Revolution System for NEW Reservations

Much improvement over the way that it used to work.

Lets hope that they continue to make improvements to the speed of the system.

Click to expand...

As of tonight... still a joke. Stuck on about 30% loaded so I came over to TUG to catch up on this thread and read the whole second page of posts. Went back to Revolution and it improved to about 52% loaded.

Doesn't anyone at HGVC actually try to use their own system?

amtuguser said:

Where does the line blur?

Public accomodation vs usage of our ownership rights.

If you were making a reservation for your home week, at your home resort for the week listed on the deed, wouldn't that reservation be an exception to Public accomodation?


IMHO, there may be a difference between a hotel reservation and a reservation for use of your own ownership.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... there may be a difference (see below).

The detailed ADA document seems to indicate that the scope is limited to rental accommodations in timeshare properties. I would think that the rule would apply to hilton.com rental reservations at HGVC resorts. But would the ADA mandate also apply to Open Season rental reservations via HGVC's reservation system?

Here's the link to the Revised Final Title III Regulation - http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.htm

Here's what I found in the 2010 Guidance and Section-by-Section Analysis under Section 36.302(e) Hotel Reservations (Sec-97 in the pdf version)

Section 36.302 of the 1991 title III regulation requires public accommodations to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford access to any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. Hotels, timeshare resorts, and other places of lodging are subject to this requirement and must make reasonable modifications to reservations policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to reserve accessible hotel rooms with the same efficiency, immediacy, and convenience as those who do not need accessible guest rooms.

Each year the Department receives many complaints concerning failed reservations. Most of these complaints involve individuals who have reserved an accessible hotel room only to discover upon arrival that the room they reserved is either not available or not accessible. Although problems with reservations services were not addressed in the ANPRM, commenters independently noted an ongoing problem with hotel reservations and urged the Department to provide regulatory guidance. In response, the Department proposed specific language in the NPRM to address hotel reservations. In addition, the Department posed several questions regarding the current practices of hotels and other reservations services including questions about room guarantees and the holding and release of accessible rooms. The Department also questioned whether public accommodations that provide reservations services for a place or places of lodging but do not own, lease (or lease to), or operate a place of lodging—referred to in this discussion as ‘‘third-party reservations services’’—should also be subject to the NPRM’s proposals concerning hotel reservations.

Although reservations issues were discussed primarily in the context of traditional hotels, the new rule modifies the definition of ‘‘places of lodging’’ to clarify the scope of the rule’s coverage of rental accommodations in timeshare properties, condominium hotels, and mixed-use and corporate hotel facilities that operate as places of public accommodation (as that term is now defined in § 36.104), and the Department received detailed comments, discussed below, regarding the application of reservations requirements to this category of rental accommodations.

Click to expand...

Application to rental units in timeshare, vacation communities, and condo-hotels. Because the Department has revised the definition of ‘‘Places of Lodging’’ in the final rule, the reservations requirements now apply to guest rooms and other rental units in timeshares, vacation communities, and condo-hotels where some or all of the units are owned and controlled by individual owners and rented out some portion of time to the public, as compared to traditional hotels and motels that are owned, controlled, and rented to the public by one entity. If a reservations service owns and controls one or more of the guest rooms or other units in the rental property (e.g., a developer who retains and rents out unsold inventory), it is subject to the requirements set forth in § 36.302(e).

Several commenters expressed concern about any rule that would require accessible units that are owned individually to be removed from the rental pool and rented last. Commenters pointed out that this would be a disadvantage to the owners of accessible units because they would be rented last, if at all. Further, certain vacation property managers consider holding specific units back to be a violation of their ethical responsibility to present all properties they manage at an equal advantage. To address these concerns, the Department has added § 36.302(e)(2), which exempts reservations for individual guest rooms and other units that are not owned or substantially controlled by the entity that owns, leases, or operates the overall facility from the requirement that accessible guest rooms be held back from rental until all other guest rooms of that type have been rented. Section 36.302(e)(2) also exempts such rooms from requirements for blocking and guaranteeing reserved rooms. In resort developments with mixed ownership structures, such as a resort where some units are operated as hotel rooms and others are owned and controlled individually, a reservations service operated by the owner of the hotel portion may apply the exemption only to the rooms that are not owned or substantially controlled by the entity that owns, manages, or otherwise controls the overall facility.

Other reservations-related comments made on behalf of these entities reflected concerns similar to the general concerns expressed with respect to traditional hotel properties. For example, commenters noted that because of the unique nature of the timeshare industry, additional flexibility is needed when making reservations for accessible units. One commenter explained that reservations are sometimes made through unusual entities such as exchange companies, which are not public accommodations and which operate to trade ownership interests of millions of individual owners. The commenter expressed concern that developers or resort owners would be held responsible for the actions of these exchange entities. If, as described, the choice to list a unit with an exchange company is made by the individual owner of the property and the exchange company does not operate on behalf of the reservations service, the reservations service is not liable for the exchange company’s actions.

As with hotels, the Department believes that within the 18-month transition period these reservations services should be able to modify their systems to ensure that potential guests with disabilities who need accessible rooms can make reservations during the same hours and in the same manner as those who do not need accessible rooms.

Click to expand...

More info

from Sec-167, 168 & 169

Section 36.406(c) Places of Lodging

In the NPRM, the Department proposed a new definition for public accommodations that are “places of lodging’’ and a new Sec. 36.406(c) to clarify the scope of coverage for places of public accommodation that meet this definition. For many years the Department has received inquiries from members of the public seeking clarification of ADA coverage of rental accommodations in timeshares, condominium hotels, and mixed-use and corporate hotel facilities that operate as places of public accommodation (as that term is now defined in Sec. 36.104). These facilities, which have attributes of both residential dwellings and transient lodging facilities, have become increasingly popular since the ADA’s enactment in 1990 and make up the majority of new hotel construction in some vacation destinations. The hybrid residential and lodging characteristics of these new types of facilities, as well as their ownership characteristics, complicate determinations of ADA coverage, prompting questions from both industry and individuals with disabilities. While the Department has interpreted the ADA to encompass these hotel-like facilities when they are used to provide transient lodging, the regulation previously has specifically not addressed them. In the NPRM, the Department proposed a new Sec. 36.406(c), entitled “Places of Lodging,’’ which was intended to clarify that places of lodging, including certain timeshares, condominium hotels, and mixed-use and corporate hotel facilities, shall comply with the provisions of the proposed standards, including, but not limited to, the requirements for transient lodging in sections 224 and 806 of the 2004 ADAAG.

The Department’s NPRM sought public input on this proposal. The Department received a substantial number of comments on these issues from industry representatives, advocates for persons with disabilities, and individuals. A significant focus of these comments was on how the Department should define and regulate vacation rental units in timeshares, vacation communities, and condo-hotels where the units are owned and controlled by individual owners and rented out some portion of time to the public, as compared to traditional hotels and motels that are owned, controlled, and rented to the public by one entity.

Scoping and technical requirements applicable to “places of lodging.’’ In the NPRM, the Department asked for public comment on its proposal in Sec. 36.406(c) to apply to places of lodging the scoping and technical requirements for transient lodging, rather than the scoping and technical requirements for residential dwelling units.

Commenters generally agreed that the transient lodging requirements should apply to places of lodging. Several commenters stated that the determination as to which requirements apply should be made based on the intention for use at the time of design and construction. According to these commenters, if units are intended for transient rentals, then the transient lodging standards should apply, and if they are intended to be used for residential purposes, the residential standards should apply. Some commenters agreed with the application of transient lodging standards to places of lodging in general, but disagreed about the characterization of certain types of facilities as covered places of lodging.

The Department agrees that the scoping and technical standards applicable to transient lodging should apply to facilities that contain units that meet the definition of “places of lodging.’’

Scoping for timeshare or condominium hotels. In the NPRM, the Department sought comment on the appropriate basis for determining scoping for a timeshare or condominium-hotel. A number of commenters indicated that scoping should be based on the usage of the facility. Only those units used for short-term stays should be counted for application of the transient lodging standards, while units sold as residential properties should be treated as residential units not subject to the ADA. One commenter stated that scoping should be based on the maximum number of sleeping units available for public rental. Another commenter pointed out that unlike traditional hotels and motels, the number of units available for rental in a facility or development containing individually owned units is not fixed over time. Owners have the right to participate in a public rental program some, all, or none of the time, and individual owner participation changes from year to year.

The Department believes that the determination for scoping should be based on the number of units in the project that are designed and constructed with the intention that their owners may participate in a transient lodging rental program. The Department cautions that it is not the number of owners that actually exercise their right to participate in the program that determines the scoping. Rather it is the units that could be placed into an on-site or off-site transient lodging rental program. In the final rule, the Department has added a provision to Sec. 36.406(c)(3), which states that units intended to be used exclusively for residential purposes that are contained in facilities that also meet the definition of place of lodging are not covered by the transient lodging standards. Title III of the ADA does not apply to units designed and constructed with the intention that they be rented or sold as exclusively residential units. Such units are covered by the Fair Housing Act (FHAct), which contains requirements for certain features of accessible and adaptable design both for units and for public and common use areas. All units designed and constructed with the intention that they may be used for both residential and transient lodging purposes are covered by the ADA and must be counted for determining the required number of units that must meet the transient lodging standards in the 2010 Standards. Public use and common use areas in facilities containing units subject to the ADA also must meet the 2010 Standards. In some developments, units that may serve as residential units some of the time and rental units some of the time will have to meet both the FHAct and the ADA requirements. For example, all of the units in a vacation condominium facility whose owners choose to rent to the public when they are not using the units themselves would be counted for the purposes of determining the appropriate number of units that must comply with the 2010 Standards. In a newly constructed condominium that has three floors with units dedicated to be sold solely as residential housing and three floors with units that may be used as residences or hotel units, only the units on the three latter floors would be counted for applying the 2010 Standards. In a newly constructed timeshare development containing 100 units, all of which may be made available to the public through an exchange or rental program, all 100 units would be counted for purposes of applying the 2010 Standards.

One commenter also asked the Department for clarification of how to count individually owned “lock-off units.’’ Lock-off units are units that are multi-bedroom but can be “locked off’’ into two separate units, each having individual external access. This commenter requested that the Department state in the final rule that individually owned lock-off units do not constitute multiple guest rooms for purposes of calculating compliance with the scoping requirements for accessible units, since for the most part the lock-off units are used as part of a larger accessible unit, and portions of a unit not locked off would constitute both an accessible one-bedroom unit or an accessible two-bedroom unit with the lock-off unit.

It is the Department’s view that lock-off units that are individually owned that can be temporarily converted into two units do not constitute two separate guest rooms for purposes of calculating compliance with the scoping requirements.

One commenter asked the Department how developers should scope units where buildings are constructed in phases over a span of years, recommending that the scoping be based on the total number of units expected to be constructed at the project and not on a building-by-building basis or on a phase-by-phase basis. The Department does not think scoping should be based on planned number of units, which may or may not be actually constructed over a period of years. However, the Department recognizes that resort developments may contain buildings and facilities that are of all sizes from single-unit cottages to facilities with hundreds of units. The Department believes it would be appropriate to allow designers, builders, and developers to aggregate the units in facilities with 50 or fewer units that are subject to a single permit application and that are on a common site or that are constructed at the same time for the purposes of applying the scoping requirements in table 224.2. Facilities with more than 50 units should be scoped individually in accordance with the table. The regulation has been revised to reflect this application of the scoping requirements.

One commenter also asked the Department to use the title III regulation to declare that timeshares subject to the transient lodging standards are exempt from the design and construction requirements of the FHAct. The coverage of the FHAct is set by Congress and interpreted by regulations issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department has no authority to exempt anyone from coverage of the FHAct.

Click to expand...

Continued

on Sec-169, 170 & 171

Application of ADA to places of lodging that contain individually owned units. The Department believes that regardless of ownership structure for individual units, rental programs (whether they are on- or off-site) that make transient lodging guest rooms available to the public must comply with the general nondiscrimination requirements of the ADA. In addition, as provided in Sec. 36.406(c), newly constructed facilities that contain accommodations intended to be used for transient lodging purposes must comply with the 2010 Standards.

In the NPRM, the Department asked for public comment on several issues related to ensuring the availability of accessible units in a rental program operated by a place of lodging. The Department sought input on how it could address a situation in which a new or converted facility constructs the required number of accessible units, but the owners of those units choose not to participate in the rental program; whether the facility has an obligation to encourage or require owners of accessible units to participate in the rental program; and whether the facility developer, the condominium association, or the hotel operator has an obligation to retain ownership or control over a certain number of accessible units to avoid this problem.

In the NPRM, the Department sought public input on how to regulate scoping for a timeshare or condominium-rental facility that decides, after the sale of units to individual owners, to begin a rental program that qualifies the facility as a place of lodging, and how the condominium association, operator, or developer should determine which units to make accessible.

A number of commenters expressed concerns about the ability of the Department to require owners of accessible units to participate in the rental program, to require developers, condo associations, or homeowners associations to retain ownership of accessible units, and to impose accessibility requirements on individual owners who choose to place inaccessible units into a rental program after purchase. These commenters stated that individuals who purchase accessible vacation units in condominiums, individual vacation homes, and timeshares have ownership rights in their units and may choose lawfully to make their units available to the public some, all, or none of the time. Commenters advised the Department that the Securities and Exchange Commission takes the position that if condominium units are offered in connection with participation in a required rental program for any part of the year, require the use of an exclusive rental agent, or impose conditions otherwise restricting the occupancy or rental of the unit, then that offering will be viewed as an offering of securities in the form of an investment (rather than a real estate offering). SEC Release No. 33-5347, Guidelines as to the Applicability of the Federal Securities Laws to Offers and Sales of Condominiums or Units in a Real Estate Development (Jan. 4, 1973). Consequently, most condominium developers do not impose such restrictions at the time of sale. Moreover, owners who choose to rent their units as a short-term vacation rental can select any rental or management company to lease and manage their unit, or they may rent them out on their own. They also may choose never to lease those units. Thus, there are no guarantees that at any particular time, accessible units will be available for rental by the public. According to this commenter, providing incentives for owners of accessible units to place their units in the rental program will not work, because it does not guarantee the availability of the requisite number of rooms dispersed across the development, and there is not any reasonable, identifiable source of funds to cover the costs of such incentives.

A number of commenters also indicated that it potentially is discriminatory as well as economically infeasible to require that a developer hold back the accessible units so that the units can be maintained in the rental program year-round. One commenter pointed out that if a developer did not sell the accessible condominiums or timeshares in the building inventory, the developer would be subject to a potential ADA or FHAct complaint because persons with disabilities who wanted to buy accessible units rather than rent them each year would not have the option to purchase them. In addition, if a developer held back accessible units, the cost of those units would have to be spread across all the buyers of the inaccessible units, and in many cases would make the project financially infeasible. This would be especially true for smaller projects. Finally, this commenter argued that requiring units to be part of the common elements that are owned by all of the individual unit owners is infeasible because the common ownership would result in pooled rental income, which would transform the owners into participants in a rental pool, and thus turn the sale of the condominiums into the sale of securities under SEC Release 33-5347.

Several commenters noted that requiring the operator of the rental program to own the accessible units is not feasible either because the operator of the rental program would have to have the funds to invest in the purchase of all of the accessible units, and it would not have a means of recouping its investment. One commenter stated that in Texas, it is illegal for on-site rental programs to own condominium units. Another commenter noted that such a requirement might lead to the loss of on-site rental programs, leaving owners to use individual third-party brokers, or rent the units privately. One commenter acknowledged that individual owners cannot be required to place their units in a rental pool simply to offer an accessible unit to the public, since the owners may be purchasing units for their own use. However, this commenter recommended that owners who choose to place their units in a rental pool be required to contribute to a fund that would be used to renovate units that are placed in the rental pool to increase the availability of accessible units. One commenter argued that the legal entity running the place of lodging has an obligation to retain control over the required number of accessible units to ensure that they are available in accordance with title III.

A number of commenters also argued that the Department has no legal authority to require individual owners to engage in barrier removal where an existing development adds a rental program. One commenter stated that Texas law prohibits the operator of on-site rental program from demanding that alterations be made to a particular unit. In addition, under Texas law, condominium declarations may not require some units and not others to make changes, because that would lead to unequal treatment of units and owners, which is not permissible.

One commenter stated that since it was not possible for operators of rental programs offering privately owned condominiums to comply with accessible scoping, the Department should create exemptions from the accessible scoping, especially for existing facilities. In addition, this commenter stated that if an operator of an on-site rental program were to require renovations as a condition of participation in the rental program, unit owners might just rent their units through a different broker or on their own, in which case such requirements would not apply.

A number of commenters argued that if a development decides to create a rental program, it must provide accessible units. Otherwise the development would have to ensure that units are retrofitted. A commenter argued that if an existing building is being converted, the Department should require that if alterations of the units are performed by an owner or developer prior to sale of the units, then the alterations requirements should apply, in order to ensure that there are some accessible units in the rental pool. This commenter stated that because of the proliferation of these type of developments in Hawaii, mandatory alteration is the only way to guarantee the availability of accessible units in the long run. In this commenter’s view, since conversions almost always require makeover of existing buildings, this will not lead to a significant expense.

The Department agrees with the commenters that it would not be feasible to require developers to hold back or purchase accessible units for the purposes of making them available to the public in a transient lodging rental program, nor would it be feasible to require individual owners of accessible units to participate in transient lodging rental programs.

The Department recognizes that places of lodging are developed and financed under myriad ownership and management structures and agrees that there will be circumstances where there are legal barriers to requiring compliance with either the alterations requirements or the requirements related to barrier removal. The Department has added an exception to Sec. 36.406(c), providing that in existing facilities that meet the definition of places of lodging, where the guest rooms are not owned or substantially controlled by the entity that owns, leases, or operates the overall facility and the physical features of the guest room interiors are controlled by their individual owners, the units are not subject to the alterations requirement, even where the owner rents the unit out to the public through a transient lodging rental program. In addition, the Department has added an exception to the barrier removal requirements at Sec. 36.304(g) providing that in existing facilities that meet the definition of places of lodging, where the guest rooms are not owned or substantially controlled by the entity that owns, leases, or operates the overall facility and the physical features of the guest room interiors are controlled by their individual owners, the units are not subject to the barrier removal requirement. The Department notes, however, that there are legal relationships for some timeshares and cooperatives where the ownership interests do not convey control over the physical features of units. In those cases, it may be the case that the facility has an obligation to meet the alterations or barrier removal requirements or to maintain accessible features.

Click to expand...

Reply Deleted.

I noticed on the Revolution pull down menus they have deleted the "View all resorts" tab. Now you can only check one resort at a time. Maybe this was done to speed up the Revolution system since the demise of the Classic system. It didn't seem any faster to me if that is was reason and now you have to check the resorts individually for available inventory.

I don't like the removable of the view all resorts, it just means three different searches now for Carlsbad.

I suppose we should be happy that changes are being made, it may get worse before it gets better. What fun being beta testers!

Please continue to write in to express your displeasure

HGVC doesn't appear to have a good track record in resolving their system issues in a timely fashion.
So I hope members will continue to send emails/letters to express their displeasure and to provide details on the improvements/enhancements they would like to see from Hilton's online system.

Hopefully a signficiant increase in member feedback/inquires will influence HGVC to get their system issues addressed sooner rather than later.

THE FACTS:
(1) The REVOLUTION reservation system was launched in July 2008 and some of the concerns that members had then are still a concern 3+ years later
Anyone see the NEW HGVC website? [July 2008] - http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77181
Are you using "Revolution" for booking? [July 2010] - http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126636
Online "Classic" reservations gone [July 2011] - http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150762

(2) HGVC had 18 months to respond to the ADA mandate. They made the decision to remove CLASSIC and to ignore the issues that were causing members to stay on CLASSIC. Instead, based on the number of problems reported on TUG, it seemed like they waited until the absolute last moment (just weeks before taking down CLASSIC) to support the changeable reservation option in REVOLUTION
Changeable Reservation Glitch [March 2012] - http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167965
Revolution System for Changing Reservations [April 2012] - http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168538

(3) Overall access to the system was completely unavailable for long stretches at a time during the end of the year.
No log in and extra fees [December 2011] - http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161498

HGVC Addresses Revolution/Classic Concern

If you log onto your HGVC site you will notice a big letter from one the suits regarding the concerns they have gotten from club owners regarding the Revo System.

As noted above, she states in order to be in compliance with ADA regulations they needed to make the change and gradually phase out the classic system. Not sure why they couldn't keep both?

BUT, its posted on your screen as soon as you log in.

Maybe someone is listening?

izzykool said:

BUT, its posted on your screen as soon as you log in.

Maybe someone is listening?

Click to expand...

I logged in, Sorry, I don't see anything there.
Besides, having to do it for ADA has nothing to do with removing functionality and providing a poor, ineffective product. They have known about the impending targets for two years and have done little to fix the system problems already identified in that time. Only when the system came to it's knees, kept crashing, and their call center was probably going nuts trying to keep up did they attempt to address the response time issue identified years ago. It's probably why they eliminated the "select all resorts in the region" option as well. The ADA excuse is just that, an excuse for not having done an adequate job in the first place.

Any way to see open season availability at the affiliates without having to call in anymore????

This "upgrade" is a cluster...and I'm seriously thinking of getting out of HGVC. We've been members for a few years, and between the increasing nickle/dime fees, I'm looking for a better customer service experience. Hyatt anyone??

jestme said:

I logged in, Sorry, I don't see anything there.
Besides, having to do it for ADA has nothing to do with removing functionality and providing a poor, ineffective product. They have known about the impending targets for two years and have done little to fix the system problems already identified in that time. Only when the system came to it's knees, kept crashing, and their call center was probably going nuts trying to keep up did they attempt to address the response time issue identified years ago. It's probably why they eliminated the "select all resorts in the region" option as well. The ADA excuse is just that, an excuse for not having done an adequate job in the first place.

Click to expand...

I'm not disputing anything you said, but when I log on I see it. And I was just quoting what was stated in the letter.

The regional view is back, and the system is loading much quicker than it used to, so they are improving it. But I still want Classic back! It was much easier to see availability instead of moving that stupid slider bar.

linsj said:

The regional view is back, and the system is loading much quicker than it used to, so they are improving it. But I still want Classic back! It was much easier to see availability instead of moving that stupid slider bar.

Click to expand...

GREAT... Now if they just show the correct start dates for changing reservations... Still shows off by one day from the original checkin...

jlee2070 said:

GREAT... Now if they just show the correct start dates for changing reservations... Still shows off by one day from the original checkin...

Click to expand...

Yeah, apparently they can only work on one problem at a time--for a long time.

I called reservations today. They said there are no plans to show open season availability at the affiliates again. Whether the girl knew what she was talking about, or not, she was pretty adamant that the only way to book affiliates from here on in is to call and hope for the best.

Pathetic

Andythefox said:

I called reservations today. They said there are no plans to show open season availability at the affiliates again. Whether the girl knew what she was talking about, or not, she was pretty adamant that the only way to book affiliates from here on in is to call and hope for the best.

Pathetic

Click to expand...

Maybe if they are overwhelmed with calls, they'll rethink this move.

Dates are still wrong. They show up on the list as 1 date, the details have the same date, but when I pull up the reservation in changable mode the dates are listed as 1 day earlier.

Has anyone had any issues on dates upon checkin. Or do that dates on the paper reservation work out as the right dates.

trouble changing reservation/making a new one

hi, working off a new macbook. tried to change an existing reservation and the area where revolution normally shows up is blank. doesn't show loading status or anything for 10 min (i gave up and tried to click back without any problems). the same thing happens when i try to make a new reservation. anyone else having problems with booking now? thanks

eugeneleemd said:

hi, working off a new macbook. tried to change an existing reservation and the area where revolution normally shows up is blank. doesn't show loading status or anything for 10 min (i gave up and tried to click back without any problems). the same thing happens when i try to make a new reservation. anyone else having problems with booking now? thanks

Click to expand...

Apple no longer pre-loads Flash on their computers. You will need to download it and install it.

http://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/downloads.html

thanks remy. that fixed it.

What about flash on iPad?

Out of luck using the HGVC system on be IPad. You have to use Classis (now gone).

loosefeet said:

Out of luck using the HGVC system on be IPad. You have to use Classic (now gone).

Click to expand...

Lessee, the HOA board members bought themselves iPads to assist in meetings, but they can't use 'em to reserve stays for those meetings. Nice irony.