Ban the hi vis gear in business lounge!

[Oneworldplus2]

As long as they are well mannered, who cares.
I've seen suits behave worse than FIFO workers.

Singlets shouldn't be allowed in, but that's just me.

Has anyone witnessed a lounge employee kick out/bar someone from entering any QF lounge based on their attire?

 

[Oneworldplus2]

I don't believe any of the Australian swim team wear their bathers in the lounge.

I'm ok for the Australian womens swim team to wear their bathers in the lounge...

 

[Hvr]

As long as they are well mannered, who cares.
I've seen suits behave worse than FIFO workers.

Singles shouldn't be allowed in, but that's just me.

Has anyone witnessed a lounge employee kick out/bar someone from entering any QF lounge based on their attire?

My bolding.

So now we have to be in a relationship to enter the QP?
I may never get entry.


Re hi vis gear, surely we should judge the person by their behaviour not their looks? If they have flown enough to be allowed to enter then as long as their clothing is clean and decent who are we to determine if they should be allowed entry?

 

[haydensydney]

So tired of this.... really is that hard to say no hi vis gear. :evil:
Why should the overall look and feel of a business class lounge feel like a construction site?
Come on QF lets have some standards.

My 2c.

Sorry but this sounds more like your problem rather than that of Qantas or it's J lounge guests (who btw have just as much right to the lounge as you do). If you don't like it go hang out by the gate.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Singlets
(filler)

 

[Danger]

Re hi vis gear, surely we should judge the person by their behaviour not their looks? If they have flown enough to be allowed to enter then as long as their clothing is clean and decent who are we to determine if they should be allowed entry?

My 2c.

Sorry but this sounds more like your problem rather than that of Qantas or it's J lounge guests (who btw have just as much right to the lounge as you do). If you don't like it go hang out by the gate.

Again, nobody is arguing the entitlement or right of those wearing hi-vis to be in the lounge. That is not the issue. Making it the issue is distorting the argument.

 

[Happy Trails]

How about changing the lounge decor to high-vis?
Then they'd blend right in.

 

[beardoc]

We do this argument all the time - whether it's "children shouldn't be allowed to be in the lounge", etc. We've done this to death.

When there are finite resources (i.e. a lounge that has limited membership, like a WP membership or above), then we actively look to protect that from others, and see others as taking that away from us.

But the membership requirement is 1400 status credits in your membership year, or 1200 to retain. You got that and so you have access. They got it and so they are just as entitled to be there. We see ourselves as perfectly reasonable and see others as taking away from that. But from their perspective, you might be annoying to them? Who is right? There are only perspectives.

I get this all the time. I now get people thinking I'm a biker because of my beard and interpreting all sorts of things about my behaviour from that, whether I actually behave like that or not. Truth is, we're all entitled to be there. If there is an issue with a person's behaviour there, take it up with them or with QF - but generalising it to a group isn't the way to deal with this.

The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight « You Are Not So Smart is some interesting (but long) reading on this topic.

 

[Danger]

We do this argument all the time - whether it's "children shouldn't be allowed to be in the lounge", etc. We've done this to death.

When there are finite resources (i.e. a lounge that has limited membership, like a WP membership or above), then we actively look to protect that from others, and see others as taking that away from us.

But the membership requirement is 1400 status credits in your membership year, or 1200 to retain. You got that and so you have access. They got it and so they are just as entitled to be there. We see ourselves as perfectly reasonable and see others as taking away from that. But from their perspective, you might be annoying to them? Who is right? There are only perspectives.

I get this all the time. I now get people thinking I'm a biker because of my beard and interpreting all sorts of things about my behaviour from that, whether I actually behave like that or not. Truth is, we're all entitled to be there. If there is an issue with a person's behaviour there, take it up with them or with QF - but generalising it to a group isn't the way to deal with this.

The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight « You Are Not So Smart is some interesting (but long) reading on this topic.

First, nobody is arguing the entitlement of 'hi-vis wearers' to be in the lounge.

Secondly, as others have outlined, it's not just hi-vis clobber that some feel inappropriate attire for the lounge. I for one don't think torn jeans are the best choice, nor is an Abercrombie and Fitch t-shirt on a teenage girl like this or another that says "Wong Brothers Laundry, two Wongs can make it white". Or a particularly revealing low-cut top on a female or a singlet or gym clothes or . . . That's the issue.

Thirdly, I don't believe anyone is generalising. I work in an office but if I chose to wear a hi-vis vest in the lounge before my next flight, I don't think it would be the correct choice.

 

[ajca]

10.7 Smart, casual dress standards apply at all times. Individual lounge managers will have discretion to administer these standards as they reasonably deem appropriate in the circumstances.

As @markis10 pointed out, Qantas does have stated dress standards for these lounges.

There are therefore two issues here:
1. Could high-vis vests etc conceivably be considered "smart, casual" dress?*
2. If not, Qantas should either enforce the policy consistently or change the policy

I suppose the other issue is, how hard is it to take off the high-vis vest when you're in the lounge?

* I also wonder whether "smart, casual" is somehow a unique Qantas concept that differs from "smart casual", e.g. along the lines of "priority boarding"

 

[ajca]

So your saying ban the General Managers, CEO's etc of the mining companys who wear HI VIS to site when they fly? the people who keep Qantas in the sky and make decisions as to what airline they will fly with?

Fail.

Has anyone actually seen Marius Kloppers or Tom Albanese in any airline lounge anywhere, much less wearing a high-vis vest over their $5000 suit?

Even if they did fly commercial on business travel (highly unlikely) I reckon they would have sufficient common sense social awareness to put the vest in their bag before they walk into the Chairmans' Lounge.

 

[ajca]

Ok so if I'm to go to site (hi-vis) for a day trip from Perth I will need to take a change of busniess clothes to enter the QP?

If you fly enough for work to earn the QP then I believe your entitled to wear your work clothes be it business or hi-vis (obviously if your clothes are clean)

Only if those work clothes are consistent with the Qantas "smart, casual" dress standard policy.

 

[markis10]

Maybe things need to be relaxed a bit:

What other club permits high vis after 6PM, those clubs that do allow high vis often have the proviso that after the work day has ended its off limits.

 

[amaroo]

As @markis10 pointed out, Qantas does have stated dress standards for these lounges.

There are therefore two issues here:
1. Could high-vis vests etc conceivably be considered "smart, casual" dress?
2. If not, Qantas should either enforce the policy consistently or change the policy

I suppose the other issue is, how hard is it to take off the high-vis vest when you're in the lounge?

Could have something to do with a uniform/company policy? I'd imagined they are covered by company policy whilst traveling between home/work/home.

IMO, the smart casual dress rule applies to someone who thinks it's appropriate to turn up with basically nothing on - not a bunch of boys & girls covered from top to toe in company issued clothing.

 

[drron]

Reading these threads recently on dress codes and lounges made me think.I have realised i saw the perfect couple to invite into the QP.Last week I was in Bundy and as you do at night in Bundy I was walking down Bourbong street when this amazing couple was walking towards me.He was at least 6 foot 6 and she was no more than 5 foot tall.He was wearing a black singlet,black shorts and thongs with every visible inch of skin covered in tattoos.She was in a skimpy black top,black shorts and thongs but only the left side of her body was tattooed.As I passed I noticed a fellow walking behind them with his eyes literally on stalks.So I turned around.The poor woman had the backside of her shorts ripped out revealing that she was indeed wearing 3 thongs and that just her left cheek was tattooed.
I can imagine the looks on the face of some of the posters here if I could find them and bring them to the QP.He would probably not be allowed in!

 

[Bugalugz]

Has anyone actually seen Marius Kloppers or Tom Albanese in any airline lounge anywhere, much less wearing a high-vis vest over their $5000 suit?

Even if they did fly commercial on business travel (highly unlikely) I reckon they would have sufficient common sense social awareness to put the vest in their bag before they walk into the Chairmans' Lounge.

Obviously those 2 arent going to be flying Qantas for starters, Tom Albanese flys in on the Rio Tinto jet. However Sam Walsh - CEO of Iron Ore has been seen in the Karratha QF Club in Hi Vis.

Also remember there are plenty of small company CEO's who fly to site who aren't CL members. Plenty of people wear it, unfortunately it's a way of life.

Personally bad enough wearing the whole kit at work let alone in public! But it does happen especially if it's a quick trip to site from Perth for the higher ups in the corporate world.

 

[ChrisCunard]

Personally, as someone who flys ex-Perth on every trip I do, I've never had an issue with the miners in the lounge they have always been polite and quiet so I've got no issue with them.

If anything the onus is on Qantas to build a bigger lounge and actually invest in a J lounge in Perth -- the fact we don't have one is typical of the lack of attention WA gets from premium businesses.

If a dress standard was applied though, which would help boost the atmosphere, it would need to be across the board... So, no tatty or torn t-shirts, no short-shorts, no thongs, no worn or torn jeans... No "screaming kids" running around.

IMO this is more offensive than the high vis gear...

That said, it doesn't bother me enough to complain to QF or anything.


Sent from my iPhone using AustFreqFly app

 

[Joy6328]

My hubby's work contract stated that he had to fly in his work uniform on travel days as he was being paid for them.
But his work clothes were hi-via shirt and pants - not just a vest that could be easily removed.

I guess it depends if your issue is with the colour, the style, the condition of their uniforms... Or if you are one of the minority who don't like having the blatantly obvious working class in "your" lounge.

They fly enough to earn the privilege of being in the lounge - and unless their behavior is unacceptable - I can't beleive you would be so judgemental.

 

[MrJetset]

It appears to me that FIFOs fly directly to the airport mine, and are bussed to the worksite, so it probably is a requirement to wear them prior to boarding. I imagine, given that there are flights every 30 mins to mines from PER, that even if this issue was raised, given the significant revenue that QF receives, little would change.

Frankly, I've seen worse behaviour by men in suits in the MEL QP on a Friday afternoon who seem to think they should down as many beers as possible before their flight, who then inflict other pax their lewd conversations to the other pax on board.

 

[haydensydney]

Again, nobody is arguing the entitlement or right of those wearing hi-vis to be in the lounge. That is not the issue. Making it the issue is distorting the argument.

Actually I feel that it's core to the argument. Why do you feel that the OP's (or your) vote on "who gets in" to the J lounge carries more precedence? Have you asked those hi-viz people if they really want pretentious business people in suits in their lounge - I'd say that they wouldn't care if the suits are there or not. Which says more about them than it does about the OP, doesn't it?

The OP thinks that hi-viz wearers offends the "look and feel" of the ambiance but I can assure you that most visitors to the J lounge are there for a reason which is not, by the way, to admire the pretty interior design and fit-out of the lounge.

Further, the constant references to the lounge attire policy is a laughable and weak argument because a) Qantas makes this call (not disgruntled anti hi-viz guests) and, b) if it was such a big problem for the carrier they would have stamped it out in the first instance. The fact that it's been happening for years is indicative of the carriers position - enforcing anti hi-viz attire would be detrimental to the carriers FIFO contracts. And money talks people. Not cranky hi-viz haters