CX Lounge entry denied (SFO)

[RichardMEL]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Note to self: Only fly QF73 to get to LOTFAP and fly back to MEL via LAX!

Exactly as I did in December. the upgrade to F and extra SC's made it awesome

 

[Himeno]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Someone mentioned on flyertalk that the SFO CX lounge only accepts the first 10 non CX pax OWE to arrive at the lounge due to space limits and that QF provides a list of CL pax. So once the 10 non CX pax enter the lounge, they don't let anyone else in unless they are on the CL list or are CX pax.

I've had similar issues with the BA lounge at ORD when flying QR and RJ. Both QR and RJ use the AF lounge at ORD. The time I was flying on RJ, I attempted to enter the BA lounge as OWE on a oneworld flight. Even though signage said the lounge was open until after the RJ flight boarded, they said they had just called the BA flight, so were closing.
The next time I was there, I was flying QR and went to the BA lounge. They tried to refuse entry even though I showed that I was on a oneworld flight with oneworld status (and in J). The lounge agent tried to send me off to the AF lounge that QR contracted with, until I said that I'd been in the AF lounge before and the BA lounge was likely better then the other lounge. Then they realized that my flight boarded before most of the BA pax would arrive and let me in.

 

[madrooster]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Note to self: Only fly QF73 to get to LOTFAP and fly back to MEL via LAX!

If you had time, the better route would be MEL-SYD-LAX-SFO. Two QF F lounges and one on the way back.

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Seems to be often the way with Cathay and other Oneworld airlines. I was at BKK recently with family in J. I am SG and they are all NB and we were flying AY. Their boarding passes stated "Invitation to the Louis Tavern lounge", mine said "Invitation for you and a guest to the Cathay Pacific lounge."

Less extreme an example than in SFO but a similar line of thought.

 

[Lendav Orav]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Hi all- I'll be flying into/out of SFO with QF in May/June so have been following the lounge discussion with interest. The oneworld page shows that there are also BA and JL lounges in the international terminal. Are they closed by the time the QF flight goes out?
Thanks!
LO

 

[kreuky]

complete silence from QF on the matter of course.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Someone mentioned on flyertalk that the SFO CX lounge only accepts the first 10 non CX pax OWE to arrive at the lounge due to space limits and that QF provides a list of CL pax. So once the 10 non CX pax enter the lounge, they don't let anyone else in unless they are on the CL list or are CX pax.

I've had similar issues with the BA lounge at ORD when flying QR and RJ. Both QR and RJ use the AF lounge at ORD. The time I was flying on RJ, I attempted to enter the BA lounge as OWE on a oneworld flight. Even though signage said the lounge was open until after the RJ flight boarded, they said they had just called the BA flight, so were closing.
The next time I was there, I was flying QR and went to the BA lounge. They tried to refuse entry even though I showed that I was on a oneworld flight with oneworld status (and in J). The lounge agent tried to send me off to the AF lounge that QR contracted with, until I said that I'd been in the AF lounge before and the BA lounge was likely better then the other lounge. Then they realized that my flight boarded before most of the BA pax would arrive and let me in.

Its an issue with the CX lounge at SFO for all OW passengers. Not restricted to QF. Plenty of posts on FT from other OW passengers and status holders saying they were denied access.

 

[Termite]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

My last visit to SFO I visited all the lounges available in the terminal to OW PAX. The Japanese were the only ones who questioned access, Chinese were more than happy to supply me Tsingtao and dumplings until I got bored and headed out in search of another lounge.

 

[mviy]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Would be nice if QANTAS opened its own lounge at SFO.

 

[yohy?!]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

sounds like either QF is too stingy to pay what CX is asking for associated lounge services or there isn't enough physical space for CX to accomodate all the QF pax.

either way not really CX's problem - seems like they are following an established practice with respect to CLs and the letter of OW terms

 

[Sdtravel]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

sounds like either QF is too stingy to pay what CX is asking for associated lounge services or there isn't enough physical space for CX to accomodate all the QF pax.

either way not really CX's problem - seems like they are following an established practice with respect to CLs and the letter of OW terms

We seem to have two active threads on this. So perhaps a mod can merge them.

If you have a read of http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ounge-entry-denied-sfo-74770.html#post1416492
it points out that over on FT that its not a QF specific issue. Its a CX issue where they are rejecting other OW pax as well.
Its just that with more QF flights now its more prominent.
I also read somewhere that the CX lounge is a contract lounge but i have no idea around that.

Its more than likely CX limit pax and have told other carriers that they must provide lists. It seems to me that CX are breaking the OW rules.

 

[Himeno]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

either way not really CX's problem - seems like they are following an established practice with respect to CLs and the letter of OW terms

The lounge appears to be in breach of oneworld rules.
They are only allowing in the first 10 non CX pax, with oneworld status to arrive. Unless they happen to be on a list provided by the other airlines, which in the case of QF, only appears to be any CL members who are booked on that days flight.
It is possible the other oneworld members without their own lounges at SFO don't want to pay the CX lounge fees for most pax and are providing lists of people who they will pay fees for.

 

[Happy Trails]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

It seems to me that CX are breaking the OW rules.

Not really:

• Some lounges may get busy at peak times, and access to them may be restricted as a result.

https://www.oneworld.com/ffp/lounge-access

 

[Sdtravel]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Not really:

• Some lounges may get busy at peak times, and access to them may be restricted as a result.

https://www.oneworld.com/ffp/lounge-access

Yes that is the excuse they are using but from what i have read here its a case of people being told they arent on the list rather than "we are full".
If its full just say that, there would be no need to mention a list. Unless its a case of "we are full except if you are on this list"

 

[wandering_fred]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Anyone with CS elite status had experience in accessing the SFO lounge on non-CX flights?

Happy wandering

Fred

 

[Happy Trails]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Yes that is the excuse they are using but from what i have read here its a case of people being told they arent on the list rather than "we are full".
If its full just say that, there would be no need to mention a list. Unless its a case of "we are full except if you are on this list"

AIUI, it's a relatively small lounge, so I can only guess they're saving some space for their own pax.
I can't imagine they're doing it out of bloody-mindedness.

 

[yohy?!]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

We seem to have two active threads on this. So perhaps a mod can merge them.

If you have a read of http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ounge-entry-denied-sfo-74770.html#post1416492
it points out that over on FT that its not a QF specific issue. Its a CX issue where they are rejecting other OW pax as well.
Its just that with more QF flights now its more prominent.
I also read somewhere that the CX lounge is a contract lounge but i have no idea around that.

Its more than likely CX limit pax and have told other carriers that they must provide lists. It seems to me that CX are breaking the OW rules.

The rules allow them to do what they want effectively and at the end of the day they will protect the lounge space for their own elites on their (multiple) flights if too many other OW pax want to come in.

As I mentioned, if QF and other OW carriers don't want this to happen they can secure an arrangement whereby CX (or whomever) dedicates capacity for their flights or open their own lounges.

This is what happens at all OW hubs and in this case QF has opted to direct their pax to the AF lounge either by choice or necessity. If enough people complain to QF about the subpar arrangements (or ideally take their business elsewhere) this may change - until that time though I see CX's handling of things as pretty reasonable.

At the end of the day OW is a marketing alliance that all the carriers expect to make commercial sense (and which the rules allow them to do).

 

[JohnPhelan]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Would be nice if QANTAS opened its own lounge at SFO.

It would indeed be nice, but it will never happen. It would be ridiculous to have a lounge when QF only operates one flight per day. UNLESS they were to do a LAX-style arrangement and have QF run a OW lounge (for all but CX).

 

[DC3]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

I understand the "capacity controls" that may be enforced by the lounge management.

i recall a review of that lounge, following a make-over in 2013 and where it has almost doubled in size, here:

Review: Cathay Pacific Lounge San Francisco Airport - One Mile at a Time


The reviewer refers to the lounge as being "massive". While not necessarily being massive, it's over 900 square metres, it seems.

 

[anat0l]

Re: No access to Cathay lounge in SF

Here's an idea: has anyone sent Cathay Pacific a stern email asking for an explanation as to why a oneworld Emerald was denied access to the lounge?

They may proffer a stonewall and/or robotic reply, but if they specifically blame Qantas, at least one could forward that on as ammunition to Qantas as an earnest complaint.