Does WP guest for Qantas F lounge need to be on same flight?

[Stoopidsteve]

Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?

 

[JohnK]

People 'just knew' the earth was flat.

You are just not going to get the interpretation you want.

And yes we can just keep going round and round in circles but everytime you use the SYD and MEL F lounges you will be Qantas Platinum unless you hold Oneworld Emerald from another airline.

The staff can be very strict even when 2 people are on the same flight but the boarding passes are different colour. One issued in SYD and the other issued in SIN by SQ.

 

[durbrain]

You are just not going to get the interpretation you want

We already know some have been able to guest in OW guests using my interpretation.

You can break the circle by demonstrating a clause that supports your stance. At this time, you haven't managed to do so. 'I just know' and 'it just is' means little as you are not the ultimate arbiter of QF rules.

 

[JohnK]

We already know some have been able to guest in OW guests using my interpretation.

A very small percentage? How about the majority that tried and failed? Qantas is wrong. Just ignore them.

You can break the circle by demonstrating a clause that supports your stance. At this time, you haven't managed to do so. 'I just know' and 'it just is' means little as you are not the ultimate arbiter of QF rules.

The clause that supports my stance is separate entries/paragraphs for Qantas Platinum and Oneworld Emerald with clearly different conditions for each.

If it was meant to be as you say it is intended then there should have been one condition only Qantas Platinum/Oneworld Emerald with the conditions as per Oneworld Emerald.

Why have the distinction between Qantas Platinum and Oneworld Emerald? So you choose which you want to be?

 

[durbrain]

The clause that supports my stance is separate entries/paragraphs for Qantas Platinum and Oneworld Emerald with clearly different conditions for each.

If it was meant to be as you say it is intended then there should have been one condition only Qantas Platinum/Oneworld Emerald with the conditions as per Oneworld Emerald.

Why have the distinction between Qantas Platinum and Oneworld Emerald? So you choose which you want to be?

As I have stated endless times in this thread, the reason there are two separate sets of rules is because there are situations you can enter as QF but not OW and vice versa!

But on Qantas operated flights you are both. You therefore are eligible for both sets of entitlements. There is no evidence that there is any hierarchy to the 4 entry criteria nor any evidence they are mutually exclusive

 

[JohnK]

As I have stated endless times in this thread, the reason there are two separate sets of rules is because there are situations you can enter as QF but not OW and vice versa!

But on Qantas operated flights you are both. You therefore are eligible for both sets of entitlements. There is no evidence that there is any hierarchy to the 4 entry criteria nor any evidence they are mutually exclusive

Keep going.

You are Qantas Platinum all the time. You can't be Oneworld Emerald when you feel like it and Qantas Platinum when you feel like it. One or the other not both.

 

[Abdul_A350]

There is no evidence that there is any hierarchy to the 4 entry criteria nor any evidence they are mutually exclusive

Similarly, there is no evidence that there is no hierarchy to the 4 entry criteria nor any evidence they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[durbrain]

Keep going.

You are Qantas Platinum all the time. You can't be Oneworld Emerald when you feel like it and Qantas Platinum when you feel like it. One or the other not both.

Says who? You?

 

[durbrain]

Similarly, there is no evidence that there is no hierarchy to the 4 entry criteria nor any evidence they are not mutually exclusive.

So when there are 4 eligibility criteria what makes you assume any are heirarchical? That's as silly as me saying 'a QF WP flying Y cannot enter the F lounge because he doesn't meet travel class eligibility and there is no evidence that travel class does not take precedence over FF status'. There are 4 categories of eligibility. In the absence of any specific wording the burden of proof is on you guys to prove that any take precedence!

If there is a hierarchy, what's to say OW doesn't trump QF? Or travel class trumps all? Ridiculous argument.

 

[JohnK]

Says who? You?

Yes me.

You can't be Oneworld Emerald trying to access Qantas First lounge on a QF, CX, BA etc flight and a Qantas Platinum trying to access Qantas First Lounge on a JQ flight.

 

[durbrain]

Yes me.

You can't be Oneworld Emerald trying to access Qantas First lounge on a QF, CX, BA etc flight and a Qantas Platinum trying to access Qantas First Lounge on a JQ flight.

Then all I can say is I disagree with your opinion.

 

[Kangol]

But on Qantas operated flights you are both. You therefore are eligible for both sets of entitlements. There is no evidence that there is any hierarchy to the 4 entry criteria nor any evidence they are mutually exclusive

Yes, there is evidence. You quoted it and did not understand it. Just like you did not understand the difference between evidence and proof. Not only did you fail to understand, but you reduced yourself down to the disagreement level of 0 or 1.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-seven-levels-of-disagreement/
What I did was refute your central point and provide evidence of an effective and logical counterargument.
Just because you personally do not understand the point, does not mean that the point is invalid.

Before you post again, you should contact a senior manager/staff member at QF via online chat and state your opinion, including the words "mutually exclusive", "hierachy" and "being both Qantas Platinum and oneworld emerald at the same time and being eligible for both sets of entitlements". Then post the written evidence (not proof) supporting your argument.
This should now be a requirement before you can post - mods, please ensure that only posts with new written evidence are accepted and the others (from this post onwards) in this thread deleted.

I welcome anyone else who can get an official response in writing, whether it be a tweet, email, official written statement etc.
This is the only way this thread can progress - mods, you (by definition) would be agreeing with the content of this post.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Yes, there is evidence. You quoted it and did not understand it. Just like you did not understand the difference between evidence and proof. Not only did you fail to understand, but you reduced yourself down to the disagreement level of 0 or 1.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-seven-levels-of-disagreement/
What I did was refute your central point and provide evidence of an effective and logical counterargument.
Just because you personally do not understand the point, does not mean that the point is invalid.

Before you post again, you should contact a senior manager/staff member at QF via online chat and state your opinion, including the words "mutually exclusive", "hierachy" and "being both Qantas Platinum and oneworld emerald at the same time and being eligible for both sets of entitlements". Then post the written evidence (not proof) supporting your argument.
This should now be a requirement before you can post - mods, please ensure that only posts with new written evidence are accepted and the others (from this post onwards) in this thread deleted.

I welcome anyone else who can get an official response in writing, whether it be a tweet, email, official written statement etc.
This is the only way this thread can progress - mods, you (by definition) would be agreeing with the content of this post.

I'm professionally curious as to the difference between evidence and proof. I've always considered proof to be a product of the evidence. Maybe I've been doing it wrong.

 

[defurax]

I'm professionally curious as to the difference between evidence and proof. I've always considered proof to be a product of the evidence. Maybe I've been doing it wrong.

In research we try to stay away from "proving" ...we provide evidence supporting a model/theory which validate or invalidate our hypothesis. So we never "prove" anything, I tend to use the word demonstrate...only journalists say that scientists have proven something!

 

[esseeeayeenn]

In research we try to stay away from "proving" ...we provide evidence supporting a model/theory which validate or invalidate our hypothesis. So we never "prove" anything, I tend to use the word demonstrate...only journalists say that scientists have proven something!

This isn't science.

 

[juddles]

In research we try to stay away from "proving" ...we provide evidence supporting a model/theory which validate or invalidate our hypothesis. So we never "prove" anything, I tend to use the word demonstrate...only journalists say that scientists have proven something!

defurax, as someone who waltzed out of uni with a degree in Philosophy of Science, I completely disagree. The aim in modern science is exactly that - to "prove" a theorem. If you want to just "demonstrate" a hypothesis, you should hopefully still be in highschool

 

[CaptJCool]

When opportunity to demonstrate evidence comes along

 

[durbrain]

Yes, there is evidence. You quoted it and did not understand it. Just like you did not understand the difference between evidence and proof. Not only did you fail to understand, but you reduced yourself down to the disagreement level of 0 or 1.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-seven-levels-of-disagreement/
What I did was refute your central point and provide evidence of an effective and logical counterargument.
Just because you personally do not understand the point, does not mean that the point is invalid.

Incorrect. Your 'logical counterargument' consisted of claiming 'one cannot be in alliance with oneself'. There must be more than one group member in order to form an alliance but that doesn't exclude any member from the rules and regulation of that alliance even if applied to its own home members. My point was that there is no hierarchy to the 4 eligibility criteria and there is no evidence they are mutually exclusive. You have not 'refuted' that evidence nor 'disproved' it. I could not care less about your little semantic games. You know that from a practical point of view the use of the words in this context are synonymous, but if bickering over trivial linguistic minutiae makes you moan with great pleasure, then good for you.

I have addressed every argument that supposedly goes against my stance, and have simply asked that somebody show me a rule or clause that states 'QF status trumps OW status when QF flies on an QF operated flight'. Nobody has been able to show that.

Before you post again, you should contact a senior manager/staff member at QF via online chat and state your opinion, including the words "mutually exclusive", "hierachy" and "being both Qantas Platinum and oneworld emerald at the same time and being eligible for both sets of entitlements". Then post the written evidence (not proof) supporting your argument.
This should now be a requirement before you can post - mods, please ensure that only posts with new written evidence are accepted and the others (from this post onwards) in this thread deleted.

Sorry, captain, I didn't realise I required your permission to post.

I have told you that I have messaged Red Roo. Why don't you wait for the reply? Since you sound like you have a 'wannabe mod' complex, I suggest you take your own advice so that "this thread can progress".

 

[juddles]

..... Since you sound like you have a 'wannabe mod' complex, I suggest you take your own advice so that "this thread can progress"....

Durbrain, I am not supporting any "side", but in posting things like this you are removing your credibility with a substantial percentage of the AFF community. (specifically us old fogies that believe that restraint in the face of antagonism is an almost godly quality)

 

[durbrain]

Durbrain, I am not supporting any "side", but in posting things like this you are removing your credibility with a substantial percentage of the AFF community. (specifically us old fogies that believe that restraint in the face of antagonism is an almost godly quality)

The AFF community has already made up their mind is as glaringly obvious from the tone of this thread. It appears "put up or shut up" applies to me but not to anyone else who shares the majority opinion?