[Confirmed Fixed - Maybe Not!] No LHR T5 Galleries access for QP before BA/QF flights

[jojen]

It really is time this matter was resolved.

What annoys Mr jojen & I is that we have been able to access the Galleries Lounge since Terminal 5 opened and now they are saying that we can only have access to Terraces or executive lounges !!!!!!!

Come on Qantas , let us know.

jojen

 

[serfty]

It really is time this matter was resolved. ...

Unfortunatly, I believe the matter has been resolved .

Since October, Qantas are not paying for QP members to access BA Galleries lounges. This was indicated in post #1 and I received conformation as indicated in post #2.

Unless Qantas decide to revisit this; don't expect to get QP membership based access to Galleries lounges before BA flights.

Whether this can be contested in courts etc. or Qantas would to publicly acknowledge this is another matter.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I agree serfty. What Qantas should do now ( if they don't intend to re-instate access) is publicly acknowledge and make it explicitly clear on their website that QP access to BA Lounges only applies to LHR T3 ( NOT T5), along with Manchester, Jersey and Newcastle.
The following section on the benefits of QP membership requires some drastic re-working:

"Partner LoungesWhen travelling with British Airways or American Airlines, as a Qantas Club member you and a guest are welcome in British Airways lounges (Terraces and Executive Club) and American Airlines Admirals Club lounges. Simply present your Qantas Club card together with your boarding pass at the lounge reception. Both you and your guest need to be travelling together further that day on a flight marketed^ and operated by the partner airline whose lounge you wish to visit. "

I'm sure any reasonable prospective QP member would take that to mean "if I'm flying BA I can use their lounge"

 

[jpk]

This is deliberately misleading to customers. The vast majority would never understand the difference in lounge names. Another very disappointing and cynical move by Qantas.

 

[tuapekastar]

I agree serfty. What Qantas should do now ( if they don't intend to re-instate access) is publicly acknowledge and make it explicitly clear on their website that QP access to BA Lounges only applies to LHR T3 ( NOT T5), along with Manchester, Jersey and Newcastle.
The following section on the benefits of QP membership requires some drastic re-working:

"Partner LoungesWhen travelling with British Airways or American Airlines, as a Qantas Club member you and a guest are welcome in British Airways lounges (Terraces and Executive Club) and American Airlines Admirals Club lounges. Simply present your Qantas Club card together with your boarding pass at the lounge reception. Both you and your guest need to be travelling together further that day on a flight marketed^ and operated by the partner airline whose lounge you wish to visit. "

I'm sure any reasonable prospective QP member would take that to mean "if I'm flying BA I can use their lounge"

Along with about 8 in North America, 7 in Europe, and 2 in Africa (for now at least, according to ba.com).

I do agree with the general sentiment that it was a bad thing to revoke access, a worse thing to do it by stealth (hence causing unnecessary embarrassment and confusion at lounge entrances), and that as you state the Partner Lounge Access section quoted above, whilst strictly speaking correct, is actually misleading, and really needs some clarification.

 

[Kceips]

This is deliberately misleading to customers. The vast majority would never understand the difference in lounge names. Another very disappointing and cynical move by Qantas.

I agree wholeheartedly. The current website re partner lounges makes one assume that if flying with BA you will be granted lounge access. I want to be able to check the website before I fly and not get misleading info! Poor lounge dragons in T5 are the ones who have to cop a lot of jet lagged grumpy Aussies because the QA website is unclear.

 

[ajw373]

I wonder if anyone has taken the issue to the ACCC?

On what grounds could you take them to the ACCC? The T&C's of membership quite clearly state that the T&C's can change at anytime so even if this is a new change there isn't much you can do about it, except hand your membership in and get a refund. Also their speill about what lounges you have access to, although not clear to the unitiated is rightly or wrongly 100% correct.

 

[medhead]

On what grounds could you take them to the ACCC? The T&C's of membership quite clearly state that the T&C's can change at anytime so even if this is a new change there isn't much you can do about it, except hand your membership in and get a refund. Also their speill about what lounges you have access to, although not clear to the unitiated is rightly or wrongly 100% correct.

I agree it would be a bit of a stretch. But in addition to the points you mention the T&C also say they'll attempt to give 6 months notice of removal of benefits. Access has previously been granted, supporting the interpretation of that access includes all BA lounges. So failure to provide notice? ACCC matter? :?:


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[Flying mermaid]

I agree it would be a bit of a stretch. But in addition to the points you mention the T&C also say they'll attempt to give 6 months notice of removal of benefits. Access has previously been granted, supporting the interpretation of that access includes all BA lounges. So failure to provide notice? ACCC matter? :?:


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

I think it is not so much that there is a "case" with ACCC, but enough complaints to ACCC might interest them to play a part. If I remember correctly (and quite possibly I haven't), many years ago (late 90s/early 00s) , there were not very many award flights available and they were viewed as a bonus that you got and limited at that. ACCC took an interest in the matter and after taking up the issue with Qantas, award flights became much more plentiful and easily available. So it can't do any harm to have the consumer watchdog involved.... I might even motivate myself to write to them, given I have purchased two QP life for my children.

 

[ajw373]

I agree it would be a bit of a stretch. But in addition to the points you mention the T&C also say they'll attempt to give 6 months notice of removal of benefits. Access has previously been granted, supporting the interpretation of that access includes all BA lounges. So failure to provide notice? ACCC matter? :?:

No, because rember access to Galleries was never part of the T&C's, so technically speaking they haven't removed it, so bit hard to give 6 months notice of it's removal if it was never a documented benifit.

I know this will upset some, but I have never quite understood why Qantas should give access to BA and AA lounges to paid members. Sulrey paid membership should be just for their own lounges, or lounges where the passenger is flying on Qantas, which is allowed in London T3.

 

[Danger]

No, because rember access to Galleries was never part of the T&C's, so technically speaking they haven't removed it, so bit hard to give 6 months notice of it's removal if it was never a documented benifit.

As one who enjoys splitting hairs with the best of them, I take your point but I think what we're seeing on QF's part is a real cop-out.

It's a name. To me, it's no different from Qantas going from QANTAS the acronym to Qantas the non-acronym. Purely aesthetics. It doesn't change the underlying product or service.

By your reasoning (which I respect) a BA Club World passenger could be denied access to a oneworld Business lounge because the person is flying Club, not Business, a decision based purely on name.

While Galleries access is not explicitly stated in the T&Cs, it has certainly been the case in practice. This document, for example, clearly suggests (unambiguously, in my opinion) that Galleries access, at least in T5, has been possible for Qantas Club members (see point six in particular EDIT: point nine).

If we are to always take the QF website at face value, we'd be in a lot of trouble. Most of us could point to at least one inaccurate statement or piece of misleading information generated by the website. For example, the points calculator says QF doesn't fly PER-SIN, only JQ does. Wrong.

As I said, I think this is a cop-out. Given the handful of cases others have posted here about conversations with BA lounge staff, I think QF has seen the opportunity to save some dollars.

I know this will upset some, but I have never quite understood why Qantas should give access to BA and AA lounges to paid members. Sulrey paid membership should be just for their own lounges, or lounges where the passenger is flying on Qantas, which is allowed in London T3.

I think this has to do with the JSA (in BA's case) but I'm not up with the detail.

 

[whughes3]

I recall the last time something like this happened; it was some years ago when lounge access for QC members was eliminated at airports served only by QF codeshares (eg. TPE, SGN, SEL). In this case, the change was announced quite prominently, well in advance; despite the fact that it would potentially have affected more people than this one does, I don't recall it attracting much in the way of criticism, or even comment.

 

[tuapekastar]

I know this will upset some, but I have never quite understood why Qantas should give access to BA and AA lounges to paid members. Sulrey paid membership should be just for their own lounges, or lounges where the passenger is flying on Qantas, which is allowed in London T3.

Not a case of whether they should or shouldn't (that's another debate, and TBH, I'm not fussed either way), fact is, they did. And now they don't . And people who purchased QP memberships when they did, got access, and now they don't get access (BA Galleries only, obviously). So for those who made significant use of the various BA lounges, solely as Terraces/Executive, then also as Galleries as lounges morphed into those, the value of what they purchased has decreased significantly.

It has been reported that QP members have been successful at cancelling their membership and getting a refund as a result of these changes. So that option may be open to members who wish to do that - it's a personal value judgment for each member to make.

 

[medhead]

No, because rember access to Galleries was never part of the T&C's, so technically speaking they haven't removed it, so bit hard to give 6 months notice of it's removal if it was never a documented benifit.

That's why I had a :?: However, you are missing my point. Regardless of what the T&C say they have in fact provided access to QP members. Those members have used that access in good faith. It has now been taken away.

Basically, this is a case where expectations of the customer are framed by the behaviour of the "provider". There could be people who have used this behaviour to purchase life memberships in good faith. If we go on technicalities they would not even be due a refund for reduced benefits. yet they may have spent money on the basis of misleading behaviour. (NB I'm not saying deceptive as that would require intent IMO)

As I said it is a stretch, but that might be a basis of raising the situation with whoever.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[ajw373]

While Galleries access is not explicitly stated in the T&Cs, it has certainly been the case in practice. This document, for example, clearly suggests (unambiguously, in my opinion) that Galleries access, at least in T5, has been possible for Qantas Club members (see point six in particular).

I assume you meant point 9 (access to lounges) rather than 6. In which case two points. Firstly there is a disclaimer to visit the Qantas website for more info, secondly if you take the statement on face value it also infers access to OneWorld carrier lounges is available, which isn't and has never been the case.

"- Qantas Club cardholders (in BA or oneworld carrier owned and operated lounges)
For more information, visit qantas.com (access to associated lounges)."

I think this has to do with the JSA (in BA's case) but I'm not up with the detail.

The JSA is what gives Qantas clubs members access to T3 and Bangkok (which is considered a BA run lounge). Intra-europe is a pure code share issue so not JSA related.

Anyway don't get me wrong, playing on semantics is not a good thing and the whole issue does need to be clarified one way or another.

 

[ajw373]

Not a case of whether they should or shouldn't (that's another debate, and TBH, I'm not fussed either way), fact is, they did. And now they don't .

Agreed it is another debate, though maybe this is the start of a push to do exactly what I said, limit access to Qantas owned lounges and Qantas flights.

 

[casanovawa]

At least if it was raised with the ACCC and they asked Qantas they might get a response, unlike what all of us have been able to do, one way or the other... Which is what Ombudmans and other watchdogs are meant to do, get the attention of companies when the customers can't...

 

[serfty]

...
Anyway don't get me wrong, playing on semantics is not a good thing and the whole issue does need to be clarified one way or another.

The issue has been responded to by CS and the answer given, so requires no further clarification.

The question is, will Qantas change their non-galleries policy?

I think not.

 

[Danger]

The issue is clear so requires no further clarification.

I respectfully disagree.

Prior to 14 October (or whatever the aforementioned date was) Qantas Club members were able to access Galleries lounges. Granted, Galleries lounges are not explicitly stated as a benefit, but BA lounge access is.

Something has changed and evidence from some users clearly suggests QF has stopped paying the bill.

That's a downgrade of benefit, whether it was explicitly stated as one or not is, I believe, irrelevant.

I support those who are seeking clarification: what's changed, Qantas? Why access then and not now?

 

[Flying mermaid]

I recall the last time something like this happened; it was some years ago when lounge access for QC members was eliminated at airports served only by QF codeshares (eg. TPE, SGN, SEL). In this case, the change was announced quite prominently, well in advance; despite the fact that it would potentially have affected more people than this one does, I don't recall it attracting much in the way of criticism, or even comment.

Well this goes back to a point I was whining on about some weeks ago. Treating people with courtesy and notifying them defuses the issue. People might have had a little hissy fit privately, but they knew exactly what was happening and when it was happening. In this case (presumably because Qantas wanted to be able to claim nothing had changed), the change was not notified or publicised, which has led to huge amounts of speculation and angst.