RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

[offshore171]

I kinda understand Qantas not wanting passengers starting their flight already half-cut, particularly where the airline itself has served the alcohol in question.

But, it sounds like they have set the threshold very low.

 

[Ansett]

I kinda understand Qantas not wanting passengers starting their flight already half-cut, particularly where the airline itself has served the alcohol in question.

But, it sounds like they have set the threshold very low.

As do we hence the food and water being consumed at the same time. The last thing I want when flying is to be intoxicated I like to have my facility available at all times

 

[Pushka]

That reply was bulldust!

Here's the act:

www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/W...7B4200031872/$FILE/09-134sr010bookmarked.pdf

Here the pertinent definition:



Here's the actual regulation:

There is nothing i can see regarding anticipation of a guest becoming intoxicated ... nor of counting drinks.

That's interesting. We were in a winery at the weekend. We purchased two bottles of wine with the intention of taking most home for later consumption. The winemaker was a little reluctant to provide them until we reassured him.

 

[Rugby]

A very non first class experience for you Ansett.

 

[boomy]

except for domestic flights it is self service alcohol... the liability transfers from the airline to the passenger. Denied boarding and you have no one to blame but yourself.

There is a solution - offer self service alcohol in F lounges and ask anyone who ordered drinks beyond the "legal" limit to self serve themselves if they wish to keep drinking.
TBH I think the real reason to these new rules is simple - saving money by discouraging patrons from consuming too much high quality booze.

 

[Ansett]

A very non first class experience for you Ansett.

Indeed and for Mrs Ansett and Kids and it was embarrassing as the comment was overheard by other customers in the lounge followed by strange looks towards us.

 

[blackcat20]

Indeed and for Mrs Ansett and Kids and it was embarrassing as the comment was overheard by other customers in the lounge followed by strange looks towards us.

It does leave you feeling quite embarrassed, especially when you've done nothing wrong. For me it soured what should have been a fantastic experience.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

TBH I think the real reason to these new rules is simple - saving money by discouraging patrons from consuming too much high quality booze.

Well of course - how else will they finance that caviar?

Apologies for being flippant - but QF's actions in the first instance are nothing short of laughable - but certainly no laughing matter for the A family.

 

[Ansett]

It does leave you feeling quite embarrassed, especially when you've done nothing wrong. For me it soured what should have been a fantastic experience.

Our Daughter and Son in law enjoyed the lounge up until that point and have to say it did ruin the feel of the whole weekend away we had both been bragging about how good the lounge was and the food drinks and service.

Fortunately we had a great time in Sydney itself celebrating their upcoming First Wedding Anniversary followed by a good experience in the Sydney F Lounger where there was none of this stupidity. And of course as posted in another thread our daughter got to meet Red Foo, so all wasn't lost.

 

[tuapekastar]

I don't feel so bad now about having dropped to SG! I'm probably just going to just echo mostly what has already been said.

The response/reason the OP was offered is nonsensical, but would appear to confirm that the 'policy' and behaviour of MEL F lounge staff was 'official' and not just an aberration otherwise they would likely have apologised and not offered up such offensive (offensive because they are asking people to believe it) claptrap in response to the OP's observation.

While I guess Sofitel are trying to cut costs, I doubt they are trying to drive customers away in order to do it - their foot may well up with lead poisoning if they were.

Equally offensive is the embarrassment caused to and mentioned by Ansett for him and family when the employee advised them in a manner that alerted surrounding pax that they (Ansett et al) were being 'cut off' - in fact this would piss me off even more than the inane reason subsequently given by customer care. But of course, if you show how pissed off you are at the time, it's a no-win, as they can cite 'aggressive attitude' (no matter how politely you do it), and thus (perhaps just a little bit triumphantly) prove their point.

 

[Austman]

Has anyone had the MEL-F-lounge RSA rule applied who was actually flying internationally?

Wondering if it's an anti JQd thing too...

 

[cove]

I don't really think the RSA rules would trouble us. We actually appreciate not having bad drunks on board any plane we travel on.

 

[Pushka]

I don't really think the RSA rules would trouble us. We actually appreciate not having bad drunks on board any plane we travel on.

But they've based the RSA on rules that only apply to drivers/operators of machinery. There is a vast difference between that and "drunks" who are more likely to come from the bars at the airport anyway.

And like all things in life there is a manner of doing these things without embarassment to good people.

 

[blackcat20]

I don't really think the RSA rules would trouble us. We actually appreciate not having bad drunks on board any plane we travel on.

I can assure you it takes far more than four drinks in four hours to make me drunk.

 

[Ansett]

I don't really think the RSA rules would trouble us. We actually appreciate not having bad drunks on board any plane we travel on.

We totally agree with RSA in principle when applied with common sense and in a dignified manner. I have not come across DRUNK people in the lounge either J or F at any time. We have come across DRUNK people that hadn't stepped foot in a lounge or had consumed copious amounts on board.

None of us are Drunks and certainly did not appreciate being treated as if we were.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

There is a solution - offer self service alcohol in F lounges and ask anyone who ordered drinks beyond the "legal" limit to self serve themselves if they wish to keep drinking.
TBH I think the real reason to these new rules is simple - saving money by discouraging patrons from consuming too much high quality booze.

I don't agree with QF's response on the issue. I was just trying to work out how they might have arrived at their policy.

 

[Ansett]

I can assure you it takes far more than four drinks in four hours to make me drunk.

LOL so definitely no cheap date then

Sorry couldn't resist

 

[blackcat20]

LOL so definitely no cheap date then

Sorry couldn't resist

Definitely not

 

[medhead]

Every year for one of my jobs I am required to fill in a short alcohol dependence questionnaire.

Every year one of the questions is "does it annoy you if someone suggests you should drink less?".

Just sayin'.

I have no problem with people saying I should drink less. I can easily ignore SWMBO. In fact I try to have 5 booze free nights a week, so I reckon I do drink less overall. But once pandora's box has been opened and I'm not driving, well that's another story. No reason to limit myself to 3 drinks.

I kinda understand Qantas not wanting passengers starting their flight already half-cut, particularly where the airline itself has served the alcohol in question.

This made me think of my last PER departure where most of the people in the lounge absolutely stank of bourbon. They sure weren't half cut, more like one and a half cut.

 

[RooFlyer]

It would be great Ansett if you had the time and inclination to get back with "Customer Care" and call them out on their response.

What a disgrace.