold Passport points for each whole U.S. dollar or U.S. dollar equivalent spent by the member on Eligible Rates. An "Eligible Rate" is any hotel published room rate, including, but not limited to the hyatt.com rate, prevailing rack rate, AAA and senior citizen rates, etc. "Ineligible Rates" are discounted rates, including, but not limited to, any free night stays, Internet wholesale rates (such as priceline.com, hotels.com, etc.), traditional wholesale rates (such as GOGO Worldwide Vacations, Pleasant Holidays, etc.), airline crew rates, airline employee rates, travel agency employee rates, Club at the Hyatt discount certificate stays, Hyatt employee or employee family discount rates, airline interrupted-trip vouchers or contracted rooms (a contract room is a room that has been reserved pursuant to a written and executed agreement between a hotel and a corporation, government agency or individual for a negotiated room rate in exchange for an agreed upon number of rooms to be rented for an extended period of time). Hyatt Gold Passport points awarded for stays at a Hyatt hotel or resort outside the U.S. are based on local currency converted to U.S. dollars.

So, I doubt Expedia booked stays are ineligible rates. The Travelzoo deal was previously discussed and Karen explained the issue making that ineligible.

I think that you can better argue from now on that Travelzoo rates (I have never booked them myself) SHOULD be eligible for points and a stay credit.

Dear FlyerTalk Members,

Thank you for your support of Hyatt Gold Passport. The promotion that you are referring to is not a Gold Passport offer but rather a joint promotion between Hyatt and American Express. Anyone can qualify to receive a $50 Hyatt Gift Card when they book a qualifying rate on hyatt.com for stays between 12/01/05 and 02/28/06 and pay with the American Express Card. The terms and conditions that you referred to are for this offer and are not related to Gold Passport. The terms and conditions for Gold Passport Eligible and Ineligible rates have not been changed or altered.

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to PM or e-mail me at [email protected]

Best regards,

Karen Smith
Gold Passport Concierge

Karen,

You posted this after I mentioned that Expedia bookings are NOT ineligible rates., except of course, re this promo. You did not "correct" or clarify this, if it was wrong, as you are now stating. Please review this.