RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

[Ansett]

Just thought I would share this.

My partner and our daughter and son in law where in the lounge, sat in the dining room on Saturday the 7th March and over a period of approximately an hour and 45 minutes we all consumed 3 drinks each. We asked for an additional drink before departing and were refused.

It was explained that they were not allowed to serve any one more than 3 drinks in 90 minutes due to RSA. Whilst I understand and respect the need for RSA I am somewhat surprised at the interpretation being applied by the staff. Indeed we could have all gone to any bar in the airport and consumed far far more than this with out any objection and not prevented from flying.

None of us were loud unruly or disrespectful, we were however all well mannered and well behaved and certainly not in any way intoxicated or showing signs of being so.



I wrote to red Roo seeking clarification on the Policy re serving of alcohol in the Melbourne First Lounge and the response from the customer care team.

In summary.

It is the policy of Qantas to adhere to RSA regulations where in there is a clause that sets a guideline to ensure that people are not under the influence and are able to drive a car.

The regulations stipulates 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 standard drink per hour there after.This may be altered at the discretion of the staff. However it is Qantas Policy to adhere to RSA guidleines.

Quite frankly I find this rather poor form and using a guide that is not used anywhere else to penny pinch...................

Does this mean that if you have 2 or 3 drinks in the lounge be it domestic or International and then board an aircraft you will be refused alcohol?

So I buy an $18000.00 First Class Air Fare MEL -LHR and can only have 3 Drinks in the lounge in 2 hours. I take it that I will then be refused any alcohol on board too as a result of complying with RSA. Whats Next????

 

[blackcat20]

Interesting that "legal limit" is being used as an excuse for RSA. Most people are about to board a long haul flight, not drive.... And I thought RSA was about making a judgement about the individual, rather than a one rule for all policy.

 

[opusman]

Outrageous. What's next? Limiting food intake to officially recommended calorie, fat and carbohydrate limits?

What happened to allowing responsible adults to make their own decisions?

 

[boomy]

RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response ( Refused Drinks)

It doesn't make any sense. In domestic lounges (where there is actually a reasonable chance people will drive after a short flight) alcohol is self serve and unlimited but in international lounges it's restricted?!
Sorry, I don't buy this excuse.

 

[Austman]

Linking flying as a passenger to driving a car? I usually don't drive. But on any international flight, where could any car driving even be done? Is NZ the closest? Hours away.

 

[Ansett]

It doesn't make any sense. In domestic lounges (where there is actually a reasonable chance people will drive after a short flight) alcohol is self serve and unlimited but in international lounges it's restricted?!
Sorry, I don't buy this excuse.

Just another Qantas Enhancement !

 

[dajop]

Easy solution: after drink 3 head next door to EK lounge (if travelling on QF or EK), or downstairs to QF J lounge, MH or CX lounge.

 

[williamsf1]

It doesn't make any sense. In domestic lounges (where there is actually a reasonable chance people will drive after a short flight) alcohol is self serve and unlimited but in international lounges it's restricted?!
Sorry, I don't buy this excuse.

In The QF SYD J lounge the sprits are open for all to drink ( ie self serve) ..... I know I have done more than 3 in a hour

 

[amaroo]

It's certainly one way to reduce numbers in the lounge ... PPP IMHO.

 

[blackcat20]

It's really not a great look for the better lounge in the brand to be this stingy.

 

[boomy]

In The QF SYD J lounge the sprits are open for all to drink ( ie self serve) ..... I know I have done more than 3 in a hour

+1 for me in the BNE J lounge today
Lucky I have an early flight tomorrow morning so no chance to exceed the alcohol limit in the SYD F lounge...

 

[Steady]

Just thought I would share this.

My partner and our daughter and son in law where in the lounge, sat in the dining room on Saturday the 7th March and over a period of approximately an hour and 45 minutes we all consumed 3 drinks each. We asked for an additional drink before departing and were refused.

It was explained that they were not allowed to serve any one more than 3 drinks in 90 minutes due to RSA. Whilst I understand and respect the need for RSA I am somewhat surprised at the interpretation being applied by the staff. Indeed we could have all gone to any bar in the airport and consumed far far more than this with out any objection and not prevented from flying.

None of us were loud unruly or disrespectful, we were however all well mannered and well behaved and certainly not in any way intoxicated or showing signs of being so.



I wrote to red Roo seeking clarification on the Policy re serving of alcohol in the Melbourne First Lounge and the response from the customer care team.

In summary.

It is the policy of Qantas to adhere to RSA regulations where in there is a clause that sets a guideline to ensure that people are not under the influence and are able to drive a car.

The regulations stipulates 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 standard drink per hour there after.This may be altered at the discretion of the staff. However it is Qantas Policy to adhere to RSA guidleines.

Quite frankly I find this rather poor form and using a guide that is not used anywhere else to penny pinch...................

Does this mean that if you have 2 or 3 drinks in the lounge be it domestic or International and then board an aircraft you will be refused alcohol?

So I buy an $18000.00 First Class Air Fare MEL -LHR and can only have 3 Drinks in the lounge in 2 hours. I take it that I will then be refused any alcohol on board too as a result of complying with RSA. Whats Next????

A classic example of where a dislike button would come in handy

My first reaction was that I should read up on the RSA because I thought there were a different number of standard drinks recommended for males and females when wanting to stay under 0.05 legal limit for driving a motor vehicle but don't think I will bother as I strongly feel as others do that this really has nothing to do with the responsible service of alcohol.

It may happen but I have not experienced, heard about or read threads from anybody experiencing this 3 standard drinks in the first 2 hours twaddle in an Int J lounge or the dom QP's or J Lounges - seems QF really cares about its premium Beverages passengers.

More than disappointed - when they are bad.....

 

[TomVexille]

Definitely not a good look.

 

[yohy?!]

Must be planning to axe the F lounge altogether - maybe an enhanced J lounge like HKG and SIN is where they're heading

 

[medhead]

I've just checked the NSW Liquor regulations and there is nothing about limiting people to the driving limit. Perhaps [-]Red Roo[/-] customer care might like to quote the clause in the regulation.

Personally keeping people below the driving limit is not at all the point of RSA. NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing states that RSA focuses on harm minimisation and customers drinking responsibly. Where someone is not driving and has no chance to drive for many hours keeping them under a BAC of 0.05 does nothing to prevent harm and it denies the customer responsibility for their drinking. I refuse drinks on my domestic flights because I have to drive - I am responsible! This is even when being offered more booze by the staff - I am responsible for myself and my safety.

I also had the impression that once refused for RSA that was it - no more drinks at all. But the guide quoted doesn't have that limitation at all. If the OP asked for the 4th drink at 120 minutes then they would be within the quoted guideline. The guideline is so very clearly not about intoxication or RSA it is almost inconceivable that it has even been mentioned. That guideline is about basically keeping people sober so that they can drive a car safely. This is a key point following that guideline keeps you sober. There is nothing in the NSW regulations that says people have to be sober at all times.

The NSW guidelines on RSA talk about suggesting the customer eat food or drink a non-alcoholic drink as a means of implementing RSA. Presumably the OP was eating, so automatically invalidating the so-called guideline. But this raises the question, why didn't the staff adopt those strategies before refusing service? Why didn't they suggest water or a softdrink, or eating? If they are so keen to follow regulations why aren't they doing so?

Finally, that guideline is a complete load of rubbish anyway. Friend of a friend who works for a police department who was given a breatho machine to take home. Depending on the person it is entirely possible to significantly exceed that guideline consumption rate and remain under the legal BAC to drive. I certainly know how many jelly shots I can have and still drive home. It's more than 3 in 90 minutes.

Overall, this seems like a misapplication of that guideline that is not supported by the law.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

A classic example of where a dislike button would come in handy

Here ya go Steady - feel free to use at your leisure:

 

[Princess Fiona]

Speechless
Thankfully lots of you aren't and I agree with you :!:

 

[Ansett]

I've just checked the NSW Liquor regulations and there is nothing about limiting people to the driving limit. Perhaps Red Roo might like to quote the clause in the regulation.

Personally keeping people below the driving limit is not at all the point of RSA. NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing states that RSA focuses on harm minimisation and customers drinking responsibly. Where someone is not driving and has no chance to drive for many hours keeping them under a BAC of 0.05 does nothing to prevent harm and it denies the customer responsibility for their drinking. I refuse drinks on my domestic flights because I have to drive - I am responsible! This is even when being offered more booze by the staff - I am responsible for myself and my safety.

I also had the impression that once refused for RSA that was it - no more drinks at all. But the guide quoted doesn't have that limitation at all. If the OP asked for the 4th drink at 120 minutes then they would be within the quoted guideline. The guideline is so very clearly not about intoxication or RSA it is almost inconceivable that it has even been mentioned. That guideline is about basically keeping people sober so that they can drive a car safely. This is a key point following that guideline keeps you sober. There is nothing in the NSW regulations that says people have to be sober at all times.

The NSW guidelines on RSA talk about suggesting the customer eat food or drink a non-alcoholic drink as a means of implementing RSA. Presumably the OP was eating, so automatically invalidating the so-called guideline. But this raises the question, why didn't the staff adopt those strategies before refusing service? Why didn't they suggest water or a softdrink, or eating? If they are so keen to follow regulations why aren't they doing so?

Finally, that guideline is a complete load of rubbish anyway. Friend of a friend who works for a police department who was given a breatho machine to take home. Depending on the person it is entirely possible to significantly exceed that guideline consumption rate and remain under the legal BAC to drive. I certainly know how many jelly shots I can have and still drive home. It's more than 3 in 90 minutes.

Overall, this seems like a misapplication of that guideline that is not supported by the law.

Hi Medhead

Excellent post if I may say so I would like to point out that it wasn't Red Roo that made these comments it was indeed a representative from Customer Care.

What irritates me is that no one even asked if I was driving at the end of the flight, in addition I was able to help myself to Beer that was available self serve from the fridge. Thy did not offer or suggest water fruit juices etc however we had also been drinking water constantly as we were drinking so we were being very responsible.

As for eating we certainly enjoyed most of the Entrées and mains on the lounge between so plenty of food.

A key point that the Customer Care representative made was it is at the discretion of the staff and quite clearly they opted to not show any discretion and or IMHO any common sense.

 

[mooingchicken]

I've just checked the NSW Liquor regulations and there is nothing about limiting people to the driving limit.

As said RSA and legal driving limits are compleatly seperate. RSA is about making sure someone is not too drunk. The 2 drinks 1 hr then 1 each hour after are meant as guidlines that have been made up (with research) and promoted by the goverment. And it obviously sides on the safe side (ie most would not go close to 0.05 sticking to this). Also it is 1 drink each hour for females according to this guidline. Should they stop servering females that 2nd drink, while they happily pour a 2nd for the male sitting with them?
I know I have would of been over the limit of being able to drive, yet would not consider myself drunk at all.

 

[Blackswan]

Wow. Way to drive away your best customers.