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

[docjames]

Not making excuses but there is every chance Red Roo is still away.

It wasnt directed at Red Roo.

 

[Princess Fiona]

And Red Roo isn't on holiday AFAIK

 

[medhead]

I think a lot of people will just have to come to terms with the fact that Lounge Access at LHR T5 is just not going to happen. I cannot see a resolution to this.

I suspect people who complain to Qantas about the value of their life time QC Membership will be pointed in the direction of the Terms & Conditions which basically state that Qantas can do whatever they want and maybe be given a bottle of wine or a F Lounge voucher as a "Go Away"gift.

That is one of the risks of buying a Left-Time Membership to anything I guess.

They also say:

4.4 If Qantas closes a Qantas operated airport lounge in a Member's registered city of residence without replacing it, or amends these Terms and Conditions or the Club Rules in a way that deprives the Member substantially of the intended use of the membership, the Member will have the option of cancelling their membership and receiving a pro rata refund of the membership fee for the remaining period of membership.

Now user_ asked for a refund on the basis that they were deprived substanially of their intended use, I assume. The Qantas reply was, Qantas didn't make the change. This is always going to be the case for changes to BA lounges, in particular T5, which has always been officially off limits as I understand it. However, one all the terraces turn into galleries, don't we now have a case that previous access is no longer available and members who have paid up to get that access are now (potentially) substantially deprived of their intended use. Now if it is a case of BA just enfording a rule (as Qantas would have us believe) then it is going to take a mess of arguing to get a refund under clause 4.4 of the T&C. On the other hand if this access is now deprived because Qantas refuses to pay the fee demanded by BA for the galleries, when they previously paid the fee for the terraces lounge, after a simple name change; Then it is a pretty short step to say that Qantas have amended something that has (potentially) deprived members of their intended use.



SWMBO, just walked passed and said "Hell, what's going on? Have you written Henceforth?" Me:no Her:"You will". No respect!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

They also say:



Now user_ asked for a refund on the basis that they were deprived substanially of their intended use, I assume. The Qantas reply was, Qantas didn't make the change. This is always going to be the case for changes to BA lounges, in particular T5, which has always been officially off limits as I understand it. However, one all the terraces turn into galleries, don't we now have a case that previous access is no longer available and members who have paid up to get that access are now (potentially) substantially deprived of their intended use. Now if it is a case of BA just enfording a rule (as Qantas would have us believe) then it is going to take a mess of arguing to get a refund under clause 4.4 of the T&C. On the other hand if this access is now deprived because Qantas refuses to pay the fee demanded by BA for the galleries, when they previously paid the fee for the terraces lounge, after a simple name change; Then it is a pretty short step to say that Qantas have amended something that has (potentially) deprived members of their intended use.



SWMBO, just walked passed and said "Hell, what's going on? Have you written Henceforth?" Me:no Her:"You will". No respect!

given that when the original wording was drawn up there was no such thing as a gallery lounge, I think we do have a leg to stand on.

two reasons why I think BA lounges were actually defined previously... firstly, they wanted to make sure that when it said 'access to BA lounges' they did NOT mean 3rd party lounges.

secondly, we have to remember that there used to only ever be executive club lounges. so any clarification could have actually been intended to increase the benefit... so it was telling us we would get access to the old executive club lounges AND the new terraces ones (but still defining those so as to exclude third party ones).

given that all lounges will eventually be redesigned as galleries (I think).. we are pretty soon going to end up with no lounge access on BA. and that is a material difference.

however... for others, still having AA access will be beneficial...

 

[Moopere]

Europe Associated Lounge access as at 24/1/2009

 

[medhead]

given that when the original wording was drawn up there was no such thing as a gallery lounge, I think we do have a leg to stand on.

I agree that there is a material change and I will always suggest using the refund clause, if it is that important to you, as it is really the only mechanism to send a financial message to Qantas. Unfortunately, the T&C do say that the change has to be due to an action by Qantas. The sticking point will be showing/proving that Qantas caused the reduction.

 

[ajw373]

Europe Associated Lounge access as at 24/1/2009

View attachment 5363

Since first seeing this page a week or so back I have been thinking some more. If you look at it that page is common for all Qantas frequent flyers weather they are gold/platinums or Qantas club. So the fact that galleries in T5 is mentioned in THIS location doesn't necessarily mean access for Qantas clubs members was allowed. In fact if you click on the lounge access link (as opposed to lounge locations link) on the SAME archived page you get a list of who can access what including the following specifically for Qantas Club members:

"Access to Partner airline lounges

In addition to Qantas Club lounges, you can relax in British Airways lounges^ (Terraces and Executive Club lounges) and American Airlines® Admirals Club lounges."

Additionally could Qantas club members access the Frankfurt lounge, which according to the lounge page is operated by Cathay?

So still as clear as mud isn't it?

 

[jojen]

It would be interesting to know exactly how many Qantas Club members have had access to the Galleries lounges from the time Terminal 5 opened until access was denied in October.


jojen

 

[medhead]

Additionally could Qantas club members access the Frankfurt lounge, which according to the lounge page is operated by Cathay?

Yes, I did so in 2007.

 

[The Rok]

So in reality it is not BA's problem. This is more a case of QF over promising and under delivering. Perhaps if enough people feel that strongly about it then sue QF in a class action law suit (or at lease threaten to) in order to get a refund of paid Q Club membership.

I dunno, what else do you do. Other than suck it up I guess.


RUNNING FOR COVER NOW.

They also say:



Now user_ asked for a refund on the basis that they were deprived substanially of their intended use, I assume. The Qantas reply was, Qantas didn't make the change. This is always going to be the case for changes to BA lounges, in particular T5, which has always been officially off limits as I understand it. However, one all the terraces turn into galleries, don't we now have a case that previous access is no longer available and members who have paid up to get that access are now (potentially) substantially deprived of their intended use. Now if it is a case of BA just enfording a rule (as Qantas would have us believe) then it is going to take a mess of arguing to get a refund under clause 4.4 of the T&C. On the other hand if this access is now deprived because Qantas refuses to pay the fee demanded by BA for the galleries, when they previously paid the fee for the terraces lounge, after a simple name change; Then it is a pretty short step to say that Qantas have amended something that has (potentially) deprived members of their intended use.



SWMBO, just walked passed and said "Hell, what's going on? Have you written Henceforth?" Me:no Her:"You will". No respect!

As per my previous quote, if people feel that strongly then take them to court. I don believe Qantas are going to resolve this situation, no matter how many more pages the thread goes on for. At very least I see no reason why you would not get a pro rata refund of QC Membership. It would never reach the courts, and I think despite what I read on here from so many people I could probably count on one hand how many would actually seek the refund and cancellation of QC Membership. (How many people actually bought it for BA Lounge access?)

I am not having a go, I am not a QC Member so I guess it doesn't affect me, but if you don't like the changes then you know what your next course of action is, somebody is going to have to force Qantas into a corner, I would imagine a Solicitors letter advising of a lawsuit if QC is not refunded would be sufficient to garner a result.

Debating who is at fault, Qantas or British Airways is entirely pointless, as is assuming it is a cost issue in so far as Qantas will not pay British Airways. BA does not allow any "Club" members into its lounges, so I doubt this is a cost issue but more to do with BA looking to raise the standard and profile of its Lounges.

People seem to of gone to huge lengths to uncover evidence from old QF publications regarding "How it was back in the old days". It doesn't matter, send it to Qantas and tell them you want a refund. This thread goes round and round in circles. Tell the person that can make a difference.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

As per my previous quote, if people feel that strongly then take them to court. I don believe Qantas are

I am not having a go, I am not a QC Member so I guess it doesn't affect me, but if you don't like the changes then you know what your next course of action is, somebody is going to have to force Qantas into a corner, I would imagine a Solicitors letter advising of a lawsuit if QC is not refunded would be sufficient to garner a result.

(my underlining)

force qantas... perhaps a lockout of all qantas clubs? similar action seems to get other disputes resolved pdq

 

[medhead]

As per my previous quote, if people feel that strongly then take them to court..

Actually, I was replying to your point about the T&C. That reply was about interpreting the T&C, which is required before deciding what action will be taken, be it to sue or otherwise.

 

[The Rok]

Actually, I was replying to your point about the T&C. That reply was about interpreting the T&C, which is required before deciding what action will be taken, be it to sue or otherwise.

Well Thats fair enough. But I am not about to go and read 700 pages of Terms & Conditions of QC Membership but I would bet my bottom dollar there is something in there that basically says they can do whatever they want.

I am guessing that LHR T5 is no ones home port? I would also imagine that there is a condition in the T&C's that says Qantas cannot be held responsible for a situation that affects QC Membership by 3rd parties.

i.e. British Airways moving the goal posts.

We can debate it all day, I am not saying that one side is right and the other is wrong, nor am i debating the terms and conditions, each will interpret them differently, I am simply suggesting that if people fee that strongly there is a course of action they can take. 492 posts on AFF is not going to resolve this issue.

 

[docjames]

492 posts on AFF is not going to resolve this issue.

Neither is Qantas apparently.

 

[kooky]

I think 493 is great, a real show of hands, hopefully it can get on a few radars. The more that are upset about it, the more QF will realise it's more than a handful of people that are peeved.

 

[medhead]

Well Thats fair enough. But I am not about to go and read 700 pages of Terms & Conditions of QC Membership but I would bet my bottom dollar there is something in there that basically says they can do whatever they want.

I am guessing that LHR T5 is no ones home port? I would also imagine that there is a condition in the T&C's that says Qantas cannot be held responsible for a situation that affects QC Membership by 3rd parties.
.

Of course the T&C say that but, as I pointed out, they also say that a refund is available if there is a change that substantially reduces the intended use of the member (the home port bit is a separate tigger for a refund). There are only about 4 clauses to read about this stuff. So while you are right that qantas can do whatever they want, there is also a protection for people in being able to get a refund. That is simply a fact, it is not a debate.

In addition to mentioning clause 4.4, I then went of to discuss how/or if that clause could be activated in this case. This is an important discussion because clause 4.4 has equal standing with any clauses that say Qantas can do what they want. The key question is whether this change is due to BA or due to QF (by refusing to pay) and that question has not been answered yet.

Again that is not a debate. But that discussion is not really helped by mentioning that qantas can do whatever they want, because that part of the T&C does not invalidate clause 4.4.

 

[jojen]

I think 493 is great, a real show of hands, hopefully it can get on a few radars. The more that are upset about it, the more QF will realise it's more than a handful of people that are peeved.

I agree !!!!!!

And maybe the end result will be a satisfactory outcome when Qantas finally sort this matter out.

jojen

 

[The Rok]

Of course the T&C say that but, as I pointed out, they also say that a refund is available if there is a change that substantially reduces the intended use of the member (the home port bit is a separate tigger for a refund). There are only about 4 clauses to read about this stuff. So while you are right that qantas can do whatever they want, there is also a protection for people in being able to get a refund. That is simply a fact, it is not a debate.

In addition to mentioning clause 4.4, I then went of to discuss how/or if that clause could be activated in this case. This is an important discussion because clause 4.4 has equal standing with any clauses that say Qantas can do what they want. The key question is whether this change is due to BA or due to QF (by refusing to pay) and that question has not been answered yet.

Again that is not a debate. But that discussion is not really helped by mentioning that qantas can do whatever they want, because that part of the T&C does not invalidate clause 4.4.

As with most arguments/discussions/debates on AFF this one will never end so I will just bow out now. I am not a QC member so I have no vested interest anymore.

 

[medhead]

As with most arguments/discussions/debates on AFF this one will never end so I will just bow out now. I am not a QC member so I have no vested interest anymore.

Actually, PB is a big issue that has been resolved.

It is not a debate, this is a very real issue for many people and they need to be able to explore all aspects of the situation. It is strange that mentioning other relevant points somehow becomes a debate or an argument.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

please remember... while this debate may be about t5 now, is it not the case that ALL BA lounges will be rebranded as galleries sooner or later? so refund rules would then come in once the BA lounge network is no longer there.

Munich, Milan, most of America and j'burg are all galleries... more to come I am sure...