S
Sydney
Hi Madge,
I rang RCI pts a couple of wks ago, in Australia, to do an instant exchange. Firstly, I enquired about exchange availability within the next month or so. When I was informed of a couple of "weeks-only" resorts being available, I asked for them on instant exchange by using my points. I was told that even though the wk I wanted was a weeks-only resort and that it was within 45 days of check-in I could not have it as an instant exchange since the 9000 pts instant exchanges were only for wks in low demand!?? I asked when the rules changed and what that meant and was told the rule was aways this way since the program started. I then said I had joined since the beginning and had made a number of instant exchanges by booking any weeks resorts within 45days of check-in. She checked with a supervisor to find out about the rule and came back to say that I was incorrect as the rule had always been that way? I know for a fact that it has not.
Would you kindly please enlighten me as to whether this is a new rule or whether the VC made a mistake?
Thank you.
I rang RCI pts a couple of wks ago, in Australia, to do an instant exchange. Firstly, I enquired about exchange availability within the next month or so. When I was informed of a couple of "weeks-only" resorts being available, I asked for them on instant exchange by using my points. I was told that even though the wk I wanted was a weeks-only resort and that it was within 45 days of check-in I could not have it as an instant exchange since the 9000 pts instant exchanges were only for wks in low demand!?? I asked when the rules changed and what that meant and was told the rule was aways this way since the program started. I then said I had joined since the beginning and had made a number of instant exchanges by booking any weeks resorts within 45days of check-in. She checked with a supervisor to find out about the rule and came back to say that I was incorrect as the rule had always been that way? I know for a fact that it has not.
Would you kindly please enlighten me as to whether this is a new rule or whether the VC made a mistake?
Thank you.