Just when you thought you had seen it all in the Qantas lounge...

[kangarooflyer88]

I personally don't care what anyone else in the lounge does or wears, as long as it doesn't impact upon my quiet enjoyment of the lounge. And I'm not sure how what anyone wears could do that.

Completely agree here. I've seen people wear questionable things in the lounge but haven't been offended - their prerogative. Where it does bother me is when they behave in a way that detracts from the lounge experience in some way. Some examples from trips I've taken to lounges over the past few months:

• Sitting on a chair and trimming their toe nails with clippers with the clipping being strewn about on the floor
• Using the hand (instead of a ladle) to scoop up soup
• A DYKWIA type person yaking on the phone about some deal they're gonna make

If anything, I'll take someone wearing slightly shorter cut shorts than any of these lot any day of the week!

 

[Tropic]

I personally don't care what anyone else in the lounge does or wears, as long as it doesn't impact upon my quiet enjoyment of the lounge. And I'm not sure how what anyone wears could do that.

I tend to agree with this. I respect the rights of others and have no interest in what they identify as, do, drink, eat, wear or say while in the lounge (or anywhere else for that matter). Unless of course they happen to inadvertently or (worse case) advertently impinge on my person, property or rights, including my right to also enjoy the lounge amenities. In which case, I take appropriate action to mitigate or eliminate that impact. Works well.

 

[knagelli]

Undertakings of employers includes providing a safe environment for everyone who enters the workplace, not just employees. That's the law.

Understand its the law but it's a guidance for non-employees and it does not state that it is a mandatory aspect. They can suggest but I am not sure if law states that it is applicable to everyone , if that was the case it would rather be stated in clear terms.

 

[UP4014]

Do you realise how creepy and stalkerish this behaviour is?

If you want to critique his choice of clothing, then please post your outfit from head to toe so we can all judge.

Do you really not understand how Bluetooth headphones and mics work? He is pacing while taking, which is exactly what the other man in the photo is doing. Frakly, I'd rather he did it in this area than right behind my head.

If I ever thought someone was photographing me or my family in a lounge like this, I'd speak to the lounge staff. QF dictate who enters their lounges.

1.3 Qantas reserves the right to refuse access to any person or to ask any person or their guest(s) to vacate the premises.

You may want to reflect why it triggered you so much?


Ditto, @Princess Fiona !

It’s didn’t trigger me at all, (and photo purposely does not show his face) just laugh not offend. I’m currently in my jeans and polo in the Sydney first lounge waiting for number 11.

There are people here snapping away getting their photos in the lounge one Japanese couple wanted me in their pic because I’m tall. All good fun.

Here is me this.

 

[RooFlyer]

Do you realise how creepy and stalkerish this behaviour is?

You've never sat back and observed the world around you, and commented on what/who you see, for better or worse, even taken a pic? And lets face it, wearing the outfit in question was likely designed to attract attention; well, he got the attention he was seeking.

 

[RooFlyer]

I personally don't care what anyone else in the lounge does or wears, as long as it doesn't impact upon my quiet enjoyment of the lounge. And I'm not sure how what anyone wears could do that.

Oh, I think I could have a crack

Those who have the “anything goes, that’s ok with me” be warned. You might see me flouncing about in the Flounge in a get up that you’ll never be able to unsee. USA=

 

[Captain Halliday]

have a crack

I see what you did there…

 

[kangarooflyer88]

There are people here snapping away getting their photos in the lounge one Japanese couple wanted me in their pic because I’m tall. All good fun.

Godzilla!

 

[RichardMEL]

just on taking of photos.. I think lounges qualify as a public place (but privately operated so.....?) where photos are legal.. in the sense that one should not expect privacy in that regard. Most people of course are not interested in taking pictures of others in lounges (unless you're tall or perhaps resemble some sort of celebrity.. or dress in a fruity outfit). Certainly have never seen any signs banning photography or anything (because most people act appropriately).

and how many youtube vloggers would be in trouble if they couldn't take pics in lounges (unless you're in SIN, where this has recently been somewhat of an issue, such as the bloke thrown into airport jail for videoing in The Jewel, but I digress)

I probably wouldn't have taken a picture myself (even with the person's face obscured) but as they say a picture is worth a thousand words in some respects.

I don't really have a problem with it. Far more creepy, of course, if it was pictures posted of kids and that kind of thing.. but let's just not go there.

 

[Quickstatus]

I've seen people wear questionable things in the lounge

just laugh

Yes, the entertainment value is enough for me to say "bring it on"

 

[Pushka]

just on taking of photos.. I think lounges qualify as a public place (but privately operated so.....?) where photos are legal.. in the sense that one should not expect privacy in that regard. Most people of course are not interested in taking pictures of others in lounges (unless you're tall or perhaps resemble some sort of celebrity.. or dress in a fruity outfit). Certainly have never seen any signs banning photography or anything (because most people act appropriately).

and how many youtube vloggers would be in trouble if they couldn't take pics in lounges (unless you're in SIN, where this has recently been somewhat of an issue, such as the bloke thrown into airport jail for videoing in The Jewel, but I digress)

I probably wouldn't have taken a picture myself (even with the person's face obscured) but as they say a picture is worth a thousand words in some respects.

I don't really have a problem with it. Far more creepy, of course, if it was pictures posted of kids and that kind of thing.. but let's just not go there.

I'd post photos of outfits but not of faces. And never ever of kids.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

I'd post photos of outfits but not of faces. And never ever of kids.

Yeah I think kids' outfits are outside their control. It's sort of like poking fun at a cripple for using a wheelchair. Generally when I take photos of lounges and planes it's directed not at people (i.e. the QF menu board for the buffet or at the window of my seat to capture some take off footage). That being said, there was (is) a time where in the MEL J lounge there was a bird that would fly around the lounge. That I would argue is news worthy and hence would capture footage even if it meant in the process my phone's camera would cross paths with someone.

-RooFlyer88

 

[mrsterryn]

Yeah I think kids' outfits are outside their control. It's sort of like poking fun at a cripple for using a wheelchair.....

-RooFlyer88

Didn't realise people still used the word cripple ?

 

[RichardMEL]

Yeah I think kids' outfits are outside their control. It's sort of like poking fun at a cripple for using a wheelchair. Generally when I take photos of lounges and planes it's directed not at people (i.e. the QF menu board for the buffet or at the window of my seat to capture some take off footage). That being said, there was (is) a time where in the MEL J lounge there was a bird that would fly around the lounge. That I would argue is news worthy and hence would capture footage even if it meant in the process my phone's camera would cross paths with someone.

-RooFlyer88

I think you may be missing a much bigger issue/concern regarding photographs of children potentially being shared online - specially those that aren't in your family.

but that's a whole other isue not really for this forum.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Didn't realise people still used the word cripple ?

Yes they do, indeed people in the accessibility community (which is made up of people with accessibility challenges) use that term too. It's certainly FAR better than the bad ol' days when we would call people mentally retarded (including government programs).

-RooFlyer88

 

[Burgo]

Understand its the law but it's a guidance for non-employees and it does not state that it is a mandatory aspect. They can suggest but I am not sure if law states that it is applicable to everyone , if that was the case it would rather be stated in clear terms.

I'm not quite sure if you mean WHS laws only apply to employees?

in NSW they also apply to visitors to a workplace. (lookup Safework NSW and I expect this is similar in all AU jurisdictions)

All visitors to a workplace have work health and safety responsibilities.
If you are a visitor you must ensure you:

• take reasonable care for your own and others health and safety
• comply with any reasonable instructions, policies and procedure given by the employer, business or organisation.

cheers

 

[knagelli]

I'm not quite sure if you mean WHS laws only apply to employees?

in NSW they also apply to visitors to a workplace. (lookup Safework NSW and I expect this is similar in all AU jurisdictions)

All visitors to a workplace have work health and safety responsibilities.
If you are a visitor you must ensure you:

• take reasonable care for your own and others health and safety
• comply with any reasonable instructions, policies and procedure given by the employer, business or organisation.

cheers

I am not contesting any of the claims but all I am trying to convey is that WHS rules related to uniform might apply only to the employees and not visitors ; unless it is clearly written in white and black , we can always interpret it in different ways.

Again , how does wearing a short compared to a trouser fare in terms of the WHS criteria.

 

[Quickstatus]

If you are a visitor you must ensure you:

That is quite different to the specific OHS requirements for employees and businesses.
Imagine ladies not being allowed to wear high heels, and patrons having to wear ear protection when there is loud music
And not drinking alcohol on premises.

 

[RichardMEL]

The other problem, imo, with the whole dress code thing being linked to OHS/WHS(whatever) rules - including visitors and whatever - is that they do not apply to ALL QF domestic lounges.. and it's not a state thing, because, for example IIRC they apply in BNE, but nowhere else in QLD (eg: OOL, TSV, CNS etc) so..... it's (sigh) not consistent.

kind of defeats the whole argument re OHS and all that.

These dress codes are linked to the main city lounges and it's purely about appearance (literally!) imo. Obviously I do not support the rules like this, but if you're going to have them - apply consistently (something, as we know, QF has trouble with broadly). OTOH, common sense applies in leisure and hot locations like OOL, FNQ etc but again leads to all kinds of problems.

 

[Burgo]

I am not contesting any of the claims but all I am trying to convey is that WHS rules related to uniform might apply only to the employees and not visitors ; unless it is clearly written in white and black , we can always interpret it in different ways.

Again , how does wearing a short compared to a trouser fare in terms of the WHS criteria.

there are quite a lot of workplaces that require enclosed footwear and long trousers/shirts for everyone onsite, all genders, including visitors, that are WHS related.

I agree with RichardMEL though that the QF rules in the lounges in-the-main do not appear to be for WHS reasons.

However my local club doesn't allow bare-feet or thongs (the footwear type) in the bar/dining areas, they have assessed the risks involved and have banned these.

cheers