Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Discontinued Programs/Partners > Marriott | Rewards
Reload this Page >

Clarification on "Stays" for two accounts

Clarification on "Stays" for two accounts

 
Old Mar 19, 18, 8:26 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Shanghai
Programs: MR PP+A
Posts: 194
Clarification on "Stays" for two accounts

Hello

It will help to distinguish between two scenarios:

Scenario 1

Situation -- Member A has a booking for 1 night in his account and also a separate booking for the next 1 night in the same account.

Outcome -- This is the normal case whereby the two bookings should naturally be combined into a single Stay of 2 nights, with only a single arrival amenity. This also applies if there are two pax in the room, as the two back-to-back bookings in this case are still under the same MR account.


Scenario 2

Situation -- Member A has a booking for 1 night in Member A's account for 2 pax, and Member B has a separate booking for the next 1 night in Member B's account for 2 pax. A+B both occupy the room together on both nights. Member A checks out and closes the first folio after 1 night, and Member B checks out and closes the second folio after the other night.

Outcome -- So long as the first night booking and check-in shows only Member A's account number, conceptually Member A's account should be credited for 1 Stay of 1 night with arrival amenity; and likewise, so long as the second night booking and check-in shows only Member B's account number, Member B's account should be credited for 1 Stay of 1 night with arrival amenity.

Problem -- If the registrations for both bookings include both account numbers, this would confuse MR system and result in only one Member receiving the combined credit of 1 Stay for 2 nights and only a single arrival amenity. Some countries require passport registration for all occupants, which is fine, but this should not require having each occupant's MR account number for bookings under a different Member's account. Can a hotel or MR properly insist on imposing the known MR account number of an occupant who is not the principal guest of a particular booking ?

Issue -- From the MR Terms & Conditions, it seems natural to interpret the issue of "Stay" from consecutive nights as being addressed within the implied context of a single Member's account. (i) Is that understanding correct? or (ii) Is the intended policy really to treat physical occupancy (even under another Member's account booking) as equivalent to a Stay for the purpose of earning credit in a Member's own account?

Thank you
polarpacific is offline  
Old Mar 19, 18, 8:40 pm
  #2  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: HH-D; MR-P/LTP; SPG-P
Posts: 849
While a reservation can contain more then one guest name it cannot contain 2 MR numbers

Originally Posted by polarpacific View Post
Hello

It will help to distinguish between two scenarios:

Scenario 1

Situation -- Member A has a booking for 1 night in his account and also a separate booking for the next 1 night in the same account.

Outcome -- This is the normal case whereby the two bookings should naturally be combined into a single Stay of 2 nights, with only a single arrival amenity. This also applies if there are two pax in the room, as the two back-to-back bookings in this case are still under the same MR account.


Scenario 2

Situation -- Member A has a booking for 1 night in Member A's account for 2 pax, and Member B has a separate booking for the next 1 night in Member B's account for 2 pax. A+B both occupy the room together on both nights. Member A checks out and closes the first folio after 1 night, and Member B checks out and closes the second folio after the other night.

Outcome -- So long as the first night booking and check-in shows only Member A's account number, conceptually Member A's account should be credited for 1 Stay of 1 night with arrival amenity; and likewise, so long as the second night booking and check-in shows only Member B's account number, Member B's account should be credited for 1 Stay of 1 night with arrival amenity.

Problem -- If the registrations for both bookings include both account numbers, this would confuse MR system and result in only one Member receiving the combined credit of 1 Stay for 2 nights and only a single arrival amenity. Some countries require passport registration for all occupants, which is fine, but this should not require having each occupant's MR account number for bookings under a different Member's account. Can a hotel or MR properly insist on imposing the known MR account number of an occupant who is not the principal guest of a particular booking ?

Issue -- From the MR Terms & Conditions, it seems natural to interpret the issue of "Stay" from consecutive nights as being addressed within the implied context of a single Member's account. (i) Is that understanding correct? or (ii) Is the intended policy really to treat physical occupancy (even under another Member's account booking) as equivalent to a Stay for the purpose of earning credit in a Member's own account?

Thank you
Srisarin is offline  
Old Mar 19, 18, 8:44 pm
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Shanghai
Programs: MR PP+A
Posts: 194
Hi Srisarin

Yes, a "booking" can only have one MR number.

But at check-in the hotel can insert the MR number for more than one occupant -- and this is the problem.
polarpacific is offline  
Old Mar 19, 18, 8:50 pm
  #4  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: HH-D; MR-P/LTP; SPG-P
Posts: 849
They would ONLY due this if you requested a change in the reservation primary account booked (B to A) but there is NO reason to request this. Just leave it as A on first night and B on second night since both reservations allow 2 occupants and upon checkin the prop will NOT merge the reservations as they can’t link 2 reservations with different MR accounts.

Originally Posted by polarpacific View Post
Hi Srisarin

Yes, a "booking" can only have one MR number.

But at check-in the hotel can insert the MR number for more than one occupant -- and this is the problem.
Srisarin is offline  
Old Mar 19, 18, 9:20 pm
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Shanghai
Programs: MR PP+A
Posts: 194
I completely agree with you, Srisarin.

The problem is that the hotel is insisting that physical occupancy of Member A in a room under Member B account for the second night means that Member A cannot check out and close the folio from the first night under Member A account
polarpacific is offline  
Old Mar 19, 18, 9:29 pm
  #6  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: HH-D; MR-P/LTP; SPG-P
Posts: 849
whoever at this unnamed property is telling you this is wrong since first reservation does not even require the guest name to be known (although intl props require their passport) so second reservation in another acct do not need to list A as the guest of B.

Originally Posted by polarpacific View Post
I completely agree with you, Srisarin.

The problem is that the hotel is insisting that physical occupancy of Member A in a room under Member B account for the second night means that Member A cannot check out and close the folio from the first night under Member A account
Srisarin is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 2:39 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: BDU
Programs: DL:MM, Marriott:LTT
Posts: 8,778
Originally Posted by polarpacific View Post
I completely agree with you, Srisarin.

The problem is that the hotel is insisting that physical occupancy of Member A in a room under Member B account for the second night means that Member A cannot check out and close the folio from the first night under Member A account

The hotel employee has to be wrong. Let's get rid of Member B and we have a scenario I do frequently. Member A stays the first night for business and the second night for personal. Two reservations under the same MR# and there is never a problem closing the first folio and creating a second while staying in the same room for both nights. There is no welcome amenity for the second night, but there are two folios. I have done this dozens of times.
CJKatl is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 7:48 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South Florida
Programs: AA LTG (EXP), Hilton Silver (Dia), Marriott LTP (PP), SPG LTG (P) > MPG LTPP
Posts: 11,329
Originally Posted by polarpacific View Post
I completely agree with you, Srisarin.

The problem is that the hotel is insisting that physical occupancy of Member A in a room under Member B account for the second night means that Member A cannot check out and close the folio from the first night under Member A account
What country is this happening? Yes, they may need to know all guests occupying the rooms, however saying guest A must carry the second reservation is wrong. Please escalate the issue with Marriott and I'm sure they will work out the details. I would hope the property is not so cheap that they would cause such grief for something as trivial as a PAG. Please name the property and maybe someone has more specific suggestions.
RogerD408 is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 8:29 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: BDU
Programs: DL:MM, Marriott:LTT
Posts: 8,778
Originally Posted by RogerD408 View Post
I would hope the property is not so cheap that they would cause such grief for something as trivial as a PAG.
The PAG is irrelevant. The OP is looking to get the points and credit for the night. The T&Cs are clear that the hotel does not have to give the PAG on the second night, but that has nothing to do with closing out the first folio and starting a new folio. The second folio just won't have a PAG.

FWIW I often get credit for the second PAG even after letting the front desk know I understand I should not.
CJKatl is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 8:36 am
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South Florida
Programs: AA LTG (EXP), Hilton Silver (Dia), Marriott LTP (PP), SPG LTG (P) > MPG LTPP
Posts: 11,329
Originally Posted by CJKatl View Post
The PAG is irrelevant. The OP is looking to get the points and credit for the night. The T&Cs are clear that the hotel does not have to give the PAG on the second night, but that has nothing to do with closing out the first folio and starting a new folio. The second folio just won't have a PAG.

FWIW I often get credit for the second PAG even after letting the front desk know I understand I should not.
The property would still be on the hook to issue nights and points for the second night (to guest A). The only thing missing would the be PAG that would due guest B, presuming the nights and points would go to guest B instead (I'm guessing it's the cost of the PAG and not the effort needed to process two separate stays that is the issue).

Yes, some properties are very generous, especially when you are very polite and not a DYKWIA type guest.
RogerD408 is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 11:17 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hold it down for The Bay, reppin' Oakland
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Ambassador/Tit4Lyf, IHG Plat, WN A
Posts: 1,694
I'm guessing that the problem is that you tipped your hand by asking not to change rooms. Had you checked out of one room and checked in to another under the second name, I'll bet the hotel would have seen this as a second stay. My guess it that in trying to avoid changing rooms you made it clear that this was really a single stay, being billed to two different parties.

I get that the hotel probably expends fewer resources (housekeeping, especially) by doing this, so it doesn't make sense for them to give fewer benefits than if you had actually left one room and moved to another, but it seems quite understandable that the hotel would view this as a single stay.

If I'm wrong and you actually changed rooms between the two nights, you might want to clarify that.
lexdevil is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 11:36 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: BDU
Programs: DL:MM, Marriott:LTT
Posts: 8,778
Originally Posted by lexdevil View Post
I'm guessing that the problem is that you tipped your hand by asking not to change rooms. Had you checked out of one room and checked in to another under the second name, I'll bet the hotel would have seen this as a second stay.
They should not have had to change rooms to have the first folio closed and the second opened. Whether they changed rooms does not matter for the PAG, so I'm putting that to the side, although I've often gotten credit for the second PAG without having to change rooms.You only arrive once and the P&Cs and precedent are pretty clear on only being eligible for the irst PAG. I have done two folios many, many times without issue. When I check in I go out of my way to point out I will need different folios because my business folio needs to only have business charges. Sometimes the DC says the key can only be set up for the first day and will need to be rekeyed for the second day, but there has never been a requirement that both stays be on the same folio. Switching names couldn't be any different as far as closing out the first folio. The OP is being given incorrect information when being told that the hotel cannot close out the first folio and open a second.

Hotels that have not had a problem doing this: The Blackstone in Chicago, both VA Beach CYs, the NYC Times Sq FI, the SF JW, LAX Ren, Carolina Beach CY, Philly CC FS, PIT Chatham Center FS... and these are just off the top of my head places where I have stayed an extra night to enjoy the beach or visited relatives.
CJKatl is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 4:41 pm
  #13  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Shanghai
Programs: MR PP+A
Posts: 194
Thanks to everyone for the replies.

To re-iterate, the purpose of the original post was to highlight the distinction between two scenarios.

I think we are all in agreement that the first scenario of consecutive bookings under the same MR account should be combined into a single "stay", and even if there are two folios (under the same account) with a check-out/check-in between them that only a single arrival amenity is applicable.

For the second scenario I intentionally avoided including specifics so as to isolate the underlying general principle that physical occupancy is not equal to a "stay" as defined by the MR program.

Here is the relevant information from the Terms and Conditions:


Paragraph 2 under General Membership: "A “stay" or "qualifying stay" means all consecutive nights a Rewards Program Member registers and personally pays and stays at any Rewards Program participating hotel, for which the room is billed to the Member. "

Paragraph 6 under Earn Points: "No other person except the Member may earn Points for his/her Membership Account. Points for a room shared by two Rewards Program Members will only be awarded to one Rewards Program Member."


The only natural conclusion for consecutive bookings under two different accounts is that: (i) they are not combinable, and (ii) arrival amenity applies separately to each account. Moreover, while Member A may occupy the same room on each day, that person is only "staying" for the purpose of MR program on the date of the booking under Member A's account; and is not "staying" for the purpose of MR program on the date of the subsequent booking under a different Member's account.

Of course, the bulk of all cases will be Scenario 1: For example, business travelers who normally reside at a private residence and stay alone at a hotel briefly on a business trip will only have one MR account in play, and thus any consecutive bookings will either be combined into a single stay or separate folios (for leisure extension) will still not be entitled to another arrival amenity. Another example is leisure travelers, where typically a family which normally resides at a private home and goes as a family on holiday will have just one MR account for the whole stay regardless of whether it consists of one or multiple bookings, and accordingly in the latter case they should be combined into a single stay with only one arrival amenity.

There are, however, some situations which give rise to Scenario 2: For example, students, colleagues, or family members who all have individual MR accounts may make separate bookings for a property on consecutive periods (nights/weeks/months) but share a room for the whole extended period. In this case each Member is entitled to the credit/points/amenity for the room on the dates of their own account booking, regardless of who else physically occupies the room.

The solution to avoid system confusion and retain clarity of proper credit distribution is to only have a single MR account number on the hotel's folio for a particular booking. So, if Member A occupies the same room under Member B's account for a subsequent consecutive date, Member A's folio should be closed after the first booking and the latter booking should have only Member B's account number.

Here are several problems which can arise if this simple procedure is not followed -- especially in the case where Members A+B are occupying a room/suite for a longer period (eg. 1 month).

(i) Since a Member can only receive credit for a particular night from a single property, if Member A's number is wrongly attached to a booking under Member B's account at Hotel X for that whole month, then Member A is not able to travel and stay (for program credit) at another Marriott property anywhere in the world throughout that period.

(ii) To avoid the problem as described in (i) above, Member A stays at an SPG property for a short overseas stay during the period of the 1-month booking at Hotel X under Member B's account. Upon a late-night return to Hotel X, Member A books a second room for 1 night under Member A's own account. Upon check-out of that second room the next morning, and return to physically occupying the first room still under Member B's account, if Member A's account number is wrongly attached to Member B's room then the Marriott system will not treat Member A as having checked-out from the second room until the next physical departure by Member A from the hotel. This results in a total distortion because Member A should only receive credit/points/amenity for 1 night in the second room, and Member B should receive the credit/points/amenity for the whole month in the first room.

While obviously not a typical or broad experience for most Members, both of the above issues actually arose recently precisely because the hotel erroneously believed that they must attach the MR numbers for all adult occupants rather than maintaining only one account number per folio -- thereby failing to distinguish between consecutive physical occupancy and a "stay" as defined by the MR program.




polarpacific is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 5:01 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: BDU
Programs: DL:MM, Marriott:LTT
Posts: 8,778
While the T&Cs state you should only get credit for one room/night within the world Marriott family of hotels, many of us have gotten credit for two hotel stays for both the situation you describe, a long stay at one hotel with a night elsewhere during that period, and where you check out of Hotel A so late that you wind up paying for the full night while checking into Hotel Bl very late at night in another city. Where people report having issues is where a second party checks into the second hotel (like the member staying in Detroit while the spouse tries to check in using the member's MR# in Dallas using the "meeting me later" trick) or simultaneous multiple stays within the same city. Other chains have allowed the latter in the past, but not Marriott.
CJKatl is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 7:26 pm
  #15  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: HH-D; MR-P/LTP; SPG-P
Posts: 849
From the new info added below your problem is that you’re trying to apply Marriott T&Cs to an SPG stay which is still a seperate program with it’s own T&Cs

Originally Posted by polarpacific View Post
Thanks to everyone for the replies.

To re-iterate, the purpose of the original post was to highlight the distinction between two scenarios.

I think we are all in agreement that the first scenario of consecutive bookings under the same MR account should be combined into a single "stay", and even if there are two folios (under the same account) with a check-out/check-in between them that only a single arrival amenity is applicable.

For the second scenario I intentionally avoided including specifics so as to isolate the underlying general principle that physical occupancy is not equal to a "stay" as defined by the MR program.

Here is the relevant information from the Terms and Conditions:


Paragraph 2 under General Membership: "A “stay" or "qualifying stay" means all consecutive nights a Rewards Program Member registers and personally pays and stays at any Rewards Program participating hotel, for which the room is billed to the Member. "

Paragraph 6 under Earn Points: "No other person except the Member may earn Points for his/her Membership Account. Points for a room shared by two Rewards Program Members will only be awarded to one Rewards Program Member."


The only natural conclusion for consecutive bookings under two different accounts is that: (i) they are not combinable, and (ii) arrival amenity applies separately to each account. Moreover, while Member A may occupy the same room on each day, that person is only "staying" for the purpose of MR program on the date of the booking under Member A's account; and is not "staying" for the purpose of MR program on the date of the subsequent booking under a different Member's account.

Of course, the bulk of all cases will be Scenario 1: For example, business travelers who normally reside at a private residence and stay alone at a hotel briefly on a business trip will only have one MR account in play, and thus any consecutive bookings will either be combined into a single stay or separate folios (for leisure extension) will still not be entitled to another arrival amenity. Another example is leisure travelers, where typically a family which normally resides at a private home and goes as a family on holiday will have just one MR account for the whole stay regardless of whether it consists of one or multiple bookings, and accordingly in the latter case they should be combined into a single stay with only one arrival amenity.

There are, however, some situations which give rise to Scenario 2: For example, students, colleagues, or family members who all have individual MR accounts may make separate bookings for a property on consecutive periods (nights/weeks/months) but share a room for the whole extended period. In this case each Member is entitled to the credit/points/amenity for the room on the dates of their own account booking, regardless of who else physically occupies the room.

The solution to avoid system confusion and retain clarity of proper credit distribution is to only have a single MR account number on the hotel's folio for a particular booking. So, if Member A occupies the same room under Member B's account for a subsequent consecutive date, Member A's folio should be closed after the first booking and the latter booking should have only Member B's account number.

Here are several problems which can arise if this simple procedure is not followed -- especially in the case where Members A+B are occupying a room/suite for a longer period (eg. 1 month).

(i) Since a Member can only receive credit for a particular night from a single property, if Member A's number is wrongly attached to a booking under Member B's account at Hotel X for that whole month, then Member A is not able to travel and stay (for program credit) at another Marriott property anywhere in the world throughout that period.

(ii) To avoid the problem as described in (i) above, Member A stays at an SPG property for a short overseas stay during the period of the 1-month booking at Hotel X under Member B's account. Upon a late-night return to Hotel X, Member A books a second room for 1 night under Member A's own account. Upon check-out of that second room the next morning, and return to physically occupying the first room still under Member B's account, if Member A's account number is wrongly attached to Member B's room then the Marriott system will not treat Member A as having checked-out from the second room until the next physical departure by Member A from the hotel. This results in a total distortion because Member A should only receive credit/points/amenity for 1 night in the second room, and Member B should receive the credit/points/amenity for the whole month in the first room.

While obviously not a typical or broad experience for most Members, both of the above issues actually arose recently precisely because the hotel erroneously believed that they must attach the MR numbers for all adult occupants rather than maintaining only one account number per folio -- thereby failing to distinguish between consecutive physical occupancy and a "stay" as defined by the MR program.





Srisarin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: