Galleries access... NOT quite 'reinstated'?

[medhead]

If BA weren't legally allowed to do this, I doubt they would have gone ahead. And if they had, I doubt QF would have let them. My guess is that either BA is allowed to do this under the current contract, or did so under a new contract.

If BA is spending significant amounts of money on new lounges, then they may simply be deciding that they dont' want people in there that simply pay a fee per year. That doesn't necessarily mean legitimate Australian QC members - but might include BA residents buying QC memberships to have a fairly cheap (compared to gaining status on BA) way of getting access to new lounges.

I'm confused by your comment, it doesn't really relate to my post, quoted. I made no comment about BAs legal standing. What I said is that the lounge access arrange *cannot* have been based on a handshake as many people are trying infer. The opposite in fact, I was saying that there must be a written binding contract in place, that most likely says "access to terraces", which is not galleries.

Now that agreement must still be in place because if it wasn't qantas would be obliged to inform QC members. They haven't.

Finally, whatever BA can and cannot do, the fact remains that QC members have a relationship with Qantas not BA.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[JohnPhelan]

something else has happened... like maybe not reaching agreement on how much to pay per entry... the length of time this is dragging on suggests there has been a stalemate reached, and one party is not willing to compromise somewhere...

Qantas (via Red Roo) made it very clear on here a couple of months ago that the issue was not about money.

Whilst the problem is now dumped in QF's lap, the issue is BA's - a combination of not wanting paid members in the lounges generally, and, I suspect, a particular issue with UK residents buying QP membership to get around BA's "no paid memberships" policy for access to BA lounges.

The issue is quite simple; it's the resolution that is problematic, as the bottom line is that it's not QF who decides who gets access to BA's lounges.

 

[The Rok]

Qantas (via Red Roo) made it very clear on here a couple of months ago that the issue was not about money.

Whilst the problem is now dumped in QF's lap, the issue is BA's - a combination of not wanting paid members in the lounges generally, and, I suspect, a particular issue with UK residents buying QP membership to get around BA's "no paid memberships" policy for access to BA lounges.

The issue is quite simple; it's the resolution that is problematic, as the bottom line is that it's not QF who decides who gets access to BA's lounges.

Again, how is this BA's issue?

BA did not sell you QC membership.

 

[medhead]

Again, how is this BA's issue?

BA did not sell you QC membership.

That's rather irrelevant, there are 2 issues and that is why those who purchased QC membership are stuck.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Qantas (via Red Roo) made it very clear on here a couple of months ago that the issue was not about money.

Whilst the problem is now dumped in QF's lap, the issue is BA's - a combination of not wanting paid members in the lounges generally, and, I suspect, a particular issue with UK residents buying QP membership to get around BA's "no paid memberships" policy for access to BA lounges.

The issue is quite simple; it's the resolution that is problematic, as the bottom line is that it's not QF who decides who gets access to BA's lounges.

sorry... but what would red roo know about whether it was or was not to do about money? absolutely none. red roo cant be party to the negotiations so how would he know? (I say 'can't be party' because otherwise we wouldn't have had an 'all reinstated now' when clearly it wasn't...)

 

[The Rok]

That's rather irrelevant, there are 2 issues and that is why those who purchased QC membership are stuck.

Despite the actual issues of the lack of lounge access the only thing I can see on this thread and the previous one was the QF fanbois unwillingness to acknowledge that their beloved Qantas messed up.

Instead they would rather blame it on somebody else, in this case British Airways.

It is almost as though some people are afraid to turn their backs on Qantas sometimes. Qantas sold a product, be it an annual membership or a life time membership to a club with benefits that THEY COULD NOT GUARANTEE for the duration of that membership. The very least they could of done was make it explicitly clear at the time of purchase, particularly for lifetime memberships that the terms, & conditions of the membership, including and particularly international lounge access may change at any time in the future. They failed to do that. If they had done that, then this issue wouldn't really be an issue, now would it. Because the purchaser would of been the one taking the gamble, knowing what was at stake.

That is plane stupid.

That was a big gamble on QF's part and one that has now cost them. Blaming this whole farce on BA is just an attempt to divert attention away from Qantas.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think it has always been clear that benefits can change.

what we don't like here is the suddenness of the change, the lack of communication, the continued allowance for members to turn up at heathrow lounges and be denied access, the length of time taken to reach an agreement, and then to have an incorrect statement about the agreement being made. and still no member wide email to announce such changes.

 

[medhead]

Despite the actual issues of the lack of lounge access the only thing I can see on this thread and the previous one was the QF fanbois unwillingness to acknowledge that their beloved Qantas messed up.

Instead they would rather blame it on somebody else, in this case British Airways.

It is almost as though some people are afraid to turn their backs on Qantas sometimes. Qantas sold a product, be it an annual membership or a life time membership to a club with benefits that THEY COULD NOT GUARANTEE for the duration of that membership. The very least they could of done was make it explicitly clear at the time of purchase, particularly for lifetime memberships that the terms, & conditions of the membership, including and particularly international lounge access may change at any time in the future. They failed to do that. If they had done that, then this issue wouldn't really be an issue, now would it. Because the purchaser would of been the one taking the gamble, knowing what was at stake.

That is plane stupid.

That was a big gamble on QF's part and one that has now cost them. Blaming this whole farce on BA is just an attempt to divert attention away from Qantas.

It is clearly stated that benefits change. I think you are very wrong to say qantas messed up. They have an agreement for certain access that has not changed. What has changed is that BA has circumvented that agreement by renaming their lounges. That creates 2 related but separate issues, maybe 3. One issue is BA attitude and their poor form on this matter. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with selling of QC memberships, that is another issue is for QC members to take up with QF.

 

[Timba-Jet]

I'm amazed that QF have not made any official update or announcement to the general public about QC access to BA lounges.

Regardless of the reason why QF are in this predicament (speculation about BA playing hardball etc) there is no excuse that can justify almost 5 months of silence.

The occasional update by Red Roo does not count in my book particularly as his updates have not eventuates or had to be retracted on multiple occasions.

 

[JohnPhelan]

sorry... but what would red roo know about whether it was or was not to do about money? absolutely none. red roo cant be party to the negotiations so how would he know? (I say 'can't be party' because otherwise we wouldn't have had an 'all reinstated now' when clearly it wasn't...)

sorry, but whether you like it or not, Red Roo is an official Qantas representative/spokesperson.

He posted in this forum, unequivocally, that the issue was not related to the amount of money BA charges Qantas for lounge access.

Therefore, it is simply incorrect for you to say that QF has made no official statement about that.

You might not like the message, or (if you're a conspiracy theorist) think that QF is telling lies, but the airline has made an official statement about it.

And I guarantee that Red Roo knows a lot more about all of this than you do! (He may not be able to share it all with us at this stage, however).

 

[JohnPhelan]

Again, how is this BA's issue?

BA did not sell you QC membership.

Correct. But you have chosen to ignore the rest of what I said. I did state quite clearly that the problem is up to Qantas to fix. I was merely noting the obvious -that Qantas now has the problem, but it did not cause the issue and cannot fix it unilaterally, because Qantas does not own or control the BA Lounges.

And as Medhead has pointed out, the terms and conditions of QP membership have always stated that benefits may be changed/removed/added. This whole BA lounge debacle reflects poorly on both Qantas and BA, but the removal of BA lounge access was not QF's call.

Rather than typing things in extremely large font to tell us something we already know, perhaps you could make a constructive suggestion as to how Qantas could now proceed to fix the problem - especially if BA just keeps saying "no".

 

[MEL_Traveller]

sorry, but whether you like it or not, Red Roo is an official Qantas representative/spokesperson.

He posted in this forum, unequivocally, that the issue was not related to the amount of money BA charges Qantas for lounge access.

Therefore, it is simply incorrect for you to say that QF has made no official statement about that.

You might not like the message, or (if you're a conspiracy theorist) think that QF is telling lies, but the airline has made an official statement about it.

And I guarantee that Red Roo knows a lot more about all of this than you do! (He may not be able to share it all with us at this stage, however).

you missed my point entirely. red roo said lounge access had been reinstated. it has not. if red roo said it's not about money, well, it might not be, but then again it might be, and just like the lounge access error, something might have got mixed up (or held back) from poor red roo.

please re read my post, I didn't say qf 'never made a statement'. what i do know is that your head of PR is unlikely to be involved in contractual negotiations of this nature. red roo was probably told 'yeah access is back'. just as he might have been told 'it's not about money'.

but being told what to say, or being an official representative, doesn't actually mean you know the ins and outs of a particular situation. I believe it is a case of the latter because if he was actually involved in the negotiations then he would likely have posted something more accurate (which would have avoided poor RR a bit of grief )

 

[wrekker]

Red Roo - any news about progress with re-instatement?

 

[ajw373]

...

Qantas sold a product, be it an annual membership or a life time membership to a club with benefits that THEY COULD NOT GUARANTEE for the duration of that membership. The very least they could of done was make it explicitly clear at the time of purchase, particularly for lifetime memberships that the terms, & conditions of the membership, including and particularly international lounge access may change at any time in the future. They failed to do that. If they had done that, then this issue wouldn't really be an issue, now would it. Because the purchaser would of been the one taking the gamble, knowing what was at stake.

Sorry but that is plain bulldust. The Terms and conditions which one would have agreed to when purchasing Qantas club membership, beit lifetime or yearly quote clearly states that terms and conditions can change. There is no reason what so ever either legally or morally to put it in explicit terms as you are suggesting.

As for the blame game, none of us are privy to any of the discussions aso what would any of us know? Yes it is Qantas's issue, but who knows who is the blame, if anyone.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sorry but that is plain bulldust. The Terms and conditions which one would have agreed to when purchasing Qantas club membership, beit lifetime or yearly quote clearly states that terms and conditions can change. There is no reason what so ever either legally or morally to put it in explicit terms as you are suggesting.

As for the blame game, none of us are privy to any of the discussions aso what would any of us know? Yes it is Qantas's issue, but who knows who is the blame, if anyone.

I think you are correct - terms and conditions can change. But then the member should be entitled to options as to whether or not they wish to continue with their membership.

They cannot sell you a membership today, for example, and then cancel lounge access tomorrow and leave you with no recourse.

Qantas Club membership comes with a range of benefits... lounge access in australia, internationally when flying QF, AAdmirals Clud access, BA club access, priority check-in and extra luggage allowance.

There is a value on each and every one of those benefits, and they have been costed into the membership.

Take away any one of those and members should be notified, and then options to continue or cancel given.

I know we have had the debate on whether BA access also includes galleries. Many of you think there is a distinction between galleries and exec club/terraces, and that galleries are excluded and nothing has changed. However that still doesn't satisfy the argument that galleries were not around at the time the initial offering was made, so they cannot have been excluded (or included) from access (as they didn't exist).

Whatever one believes however, there has still been no communication of the revised rules to members. Only an updating of the website. This really needs to be brought to members' attention.

 

[BD1959]

The Terms and conditions which one would have agreed to when purchasing Qantas club membership, beit lifetime or yearly quote clearly states that terms and conditions can change.

In this case, the argument being put forward is that the conditions haven't changed.

1. Red Roo his/herself stated that the access had been reinstated ... although this soon transpired to not be the case

2. Something as material as the loss of access at QF partner's major hub would - surely - be a material change. Under those same T&Cs quoted, QF must provide written notification of such a change. It's evident both through the ongoing efforts - and QF's lack of written communication - that QF believe that this hasn't changed; only that BA *are* denying access.


Regards,

BD

 

[Flashback]

I think you are correct - terms and conditions can change. But then the member should be entitled to options as to whether or not they wish to continue with their membership.

I don't see why people are whinging in this regard, QF have happily been refunding where people have wanted to cancel their memberships.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't see why people are whinging in this regard, QF have happily been refunding where people have wanted to cancel their memberships.

that's good news - I didn't know that was the case!

 

[ajw373]

I think you are correct - terms and conditions can change. But then the member should be entitled to options as to whether or not they wish to continue with their membership.

They cannot sell you a membership today, for example, and then cancel lounge access tomorrow and leave you with no recourse

Agreeded, but that's a different issue, and as someone else mentioned if people have felt the need to cancel as a result of the change then it appears as if people have been given a refund.

 

[HumptyBK315]

Sorry but that is plain bulldust. The Terms and conditions which one would have agreed to when purchasing Qantas club membership, beit lifetime or yearly quote clearly states that terms and conditions can change. There is no reason what so ever either legally or morally to put it in explicit terms as you are suggesting.

Absolute rubbish my friend. I could put in the terms of conditions of a contract that I get to sleep with your wife, no way that would be enforceable. 'Terms and Conditions' aren't a means for companies to do what they like there are still basic contractual rules / laws that need to be followed. I'm not a lawyer but it would seem in this instance Qantas are probably ok, but I'm sure those with too much time that took up the fight that they were mislead and sold a product that is no longer of equal value would probably win.

Optus and other telcos are always misleading people in what they advertise / sell as opposed to what it says in the the T&Cs 'speeds may vary'. Sometimes they get away with it sometimes they don't

heraldsun.com.au/business/federal-court-reduces-optus-fine/story-fn7j19iv-1226293842859