AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
When this issue was first announced as 'solved' on 27th January, 2012, I (and some others) posted that we thought the handling of whole matter was "NOT well done Qantas". (then came the trashing of us from many others for saying this )
I still say it wasn't handled well then and it is not being handled well now. I just wish I didn't have to say it.
But again: NOT well done Qantas. Soon it will be (a staggering) 5 months.
Sort it out for goodness sakes.
(Sorry Red Roo, nothing personal)
Why is it "not well done Qantas" when everything points to BA moving the goal posts? What would you suggest they do?
I think - to mix metaphors a bit - it could be a case of BA moving the goalposts and QF being asleep at the wheel....
I am considering running a book on whether "What is the Deal with Priority Boarding on QF?" or this issue is sorted out first....
while not wanting to beat up on poor RR, it is not well done because of the time lapse, and the fact that the reported outcome doesn't seem to match with what we were told.
Equally as BA might have moved the goal posts, it could be that QF didn't read the written agreement and the extent of its operation before posting that everything has been 'reinstated'. The odd part is that the QF website was never updated (and still hasn't been). That to me suggests that it is a QF issue, not a BA one.
If QF had been so sure that everything had been fixed, they would have updated the website immediately. That they didn't seems to indicate things were still being worked out perhaps? And if that is the case, why report it had been finalised?
Overall, given this was first reported in October, there has been little general communication of the changes to Q club members as a whole. That means there would still have been passengers turning up at the lounge and being turned away. Is that a good position to leave your members in when a general email could have been sent?
Why is it "not well done Qantas" when everything points to BA moving the goal posts? What would you suggest they do?
They should sort it out between themselves and not take nearly 5 months (so far) to do it. I understand there is a problem. I do not understand why it has taken (and only so far) nearly 5 months to sort it out.
As for PB, it seems it is working in most cases..
Who knows what the sticking points are? I've seen negotiations take much longer than 5 months too.
If someone is a QC member flying Y on a BA flight from JFK to LHR and then transiting onto a European destination, they will not get access to the Galleries lounge at present. I guess BA's thinking would be that they won't get access on any other airline flying Y either, and they are more than likely going to want the points/status credits so will fly BA regardless.
If BA are sticking to their guns on this then perhaps they have done their own cost/benefit analysis and decided the risk factor of losing business was not high enough. If your own Non Elite passengers do not get access, why allow some other airlines Non Elite passengers to have access?
Much the same as Qantas can amend the terms & conditions of FF membership or QC membership BA can amend the terms and conditions of lounge access that the granted to QF in order to suit their own needs.
I think a lot of people are missing what would appear to me to be BA's aim. They are not just putting new names over the doors of the lounges, they are renovating and rebranding them. It appears they are trying to lift the profile and raise the standard and exclusivity of the lounges, making them more desirable. If you are trying to encourage as many of your own frequent fliers to spend more money and to fly BA more often, then why would you damage that by allowing in Non Elite fliers from another airline? It doesn't make sense.
This issue is not with BA it is with Qantas. Qantas sold a lifetime product they knew they could not guarantee for a lifetime.
They either now have to start building their own international QC's (highly unlikely) or enter an agreement with another Lounge Provider (Priority Pass?) or am and the QC Lounge Access details to exclude BA Galleries lounges.
If someone is a QC member flying Y on a BA flight from JFK to LHR and then transiting onto a European destination, they will not get access to the Galleries lounge at present. I guess BA's thinking would be that they won't get access on any other airline flying Y either, and they are more than likely going to want the points/status credits so will fly BA regardless.
If BA are sticking to their guns on this then perhaps they have done their own cost/benefit analysis and decided the risk factor of losing business was not high enough. If your own Non Elite passengers do not get access, why allow some other airlines Non Elite passengers to have access?
Much the same as Qantas can amend the terms & conditions of FF membership or QC membership BA can amend the terms and conditions of lounge access that the granted to QF in order to suit their own needs.
This issue is not with BA it is with Qantas. Qantas sold a lifetime product they knew they could not guarantee for a lifetime.
You're missing the issue here .. it's ALL Qantas Club members that are unhappy, not just those with a lifetime product.
Not really. For those that have an annual membership have the choice not to renew.
You're missing the issue here .. it's ALL Qantas Club members that are unhappy, not just those with a lifetime product.
While not trying to inflame already raised emotions or the like, but may as well dive into the lion's den: I wonder how many of the posters to this and the original thread are talking about their loss of lounge access, and how many others being concerned, supportive for others and not themselves as they aren't affected at all? (having OW status of Emerald or Sapphire, or fly J/F, etc)?
Related to the issue, despite reading carefully all of the postings I am really at a loss to understand peoples' outright angst and anger at Qantas (enough other things to be really unhappy with Qantas about). Concern at the lack of communication, perceived changes to T&Cs many signed up to some time ago, I can understand. But the anger?
FWIW, in my opinion, BA is the one people should be getting up for unilaterally changing the conditions of lounge access for those with QP membership only, without, it might turn out (and sounds to me to be the case) informing their 'shake my hand' friends that they had done so. Nothing out of character for BA there.
OK - donning asbestos suit right now, and have nice large steaks for each of the lions!