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

[Red Roo]

I wasn't going to bite at this because my mom always said 'if you can't say something nice...' - but since others have commented I agree that the handling of this could have been better.

At the end of the day, we have a report saying BA has denied access because QF doesn't want to pay. I can probably believe this was a statement by BA to try and make themselves look better, and could be due to other reasons such as overcrowding.

However, I also believe that everything has its price. Overcrowding might be overlooked if QF was willing to fork out GBP25 per entry (or whatever).

So to that end, this could have been resoved with a simple phone call along the lines of 'how much will it cost us to extend the agreement to Galleries Lounges'...

If QF had come back and said we need time for the board to consider the additional expense I could understand... but to i'm not sure I accept it is going to take days (on top of the month or so already) to get a price from BA.

I am not sure who at BA said that denied lounge access is because Qantas does not want to pay, but I can say this in completely incorrect. Money is not the issue here.

I am hoping to come back to you with a resolution/update by tomorrow.

Cheers,
Red Roo

 

[reductionist]

I am not sure who at BA said that denied lounge access is because Qantas does not want to pay, but I can say this in completely incorrect. Money is not the issue here.

Yeah, I can totally imagine how an off-the-cuff and sarcastic comment like "QF doesn't want to pay" could easily turn into fact. Sounds like that is what happened here.

Even if it was true, it's a shame that they started relaying it onto passengers.

Thanks for clarifying Red Roo.

 

[Moopere]

Yeah, I can totally imagine how an off-the-cuff and sarcastic comment like "QF doesn't want to pay" could easily turn into fact. Sounds like that is what happened here.

Even if it was true, it's a shame that they started relaying it onto passengers.

Thanks for clarifying Red Roo.

Mmm.

I'm betting this will come down to dollars actually.

You'd have to think that Aussies carrying QP cards would only be a small fraction of the traffic BA would see at any of its own lounges, so, seems strange to me that it would be a congestion based issue.

A rate per visit per pax will have been brokered for the Terraces lounges, now that BA is revamping at least some (if not all, over time) its Terraces into Galleries, at some cost to them, it seems to me that they will have wanted to renegotiate the rate per visit - why would you even bother to rename your lounges just because they'd had a facelift otherwise?

It seems unbelievable to me that someone at either the BA or QF end didn't cotton on to this and you'd have to assume that negotiations over rate were ongoing, but, at a certain point, BA's deadline was reached and access ceased given that no new agreement on payment had been reached.

If I'm wrong, and the issue really is about access, congestion, "eliteness" of the pax, then you'd be wondering about now what the ramifications might be across the board in the previously pretty cosy and friendly relationship between QF and BA. Seems strange to me that all of a sudden, after many years, BA is strenuously objecting to paid lounge access for a tiny number of pax (QP's) - surely they just want to get paid?

 

[ishin]

Irrespective of who said what, we pay Qantas a fee to gain access to a facility and have an expectation of a service no matter what name changes are made... I.e "gallery" vs "terraces"...T5 vs T3.. Whatever lounge is in Heathrow to cater for non first class passengers.

Qantas should have been aware of what's going on as they must have priced this component into the QP membership.

To let their customers suffer the humiliation associated with rejection at the door is nothing short of scandalous.

 

[Flying mermaid]

I am not sure who at BA said that denied lounge access is because Qantas does not want to pay, but I can say this in completely incorrect. Money is not the issue here.

I am hoping to come back to you with a resolution/update by tomorrow.

Cheers,
Red Roo

Extract from an e-mail conversation last week with Dr FM (my oldest daughter), who is travelling in UK/Europe.
Dr FM

"Also the reason why can't get access to terminal 5 qantas decided not to continue to pay BA to use their lounge"

Me

"Is that what they told you at the lounge?"

Dr FM

"And yes that's what they told me at the lounge"

I think this is typical of what happens without speedy official statements - rumour and speculation abound and lounge dragons are not necessarily more in the know than anyone else. However they become the "official" source in a vacuum.

Thank-you for both the updates we have had recently and Qantas' efforts to get this resolved.

 

[JohnPhelan]

If I'm wrong, and the issue really is about access, congestion, "eliteness" of the pax, then you'd be wondering about now what the ramifications might be across the board in the previously pretty cosy and friendly relationship between QF and BA. Seems strange to me that all of a sudden, after many years, BA is strenuously objecting to paid lounge access for a tiny number of pax (QP's) - surely they just want to get paid?

I am very aware that BA has copped a lot of negativity from its Executive Club members and F and J pax who simply do not want paid members in the BA lounges - their view is that you should get in only by class of travel or status.

It won't just be Qantas affected by this; AA also has paid memberships.

Of course, BA may be being a bit clever - and saying, "alright, you can have access for your paid members, but we'll charge you $100 (or whatever) per entry!"

At any rate, I go back to the original comment I made very early in this thread - it will be BA that is causing the problem, not Qantas. Don't ever underestimate how strongly a lot of BA pax feel about the whole 'paid membership' issue ........

 

[JetLagged]

Irrespective of who said what, we pay Qantas a fee to gain access to a facility and have an expectation of a service no matter what name changes are made... I.e "gallery" vs "terraces"...T5 vs T3.. Whatever lounge is in Heathrow to cater for non first class passengers. Qantas should have been aware of what's going on as they must have priced this component into the QP membership. To let their customers suffer the humiliation associated with rejection at the door is nothing short of scandalous.

Actually, it falls WAY short of anything close to being scandolous! Sorry, I have read nothing in these posts arising from what seems to have been confirmed as poor BA information or the like, to justify usage of the highly charged word 'scandalous': who has been scandalised? Has the News of the World been involved? Has secret payouts or commissions taken place? Given the definition of scandalous as:
(a.) opprobrious; as, a scandalous crime or vice.
(a.) Defamatory; libelous; as, a scandalous story.
(a.) Giving offense to the conscience or moral feelings; exciting reprobation; calling out condemnation.

Now, the issue has caused inconvenience to people, that is quite true. Some people might indeed ghave had thoughts and instincts of reprobation or angst. But we do need to properly cnahhnel those feelings and direct them to the actual causal agent, which in this case is BA, not Qantas. If two parties make and agreement then one party changes that agreement to suit themselves, then the other party is hardly held responsible for the failure of the party of the first part. Yes, consideration of ancilliary charges for use of faciltities is likely to be factored into the price, but again - when one of the parties changes the costings and access etc (without due consultatrion with their partners in the alliance), then do you blame all of the other members of the partnership?

 

[ishin]

Considering you quote the dictionary, maybe you don't need your spell checker?

I'll stick by my term scandalous thank you.... What Qantas ( and BA) have done is wrong.. They were aware this was an issue and yet did nothing to resolve it or notify potentially affected parties that they should not attempt to gain entry to what are business lounges in T5...causing in some cases severe ( yup strong word and I'm sure you will give me the meaning of it in your condescending manner...ooops there I go again !) Irrespective of what they decide to call them... A reasonable person reading what lounges were available, would assume that a BA business lounge was a BA business lounge

 

[ajw373]

It certainly was a published benefit back when BA had terraces lounges at LHR T4.

QP membership was promoted as having BA lounge access before a BA flight as a benefit. Methinx QP management saw a way to save some $$$ and were hoping few would notice this galleries/terraces difference, and those who did would not have clout to argue it. They might not have anticipated social media promotion to the extent that has occurred.

Given that RR has finally posted the powers that be seem to have decided to revisit the issue.

The question you replied to said technically. Well technically the T&C's have said terraces and and execuative club but never galleries. So what was on offer when T4 was open is irrelevant as that benefit still stands, and technically access to galleries has never been a published benefit, except at T3 when traveling on QF.

 

[Flashback]

I am not sure who at BA said that denied lounge access is because Qantas does not want to pay, but I can say this in completely incorrect. Money is not the issue here.

I am hoping to come back to you with a resolution/update by tomorrow.

Cheers,
Red Roo

Hi Red Roo,

It looks like the powers that be (for you) weren't able to give you an update yet. Do you have any more of an idea as to when further information may be incoming?

 

[oz_mark]

Hi Red Roo,

It looks like the powers that be (for you) weren't able to give you an update yet. Do you have any more of an idea as to when further information may be incoming?

#QantasLuxury is being able to access T5 Galleries :mrgreen:

 

[MEL_Traveller]

#QantasLuxury is being able to access T5 Galleries :mrgreen:

haha! very clever

a comment on twitter that the qf on line team simply seems to be there to say 'sorry' but is not actually prepared to get down and help people. I have said for some time we actually need a proactive rep like on the BA board, or on many of the hotel boards... where reps actually look at individual cases where assistance has been requested.

one interesting tweet by a passenger claims he is about to be charged $60 to change one letter in the name of a booking (passenger mistake).

qantas replies they are unable to waive the fee.

nothing mentioned that a one letter mistake is highly unlkely to cause a problem and the passengers would be fine to fly... (not even an offer of assistance to look at the mistake and determine whether it is material or not...)

sorry to be so negative... but we do seem to get a lot of 'sorry' here...

 

[bcworld]

a comment on twitter that the qf on line team simply seems to be there to say 'sorry' but is not actually prepared to get down and help people. I have said for some time we actually need a proactive rep like on the BA board, or on many of the hotel boards... where reps actually look at individual cases where assistance has been requested.

OT: I wonder if it sets a bit of dangerous precendent though. I've seen people on the QF Facebook page quote their PNR when looking for help. Well there you go...enough information to access MMB straight away!

 

[simongr]

OT: I wonder if it sets a bit of dangerous precendent though. I've seen people on the QF Facebook page quote their PNR when looking for help. Well there you go...enough information to access MMB straight away!

So what? What could someone do with that information really? Cancel the flight? Change seat selection?

I guess they could get the FF number and potentially then try to hack the account by using 1234/0000 as the PIN. Maybe they could get a phone number and start stalking someone but is the risk really that large?

 

[amaroo]

I have said for some time we actually need a proactive rep like on the BA board,

From personal experience I would add my sentiments to this statement.

BAEC, are very active on FT and not only invite but encourage request for assistance.....Nicci, is very much respected & loved and no doubt is a major positive influence for their members.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

OT: I wonder if it sets a bit of dangerous precendent though. I've seen people on the QF Facebook page quote their PNR when looking for help. Well there you go...enough information to access MMB straight away!

the usual method seems to be problem is identified, then rep comes on and says they'll have a look and its all done by PM.

I know we are getting OT here but while I'm reading twitter (first time in a long time) there was an interesting exchange where one person says 'coughk all you Qantas haters, I like you'.... the response by QF was 'thanks for the support '

Not even a 'we dont condone language like that... nothing... just a 'thanks '... c'mon!! lift your game!! Confirm my earlier suspicions that it is a couple of very young inexperienced people handling this (along with their 'let's play "I-spy" suggestion when people were on hold for 8 or 9 hours during the ash disruption).

 

[mannej]

haha! very clever

a comment on twitter that the qf on line team simply seems to be there to say 'sorry' but is not actually prepared to get down and help people. I have said for some time we actually need a proactive rep like on the BA board, or on many of the hotel boards... where reps actually look at individual cases where assistance has been requested.

one interesting tweet by a passenger claims he is about to be charged $60 to change one letter in the name of a booking (passenger mistake).

qantas replies they are unable to waive the fee.

nothing mentioned that a one letter mistake is highly unlkely to cause a problem and the passengers would be fine to fly... (not even an offer of assistance to look at the mistake and determine whether it is material or not...)

sorry to be so negative... but we do seem to get a lot of 'sorry' here...

Have you used either Redroo of the QF Twitter team to help you out with any issues?

For the situation you claim, unless the passenger booked extremely late at night, there is the Qantas Flight Guarantee which would allow them to make changes such as name changes on the day that they made the booking Qantas Flight Guarantee | Free Changes on Day of Booking , so yes you could look at waiving fees etc, however there are pathways for this to be corrected FOC. As for the advice such as it is unlikely to cause a problem... that is dangerous.

As for using Redroo and the QF Twitter team, for some funny reason I have had more luck out of them compared with other airlines such as MH and JQ. I had trouble getting a FF number to stick to a classic award (this type of problem has been documented here), it was fixed over twitter (no need for public messages), and RedRoo has always answered questions that I have asked of him.
I had issues with a JQ booking not sending to my email (not an isolated problem it seems), JQ twitter team had one message of wait 48 hours, never replied to anything else, and even played with my booking to a point the operator on the phone had to apologise (but fixed quite easily). MH- don't even bother, they are more happy to let check in sort all their problems out.

I am ready to get flamed for this comment, but from my opinion (and opinion only), the VA/DJ rep on here is on par with RedRoo. They seem to pick and choose when to post. I agree I don't get to see how and when they react to member's PM's. I don't know what the BA rep is like on FT, so I can't comment. If the BA rep is the benchmark, I guess both reps on here should be aspiring to learn of BA.

*As for your comment regarding the language, I imagine if they did make note of it, there would be people out there telling to lighten up. You are never going to please everyone.

 

[bcworld]

So what? What could someone do with that information really? Cancel the flight?

Well I would've thought that was quite an undesirable outcome!

All I'm saying is not sure if twitter / FB is the best medium dealing with individual customer service issues.

 

[simongr]

bcworld - I see where you are coming from - I just get annoyed that people seem to be so precious about personal information of every sort and not just the real risky information. I agree I personally wouldn't fixing a problem through FB or twitter - I would just call the platinum line.

I have only used FB to remark on how great the terrine was in the F lounge.

 

[BD1959]

I am not sure who at BA said that denied lounge access is because Qantas does not want to pay, but I can say this in completely incorrect. Money is not the issue here.

I am hoping to come back to you with a resolution/update by tomorrow.

Cheers,
Red Roo

Looking forward to Red Roo's clarification on access rights, not only to dispell any "rumours" concerning QF's withdrawing funding, but also QF's official line over the past 6 weeks that access was never granted at T5.

Regards,

BD