Change/Clarification of oneword based lounge access

[simongr]

Were J/F pax allowed to take in a guest previously? I thought COS access was for the flying pax only previously...

Using QF as an example:

F pax - one guest
J pax - one guest unless flying BA then no guest.

 

[anat0l]

Bit of a bummer with this change, although that does shift a considerable leg up on the benefits of having status rather than simply stumping up a single, expensive ticket (notwithstanding the value of revenue of said ticket).

It will be, of course, up to the airlines that offer such premium tickets to ensure they provide adequate services themselves for their pax. Funny enough, as mentioned here I really wonder if people considered going to another lounge not corresponding to the airline they are flying, and if the airline brainboxes (or lack thereof) ever considered such dynamics?

For instance, this makes the whole oneworld setup at HKG justified. There are 6 J lounges and 3 F lounges in HKG, not counting contracts (i.e. oneworld partner using a non-oneworld lounge under contract). Putting aside the quality of those individual lounges (an unfortunate assumption, but let it be here), in itself even for an airport like HKG I believe that it would've been more effective to have less but larger lounges or a cooperative similar to *A. Now this tighter rule actually confounds the current if perhaps very inefficient setup.

For many other oneworld hubs around the world, the situation is either mildly similar or less fortunate because either oneworld airlines must explicitly seek contracts with other lounges (perhaps non-oneworld) or their non-status premium passengers will go without (like right...).

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Using QF as an example:

F pax - one guest
J pax - one guest unless flying BA then no guest.

That wasn't a OW rule though, was it?

 

[serfty]

That wasn't a OW rule though, was it?

As recently as a month ago, the rule on the web site was:

Customers flying First or Business Class have access to the equivalent class of lounge regardless of their frequent flyer status. (First Class passengers may be accompanied by one guest travelling on a flight operated and marketed by a oneworld airline).

So, no guests for Business Class PAX unless other access provision(s) applied.

 

[Timba-Jet]

Now it's confirmed cabin class does not entitle pax to OW lounge access, I question why their is reference to this on the OW site.

It would make more sense if it referred customers to check with the airline site they are flying with.

 

[serfty]

I would suggest this would be due to such access previously being available - just to disappear it without reference may cause confusion.

 

[dajop]

in itself even for an airport like HKG I believe that it would've been more effective to have less but larger lounges or a cooperative similar to *A. Now this tighter rule actually confounds the current if perhaps very inefficient setup.

I would argue HKG lounge set up is effective and anything but inefficient - at least from the CX passenger point of view. The main reason HKG have so many lounges are the CX lounges themselves, and these are set up in such a way to be close to different departure gates. It is a long way from say the Wing to the outer gates near the Pier and even the gates near the Cabin. So if you lump all the CX/KA lounges together as one (which from a quality point of view they more or less are) you only have QF & CX operating OW lounges - ie 2 OW J lounges, 2 OW F lounges and a contract lounge operated for JL and RJ.

How many airports in the world will this affect where the quality of one carrier's lounges are significantly better than other accessible alternatives (ie accessible airside within same terminal)? Perhaps MEL, SIN, NRT, HKG, LHR? Anywhere in the US - perhaps where BA and AA both operate lounges? For the vast majority of once or twice a year flyers I would guess this change would have no impact - as they wouldn't have been aware of the benefit in the first place.

 

[JohnK]

Is this change/clarification likely to cause that much distress? One is still able to access the relevant lounge at each airport and if one really needs to visit the CX lounges in HKG then purchase a CX business class/first class airfare.

 

[mannej]

Is this change/clarification likely to cause that much distress? One is still able to access the relevant lounge at each airport and if one really needs to visit the CX lounges in HKG then purchase a CX business class/first class airfare.

Well John, I disagree. Was able to pick up 2 QF J fares home for March next year, looking forward to trying out the CX lounges as per the rules at the time.
Disappointed with the change of rules, however the CX fare is out of the question. QF lounge it is for me

 

[oz_mark]

Well John, I disagree. Was able to pick up 2 QF J fares home for March next year, looking forward to trying out the CX lounges as per the rules at the time.
Disappointed with the change of rules, however the CX fare is out of the question. QF lounge it is for me

I wouldn't rule out getting access to the CX HKG lounges. At this moment, the CX website would suggest that you can get in being on a one world carrier.

Lounge Admittance, International Airports - Cathay Pacific

(Now, of course, by March that could change....)

 

[serfty]

I would argue HKG lounge set up is effective and anything but inefficient - at least from the CX passenger point of view. The main reason HKG have so many lounges are the CX lounges themselves, and these are set up in such a way to be close to different departure gates. It is a long way from say the Wing to the outer gates near the Pier and even the gates near the Cabin. So if you lump all the CX/KA lounges together as one (which from a quality point of view they more or less are) you only have QF & CX operating OW lounges - ie 2 OW J lounges, 2 OW F lounges and a contract lounge operated for JL and RJ.

How many airports in the world will this affect where the quality of one carrier's lounges are significantly better than other accessible alternatives (ie accessible airside within same terminal)? Perhaps MEL, SIN, NRT, HKG, LHR? Anywhere in the US - perhaps where BA and AA both operate lounges? For the vast majority of once or twice a year flyers I would guess this change would have no impact - as they wouldn't have been aware of the benefit in the first place.

Interestingly relevant is Qantas's plan to build Newson/Perry style First lounges at HKG SIN and the redeveloped TBIT at LAX.

 

[simongr]

I think this is a big change for those affected but something of a win for OWE/OWS. In theory the better lounges should be emptier. It might also explain part of the rationale for the new F lounge at HKG for QF.

I don't think it is a positive move for OW overall.

As I said early in the thread serfty - this makes the inexplicable investment in a new HKG F lounge more explicable.

 

[simongr]

How many airports in the world will this affect where the quality of one carrier's lounges are significantly better than other accessible alternatives (ie accessible airside within same terminal)? Perhaps MEL, SIN, NRT, HKG, LHR? Anywhere in the US - perhaps where BA and AA both operate lounges? For the vast majority of once or twice a year flyers I would guess this change would have no impact - as they wouldn't have been aware of the benefit in the first place.

My thoughts:

Major impacted airports:

NRT - the quality of the non JL lounges is very low
LHR T3 - AA lounge is poor, new CX lounge I havent been to. BA lounge wins hands down
HKG - again the quality of the CX lounge is head and shoulders above the rest

Not major

SIN - Smaller number of transiting pax who wont have access to the BA/QF lounge
JFK - I dont think the impact will be huge given that carriers are terminal based so you wont be missing out on something you can currently do
FRA - CX lounge is/was carp but the BA lounge wasn't even open when I transited there

 

[medhead]

FRA - CX lounge is/was carp but the BA lounge wasn't even open when I transited there

They let me use the JAL lounge at FRA in April this year as WP. Good not to be the CX one.

 

[serfty]

There's also a change to Elite access!

There is another change that I have only just noticed. See here: (Lounge access - oneworld)

oneworld lounge access for frequent flyers by tier status Enjoy exclusive access to premium airport lounges around the world as an equivalent oneworld Emerald or Sapphire frequent flyer member. Members of oneworld airline frequent flyer programmes with the equivalent of oneworld Emerald or Sapphire status can use any lounge offered by any oneworld airline when departing on any flight marketed or operated by any oneworld member airline, no matter in which cabin class they are flying. ...

It used to be "operated and marketed", it is now stating "marketed or operated". Here is what it used to state:

Lounge Access by Tier Status

Emerald: When travelling on any of the oneworld member airlines, any customer who has earned Emerald tier status, is welcome (with one guest travelling on a flight operated and marketed by a oneworld airline) at any oneworld airlines' pre-flight lounges, including First Class, Business Class and frequent flyer lounges regardless of the class they are travelling in.

Sapphire: When travelling on any oneworld member airline, any customer with Sapphire tier status is welcome (with one guest travelling on a flight operated and marketed by a oneworld airline) at any oneworld airlines' pre-flight Business Class and frequent flyer lounges regardless of class of travel.

Qantas and AA both contradict this "marketed or operated": Admirals Club ( R ) Lounge Access:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 634"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 24%"]Passenger Type[/TD]
[TD="width: 24%, align: center"]Admirals Club Lounge[/TD]
[TD="width: 20%, align: center"]Flagship Lounge[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]oneworld[SUP]TM[/SUP] Customers[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Emerald*

[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Yes[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Yes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Guests^[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Yes, 1 Guest[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Yes, 1 Guest per visit[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sapphire*

[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Yes[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Guests^[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Yes, 1 Guest[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Not Applicable[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ruby

[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]No[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Guests^[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Not Applicable[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Not Applicable[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Credentials required: oneworld customers must be departing on a oneworld operated and marketed flight and, produce government-issued photo identification and, an Emerald or Sapphire frequent flyer membership card or, a First or Business Class boarding pass for the journey's international segment on the same day or before 6:00 a.m. the following day. Stopovers are not permitted. ...

oneworld Airlines Member (Qantas lounge access):

oneworld Airlines Member (Qantas lounge access) [TABLE="class: basic"]
[TR]
[TH]oneworld status[/TH]
[TH]International First Lounge[/TH]
[TH]International Business Lounge[/TH]
[TH]Domestic Business Lounge[/TH]
[TH]The Qantas Club (Domestic lounge)[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt"]
[TD="class: vMiddle"]

Emerald​

[/TD]
[TD]Next onward flight that day must be on a oneworld operated and marketed flight[SUP]#[/SUP]. One guest allowed[/TD]
[TD]Next onward flight that day must be on a oneworld operated and marketed flight[SUP]#[/SUP]. One guest allowed[/TD]
[TD]Next onward flight that day must be on a oneworld operated and marketed flight[SUP]#[/SUP]. One guest allowed[/TD]
[TD]Next onward flight that day must be on a oneworld operated and marketed flight[SUP]#[/SUP]. One guest allowed[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vMiddle"]

Sapphire​

[/TD]
[TD]No access[/TD]
[TD]Next onward flight that day must be on a oneworld operated and marketed flight[SUP]#[/SUP]. One guest allowed[/TD]
[TD]No access[/TD]
[TD]Next onward flight that day must be on a oneworld operated and marketed flight[SUP]#[/SUP]. One guest allowed[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt"]
[TD="class: vMiddle"]

Ruby​

[/TD]
[TD]No access[/TD]
[TD]No access[/TD]
[TD]No access[/TD]
[TD]No access[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Danger]

So this could be perceived as a positive change, yeah?

If Qantas was to adhere to the oneworld line then it would make lounge access when flying on non-oneworld codeshares a lot easier, I would think. For example, there would then no longer be any confusion about flying FJ to NAN: provided you're on the QF codeshare there's no reason why you shouldn't have F Lounge access as a Platinum. Similarly, SYD-ICN on Asiana.

 

[simongr]

So this could be perceived as a positive change, yeah?

If Qantas was to adhere to the oneworld line then it would make lounge access when flying on non-oneworld codeshares a lot easier, I would think. For example, there would then no longer be any confusion about flying FJ to NAN: provided you're on the QF codeshare there's no reason why you shouldn't have F Lounge access as a Platinum. Similarly, SYD-ICN on Asiana.

Some would argue that this lift in benefits will lead to over crowding in the lounges and has been "funded" by the cut back in access based on Class of Service.

 

[anat0l]

If Qantas was to adhere to the oneworld line then it would make lounge access when flying on non-oneworld codeshares a lot easier, I would think. For example, there would then no longer be any confusion about flying FJ to NAN: provided you're on the QF codeshare there's no reason why you shouldn't have F Lounge access as a Platinum. Similarly, SYD-ICN on Asiana.

Qantas elites already have access to the lounges when they fly on non-QF metal codeshares, provided they are booked on the QF code. oneworld elites do not have such a privilege, although this ambiguity (or new rule) may change all that.

 

[serfty]

Qantas elites already have access to the lounges when they fly on non-QF metal codeshares, provided they are booked on the QF code. oneworld elites do not have such a privilege, although this ambiguity (or new rule) may change all that.

That would be Qantas elites at Qantas lounges.

I just have an inkling something has slipped checks with the new updates to the oneworld web site. I foresee some further changes to one or more web sites more sooner or later.

 

[wilco]

Lounge access - oneworld

Emerald or Sapphire may still access any of the First or Business class lounges respectively.

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?????

I don't care if its operated or marketed or operated and marketed, it does not need to be this damn convoluted.

As for:

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/qantas-club-lounge-locations-africa/global/en

can't they just use one lounge for all/both of their departures?

and despite the above, As a QF WP or SG flying Y on either flight number, you can't use any of the SAA lounges. BA will only let you in if you are on QF64 in J or are WP/SG. WP's, SG's and J pax booked on the 304 service MUST use the Shongololo lounge.