Wyndham limiting access by non-owners during most sought-after dates/locations

[Sandi Bo]

I might also add these rooms were rented out cheaper than my MF.. If they really wanted to help owners they would cut back on the back door rentals...
Like I mentioned before of what I overheard the front desk commenting on the multi billion purchase of all the rental sites... VRBO.. REDWEEK..ETC...Does anyone know if this is true?

Another way they can help owners try to book is to fix the online system... It was mentioned that there are resorts that show availability but unable to book...
I am surprised that has not been addressed as a problem with access to be able to book...

It's must easier to blame 'megarenters' (yet to be defined) than fix the online system.

 

[dioxide45]

Like I mentioned before of what I overheard the front desk commenting on the multi billion purchase of all the rental sites... VRBO.. REDWEEK..ETC...Does anyone know if this is true?

First up, there is no way they could afford to buy all the rental sites. AirBnB is worth more than the entire hotel industry combined. Wyndham doesn't have enough money to do it. Vrbo is owned by Expedia. I doubt Wyndham cares enough about Redweek. Another thing , these companies need to be for sale before they could be bought by Wyndham. If the owners of Redweek don't want to sell, then Wyndham can't buy them.

 

[Ty1on]

First up, there is no way they could afford to buy all the rental sites. AirBnB is worth more than the entire hotel industry combined. Wyndham doesn't have enough money to do it. Vrbo is owned by Expedia. I doubt Wyndham cares enough about Redweek. Another thing , these companies need to be for sale before they could be bought by Wyndham. If the owners of Redweek don't want to sell, then Wyndham can't buy them.

100% correct on everything except that sometimes suitors knock on the door with an offer to good to pass up.

Wyndham hasn't taken over the entire vertical and doesn't have the means to do so if it wanted to.

 

[ilya]

I may be missing something and I'm not trying to be mean. Are you surprised that your third guest reservation was cancelled?

From what I understand the system is programmed to cancel anything over your yearly allotment of the two permitted guest reservations for the resorts and dates on the lists. Owner care cannot override the system.

If I'm wrong about this HitchHiker71 will be able to give us the correct information.

I thought owners were allowed unlimited reservations as long as the owner was in one of the overlapping?

 

[ilya]

First up, there is no way they could afford to buy all the rental sites. AirBnB is worth more than the entire hotel industry combined. Wyndham doesn't have enough money to do it. Vrbo is owned by Expedia. I doubt Wyndham cares enough about Redweek. Another thing , these companies need to be for sale before they could be bought by Wyndham. If the owners of Redweek don't want to sell, then Wyndham can't buy them.

Guess it was another sales ploy to get renters to buy...

 

[paxsarah]

unlimited

("unlimited" obviously within existing limitations such as the 10 unit/20% rule and the owner's own point and GC limitations)

But yes, that's how I understood it.

 

[Jan M.]

I thought owners were allowed unlimited reservations as long as the owner was in one of the overlapping?

You've owned long enough to know that's not correct. Also why are you now even saying this as you've been posting in this thread and it's been discussed at length?

Since 2015 the ruling has been that an owner may only reserve a maximum of 10 units per resort per night. For resorts with less than 50 units its a maximum of 20%.

 

[ilya]

You've owned long enough to know that's not correct. Also why are you now even saying this as you've been posting in this thread and it's been discussed at length?

Since 2015 the ruling has been that an owner may only reserve a maximum of 10 units per resort per night. For resorts with less than 50 units its a maximum of 20%.

I am not talking about the old rules.., I never had to deal with the limits...So, no... I would not know.. Only owned for 4 or so years...

What I am taking about is the new restrictions.. I thought on the site or email... It was stated as long as owners are staying at the resort at the same time they can have unlimited guests.. If not going with your guest then only allowed 2 guest confirmations per year.. I never got the email so I would not know what that said... only going by what I read on here...

 

[Sandi Bo]

Update: ***** Wyndham cancelled the July 2 reservation for 3 nights that had a guest name added after June 18. ***** AND - it had the overlap as specified in the email. As well as the dialog with VC and OC above.. I got the email today and checked the system and sure enough, I see it was cancelled. The points and guest confirmation were returned. Now my guests do not have a place to stay tomorrow night. We have my extra 1br that I booked for July 3 for 2 nights, but part of the crew sleeping on the couch was not the plan. Wyndham left 2 reservations with guest names that were added after June 18, along with the unit in my name. Cancelling the 3rd.

Uggg.. So sorry this happened to you. Biggest fear -- them cancelling a legitimate reservation. Hope you were able to work things out.

Anyone know if this is an automated or manual process?

For me personally, I have a reservation with a guest checkin on June 28th. Owner checkin on July 1st. No problem, worked as expected. Noteworthy? Both reservations were made after June 18th. I was told if a reservation was made prior to June 18th, we would need to call owner care to make sure it didn't cancel.

 

[Cyrus24]

Update: ***** Wyndham cancelled the July 2 reservation for 3 nights that had a guest name added after June 18. ***** AND - it had the overlap as specified in the email. As well as the dialog with VC and OC above.. I got the email today and checked the system and sure enough, I see it was cancelled. The points and guest confirmation were returned. Now my guests do not have a place to stay tomorrow night. We have my extra 1br that I booked for July 3 for 2 nights, but part of the crew sleeping on the couch was not the plan. Wyndham left 2 reservations with guest names that were added after June 18, along with the unit in my name. Cancelling the 3rd.

Lost Patience indicated that they had 3 reservations at WBC with GC's and further stated that they had an overlapping reservation with an owner name on it. Per the recent letter, that is acceptable. What gave Wyndham the right to cancel one of the reservations with a GC when Lost Patience had followed the written rules? Lost Patience has a very legitimate complaint, IMHO, and we need to know how Wyndham makes it right.

 

[Sandi Bo]

Overall comment - the limit of 10 reservations is the least of our worries with all this.

 

[Cyrus24]

Overall comment - the limit of 10 reservations is the least of our worries with all this.

Exactly. Either the overlapping reservations process works when there are more than 2 GC reservations or it doesn't. For Lost Patience, something on the Wyndham side failed.

 

[r4rab]

Lost Patience indicated that they had 3 reservations at WBC with GC's and further stated that they had an overlapping reservation with an owner name on it. Per the recent letter, that is acceptable. What gave Wyndham the right to cancel one of the reservations with a GC when Lost Patience had followed the written rules? Lost Patience has a very legitimate complaint, IMHO, and we need to know how Wyndham makes it right.

I think this shows the difference between what the email said and what the website said (caveat: I haven't read either for a while so I am going from memory). The email indicated unlimited GCs could be used with an overlapping owner reservation (subject to GC limitations) and that, additionally, 2 GCs could be used during blackout periods when the owner was not present.

The website said/implied that 2 GCs could be used with an overlapping owner reservation. It appears this may be what happened.

 

[ilya]

I think this shows the difference between what the email said and what the website said (caveat: I haven't read either for a while so I am going from memory). The email indicated unlimited GCs could be used with an overlapping owner reservation (subject to GC limitations) and that, additionally, 2 GCs could be used during blackout periods when the owner was not present.

The website said/implied that 2 GCs could be used with an overlapping owner reservation. It appears this may be what happened.

I thought I was having reading comprehension problems.. Had to read over a few times to make sure I had it correct..

 

[Cyrus24]

The online wording may have changed. Seems clearer now.

"You can travel with your guests to these resorts during the dates listed below and may use two guest confirmations during the restricted dates when not travelling with your guests."

So, to the case of Lost Patience, there was an overlapping reservation, so no 'new' restrictions on the number of GC's Lost Patience was allowed to use.

 

[lost patience]

Lost Patience indicated that they had 3 reservations at WBC with GC's and further stated that they had an overlapping reservation with an owner name on it. Per the recent letter, that is acceptable. What gave Wyndham the right to cancel one of the reservations with a GC when Lost Patience had followed the written rules? Lost Patience has a very legitimate complaint, IMHO, and we need to know how Wyndham makes it right.

After a lengthy call, they created a ticket. OC and the several team members he chatted with all believe it should not have been cancelled. Which is of no help for me. They offered no solution for this weekends missing reservation. OC was not able to help replace or recover the reservation. It was Grand Desert not WBC, but the logic is correct. 3 reservations had guest names added after June 18 for 3 nights starting July 2. One with owner name starting July 3 for 2 nights. Of the 3 with guest names added after June 18, one was cancelled. This leads me to believe that the 2 are being counted as my "2 per year" then they cancelled the 3rd one.
Soon after my call ended, several units showed as available for July 2 for 2 nights. I was able to book one of those. That leaves us pretty squished on the night of July 4, but at least no one is sleeping on the floor or in their car.

 

[Jan M.]

In case anyone has somehow managed to miss the previous times I've posted it in this thread and OP have too, I'll give it one more try.

The email was wrong! Owners cannot make unlimited reservations for the same resort and dates.

I've seen some conflicting information about the 2 yearly guest confirmations we're permitted for the blacked out resorts and dates. From lost patience sharing her experience it seems that we get two guest confirmations period for the blacked out resorts and dates whether we're staying at the resort or not. This isn't made clear on the website.

You have to wonder if Wyndham didn't want us to know how it was going to work. Or perhaps they don't employ anyone capable of writing a simple two or three sentence explanation. Even to explain it to their own people from the COO down to the reps.

 

[Cyrus24]

Or perhaps they don't employ anyone capable of writing a simple two or three sentence explanation. Even to explain it to their own people from the COO down to the reps.

Most of us are well aware of the incompetence inside the Wyndham organization. Letters not matching Website words. Websites that don't work. Sales weasels that get by with lying every day. Etc., Etc., Etc..

 

[paxsarah]

The online wording may have changed. Seems clearer now.

"You can travel with your guests to these resorts during the dates listed below and may use two guest confirmations during the restricted dates when not travelling with your guests."

So, to the case of Lost Patience, there was an overlapping reservation, so no 'new' restrictions on the number of GC's Lost Patience was allowed to use.

This is a good, clarifying update. For posterity, archive.org indicates that on June 18 the wording was, "You can travel with your guests to these resorts during the dates listed below and may use two guest confirmations during the restricted dates." So in adding "when not travelling with your guests," Wyndham brought the website language more in line with the explanation in the original email (notwithstanding the phrase in the email, "as many guest reservations as you would like," which really is not the main focus of the policy and shouldn't distract from Wyndham's actual intent).

 

[rickandcindy23]

In case anyone has somehow managed to miss the previous times I've posted it in this thread and OP have too, I'll give it one more try.

The email was wrong! Owners cannot make unlimited reservations for the same resort and dates.

I've seen some conflicting information about the 2 yearly guest confirmations we're permitted for the blacked out resorts and dates. From lost patience sharing her experience it seems that we get two guest confirmations period for the blacked out resorts and dates whether we're staying at the resort or not. This isn't made clear on the website.

You have to wonder if Wyndham didn't want us to know how it was going to work. Or perhaps they don't employ anyone capable of writing a simple two or three sentence explanation. Even to explain it to their own people from the COO down to the reps.

'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect/stupidity/ineptitude. '

 

[ilya]

This is a good, clarifying update. For posterity, archive.org indicates that on June 18 the wording was, "You can travel with your guests to these resorts during the dates listed below and may use two guest confirmations during the restricted dates." So in adding "when not travelling with your guests," Wyndham brought the website language more in line with the explanation in the original email (notwithstanding the phrase in the email, "as many guest reservations as you would like," which really is not the main focus of the policy and shouldn't distract from Wyndham's actual intent).

So , the email was wrong but the website is correct... Which I would think 3 guests are allowed according to the wording ... If owner is also on site.. Forget about the "unlimited'... That seemed to spark irritation... The 3rd guest should have never been canceled.. Bottom line...

 

[paxsarah]

So , the email was wrong but the website is correct... Which I would think 3 guests are allowed according to the wording ... If owner is also on site.. Forget about the "unlimited'... That seemed to spark irritation... The 3rd guest should have never been canceled.. Bottom line...

I think they are now both correct, no? The email would have allowed 3 guests concurrent with an owner, and now the website makes clear that 3 guests should be allowed concurrent with an owner. The only thing "incorrect" in the email was the implication of unlimited guest reservations (rather than explicitly stating that total guest reservations would still be subject to preexisting limitations).

So basically, the cancellation was in error and the reservations all should have stood. I'm so sorry that happened. Now the language on the website is more consistent with the language in the email. Regardless, the FAQ mentioned by @HitchHiker71 can't come soon enough!

 

[rickandcindy23]

It seems that these changes just have us all adjusting what we do, how we do it, so we acquiesce to the whim of Wyndham execs, and the people who have to deal with the changes and the complaining and the lack of understanding is the owner and owner care. I do wonder what owner care is saying to the higher-ups about these changes. I would love to be a fly on that wall.

I remember owner care being very sympathetic with our situation many years ago, when the new system came out and we all had to adjust to the way things were. After all, they were advising people back then to cancel and rebook for the discounts. We learned to work around that and just watch often for discounted stays within that window of time. Now this change. It's got to be stressful on the employees.

I tend to think about what is going on behind the scenes. I wouldn't want to work in an environment with angry callers.

 

[paxsarah]

I tend to think about what is going on behind the scenes. I wouldn't want to work in an environment with angry callers.

As an employee I hate the feeling when I'm not provided the information I need to do my job. All you can do is provide the information you've been given, and if you've been provided with inadequate or inconsistent training on a new policy, it's just a huge mess for everyone. I hope Wyndham has been making a concerted effort to get everyone there on the same page.

 

[lost patience]

I don't think I mentioned this tidbit...... almost 2 weeks after this newest policy was implemented. VC asked me to forward the Wyndham email to her. Exactly as you state - those that we get to talk to have no idea what the rules are.