Better than Visa Magic Code?

[msminniemouse]

There was a recent post on Flyer Talk saying the the insurance On The Magic "57" Code Does Not Cover You:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Recently used the magic 57 contract code at LAX (which went over fine) and got in a small accident two days later. I returned the car and everything went smooth because I had the full loss/damage insurance that came with the contract code. Well about two weeks later I get a call asking for my supervisor to call the insurance company proving that I worked for "such n such travel agency". I then came clean and said that I was not employed by that company that the contract code was under. They then told me that because I was not employed by the company, that I would be fully responsible for the damages and that I was not covered by their insurance.

Luckly I have my own 3rd party insurance through my credit card...

Heads up to anyone that thinks you're fully covered with this insurance...You are not!

PS...Don't use the code at BURBANK airport...They are onto it...I've had two seperate friends get turned down... "

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

thanks for the info. I thought cc insurance only covers if you decline the ins. offered by Alamo.

 

[Disneyhappy]

thanks for the info. I thought cc insurance only covers if you decline the ins. offered by Alamo.

You are correct. I suspect his CC insurance company will be sending him a denial of coverage letter unless he pays extra for coverage through his credit card company.

 

[lilyv]

You are correct. I suspect his CC insurance company will be sending him a denial of coverage letter unless he pays extra for coverage through his credit card company.

Few, if any insurance companies are going to step in when it's determined that it's not a good faith error, even if he has additional coverage. They will see the paperwork, and the reason for the denial by the rental car company. Renters do have to sign a contract and they are representing on it they are eligible for whatever code they select.
The rates are good, but they aren't risk free.

 

[Disneyhappy]

Few, if any insurance companies are going to step in when it's determined that it's not a good faith error, even if he has additional coverage. They will see the paperwork, and the reason for the denial by the rental car company. Renters do have to sign a contract and they are representing on it they are eligible for whatever code they select.
The rates are good, but they aren't risk free.

Some CCs offer rental car insurance that would step in to provide coverage in this situation. American Express has it but you have to pay a yearly fee for it. Other than this type of "excess" car rental insurance purchased through your credit card, I agree that the CC company will be denying coverage. The third step will be the renter's personal auto coverage. That is also a crapshoot depending in the type of coverage. No one should take their insurance agent's word that they will definitely be covered. Agents are not insurance coverage experts; claim examiners and their coverage attorneys are the experets. Agents know the policy provides coverage for temporary substitute vehicles/rental vehicles but they do not know all the exceptions under the policy providing that coverage. I've had to disclaim coverage to policy holder claims that were intially told they were covered by their agents too many times to count. It also depends on your state of residency as the courts in each state have interpreted policy language differently. Bottom line for us, we just do not want to deal with the potential hassle of 1) whether the code will be accepted at time of rental, and 2) potential out of pocket cost for covering a loss that may not be covered by any insurance that I thought would be available. Their are enough public codes available for us to use and paying the extra $100 for the peace of mind is worth it us. However, if our home heating costs continue to rise they way they have, we may reconsider! Just kidding!!!

 

[bavaria]

If you have already booked for future travel then they suspend the code, will they honor it?

The most likely won't cancel the booking as there are travellers who legitimately qualify for the rate who have future bookings. They will most likely be extra vigilant about checking for ID to ensure that renters qualify, especially as National monitors flyertalk.com and this thread was referenced there. I suspect that MCO make take extra care to check based on the thread over here and over there.

Hotels are much more careful about checking ID for qualified rates for exactly the same reason - too many people booking rates for which they did not qualify, often leaving the legitimate traveller with no availability at their negotiated rate.

 

[robinb]

Bottom line for us, we just do not want to deal with the potential hassle of 1) whether the code will be accepted at time of rental, and 2) potential out of pocket cost for covering a loss that may not be covered by any insurance that I thought would be available. Their are enough public codes available for us to use and paying the extra $100 for the peace of mind is worth it us.

Of course, if you don't want to use the code then you don't have to . FWIW, the "67" has been established as a public code. The "57" code (the one with the reported problems on FlyerTalk) had already been determined to be for employees of Travel Solutions.

 

[Fonzy13]

Used the code (67) this past week in NY. Full size SUV (Jeep Commander) with no issues.

The cost was $201, saved me more than $250.

 

[lilyv]

Of course, if you don't want to use the code then you don't have to . FWIW, the "67" has been established as a public code. The "57" code (the one with the reported problems on FlyerTalk) had already been determined to be for employees of Travel Solutions.

Both of the codes (57 and 67) were imported here from flyertalk. They are both associated with TQ3 Travel Solutions, per flyertalk. You can google for more.

 

[lawgs]

Both of the codes (57 and 67) were imported here from flyertalk. They are both associated with TQ3 Travel Solutions, per flyertalk. You can google for more.

original poster aquaticmom in this thread said it happened this way.....at least for her

I reserved a mid-size emerald aisle Apr 10 (9:30PM) through April 14 (3PM) and thought I was entering the Visa magic code 8572987. When I looked at my reservation closer I realized I had entered 8572957. My wrong code still did the same thing the Visa Magic code is doing, free insurance and all fees included, BUT the wrong code is giving me a rate of $110.62 and the Visa Magic Code is giving me a rate of $161.61! Anyone have any idea what the code 8572957 is???

 

[lilyv]

original poster aquaticmom in this thread said it happened this way.....at least for her

I reserved a mid-size emerald aisle Apr 10 (9:30PM) through April 14 (3PM) and thought I was entering the Visa magic code 8572987. When I looked at my reservation closer I realized I had entered 8572957. My wrong code still did the same thing the Visa Magic code is doing, free insurance and all fees included, BUT the wrong code is giving me a rate of $110.62 and the Visa Magic Code is giving me a rate of $161.61! Anyone have any idea what the code 8572957 is???

Lots of stumbling going on. There's a flyertalk post dated April 6th that discusses stumbling across this code by accident. By April 9th-10th they were in full blown discussion mode on the 57 and 67 codes. It spread like wildfire to multiple boards from there. Certainly it's possible the poster here had the identical experience a few days later than the flyertalk person.

 

[Disneyhappy]

Of course, if you don't want to use the code then you don't have to . FWIW, the "67" has been established as a public code. The "57" code (the one with the reported problems on FlyerTalk) had already been determined to be for employees of Travel Solutions.

How have you determined that the 67 code is a public code? When I called National when the 67 code first surfaced here, I was told the 67 code was not a public code and proper ID was needed. Another poster was told it was a complimemtary code nut the National rep I spoke with said it was not. If it is published as a public code, please share the source which will help to put this whole issue to an end and DISers can use the code worry-free. I would love to see a written source from National because then I would definitely use the code.

And your right, I don't have to use the code if I don't want to which I thought I made clear in my post that I was not using the code. I was simply sharing my thoughts so fellow posters can make an informed decision. I work in insurance claims and see how insurance companies go after the personal assets of people who do not have insurance coverage for a loss. I may be overly sensitive and cautious in this situation because I have personally seen families lose there homes. Odds are low that anyone will have an accident while on vacation but they do happen and I wouldn't want any fellow DISer to be in that situation without the knowledge to conciously make that decision knowing what they may be facing. I also understand that $100 to me may be $1000 to someone else, making the risk more worth while to that person.

 

[robinb]

How have you determined that the 67 code is a public code? When I called National when the 67 code first surfaced here, I was told the 67 code was not a public code and proper ID was needed. Another poster was told it was a complimemtary code nut the National rep I spoke with said it was not. If it is published as a public code, please share the source which will help to put this whole issue to an end and DISers can use the code worry-free. I would love to see a written source from National because then I would definitely use the code.

As you know, all we can go by is the anecdotal evidence that that dozens of DISers who have already called on the code (AND PLEASE DO NOT CALL AGAIN!!!) who were told that it was "complementary". You don't have to get snarky about it.

 

[goofy4tink]

Okay....here's my issue with this whole 'code' thing... Many here are telling others to stop calling National about it, that if they continue calling, Natl will pull the code. Well...obviously, if people call inquiring about it, and Natl feels the code needs to be pulled, it was a code that the majority of peole were not entitled to to begin with. So...buyer beware. If you want to use a code, that is technically not a code that you are truly entitled to, be ready to have it declined when you go to rent...if you are asked to show ID to prove that you are entitled to that code, and you can't provide the neccesary ID, then be prepared to pay a nasty daily rater for your rental.

Enough of the constant 'don't call Natl' posts....if you are entitled to use a code, then use it. Otherwise, don't. I don't care how many posters here on the Dis have come back and said.."oh, I saved a ton of money and they never said a word to me about that code."...all it's going to do is take one person to come back here and report that they were not able to use said code and they had to spend three times what they had budgeted for their car to turn this board into a boiling, foaming cauldron.

 

[TomD]

Either you are going to try and use it or you're not. If you are going to try and use it have a back up plan in case you can't.

If you feel you need to call and ask about a certain code then obviosly you should not use it. All you are trying to do is quiet the little voice inside of you by saying so and so said it was alright.

 

[Rita1965]

I just wanted to let you know what I got in writing from National.

Don't flaim me for writing National as this was back in April when we first learned about the codes, and nobody knew what they were. I chose not to use the codes for the trip we went on in May since I received this response back from National in April regarding my inquiry about using the 57 and the 67 codes.

"Dear Ms. xxxxxx,

The codes in question are actually reserved for employees of TQ3 Travel Solutions. Unless you are one of their employees, I would not recommend that you use these codes.

Have a great day,

Jxxxxx
Help Desk

 

[aquaticmom]

Lots of stumbling going on. There's a flyertalk post dated April 6th that discusses stumbling across this code by accident. By April 9th-10th they were in full blown discussion mode on the 57 and 67 codes. It spread like wildfire to multiple boards from there. Certainly it's possible the poster here had the identical experience a few days later than the flyertalk person.

I am the OP, and if you look at the date of my original post it was April 5th, one day BEFORE if was posted on Flyertalk. And I have NEVER been to the flyertalk website. So I don't appreciate the reference that I somehow made up my story about accidently stumbling on to this code. You should really do a little more investigating before accusing someone of telling a lie.

 

[lilyv]

I am the OP, and if you look at the date of my original post it was April 5th, one day BEFORE if was posted on Flyertalk. And I have NEVER been to the flyertalk website. So I don't appreciate the reference that I somehow made up my story about accidently stumbling on to this code. You should really do a little more investigating before accusing someone of telling a lie.

I should have said, "Certainly it's possible the poster here had the identical experience a few days earlier than the flyertalk person." My bad for saying later than earlier. I do believe there certainly can be coincidences. Your experience and the flyertalk poster's experience proves that. Or...maybe they got their info from the DIS. I haven't checked to see when these codes hopped onto fatwallet, etc.

 

[conniehar90]

Just back from a trip to Denver and we picked up our minivan using the "57" code with no problems - $222 for 8 days.

I had also reserved our car for our Disney trip in Dec quite a while back using the 57 code. Well, when I made our air reservations on Southwest this week, I had to change our travel days for better pricing. I went to change my National rental today and when I tried to change it, I got the message that the 57 code was invalid. I changed it to the 67 code and got the reservation changed at the same price.

 

[lilyv]

I just wanted to let you know what I got in writing from National.

Don't flaim me for writing National as this was back in April when we first learned about the codes, and nobody knew what they were. I chose not to use the codes for the trip we went on in May since I received this response back from National in April regarding my inquiry about using the 57 and the 67 codes.

"Dear Ms. xxxxxx,

The codes in question are actually reserved for employees of TQ3 Travel Solutions. Unless you are one of their employees, I would not recommend that you use these codes.

Have a great day,

Jxxxxx
Help Desk

Interesting. Bottom line, it's possible to take most of the National codes and alter them slightly accidentally and get xx rate with a "new" code. That doesn't mean the code that was "found" is a general public code.