Disgusting treatment of facilities by J PAX in Melbourne

[mannej]

Not that I am trying to argue - but again, it's similar with nightclubs with a dress code. You wouldn't turn up to a nightclub wearing shorts, thongs or workwear because you know there is a dress code. It's pretty obvious that Qantas put the dress code there for a reason, so I also think you shouldn't turn up (knowing there is a dress code) in high vis, shorts, thongs etc.

I wonder how the 'but I am clean and well behaved' would work in the nightclub setting.

However, I will say that if the rule is outdated get rid of it - but while it stands, uphold it.

Again, forget the nightclub. The specific term we are talking about quite clearly states it is up to the managers discretion when they deem it appropriate.

Other then the actual terms, what is the actual issue you have with hi-viz/casual wear in the lounge?

Answer the question.

 

[Mgjdubs]

If they are neat and cleanly dressed (hi-viz etc), and are behaved well, clearly what is the issue.
I would have thought behaviour causes more issues in a lounge compared to someone who is neat and cleanly dressed (doesn't have to be smart, casual) but is behaved.

While you have the T&C's up, I would argue that the comma between Smart, Casual would indicate that the code is not smart and casual, but could be smart or casual.

A minor point I know.

The devil really is in the detail. I personally don't have a problem with the fluoro army, despite my questioning their attire (my personal view is that it is a bit strange, but oh well.).

My interpretation is that 'Smart, casual' means one must wear an outfit that would be appropriate to enter an environment which is meant to discerning. This is, at least, how I apply section 10.7 of the terms and conditions to myself. I suppose you could argue that each individual's interpretation of 'smart, casual' is different, and that they're bound on a subjective term. In which case it is up to the individual lounge manager to decide whether or not a member has acted in accordance with this term. If, by their own definition, the member has not done so, the member foregoes their right to use the facility. Under this logic, you'd say that it is not our place to judge the attire of others; upon entrance to the lounge, if the manager has not objected to their attire it is considered appropriate for access. My experience is that this has been enforced, I have seen people be turned away at the door for not being appropriately dressed.

My 2 cents worth anyway.

 

[mannej]

Hi viz is neither smart nor casual! It's work site wear.

To your minor point, I don't think that's right. Its quite clear from the condition that the two requirements, of 'smart', 'casual', are intended to be inclusive, that is both. It's a clear principle of statutory interpretation that inclusive conjunction is intended if words conjoin to describe a requirement. But, as you righty say, a minor - and esoteric point.

Relying on the terms and conditions is not superficial, it's evidence to substantiate the views put by some here, some of whom have paid a lot of money for lounge rights, that when they go into a lounge they rather expect the standard of dress and appearance to be a bit higher than the general airport.

It may be a minor point, but an important one. It is a valid point, as the way it is set out is ambiguous. How do you determine the intention. The other thing that you fail to mention in your argument is the point to where it is the manager's discretion, Not Yours, as to what constitutes appropriate attire in the lounge.

How does casual, or hi-viz wear detract from your lounge experience if they are neat, clean and well behaved?

Until you stray away from the Terms and Conditions, I still find it a superficial view that you hold.

 

[mannej]

The devil really is in the detail. I personally don't have a problem with the fluoro army, despite my questioning their attire (my personal view is that it is a bit strange, but oh well.).

My interpretation is that 'Smart, casual' means one must wear an outfit that would be appropriate to enter an environment which is meant to discerning. This is, at least, how I apply section 10.7 of the terms and conditions to myself. I suppose you could argue that each individual's interpretation of 'smart, casual' is different, and that they're bound on a subjective term. In which case it is up to the individual lounge manager to decide whether or not a member has acted in accordance with this term. If, by their own definition, the member has not done so, the member foregoes their right to use the facility. Under this logic, you'd say that it is not our place to judge the attire of others; upon entrance to the lounge, if the manager has not objected to their attire it is considered appropriate for access. My experience is that this has been enforced, I have seen people be turned away at the door for not being appropriately dressed.

My 2 cents worth anyway.

That is how I read into it.

Those with issues with the attire being worn into the QP, should really be talking to the manager about it.

 

[RWJ777]

It may be a minor point, but an important one. It is a valid point, as the way it is set out is ambiguous. How do you determine the intention. The other thing that you fail to mention in your argument is the point to where it is the manager's discretion, Not Yours, as to what constitutes appropriate attire in the lounge.

How does casual, or hi-viz wear detract from your lounge experience if they are neat, clean and well behaved?

Until you stray away from the Terms and Conditions, I still find it a superficial view that you hold.

I think the broader point that people have made here is quite clear. I have made it myself several times: overly casual or work wear is not appropriate for an environment to which people pay money to access with reasonable expectation, as detailed in rules, that something better than the attire of the general airport will prevail. It is not a general, public space and therefore a higher standard of dress and decorum ought to apply.

The reference to the manager is to create a power for the manager to turf people if managers are so inclined , which, of course, they rarely do.

 

[munitalP]

I think the broader point that people have made here is quite clear. I have made it myself several times: overly casual or work wear is not appropriate for an environment to which people pay money to access with reasonable expectation, as detailed in rules, that something better than the attire of the general airport will prevail. It is not a general, public space and therefore a higher standard of dress and decorum ought to apply.

The reference to the manager is to create a power for the manager to turf people if managers are so imclined , which, of course, they rarely do.

The ambiguousness nature of your opening paragraph!

Define work wear - is it what suits you or is it what suits the lady across from you or is it what suits the expectations of the public general?

From your statements, you feel (correct me if I am wrong) that people who do not dress to a standard that youdeem to be appropriate, should not have access to the lounges.

 

[mannej]

The ambiguousness nature of your opening paragraph!

Define work wear - is it what suits you or is it what suits the lady across from you or is it what suits the expectations of the public general?

From your statements, you feel (correct me if I am wrong) that people who do not dress to a standard that youdeem to be appropriate, should not have access to the lounges.

And that is the issue, it is the manager who determines what is appropriate. It is clearly stipulated in the terms.

Isn't hi-viz work wear?

 

[RWJ777]

The ambiguousness nature of your opening paragraph!

Define work wear - is it what suits you or is it what suits the lady across from you or is it what suits the expectations of the public general?

From your statements, you feel (correct me if I am wrong) that people who do not dress to a standard that youdeem to be appropriate, should not have access to the lounges.

I think by any objective standard, hi viz, work boots and king gee pants would be considered attire not normally associated with smart, casual. Whether you choose to wear such garmentry for smart causal purposes is up to you!

 

[Deleted member]

My last point on this subject is that there is often a reference to "Status" on this forum, something many have to work hard to achieve, something that is hard won and recognises a level of loyalty with a reward above the mundane. So why should we sully this by doing what we can to downgrade the experience, if not only for ourselves but for others?
I might be old fashioned but making an effort , when others make an effort for you seems to be a fair exchange of respect


It is I, Leclerc !

 

[MEL_Traveller]

View attachment 9238

scenes like this are not only found in the J lounge - but also the QF club.

Reasons like this - along with the increasingly shabby furniture in some clubs, the roped queuing system at some bars (tacky) and general crowding mean I have not renewed my QF club membership. I'd rather stay in the main terminal now.

If I have a choice of OneWorld lounges I will always select one belonging to a partner other than QF (with the exception of course of the QF F lounges in MEL/SYD).

 

[sumthinfornuthin]

Having just used the AA lounge in LAX I would suggest that the QANTAS lounge in Melbourne and Sydney is pretty good by comparison. Even better in my opinion thabn BA in New York too.

After more than 40 years in business I haver learnt not to judge books by their covers. Some of the most high profile people I have done business with are pigs in their own environment and some of the most humble people were spotless.

Whether someone has paid ( or more than likely their employer has paid) or they have used FF points to fly is in my opinion totally and utterly irrelevant to whether or not they leave a mess behind.

Sometimes the people with the most in life, appreciate and value things the least.

For mine........... the less frequent flyer and lounge user is possibly more likely to appreciate and respect the privilege and not abuse it.

 

[ashleyn]

If you are invited to a friend's wedding and the invitation specifies "smart casual" would you turn up in boardies, singlet and thongs; steel capped boots ?

 

[JohnK]

If they are clean, and well behaved, what is the issue?

People can be tidy without being smart casual...

I think a few views regarding dress are a tad superficial. Behaviour is much more important to me.

Why place so much importance on cleanliness? I know people from certain cultures who dress and behave immaculately but they do not wash/shower for days on end. Should they be excluded from the lounges? Because clearly cleanliness is not important to them but dress standards are important.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Why place so much importance on cleanliness? I know people from certain cultures who dress and behave immaculately but they do not wash/shower for days on end.

...

hey! that is no way to describe us Brits!!

 

[straitman]

hey! that is no way to describe us Brits!!

Where is TonyHancock when you need him :?: I think we need his opinion :!:

 

[amaroo]

If you are invited to a friend's wedding and the invitation specifies "smart casual" would you turn up in boardies, singlet and thongs; steel capped boots ?

If it was being held in an airline lounge....maybe.

If you have gained access - then you have passed the test of the doorman/club/lounge......end of story!

The next best thing is a private club........

 

[AndyGoodyear]

Again, forget the nightclub. The specific term we are talking about quite clearly states it is up to the managers discretion when they deem it appropriate.

Other then the actual terms, what is the actual issue you have with hi-viz/casual wear in the lounge?

Answer the question.

It's not smart or casual. I think that point has been made enough.

 

[ermen]

The issue mannej is there are rules, ie.

1.2 Each Member of the Qantas Club is responsible for complying with, and ensuring that their lounge guests comply with, these Terms and Conditions and the Club Rules.
10.7 Smart, casual dress standards apply at all times. Individual lounge managers will have discretion to administer these standards as they reasonably deem appropriate in the circumstances

Actually, on the above I would say we exclude the following people too in addition to the bogans + high viz

• The businessman in a suit + tie: That's business / work -wear
• Anybody in white tie / black tie / formal
• And what about the lounge dragons? Are they dressed smart casual?

 

[AndyGoodyear]

Actually, on the above I would say we exclude the following people too in addition to the bogans

• The businessman in a suit + tie: That's business / work -wear
• Anybody in white tie / black tie / formal

Now that's just getting silly!

 

[munitalP]

I have over the last few years gone from suit and tie work wear to casual in the office / factory which is usually business shirt and dress pants if meetings planned, or jeans if not. I also visit sites where I wear jeans and and depending of temperature, a combo of orange shirt with reflectors, light hi viz vest if required, a padded warm orange hi viz sleeveless jacket, steel cap shoes or boots depending on site, safety glasses or worse, mono goggles, hard hat, have gloves on a clip hanging from my belt etc...
If I do a day trip which requires a flight, as long as my bum points toward the ground, I'm not going to be taking a change of clothes to suit other flyers whose outlook on life suggests I shouldn't be there because of my attire.

You can also bet your left wotsit that I won't be leaving my mess scattered on the floor for someone else to pick up, you know, the topic of this thread!