Better than Visa Magic Code?

[lilyv]

Really.

I've read this entire thread, and sure, there are a handful of people that talked to National reps and said you must be an employee. But there are dozens of people that were told it is ok, you do not have to be an employee.

The fear-mongering here is out of control on this issue.

I don't see it as fear-mongering. I see it as giving advice as to possible risks so that each person can weigh the risk v. benefits for themselves.

As ruadisneyfan2 pointed out, she/he is saving only $30 with these codes and that its not enough to compensate her/him for the perceived risk. Others I may save more or perceive the risk to be less and decide to use these or other codes. -- Suzanne

Fonzy "fearmongering" is pretty strong.
Some codes are rate based only. The do not include insurance as part of the contract. Maybe that's what you think these codes are.

In actuality, the 57 and 67 codes include National Rental Car's insurance (and no option to decline.)
These are the codes that may be of some concern as a renter is forced to sign the contract accepting the insurance. If you have an accident, your claim will be audited. If you cannot prove you're a member of XYZ group or travel agency, and entitled to the rate and insurance, then the claim will likely be denied. Your personal insurer will not step into this kind of mess, because you did accept the insurance.
Nearly all credit cards and car insurances specifically tell you to DECLINE the insurance.

There will be folks who will be comfortable with the risk, others won't. As long as you know the risks, it's up to the individual to do what they think best.
I agree with Suzanne and ruadisneyfan2, to me the possible headache isn't worth a relatively small savings.
I work hard for our vacations, and I don't need to add unnecessary concerns to my time in Fla.

 

[Fonzy13]

I don't see it as fear-mongering. I see it as giving advice as to possible risks so that each person can weigh the risk v. benefits for themselves.

As ruadisneyfan2 pointed out, she/he is saving only $30 with these codes and that its not enough to compensate her/him for the perceived risk. Others may save more or perceive the risk to be less and decide to use these or other codes. -- Suzanne

There is a difference between giving out information in an effort to help someone make a better choice, and stating what may be a falsehood as fact.

There is ZERO proof that you have to be an employee use that code. ZERO!

 

[lilyv]

There is a difference between giving out information in an effort to help someone make a better choice, and stating what may be a falsehood as fact.

There is ZERO proof that you have to be an employee use that code. ZERO!

Fonzy....goodness. You can do as you please. If you're at all concerned, call your insurer (or credit card), first, to see if they approve of you accepting National's free insurance.
The 57 and 67 codes are tied to Travel Solutions, by the way.

 

[Fonzy13]

Fonzy "fearmongering" is pretty strong.
Some codes are rate based only. The do not include insurance as part of the contract. Maybe that's what you think these codes are.

In actuality, the 57 and 67 codes include National Rental Car's insurance (and no option to decline.)
These are the codes that may be of some concern as a renter is forced to sign the contract accepting the insurance. If you have an accident, your claim will be audited. If you cannot prove you're a member of XYZ group or travel agency, and entitled to the rate and insurance, then the claim will likely be denied. Your personal insurer will not step into this kind of mess, because you did accept the insurance.
Nearly all credit cards and car insurances specifically tell you to DECLINE the insurance.

There will be folks who will be comfortable with the risk, others won't. As long as you know the risks, it's up to the individual to do what they think best.
I agree with Suzanne and ruadisneyfan2, to me the possible headache isn't worth a relatively small savings.
I work hard for our vacations, and I don't need to add unnecessary concerns to my time in Fla.

Thanks for the breakdown, but I was already well aware of the situation.

Certain people have posted that you MUST be an employee to use the code, and if you were to get into an accident you "could" be in some hot water.

In fact, there is zero proof of that at all. ANy of it. It is a nice little. "Ohhhh, but what if...", scenario, but beyond that, there isn't much. A few stories relayed about how so and so in Canada said, "No way you can't use it," and a random employee here and there. Meanwhile, people from around the country have used the code without fail. There has not been one story where it did not work.

Until there is, all of it is baseless conjecture. Perhaps fear mongering is a bit strong, as I'm sure most people here aren't doing it for selfish purposes, but scare tactics is certainly accurate.

I don't see why people feel the need to preach that they don't want to take the chance for $30. Congrats, you've made the decision. But please do not spread rumor and innuendo as fact to other people because you were not comfortable doing something.

 

[Fonzy13]

The 57 and 67 codes are tied to Travel Solutions, by the way.

As an employee code?

Proof?

 

[lilyv]

As an employee code?

Proof?

I'm not doing your homework for you. Feel free to backread at flyertalk. I don't know why you're so upset-if you're happy with the rate, are certain you qualify for the rate AND THE INSURANCE, then you're home free.
No one said you shouldn't....information is just being shared here because some folks what more info, before they make a decision.

 

[Fonzy13]

Fonzy....goodness. You can do as you please. QUOTE]

I'll be honest, at the moment, I'm using it, more to spite than anything else. I found another rate with absolutely no questions attached to it for about $40 more. But now it's become fun. We'll see if I make to September before it's "taken away."

And my point remains, what do I have to be nervous about. If we've been told that we can use the code (we as in those who may have called), we've done our due dilligence. I would actually look forward to National trying to take it away after the fact.

Boy I hope my arguing this side does have karma bite me in the ***.

 

[Fonzy13]

I'm not doing your homework for you. Feel free to backread at flyertalk. I don't know why you're so upset-if you're happy with the rate, are certain you qualify for the rate AND THE INSURANCE, then you're home free.
No one said you shouldn't....information is just being shared here because some folks what more info, before they make a decision.

I don't need you do the homework. Again, I'm not the one stating it as fact, nor am I sure that you are.

That is my point. People may want information, but they want correct information, not theory's from random posters.

 

[nosy parker]

I don't need you do the homework. Again, I'm not the one stating it as fact, nor am I sure that you are.

That is my point. People may want information, but they want correct information, not theory's from random posters.

Well as the "random Canadian" poster I find your tone rather aggressive and personally a bit insulting. I don't know that there is any actual "proof" that we could offer here in virtual world. I don't consider my info a "random theory" advanced. I simply wanted to give the information I was given at my local counter. Where I stood right in front of the clerk as she punched in and checked both the 57 and 67 code and told me that it was not for general use and that it was for employees. That's the best I can do. Just putting it out there so others can make their own decisions. Can I guarantee that the clerk was right? no. But I see no reason that she would lie. Could she have been mistaken? yes. Perhaps she was not completely thorough and did not scroll down far enough to see additional information on file indicating that it was offered to travel solutions friends/family/clients etc and it was complimentary to them. Who knows?

I don't think giving honest feedback is fear-mongering. Some of us have legitimate concerns or hesitation in using these codes based on the possible scenarios advanced here. Nobody said it was an absolute that an accident would result in no coverage if you did not qualify for the rate. It was just a question (and a good one, I think) that requires an answer. Unconfirmed speculation it remains. Given the nature of the insurance industry it's not hard to believe that they will deny a claim if they can find a way to do so. But maybe it wouldn't get that far. Maybe National would just process it no problem either way. Maybe the rate is not tied to the insurance coverage at all. Maybe they are two separate issues treated separately. Maybe a valid driver's license is all that is required to ensure coverage. I have no idea.

Personally, I think that the insurance coverage has absolutely no bearing on codes and rates. I think if the liability changed based on those contracts/rates then National would certainly be checking and confirming peoples' status and eligibility before giving out the keys. But that's just an opinion.

At any rate I don't see why you are so hostile to this exchange of information. We are all just trying to help each other out. Some worry more than others. Some have a more laissez-faire attitude. Different strokes. I still haven't decided which rental I'll take, but keeping both for now to keep my options open until I decide.

Have a great day!

 

[Fonzy13]

Well as the "random Canadian" poster I find your tone rather aggressive and personally a bit insulting. I don't know that there is any actual "proof" that we could offer here in virtual world. I don't consider my info a "random theory" advanced. I simply wanted to give the information I was given at my local counter. Where I stood right in front of the clerk as she punched in and checked both the 57 and 67 code and told me that it was not for general use and that it was for employees. That's the best I can do. Just putting it out there so others can make their own decisions. Can I guarantee that the clerk was right? no. But I see no reason that she would lie. Could she have been mistaken? yes. Perhaps she was not completely thorough and did not scroll down far enough to see additional information on file indicating that it was offered to travel solutions friends/family/clients etc and it was complimentary to them. Who knows?

I don't think giving honest feedback is fear-mongering. Some of us have legitimate concerns or hesitation in using these codes based on the possible scenarios advanced here. Nobody said it was an absolute that an accident would result in no coverage if you did not qualify for the rate. It was just a question (and a good one, I think) that requires an answer. Unconfirmed speculation it remains. Given the nature of the insurance industry it's not hard to believe that they will deny a claim if they can find a way to do so. But maybe it wouldn't get that far. Maybe National would just process it no problem either way. Maybe the rate is not tied to the insurance coverage at all. Maybe they are two separate issues treated separately. Maybe a valid driver's license is all that is required to ensure coverage. I have no idea.

Personally, I think that the insurance coverage has absolutely no bearing on codes and rates. I think if the liability changed based on those contracts/rates then National would certainly be checking and confirming peoples' status and eligibility before giving out the keys. But that's just an opinion.

At any rate I don't see why you are so hostile to this exchange of information. We are all just trying to help each other out. Some worry more than others. Some have a more laissez-faire attitude. Different strokes. I still haven't decided which rental I'll take, but keeping both for now to keep my options open until I decide.

Have a great day!

I don't think I was being hostile at all. It's tough to discern someone's attitude over a message board, I do know that.

I actually thought the above was a well thought out, reasonable post. Again, my only issue with where this thread has gone, as I have said about five different times today, is that some people are reporting innuendo and rumor as FACT. That is all I have said.

No one, including me, has any idea what the real story is. Some are saying that. Others have gone past that, and are simply saying things that NO ONE knows to be true.

That is my issue.

 

[goofy4tink]

People....try to keep it civil. I realize that there are many out there (myself included) who may be a bit leary of using a code they may not be entitled to. I understand that. But, we can't ask for more than we are getting here. Most posters are posting info they feel to be true. If someone does not feel 100% sure that the code they have used will be honored, then do not use it. There is no way you are going to belly up to the National counter, hand your paperwork over and tell them.."Of course it's a good code. The people on the DIS told me they use it all the time!!" Nope, not going to get it done.
I do have a car reserved using that '67' code. It is saving me a ton....and it's cheaper for me to keep the car for over a week than it is to return it after 5 days with the other reservation. I'm hoping that as I get closer to my travel date (Dec) I will find a rate, using a code I know is good for me, that will be good for me.
So...take what you see hear with a grain of salt. It isn't going to matter one whit what is said here if you get to the counter and your reservation is not honored because you can not produce the proper IDs.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

Just to be clear. I also have a reservation using the 67 code. The savings for my rental are signifcant and I have no concerns that my personal insurance will not cover me if we are in an accident. I have done the cost-benefit analysis based on my personal situation and concluded that it is worth it to me.

Further, both extremes of the opinions expressed on who can use the code ("anyone can use it" vs. "only employees of 1 company can use it") are likely to be equally incorrect.

All I wanted to point out is that some people have a higher risk tolerance than others and some people will receive greater benefit from using it than others.

I am thankful that people take their time to post their concerns because it often gets me thinking about issues in new ways. -- Suzanne

 

[nosy parker]

My mistake then Fonzy13. You're absolutely right that we can't infer tone on a message board. I may have felt a little pinch from your comment about "someone up in Canada" . Sorry. We Canadians are a very nice bunch! And I totally agree that people need to remember that NOBODY knows what the facts are as so many people have been told conflicting/opposing things.

Goofy4tink, hope you didn't consider my post uncivil. Wasn't meant to be. You're right that National won't care what info we've garnered here. I just want to be prepared. If people come across something that might raise a red flag, I hope they will continue to post it because I for one would like to know. I wouldn't want someone to hold back info that isn't "confirmed and proven" for fear of being labeled a "Fear-Mongerer" (no offence Fonzy13),if it might help me make a decision. As I said, the OP who raised the insurance liability issue was asking a good question, in my opinion.

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

I don't see why people feel the need to preach that they don't want to take the chance for $30. Congrats, you've made the decision. But please do not spread rumor and innuendo as fact to other people because you were not comfortable doing something.

Calm down. I didn't turn rumors into facts. Did you read what I said before?

Here's the scoop:
The 57 and 67 codes automatically add in all of the optional insurances at no extra cost. At first I thought,
But it could get complicated if you do have an accident and you didn't really qualify to use those codes, (You are supposed to be an employee of Travel Solutions to use the codes.) you could be held liable for the costs.

I said you "could be" not you "will certainly be"
If you read the whole thread you would have read several times Disers were told by National it's a TA code. I didn't pull the name Travel Solutions out of my a$$. Just b/c people are using it all over the country and not being asked ID doesn't change it. I belong to BJ's, Costco and AAA and never get asked for ID when using their rates either. Clerks just want to move the lines along.

So then you think, "Well my credit card covers rental cars too." But they specifically say you must decline insurance from the rental company in order for them to cover you. Once you accept it, (and you don't have the option to reject it when using the codes), the cc company doesn't cover you.

This is true. At least for Visa and Amex. Another Diser called and asked if they could just get the rate and deny the insurance and they were told no.

Since I can get an Alamo rate $30 more, is it really worth the potential liability and headaches involved? Not really...
That's assuming I'm not lying in a hospital bed and could deal with it. I work in a trauma center (regional spinal cord center) and crap like this is the last thing these families need to have dumped on them. I've never had an accident on vac. but no one plans for stuff like this to happen.
Good luck to all who use it.

This is jmho. My savings amount is based on my vac. plans, you may be saving a lot more so it's worth the risk for you. The rest is probably unique to my work experience and you may think I'm crazy but all I can say is this stuff happens every day. It's changed the way I look at life and is the reason we go on vacation as much as possible.




Originally Posted by emmabelle
so that means that my own auto insurance from home doesn't work either?

That's the part no one knows. We usually rely on our own auto insurance too but would they step in after the rental co insurance refused to cover you due to using a code you're not entitled to?

This is not turning rumor into fact. I admitted no knows for sure.


Originally Posted by emmabelle
Do you have to decline the insurance in able to use your own auto policy?

People have gotten mixed answers from insurance people too.

This is true. Have you read the whole thread? People called their agents who said yes, they're covered. Yet other Diser's who actually work in the insurance field doubt you would be and mentioned how often agents give out misinformation.


I have a suggestion for you:
Why don't you use the code, crash the car and then you can prove all of us worry warts wrong. You will then have PROOF that you so desparately need. Please feel free to tell me how wrong and stupid I was. I won't mind.

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

For the record:
I explained the whole story to my dh who said to use it and that when you sign the contract, National is agreeing to insure you. The time for them to dispute your rights to use a code is at the counter/exit gate, not later on if/when they have to pay up for an accident.
Not that he's an expert, but my point is that he doesn't worry like I do and would think nothing of using the code. We all have different comfort levels.

 

[momatater]

For the record:
I explained the whole story to my dh who said to use it and that when you sign the contract, National is agreeing to insure you. The time for them to dispute your rights to use a code is at the counter/exit gate, not later on if/when they have to pay up for an accident.
Not that he's an expert, but my point is that he doesn't worry like I do and would think nothing of using the code. We all have different comfort levels.

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, and my DH said the exact same thing 2 weeks ago! Once you pull off the lot with the car, you have signed the contract that both parties have agreed to. He told me to stop worrying about it, he obviously has a different comfort level than me as well!

 

[Perdita&Pongo]

This was posted last night on that FlyerTalk thread:

For all the people asking whether LDW and the fuel service option can be removed from the 57 code, was able to remove both from the counter at yyz. Wasn't questioned about the code either.

Disclaimers: FYI - FWIW - YMMV

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

Very interesting... People get told different things different times.
I didn't see where it included the gas option. What's that about? Do you not have to return with a full tank?
I still saved my ressie from when I first discovered the code and it doesn't say it on there. Still saving my Alamo ressie too. Will have to sleep on it. Maybe 100 times.

 

[MermaidsMom]

There were alot of folks abusing this promotion who did not qualify for it since folks were sharing the codes. As an Executive Club member, I did complain to National about the abuse.

 

[stepdisney]

Unsubscribing