Loyalty programs are big businesses, and they can be lucrative both for travel brands and consumers. As you might expect, this also means that the loyalty industry has quite a bit of fraud from many parties. This is definitely more rampant and organized in some markets than others.
Along those lines, a FlyerTalk member wrote a fascinating post about how a couple of Hyatt affiliated properties in China were reportedly running a scam in order to sell elite status and points, and it has backfired for program members who took advantage of it. I’ve learned more details now based on some reader comments, so let’s take a closer look.
In this post:
Hyatt UrCove properties sell status without staying
Someone with the username Yaledan has just joined FlyerTalk, and wrote quite a post. Let me just share the claims in full, because they’re quite something:
Recently, over 2,000 Hyatt accounts were permanently closed in China, many belonging to top-tier Globalists, including Lifetime Globalists and corporate clients. This sweeping action was triggered by a unique hotel brand in China, UrCove, which officially sold packages that allowed customers to earn points and nights without actually staying. They even provided official invoices for these transactions.
Hyatt’s response has been extreme and, frankly, harsh. Instead of investigating the hotel’s practices, Hyatt decided to indiscriminately shut down the accounts of everyone who earned points at these properties. No matter if the points were earned legitimately or not, even members who actually stayed were banned without proper investigation or explanation. Hyatt instructed affected members to contact the hotels, but members were then redirected back to Hyatt, creating a frustrating cycle with no resolution.
What’s most concerning is that Hyatt has not allowed for any explanations or appeals. If your account had any points manually credited from an UrCove stay, your account was closed. This heavy-handed action has left members shocked, fearful, and uncertain about the future of the loyalty program.
Hyatt’s handling of this situation has been extremely unethical. The hotel violated the rules by selling these non-stay products, yet Hyatt Group failed to monitor or control the situation. Instead of holding the hotel accountable, they chose to punish the members—a rare and cruel response.
For members in other region, this should serve as a reminder that even practices like mattress runs could lead to sudden account closures, without transparency or fair warning.
Let’s hope Hyatt addresses this situation fairly, as it’s already causing significant unrest in China.
For those who may be confused by the scam here, let me explain to the best of my knowledge. UrCove is one of Hyatt’s newest brands that’s specific to the China market, and it’s a joint venture with China’s Homeinns Hotel Group. It seems that a couple of these properties got a bit “entrepreneurial,” and found a creative way to generate some “bookings.”
Based on my understanding, a couple of properties were involved, in Chengdu and Hangzhou. The hotels sold packages to consumers that awarded points and elite qualifying nights, without guests actually staying, to give members a good value opportunity to earn status. The hotels even provided official invoices for these “stays.” So presumably in their internal systems (for the purposes of World of Hyatt credit), the hotels tried to make it look as if guests were actually staying.
For those wondering why this is an issue:
- You’re only supposed to actually be credited for a stay if you stay (or at least check-in), as phantom stays aren’t supposed to be allowed
- I have to imagine that the hotel was selling incredibly low rates; hotels don’t pay Hyatt directly for crediting members elite nights, per se, but instead Hyatt takes a cut on revenue
The hotels would reportedly even promote these opportunities on some social media networks. The cost for earning World of Hyatt Globalist status was reportedly around 6,000 to 7,000 RMB, or under $1,000. So that’s a cost of well under $20 per elite night.
Keep in mind that Hyatt has the Milestone Rewards program, so many awards are transferable. So it’s my understanding that many people were then in turn selling those rewards online to recoup the cost, ranging from Guest of Honor awards, to suite night awards, to club access awards. With how transferable they are, it’s not surprising that fraud is an issue.
If the hotels had done this on a small scale, everyone would’ve probably gotten away with this. I remember back in Hyatt’s Faster Free Nights days, there were some people who knew the sales manager at their local Hyatt Place, and they’d negotiate a cheap rate, and that sales manager would allow “phantom” stays, and manually check them in. I didn’t do this, for the record, since I was happy just staying at my local Grand Hyatt, which was cheap.
It wasn’t within the spirit of the program, but we’re talking about a few people doing it at a particular hotel, so it flew under the radar. But when a couple of hotels are literally selling packages to thousands of people, Hyatt will catch on.
My take on this alleged Hyatt fraud situation
The poster’s version of what happened is interesting on a few levels:
- They write it as if they’re just an independent observer with no skin in the game, when I suspect they may have been involved here
- They claim to have a suspicious amount of information, and I wonder how they reportedly have that? How do they know 2,000 people were involved? How do they know that Hyatt hasn’t punished the hotel, rather than just World of Hyatt members?
- They state that people have been banned even if they didn’t do anything wrong, and just had stays credited manually, which again, I wonder where that information comes from
- This version of events is just incredibly dramatized, like saying that this is “already causing significant unrest in China” (lol?) and calling Hyatt’s handling here “extremely unethical,” while not assigning any blame to the poor souls who who took advantage of this
This is purely speculation on my part, but my guess is that Hyatt is very much holding the hotel responsible here as well, if this is all as claimed.
With that in mind, is Hyatt acting unethically here, by banning those involved? Obviously we only have one side of the story, but I’m going to tentatively side with Hyatt here, and assume the hotel group is handling this the right way.
For one, those who took part in this presumably knew exactly what they were doing, as I imagine this was discussed widely in online communities in China. If they didn’t know, then they should have read the program’s terms & conditions more carefully. Saying that “Hyatt Group failed to monitor or control the situation” doesn’t mean that the other party doesn’t get any blame.
I will say that for the most part, airline and hotel fraud auditing departments are really, really good at what they do, and they almost always get things right (there are some programs that are exceptions, but World of Hyatt isn’t one of them). Is it possible that some innocent people were temporarily caught up in this? Absolutely. But I suspect that was resolved pretty quickly.
The whole “there’s no appeal process” thing is kind of silly, because the appeal just typically consists of the person lying about what they did. I can’t count the number of times over the years I’ve received emails where people say “help, X program shut down my account, but I did nothing wrong.” And then a dozen emails later, the truth finally comes out. “Okay, well, I’ll be honest, I did…”
The claim is that Hyatt “chose to punish the members” which is a “rare and cruel response.” I’m not sure what is being proposed instead. Should these members just get a warning, and keep all their status and rewards?
With so many of World of Hyatt’s rewards being transferable nowadays, I commend the program for cracking down on those who aren’t following the rules. After all, some elite perks are a zero sum game, so these people earning rewards through these means are potentially taking away from other members.
Bottom line
There are some interesting claims online about how a couple of UrCove properties in China have been running a pretty profitable side hustle, at Hyatt’s expense. The hotels reportedly sold packages for a certain number of elite nights and points, and would then presumably do “ghost” check-ins, while billing a low rate.
With Hyatt having caught on, thousands of people have reportedly been banned from World of Hyatt. While the claim here is that Hyatt is acting unfairly and unethically with how it’s handling this situation, I think it’s probably doing the right thing (in addition to hopefully holding the hotel responsible).
What do you make of this Hyatt fraud situation in China?
TO Vivian852
This is a ridiculous comment. You claim to fully understand the ins and outs of this situation, but I suspect you might be hired by Hyatt to spread this narrative. As someone directly affected, even I wouldn’t claim to know everything in detail. I only speak to the facts that I have.
I made my booking through the Hyatt app, with a confirmed reservation, and personally checked in. However, I didn’t stay after...
TO Vivian852
This is a ridiculous comment. You claim to fully understand the ins and outs of this situation, but I suspect you might be hired by Hyatt to spread this narrative. As someone directly affected, even I wouldn’t claim to know everything in detail. I only speak to the facts that I have.
I made my booking through the Hyatt app, with a confirmed reservation, and personally checked in. However, I didn’t stay after checking in—I left immediately after, which is commonly known as a mattress run. Despite following the booking process, my account was still closed.
I’ve tried contacting Globalist support, China support, and the hotel, but all I’ve encountered is a blame game, with each department passing the responsibility. I’ve provided all the evidence, including invoices, reservation details, and supporting documents from the hotel to Hyatt, but to this day, I’ve received no response.
This whole experience has left me incredibly disappointed with Hyatt. I’ve lost trust in how they handle their loyal customers, and it’s clear there’s a lack of accountability. So, I’m not sure where you got this ‘100%’ claim from. If you’d like, I’d be more than happy to CC you on all the evidence I’ve gathered.
$20 US per night is unusually low for a Hyatt brand as a minimum rate. If more of these chains imposed a $50 or $75 minimum rate it would be much less lucrative. Sure folks on a Friends and Family 50% off rate might be caught in this but those are substantially discounted anyway.
Don't act like Hyatt is the fair arbiter here. Hyatt China has been fully aware of what's happening here, they previously went as far as instructing UrCove hotels how to do it. (Personally chatted with a UrCove GSM)
And don't act hotels are in good faith here too. A Marriott hotel in China went as far as transferring 1000 points from hacked accounts to customers who complained, to put customers' accounts into audit.
Ben, we don't believe we have seen this before. Here we all are trying to gain Globalist status and eventually Lifetime, and we have to spend to get there.
We are also not pleased to suddenly see many Chinese visitors in Executive lounges in Europe. Zurich, Paris, London were flooded.
One of us knows enough Mandarin Language from having spent alot of years in China. We observed them, we did not...
Ben, we don't believe we have seen this before. Here we all are trying to gain Globalist status and eventually Lifetime, and we have to spend to get there.
We are also not pleased to suddenly see many Chinese visitors in Executive lounges in Europe. Zurich, Paris, London were flooded.
One of us knows enough Mandarin Language from having spent alot of years in China. We observed them, we did not believe they were familiar with lounges and probably were on this fraud deal from China. We are lifetime Diamond and Titanium, so we are familiar over many years being in the Executive lounges. We observed the Globalist breakfast benefit being abused as well. In several hotels, staff we know over years told us about the abuse.
We are pleased that Hyatt and Hilton are taking action. We wonder when Marriott will take action.
Additionally Marriott has a point scam with Chinese making claims at hotels and asking for 50,000 points, its an immediate demand. Once that got on the China net it spread quickly.
We stay at these hotel brands as there is supposed to be a company, a corporate HQ, that supports the brand. Not only supporting the hotel owners, but the guest who bring in the revenue. We expect support, otherwise any brand would be fine.
We hope the CEO's understand that, and balance out with Wall St Demands. No customers, no revenue.
Lol you’re not pleased lounges in Europe got flooded with Chinese? You’re a small percentage of the population. Chinese is 1/7 of the world population and yet you expect to see less of them? There are 300-400 million chinese middle class. More than the whole of USA and now you expect them to not travel?
Wow.
To ensure fairness of the program, I would suggest free breakfast should expand from North America only to global, for brand like Hyatt Place. This is same for Marriott, Fairfield and some brands only available for North America Region.
Live by the sword...
If your child and his friends make a mistake at home, you should not punish his friends but your own child.
Most affected users are aware that they are doing bad faith business with UrCove manager at the first place (like, not really having a room at all at checkin, getting SNPs at a price significantly lower than published room rate), and attempt to pass all the blame to the corrupt manager when found. I would simply conclude this as those "users" actively participating in a fraudulent scheme, instead of bad faith business. Either way, they...
Most affected users are aware that they are doing bad faith business with UrCove manager at the first place (like, not really having a room at all at checkin, getting SNPs at a price significantly lower than published room rate), and attempt to pass all the blame to the corrupt manager when found. I would simply conclude this as those "users" actively participating in a fraudulent scheme, instead of bad faith business. Either way, they deserve to be blocked from playing Hyatt points ever again. "wo men da lu bi aka nong bi jiu shi mei you cheng xin la lol"
It’s not deal with managers. Imagine you see an ad. Officially from the hotel.
They know they’re getting a deal. But how would they know that the deal isn’t sanctioned between the hotel and WoH.
How ignorant do you need to be.
Are 3798 users getting this far? Do you mean hotels selling qualifying nights without actually staying is probably not shady and “customers” buying this from “uncles” are in good faith? What a comedy. At least, I would not buy it, and Hyatt did not buy it.
Stop selling your whataboutism. BTG HomeInns - Hyatt’s collaborator for Urcove - definitely has a corruption issue, but that does not immunize churners from penalties for breaking the rules.
Ghost check-ins seem to be something that consumers cannot do on their own. If hotels do not allow ghost check-ins, can consumers do this? Hotels should be punished
So, without any context beyond this letter, my instinct is that Hyatt should kick the hotels in question out of the program/network ("de-flagging" them) and (potentially) void out any credits from stays at those hotels (possibly putting in a price threshold for it being "suspicious" - someone who was paying a reasonable "full price" for reasonable-length stays is different from someone with a 60-night stay at a bargain-basement price). Another option might to be to...
So, without any context beyond this letter, my instinct is that Hyatt should kick the hotels in question out of the program/network ("de-flagging" them) and (potentially) void out any credits from stays at those hotels (possibly putting in a price threshold for it being "suspicious" - someone who was paying a reasonable "full price" for reasonable-length stays is different from someone with a 60-night stay at a bargain-basement price). Another option might to be to restrict the users from earning Globalist/LTG status for a while and barring them from earning milestone awards. Blanket bans of users seems like overkill unless folks are also selling the awards.
Bear in mind that I think at least one chain has had some "floor" on prices (Choice, maybe?) for reservations to earn credit, so slapping UrCove with that might be worth the effort ($50/night seems reasonable here) as a sort of punishment for what happened.
I'd also seriously consider putting UrCove on notice that if they don't get their act together on policing this, Hyatt will drop the brand. I realize that Hyatt wanted to get into the Chinese market with them, but if this is a serious issue then the juice sounds like it might not be worth the squeeze.
Sounds like Chinese wolf warrior diplomacy. lol
Nah, just a random blow-up act. The BBC covered those pre-pandemic.
The punishment of being completely banned is too severe. I remember in the past, if you didn't check in, at most you would have this record removed. Now the hotel must have violated regulations, which has led to the involvement of those members.
Fraud? In China? Shocking if true.
Ponzi, worldcom, enron, madoff, FTX are chinese too I guess. Shocking.
They created a 60-night stay that checked out on 12/31/2023, so you get all the Globalist awards in 2023 and status in 2024. Then they submitted a request for a 1-night stay checked out on 1/1/2024 at the same hotel. Because of how Hyatt's system was designed back then, you get another 61-night credit in 2024, all the Globalist benefits, and status till end of 2025. I believe Hyatt changed the T&C recently because of this.
Chinese ppl are selling globalist all over the forum. They are still doing it now, I just don’t know how. They also sell Marriott status if you are interested. XD
I'm a little surprised to see all the comments here in total support of Hyatt banning members for getting elite nights without showing up at the hotel, given that in the past several bloggers have talked about using mobile check-in at MGM (or working out deals with the general manager of a cat 1 hotel) and there seems to be a constant flow of posts in forums asking whether Rio is allowing mobile check-in.
I'm...
I'm a little surprised to see all the comments here in total support of Hyatt banning members for getting elite nights without showing up at the hotel, given that in the past several bloggers have talked about using mobile check-in at MGM (or working out deals with the general manager of a cat 1 hotel) and there seems to be a constant flow of posts in forums asking whether Rio is allowing mobile check-in.
I'm not saying I disagree with the comments here, just that before now the general consensus definitely seemed to be that working out a way to to get elite nights without showing up was fair game and not unethical.
Personally, I feel if you're booking a published rate through the hotel chain's portal, whether you decide to use the room portion of the rate benefits or just the elite accrual portion is entirely up to you. The hotel and chain got their money.
If the hotel is creating I te too ally inexpensive packages to just sell the elite benefits, that's entirely different and completely support the chain tossing anyone involved from the program.
If you didn't have to stay then the hotels would still get their money, but it means everyone would do it. You'd end up with more expensive hotel rooms, both because of low inventory and possibly to discourage the practice, and smaller hotels in smaller markets could end up fully booked with no rooms actually occupied. What happens when you actually need a room and can't get one? Or can no longer afford one?
I mean, presumably when folks don't show up for (say) a seven-night stay, the reservation would "clear out" around night two or three.
One point to be had, status-wise, is that at the end of the day Hyatt (in particular) has opted to essentially enable "pay for status" via their credit cards. If you're able to find a way to run a MS loop of some sort (and that's harder than it was a decade...
I mean, presumably when folks don't show up for (say) a seven-night stay, the reservation would "clear out" around night two or three.
One point to be had, status-wise, is that at the end of the day Hyatt (in particular) has opted to essentially enable "pay for status" via their credit cards. If you're able to find a way to run a MS loop of some sort (and that's harder than it was a decade ago, of course), you can get Globalist with Hyatt by running about $140k over the personal credit card or $120k over the business credit card, and you get the relevant points, etc. from the underlying activity. Doing this by, say, overpaying on your taxes and then claiming a refund would be pretty close to a break-even proposition.
So, with this in mind, I don't really "get" Hyatt getting worked up over phantom stays. The sale of awards, etc. is another story entirely, of course.
This is the key issue. The price was determined by the hotel, not the consumer. Hyatt also approved the price and completed various accommodation procedures. It was a long time ago, and then the hotel had an unknown conflict with Hyatt, so Hyatt dealt with the consumer. If a hotel violates regulations, then the hotel should first be delisted. Why doesn't Hyatt cancel the hotel.
It's only unethical when somebody else does it and/or figures out a way to game the system.
I don't have a problem with the punishment doled out by World of Hyatt. I have no doubt that the participants in this scheme knew exactly what they were doing.
For those who actually took those "ghost stays", sure. But it seems Hyatt is also cancelling accounts of regular guests who actually stayed at the property, under normal rates and haven't done anything wrong. That's a problem.
I feel like it's more likely someone who got busted for a "manual check-in" is making it seem like there's a bunch of innocent people who manually checked in when there were not, and they're arguing it's technically possible someone innocent could have been manually checked in therefore it's unethical to ban anyone with a manual checkin even though all the manual check-ins were fraudulent.
Yes, in the past, the most problematic accommodations were removed.
Can someone help with the pronunciation of URCove please.....
Is it yoo-arrr-cove?
Or urr-cove?
Maybe urrcoveee?
Perhaps yoo-arrr-coveeee?
Crrookkked
"yurr-cove"
Yar-har-fiddle-dee-cove sounds more like it...
I have no problem with people who participated in the scam being banned, as Ben said, they should've read T&Cs. But banning anyone who stayed at the hotel, even on legitimate stays, is a bit too far.
When a hotel, which is part of the Hyatt group (at least Hyatt publicizes it this way), publish an offer/package, offering elite nights, I cant see why a member cannot take it at its face value.
Even if the earning merchant is a third party, say car rental company, Hyatt should go after that company rather than the member.
Hi Ben, I have been reading your posts for a long time, and there is a lot of information that is very helpful to me, I am very grateful. I know all the ins and outs about this matter, so I am happy to register an account to share
I have cleared up all the details of this incident. First of all, Hyatt did nothing wrong. On the contrary, it is protecting the interests of...
Hi Ben, I have been reading your posts for a long time, and there is a lot of information that is very helpful to me, I am very grateful. I know all the ins and outs about this matter, so I am happy to register an account to share
I have cleared up all the details of this incident. First of all, Hyatt did nothing wrong. On the contrary, it is protecting the interests of other globalist guests in China. You may not know that the Urcove brand is launched in cooperation with China's Home Inns Hotel Group, so Hyatt usually does not supervise the owners. Usually, Home Inns Group plays the role of supervision, which leads to some loopholes for the owners to earn extra money. They post similar advertisements on second-hand platforms such as "Xianyu" or "Redbook" similar to Taobao, helping you to quickly become a globalist. The price is about 6000-7000RMB (around 1000USD) to become a globalist, which is about 100-200RMB (around 20$) per night. There is no need to actually check in, or even to register in person, but to "hang" the accounts of these members through the co-residents to others who booked through OTA. As mentioned above on flyertalk, these reservations also provide formal invoices. Therefore, there are a lot of globalist guests in hotels in China, resulting in full lounges and the inability to honor the rights of late check-out. But unlike what this post said, some Global Guests who were mistakenly blocked were unblocked after appealing. The Hyatt Group in China requires Urcove to block all accounts that have made up for the registration, and then unblock those who have real check-ins and reservation number information. So far, 100% of the accounts that have been blocked have no real check-ins and no on-site check-in.
In addition, one point that Ben and flyertalk did not mention before is that a small number of Globalist in China "transfer" their GOH vouchers by selling them, and the price is also around US$20 per voucher. The Hyatt Group in China also permanently froze this small number of Globalist accounts through phishing enforcement.
In summary, the Hyatt Group in China is protecting the rights and interests of Globalist and accurately cracking down on these opportunists. Therefore, I will continue to support my loyalty in the Hyatt Group.
I can confirm 100% the post by Vivian852 is a Hyatt representative.
I can also confirm the post is correct in some aspects and completely fabricated in others.
I can confirm the FT post is not correct.
How do I know? I work for Hyatt and know exactly what happened here.
No, I will 100% not confirm what really happened. (I could lose my job.)
I am taking a risk posting, but I will leave it as a guest account post.
Taking the presumption that the above is mostly accurate, the thing that seems to be missing is Hyatt actually forcing Home Inns to see to their house. It's possible that has happened "on the side" and just isn't mentioned above, but that seems to be the main thing that's needed here in the long run (since botched supervision was the underlying problem).
Lifetime Globalist here who had a one night stay at urcove. Points didn’t automatically post (all stays checked in after 12am will not post automatically ). Had to get Hyatt to retro the stay. This was Q4 2023.
Account was banned late sept, with no explanation or communication from Hyatt. Wrote to consumer affairs with no avail. Account was recovered after 4 days, with no communication either…..I consider my case a good dp on Hyatt’s poor communication
As a Chinese and a Globalist doing good faith business with Hyatt, good riddance to them. These are the ones who argue for hours seeking a suite upgrade at many Asian Andaz & Park front desks, and always seek SNPs through illegitimate ways to churn the hotel chain. They are liabilities of the hotel game, and should not be welcome to play.
China is a tough market. All the chains have had special programs and incentives that seem to inflate the number of elites from China. IHG even gives Ambassadors a breakfast benefit in China but nowhere else. All the chains seem desperate to bestow elite status and benefits on customers from China without realizing they may be incentivizing scammers.
Given the price points and issues, I'm wondering why the chains (especially Hyatt) are even bothering outside of a few Hyatt Regency or better hotels in major cities. NGL, if I were the US government I might issue an antitrust waiver for the major chains to collude to drop the Chinese market.
There was a recent Reddit post from someone claiming Hyatt closed their account “for no reason” because the Chinese hotel didn’t validate their employer.
Best guesses are that the user got a fraudulent globalist status challenge (from a forged company email) and then likely did something sketchy with mattress runs (the UrCove angle makes sense!).
I strongly suspect that people learned that for $500 you could get globalist match, then keep it with...
There was a recent Reddit post from someone claiming Hyatt closed their account “for no reason” because the Chinese hotel didn’t validate their employer.
Best guesses are that the user got a fraudulent globalist status challenge (from a forged company email) and then likely did something sketchy with mattress runs (the UrCove angle makes sense!).
I strongly suspect that people learned that for $500 you could get globalist match, then keep it with ~20 mattress running nights through online resellers.
As I heard, these two properties were involved - UrCove by HYATT Chengdu Wenshu Monastery and UrCove Hangzhou Riverside CBD.
Anyone who stays at a Hyatt in China should not give the hotel their loyalty number or create a parallel account in China. When there is one and there many. You never know by staying at a Hyatt in China, your account and points would be gone.
Is it really considered a backfire?
Innocent members are likely affected too. The implied excuse is if you stay at a corrupted chain, you are a supporter?
Just like claiming to attack terrorists but innocent children are labeled terrorist supporters.
I don't think it backfired, it's more like firing back randomly at a targeted area.
Collateral damage is minimal because they are all supporters.
I guess Pritzker family is running Hyatt like how "B"...
Is it really considered a backfire?
Innocent members are likely affected too. The implied excuse is if you stay at a corrupted chain, you are a supporter?
Just like claiming to attack terrorists but innocent children are labeled terrorist supporters.
I don't think it backfired, it's more like firing back randomly at a targeted area.
Collateral damage is minimal because they are all supporters.
I guess Pritzker family is running Hyatt like how "B" is running homeland.
Given how only 2000 members were affected. I doubt there are any innocent members targeted. If anything, I suspect there are still way more illicit, Chinese scammers out there that have not been banned.
@yoloswag420
That's exactly what "they" said about children killed.
Given only 'terrosrists' have those exploding pagers. They doubt any innocent kids are targeted.
It is too easy to differentiate between regular guests and those who got points and nights credited by those phantom packages. So I dont believe that the accounts that were closed included guests who did not participate in the scam.
Saddest part about UrCove for me is I was on a quest to visit every Hyatt brand (albeit it’s been getting a lot harder with the acquisition stint as I’m not a fan of cheap all inclusives) - but I refuse to visit china again post 2019 so so much for visiting every Hyatt brand lol
To be fair, there was/is always a chance that UrCove eventually opens up some hotels outside of the PRC.
The harsh reality is that Hyatt should have avoided getting entangled in an unreconstructed genocidal and illegitimate nation like China (at least until the legitimate Taiwanese government deposes the CCP regime); and having made the mistake of getting involved in the first place, nuking everything from orbit as they've done here strikes me as the least-bad option.
haha that's funny....maybe try to learn how to spell first, before making pipe-dream claims of absurdity...
lol my guy every word in that post is spelled correctly - I can't help it if you were born too unfixably defective to understand anything beyond grade school vocabulary, but I'm sure it explains a lot about the way people treat you.
Good that this is being cracked down on somewhere. Marriotts in Asia are having similar problems, to the extent that hotel operators are cutting back due to being over run with elites.
Anyone engaging with this should have known they were running the risk of shutdown
Unrelated to this article. Ben; I hope your family is OK and sheltering somewhere safe in the Tampa area.
Anybody paid attention to the post writer sometimes using singular and the other times plural version when referring to the involved UrCove hotel(s)? If what he really means is plural then it changes the optics of the core issue a lot.
Probably just not a native English speaker - I give folks grace in that case. Case and tense are difficult to learn in another language.
A thought experiment about handling such situations properly: I've booked a hotel for a one night stay once that most likely happened to be an outlet of a money laundering scheme, and I didn't realize this until I was checking out and all sorts of weird shit suddenly happened. They insisted that I'd pay by card and they literally wanted to use my card to take money from 3 different terminals on several separate small...
A thought experiment about handling such situations properly: I've booked a hotel for a one night stay once that most likely happened to be an outlet of a money laundering scheme, and I didn't realize this until I was checking out and all sorts of weird shit suddenly happened. They insisted that I'd pay by card and they literally wanted to use my card to take money from 3 different terminals on several separate small transactions, a fourth terminal was used for deposits in and a fifth one for deposits out. Their explanation: one was for the fee of the stay, one for the service charges and one for the taxes. Having several small transactions to and from different accounts is actually one of the four signs of money laundering. I also noticed the complete lack of other guests and staff, despite the claim that they were fully booked and that I had the last room. That's another sign. And it's in the hospitality business, which handles big volumes of cash. A third box checked. Am I to blame then? Should I go to jail for this? I don't think so... but in case of the FT'er, I would, simply because I was there.
Because according to the FT member, even accounts of people who just happened to stay at the specific hotel were banned and closed. I somehow feel that goes against Lucky's claim of Hyatt handling this properly. If any of this is true to begin with, of course. I'm siding with Ben here on a few points: it's rather odd that some new rando starts with making such detailed and hefty claims on FT in the first place. Can this be a disgruntled (ex-)employee, can it be someone who has beef with Hyatt and tries to discredit them, knowing China does things the Chinese way? Could this be a Hyatt employee leaking a serious case trying to be a whistleblower? A customer who got caught and wants to vent? Or just some attention craving individual with a rich fantasy? We simply don't know. You can be anyone you want on the interwebz, right?
I actually started frowning when reading all these claims, and I can imagine there's more at play here. I think it would be good if a trusted source could confirm or deny any of this. Troublesome point 1: it's China. Troublesome point 2: it's an ugly case, if there even is a case. It'll most likely be covered up as much as possible. So I guess we'll never see or hear much of it, if it ever happened.
Regardless of who's right or wrong here, I do think major corporations should have an obligation for transparency, seeing as Hyatt actively sells points for cash. They shouldn't be allow to say "We deemed x is in breach, therefore all your points are forfeit" without evidence.
„ If your account had any points manually credited from an UrCove stay, your account was closed. ”
Stress on „manually”.
Many things are done by hotels and Hyatt, and consumers do not have this channel. No matter what consumers do, it has no effect. The price offered by the hotel is the price released by the hotel, the news of the hotel breaking out, and the hotel's people and Hyatt's backend can also track this price. This is easy, but Hyatt has not done anything, just closed the customer's account without a specific reason. Hyatt...
Many things are done by hotels and Hyatt, and consumers do not have this channel. No matter what consumers do, it has no effect. The price offered by the hotel is the price released by the hotel, the news of the hotel breaking out, and the hotel's people and Hyatt's backend can also track this price. This is easy, but Hyatt has not done anything, just closed the customer's account without a specific reason. Hyatt believes that if you violate the rules, you have violated them without any evidence.
Hotels cheat Hyatt and the other chains all the time. Most of the cheating hotels never pay a price.
This is like Trump's fraud case. Who was hurt? The hotel got money; Hyatt got a percentage of the revenue based on its management, franchising or licensing contract; and the guest got something.
I imagine in some cases the hotel and Hyatt double-dipped because the hotel probably sold a phantom room twice. Maybe that's...
Hotels cheat Hyatt and the other chains all the time. Most of the cheating hotels never pay a price.
This is like Trump's fraud case. Who was hurt? The hotel got money; Hyatt got a percentage of the revenue based on its management, franchising or licensing contract; and the guest got something.
I imagine in some cases the hotel and Hyatt double-dipped because the hotel probably sold a phantom room twice. Maybe that's where they got caught. Selling more rooms on any given night than the number of rooms they had.
Got concrete examples?
Are you really so myopic you can't see how this creates damage?
This greatly increases costs for Hyatt and the hotels by having to dish out free benefits that they shouldn't be needing to.
Customers are the product with hotel loyalty programs. Hotels don't want a bunch of fake elites staying at their properties gorging on free breakfast and getting nonstop upgrades. It also dilutes the brand value for the legit customers because the service...
Are you really so myopic you can't see how this creates damage?
This greatly increases costs for Hyatt and the hotels by having to dish out free benefits that they shouldn't be needing to.
Customers are the product with hotel loyalty programs. Hotels don't want a bunch of fake elites staying at their properties gorging on free breakfast and getting nonstop upgrades. It also dilutes the brand value for the legit customers because the service quality will decrease for them.
It is unclear who you intended to insult, but it is unwarranted as a response either to the first comment or to mine, but feel free to elaborate.
I've always been under the impression that a chain like Hyatt or Marriott will pay an individual property for the breakfast. So the property gets something. I'm not sure how a property selling phantom rooms is any different than Marriott or Hyatt having double night promos. They flood the ranks of globalists or titaniums. Pre-2018, when Marriott merged its three legacy programs (Ritz-Carlton, Marriott and SPG) into one program, you could get 10 elite qualifying...
I've always been under the impression that a chain like Hyatt or Marriott will pay an individual property for the breakfast. So the property gets something. I'm not sure how a property selling phantom rooms is any different than Marriott or Hyatt having double night promos. They flood the ranks of globalists or titaniums. Pre-2018, when Marriott merged its three legacy programs (Ritz-Carlton, Marriott and SPG) into one program, you could get 10 elite qualifying nights for signing an event contract. There were plenty of low-end hotels that would gladly sell you one hour in a meeting room for $100. This was well-documented. Was it right? No. But it was a loophole that was known about for years. The only issue I see here is X hotel selling a room to a guest who NEVER intends to stay at the property. I don't think there is a requirement in any program rules for a guest to physically sleep at a hotel. But they do actually have to show up and check-in.
Yeah...once upon a time I considered working out a deal with a local property in my area to host a D&D game on a given slow night in a conference room. A weekly game (with a few breaks per year) could've been worth like 500 nights/yr.
Would this have been a loophole? Yes.
Would this have been wrong to do? Debatable. It wouldn't be doing things as intended, but given that hotels and airlines can,...
Yeah...once upon a time I considered working out a deal with a local property in my area to host a D&D game on a given slow night in a conference room. A weekly game (with a few breaks per year) could've been worth like 500 nights/yr.
Would this have been a loophole? Yes.
Would this have been wrong to do? Debatable. It wouldn't be doing things as intended, but given that hotels and airlines can, generally speaking, devalue their programs at any time for any reason (or no reason) and many have done so, I'm not all too concerned about violating the spirit of the rules.
Hotels across all brands cheat on brand standards and cheat on loyalty program benefits. Other properties cheat on room inventory for award redemption. Even Hyatt-managed properties. There are countless documented examples here on One Mile at a time, over at View from the Wing, and on other blogs.
All are bogus examples of a manufactured "problem". Hotels "cheat" only because you have been brainwashed by self-anointed "travel gurus" into believing that their preferred programs (SPG, WoH) have no capacity controls and every room available for cash sale should be bookable with points. Well, no hotel loyalty program's T&C make such...
All are bogus examples of a manufactured "problem". Hotels "cheat" only because you have been brainwashed by self-anointed "travel gurus" into believing that their preferred programs (SPG, WoH) have no capacity controls and every room available for cash sale should be bookable with points. Well, no hotel loyalty program's T&C make such a promise. Period. In the real world each property has total and sole discretion in managing room inventory for award redemption or elite upgrades, so that claims that they "play games with inventory" are pure nonsense.
I'd offer numerous Hyatt properties abusing "high floor" room designations and the like to cut out award redemptions. "High floor" makes sense at, say, the Hyatt Regency in Vancouver (35 floors or so tall). It does not make sense at a five-floor Hyatt Place in random suburbia. I've run into stuff like this (I think at the Hyatt Place by BWI), and at one point I had to wag a finger at the front desk...
I'd offer numerous Hyatt properties abusing "high floor" room designations and the like to cut out award redemptions. "High floor" makes sense at, say, the Hyatt Regency in Vancouver (35 floors or so tall). It does not make sense at a five-floor Hyatt Place in random suburbia. I've run into stuff like this (I think at the Hyatt Place by BWI), and at one point I had to wag a finger at the front desk when I got forced into a "high floor" booking and was put on the second floor, telling them to try again (since IIRC I'd had to pay extra for the privilege).
Some properties have a very large proportion of rooms designated with some status or another (high floor, with balcony, with a given view or another - look at all the ineligible room types at the HR MCO for an example - tonight they have ten room types available (balcony, patio, runway view, high floor, deluxe...) but nothing points-eligible - and you can't put in for "I don't care what the view is or anything else, I just need a bed".
You still miss the point because you bought into the bogus claim that Hyatt "has no capacity controls, so, therefore, every standard room that's available for cash sale is also available for booking with points." That claim is, however, demonstrably false. It is a fabrication because no program has ever made such an allowance.
Instead, what...
You still miss the point because you bought into the bogus claim that Hyatt "has no capacity controls, so, therefore, every standard room that's available for cash sale is also available for booking with points." That claim is, however, demonstrably false. It is a fabrication because no program has ever made such an allowance.
Instead, what is true in every program is that properties have sole discretion to manage the inventory of room types, which, in turn, determines the availability of room for award redemption or elite upgrades.That's why any formulation of your argument accusing properties "abuse" will always be invalid. Properties cannot "abuse" a prerogative that every program's T&Cs grant them!
' in the real world each property has total and sole discretion in managing room inventory for award redemption'.
As you're making that claim about all hotel programmes, could you explain how it works with Accor Live Limitless (which has more than 5k hotels when Hyatt aren't even into four figures) and GHA Discovery (about 100 properties fewer than Hyatt) where the hotel only finds out whether one is redeeming points when check-out takes place? Thank you.
Yes, I can explain, at least in the case of Accor ALL, which I am familiar with, and I have already explained in this space countless time.
There is big difference between how the Accor and other programs treat their points. The difference is that in ALL, points and cash are equivalent and interchangeable because the program sets a fixed exchange rate between points and cash, where 2,000 ALL points are worth exactly 40...
Yes, I can explain, at least in the case of Accor ALL, which I am familiar with, and I have already explained in this space countless time.
There is big difference between how the Accor and other programs treat their points. The difference is that in ALL, points and cash are equivalent and interchangeable because the program sets a fixed exchange rate between points and cash, where 2,000 ALL points are worth exactly 40 Euros. Therefore, Accor awards are not "capacity-controlled", meaning that any room that is available for cash sale in an Accor-affiliated hotel is available for booking with points because 2000 ALL points = 40 euros. You can use euros or an equivalents number ALL points. The same thing applies to Hilton's so-called "premium" awards, which are also not 'capacity- controlled' because for such HH awards there is a fixed exchange rate between cash and Hilton points that varies by property.
All other standard awards are capacity controls. Period.
Something about the story does not click. If there is any validity to the basic story, then I do not see how Hyatt does not cut all ties to the UrCove for what would be a major breach of contract, instead of seeming to let the hotel off the hook as alleged.
I also have a hard time wrapping my head around how the scam would work. Doing dummy check-ins would be the easy part...
Something about the story does not click. If there is any validity to the basic story, then I do not see how Hyatt does not cut all ties to the UrCove for what would be a major breach of contract, instead of seeming to let the hotel off the hook as alleged.
I also have a hard time wrapping my head around how the scam would work. Doing dummy check-ins would be the easy part to get away with. What is unclear is how the scammers would get away with awarding numbers of points that do not match the costs of stays actually sold, given that points for a stay should be awarded by World of Hyatt based on sales information that's hard coded in whatever computer system manages the hotel's activities. At least that is how things work at Hilton. Points for every stay are awarded by the Honors program based on sales information retrieved from a hotel's computer system. It is thus unclear how points can be fraudulently awarded unless a hotel also awards the points, which would be unusual.
Nightly rates for various rooms and packages offered by every hotel are hard coded and cannot be tempered with. So, when a booking is done, the total amount a guest will be charged is automatically set, with the only variable costs being the incidental charges that would be added at checkout. Because of that rigid billing structure, I see no way for members to earn points that would not be commensurate with whatever room rate or package they purchased. The scam may work if carried out by an independent scammer. I do not see how a Hyatt hotel would run it and still maintain its association with Hyatt...
What am I missing?
UrCove is a strategic investment agreement with the Chinese state-owned hotel operator Homeinn. I really don't think Hyatt will cut ties with this project and cause a lot of bad blood in China over a localized points scam.
You are assuming it's every UrCove that engaged in whatever happened, which is still full of holes. Hyatt would need to cut ties with one rogue hotel, not the Homeinn...
Lots of them were being sold on taobao (literally AliExpress, as in same company selling largely the same things, but in the Chinese domestic market), something like $20-30 a night. Like I mentioned in your other post about global promotions, the bought nights were stacked with global promotions, PLUS new hotel promos (many of them urCove).
I assume the hotel paid Hyatt a few dollars per night (if even that), while people who bought the...
Lots of them were being sold on taobao (literally AliExpress, as in same company selling largely the same things, but in the Chinese domestic market), something like $20-30 a night. Like I mentioned in your other post about global promotions, the bought nights were stacked with global promotions, PLUS new hotel promos (many of them urCove).
I assume the hotel paid Hyatt a few dollars per night (if even that), while people who bought the nights were given 500 points per night from the Hyatt new hotels promo, plus 3000 points for every 3 nights via the global promo, plus milestone awards and Globalist benefits. I believe they were also selling Globalist status challenges (20 nights to hit Globalist).
I do agree with one thing though, the UrCove clearly wasn't punished. They operated essentially separately, they were never removed from Hyatt's system, and good luck to Hyatt trying to get any favourable legal judgement against a domestic operation if they tried to go the legal route in China (see: Muji trying to enforce their trademark in China).
I doubt very much that it would be mission impossible for Hyatt or any western company to get a "favourable legal judgement against a domestic operation", especially if it is a private domestic company, because fraudsters would give the whole country...
I doubt very much that it would be mission impossible for Hyatt or any western company to get a "favourable legal judgement against a domestic operation", especially if it is a private domestic company, because fraudsters would give the whole country a bad name and dissuade investors. For that reason, the CCP government is much less lenient against fraudsters than western governments...
One doesn't develop properties in China without government connections.
Chinese jail cells are filled with local businessmen convicted of embezzlement or running fraudulent schemes...
UrCove is a Homeinn-Hyatt joint venture. Homeinn is one of the largest accomodation providers in mainland China and very well connected. They aren't going to bin the project because of this.
my guy, the whole country *already has* a bad name; for that matter it's the only sort of name the PRC has lol
That's it. It's clear that you cannot be taken seriously.
G'day.
>I doubt very much that it would be mission impossible for Hyatt or any western company to get a "favourable legal judgement against a domestic operation", especially if it is a private domestic company, because fraudsters would give the whole country a bad name and dissuade investors.
Let's see now, how many western companies have been lured in by the China market, been forced to partner with Chinese domestics to operate, had proprietary business techniques...
>I doubt very much that it would be mission impossible for Hyatt or any western company to get a "favourable legal judgement against a domestic operation", especially if it is a private domestic company, because fraudsters would give the whole country a bad name and dissuade investors.
Let's see now, how many western companies have been lured in by the China market, been forced to partner with Chinese domestics to operate, had proprietary business techniques and technology "appropriated" by that partner, then were outcompeted and forced out of the China market by that partner? Apple is a big one that comes to mind. Despite that new blood keeps going in thinking they'll somehow get a different outcome from a regime intent on stealing their secrets for its own benefit.
In this specific case Hyatt may get a favorable resolution, solely because this was a case of money fraud rather than IP theft, from a company that doesn't have any proprietary knowledge the CCP wants.
Might be a repost but couldn't tell if it posted.
From FT : one of the sites found selling easy hotel and airline status
https://millionkm.com/product-category/hotels-membership/hyatt/
Consensus that it has to be an insidejob at certain hotels that allow for impersonation and accreditation. Or at least a system loophole that's exploited.
Well,
I have noted this ebay auction:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/226386911248?_skw=hyatt+mattress+run&itmmeta=01J9SS8GMWT8TW5GK7VK3X44JA&hash=item34b5b62010:g:LP8AAOSwkPNmsiYX&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA8HoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKmuwOxZH7bleXJuGo%2FGgWwIRKdR4iBC1F%2FF2bBwgwRsN3cv0cGbiIOFxWuWTLW1ZAXqORBI7HLuAnUhhUlAJCcNgZ%2B0ALL%2BVTBEcFs7kXDpuWHjkjDOqarbSdgUJfmbXtyhRdnPKCNNrV0MDcO1H08iM2S0DYFvw1%2Bnj20VwgVPQnILI2s1tnbNDLjWi7w747d1PjWmu4GtGi071XCvCVdZlN8xJ1HziRohjhG49winzmrQHK6CU17yLa6SRr0rEbcLOFl%2Bl7IfQn0rzi6S7Zn8Fuog8dx04yOGyknhMn9YVA%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMwIqiuc5k
I do NOT suggest that anyone buy. I expect that it is a front for phontom stays which vioate terms and conditions and might lead to unpleasantness. Rather, it apears to be a real thing.
It is concerning that member might be susended if they have a 2 or 3 night bona fide stay. I also have to wonder whether any particular property is involved here...
Well,
I have noted this ebay auction:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/226386911248?_skw=hyatt+mattress+run&itmmeta=01J9SS8GMWT8TW5GK7VK3X44JA&hash=item34b5b62010:g:LP8AAOSwkPNmsiYX&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA8HoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKmuwOxZH7bleXJuGo%2FGgWwIRKdR4iBC1F%2FF2bBwgwRsN3cv0cGbiIOFxWuWTLW1ZAXqORBI7HLuAnUhhUlAJCcNgZ%2B0ALL%2BVTBEcFs7kXDpuWHjkjDOqarbSdgUJfmbXtyhRdnPKCNNrV0MDcO1H08iM2S0DYFvw1%2Bnj20VwgVPQnILI2s1tnbNDLjWi7w747d1PjWmu4GtGi071XCvCVdZlN8xJ1HziRohjhG49winzmrQHK6CU17yLa6SRr0rEbcLOFl%2Bl7IfQn0rzi6S7Zn8Fuog8dx04yOGyknhMn9YVA%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMwIqiuc5k
I do NOT suggest that anyone buy. I expect that it is a front for phontom stays which vioate terms and conditions and might lead to unpleasantness. Rather, it apears to be a real thing.
It is concerning that member might be susended if they have a 2 or 3 night bona fide stay. I also have to wonder whether any particular property is involved here - is Hyatt sufficiently concerned to susoend a franchisee, or is that concern limited to WOH members?
I know back in April there were a lot of people selling hyatt elite nights on Ebay for like $30. I heard stories on facebook of people buying those nights to get Globalist during a 20 night challenge and then having their stays via UrCove, and then having their accounts banned.
How is this any different than certain Marriott franchisees and licensees selling rooms on Airbnb and not Marriott dot com to avoid paying Marriott a percentage of the revenue?
View from the Wing has extensively documented this.
No two words more synonymous than Chinese and scam.
Nah, Indians hold that crown.
That said, I know people who work in major airline loyalty programs, and the three most common nationality when it comes to scams are (in no particular order, depends on program): Chinese, Indians and Americans, almost as if the places with the largest travel markets have the most scammers ;)
Also the three most populous countries…
From FT:
Someone showed how easy it is to google for Hyatt / Marriott / Hilton etc .elite .status shopping ... even offering airline FFP elite status.
The website
https://millionkm.com/product-category/hotels-membership/hyatt/
Ben - you gotta do something about these Comfort Keepers ads that block the entire screen on mobile and don't have anywhere to click out or close out of the ad. I'm really close to just not opening the site because they've stopped my comment twice now and kept me from reading at least three articles over the past few days. I love reading this site but these Comfort Keepers ads are so invasive as...
Ben - you gotta do something about these Comfort Keepers ads that block the entire screen on mobile and don't have anywhere to click out or close out of the ad. I'm really close to just not opening the site because they've stopped my comment twice now and kept me from reading at least three articles over the past few days. I love reading this site but these Comfort Keepers ads are so invasive as to keep me away. I took a screenshot this last time but unfortunately don't know how to include it in a comment.
I have to agree, the adds have gotten out of hand and are especially obtrusive for mobile users.
If you’re browsing on a desktop, use the AdBlock browser that’s based on Firefox and extremely effective. It’s also available for Android. iOS users should purchase Purify in the App Store. Problem solved, and not just here.
Regular ads? Sure I get it, gotta make money. This is Ben's livelihood and I get that. But if an ad blocks the entire site on mobile mode and there's no way to dismiss it? That's when I just stop visiting. I've only consistently been able to visit here in the past few days on desktop mode on Chrome mobile or with adblock on Firefox and neither is really something I wanna do long term.
I agree 100%. I didn't want to use an ad blocker, but simply because of OMAAT on mobile I'll start using it now. Oh well, clearly Ben doesn't care enough to do anything about it.
"...left members shocked, fearful, and uncertain about the future of the loyalty program." hahaha
Anyways, good for Hyatt. Well done
Yeah, I lol’d at that part too, and the whining about how cruel and unusual Hyatt’s response was. If you read the small print in the conditions of the program it becomes evident that they can pretty-much close your account just because they don’t like the look of you, let alone if you willingly buy into a scam that is defrauding it, and there’s no right to appeal. I have zero sympathy. They took a risk, got busted, now consequences.
I agree - I’d bet $$ the author is a semi-frequent traveler who engaged in this and had their account shut down. They tried to appeal but to no avail as they did participate in the scheme.
Interesting.
I recently stayed at a URCove, and had to have Hyatt get the missing stay added. This process took 3 weeks... wonder if this issue factored into that.
Here's hoping my account remains active!