Lounge access on arrival for Platinums

[rsellens]

My guess is that this Q&A is left over from prior to the enhancements of several years ago.

 

[Austman]

Important information:

* You must be over 18 years of age to access any lounge if not accompanied by an adult.
^ To access Qantas Domestic lounges, Platinum Members must be travelling on any flight the same day that shows Qantas (QF), a Jetstar Airline (Jetstar (JQ), Jetstar Asia (3K) or Valuair (VF) or a oneworld® flight number on your ticket. To access Qantas International lounges, a Platinum Member's next onward flight that day must show a Qantas (QF), a Jetstar Airline (Jetstar (JQ), Jetstar Asia (3K), Valuair (VF) or a oneworld® flight number on your ticket. Other lounge access conditions apply. See Qantas Club Terms and Conditions.

To put the that day restriction on international connections is ridiculous. It should be according to international connection rules.

 

[mannej]

As a side note, I witnessed planes sitting on the tarmac, after landing for up to 7 hours with passengers because ground staff wouldn't work because of supposedly lightning. However other carriers landed and took off without a problem. Some planes actually ran out of juice and had to be towed from the tarmac. The whole day was a disgrace as far as Qantas was concerned. I ended up on a 2am flight I think I cant remember the exact time to Sydney via Melbourne in the end.

(OT) Sorry but I beg to differ - I remember the day well. It is so easy to criticise when you are not the one down on the tarmac. I wouldn't want to be working if lightning was within 10km's of the airport. (/OT)

 

[thommo50]

(OT) I remember the day well. (/OT)

Apparently not lol. Sorry if the truth has upset you.
This is now off topic. We were one of the last to alight and the poor sods behind us were stuck on the tarmac. Yes there was lightning, not all day. Other carriers managed to carry on with their business. It was in the days when pilots wore red ties, which I fully supported. Every one knew it was a claytons strike, having a strike when not having a strike. That day was a disgrace. Don't take it so personally. Unless???

 

[Danger]

What's the saying? "The only thing consistent about Qantas is its inconsistency"?

So my reaction to Danger's post is "Typical".

I wonder if you would care to make a complaint to QF, asking for specific clarification of the 'Arrival access in SIN' policy, and asking that the policy be clarified on the web site, and then share the response with us?

I certainly will be writing a letter and I will post a response. It would be nice if Red Roo could pop by in the meantime.

The reality is that with the loss of any time access for WP, QF modified their planned change and arrivals access was allowed. This was later changed to be at domestic ports only.

You can read about it here: www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/qantas-frequent-flyer-program/platinum-anytime-lounge-access-ceases-25773-32.html#post402861

Are you saying then that the FAQ is wrong?

According to the Platinum benefits as stated on the QF website you are only entitled to entry to Domestic Lounges after a flight, not international.

These are the conditions stated for entry to the Singapore International lounge for Platinum Members. No mention of any post flight access.


[TABLE="class: basic, width: 500"]
[TR="class: alt"]
[TH="bgcolor: #F9F9F9"]Platinum Frequent Flyer
[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #F9F9F9"]Next onward flight must be on a Qantas^, Emirates^, Jetstar Airlines+ or oneworld flight number.#
One guest allowed and must be travelling with the member on the same flight.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I agree. It says the same on every lounge's individual page. It's just that the FAQ doesn't agree, nor does Jo, apparently, as she said (as I noted in the first post) that there are some lounges where the benefit does apply. Jo referenced Melbourne and Sydney as examples but, even if the benefit did apply, the "where available" clause would prevent access because of the separation of arriving and departing passengers.

 

[Sdtravel]

Very much off topic now but isnt that not flying / working part of qantas's commitment to safety?
A plane can withstand some lighting but people can't.
Similar to how when we had that Chili volcano thing. Qantas delayed return to service by a day to ensure its safe even though others decided to fly.
Say what you will but from this perspective one can see their perspective to ensure safety as much as possible.

On the lounge thing im still a little on the fence but being a NB who will not be anything higher anytime soon i see this as such a first world / class problem. Will read more to make up my mind.

 

[mannej]

Apparently not lol. Sorry if the truth has upset you.
This is now off topic. We were one of the last to alight and the poor sods behind us were stuck on the tarmac. Yes there was lightning, not all day. Other carriers managed to carry on with their business. It was in the days when pilots wore red ties, which I fully supported. Every one knew it was a claytons strike, having a strike when not having a strike. That day was a disgrace. Don't take it so personally. Unless???

Tell me where I have taken this personally?

What came out of the day is that QF are more stringent when it comes to conditions around working when lightning is present.

As someone who has a safety background, I can look past the disruption (and the standards the other airlines have) and not have an issue with it.

Should a staff member have been struck that day, the reasoning of not delaying passengers wouldn't stand up.

 

[serfty]

Are you saying then that the FAQ is wrong?
..

Yes!

See KPC's post from 2011: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....lounge-access-ceases-25773-32.html#post402861

 

[Danger]

Yes!

See KPC's post from 2011: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....lounge-access-ceases-25773-32.html#post402861

So the person who made the sneaky adjustment didn't notify the FAQ team. And I've fallen foul of the Qantas inconsistency. It's all well and good to have that nice little Platinum benefit on the website for all to see; quite another to realise it's a lie.

The lesson, I guess, is just to reinforce that not even what you read on the Qantas website can be trusted.

 

[RooFlyer]

Yes!

See KPC's post from 2011: http://www.australianfrequentflyer....lounge-access-ceases-25773-32.html#post402861

Serfty, can I suggest one can't say its "wrong". It may be in conflict with other sources, but if Qantas publish it on their web site, then its the interpretation of their own rules according to Qantas, and not "wrong". Business who publish conflicting information (such as prices Vs sale prices etc) are obliged to give the customer the benefit or best side of any conflicting information, so arguably the FAQ is actually the operative wording in this case.

So we are entitled to rely on this publication (as previously quoted by Serfty)

Question
If I am a Platinum Frequent Flyer am I able to use The Qantas Club or International Business Lounge on arrival (if available)?
Answer
Yes. As long as you have a boarding pass for a flight that day or have travelled that day with a Qantas, Jetstar Airline (JQ, 3K or VF) or a oneworld® alliance flight number you may access the lounge.

Thank you linesmen, thank-you ball-boys.

 

[JessicaTam]

I will be transiting SIN in a few weeks, so I might just hide my onward BP and see if the inward BP gets me access. The more people who push this in SIN the quicker it will be resolved - and yes, it could be one way or the other.

 

[Simo]

I have been to the SIN lounge a few times and never been impressed by the staff.

Food average and not refilled when ran out.

Last time I was there I needed a BP for my next flight and was told to ring up and they will e mail me one.

The girl could see my booking on the next flight but she could not print a BP.

 

[Danger]

I will be transiting SIN in a few weeks, so I might just hide my onward BP and see if the inward BP gets me access. The more people who push this in SIN the quicker it will be resolved - and yes, it could be one way or the other.

Please do.

 

[medhead]

This is the Qantas Singapore lounge not the International Business Lounge sounds rather like the pedantic Terraces vs Galleries BS. How ironic.

As a side note, I witnessed planes sitting on the tarmac, after landing for up to 7 hours with passengers because ground staff wouldn't work because of supposedly lightning. However other carriers landed and took off without a problem. Some planes actually ran out of juice and had to be towed from the tarmac. The whole day was a disgrace as far as Qantas was concerned. I ended up on a 2am flight I think I cant remember the exact time to Sydney via Melbourne in the end.

Sounds like you're confusing a few different issues here. The only total cancellation of flights events have been volcano related or the grounding. I'm unsure how a volcano would make staff "pretend" there was lightening. With the grounding I am not sure staff would hang around unpaid to disrupt passengers. Neither of those two events relate to any particular 'red' tie day that I recall.

 

[serfty]

I would suggest that with the genesis of this thread, qantas social media staff are now aware and the question and answer page referred to is almost certainly to be changed soon enough making this all moot.

 

[RooFlyer]

I would suggest that with the genesis of this thread, qantas social media staff are now aware and the question and answer page referred to is almost certainly to be changed soon enough making this all moot.

Quite so. But it'll be interesting to see how long they leave, for decency's sake, between this thread and the changing of the FAQ.

 

[Danger]

This is the Qantas Singapore lounge not the International Business Lounge sounds rather like the pedantic Terraces vs Galleries BS. How ironic.

Interesting point. I remember how pathetic the response from Qantas was over that.

I would suggest that with the genesis of this thread, qantas social media staff are now aware and the question and answer page referred to is almost certainly to be changed soon enough making this all moot.

Well, yes and no. Yes in that the FAQ will be tidied up. No in that a passenger (me, maybe others) has relied on information on a Qantas service from the Qantas website, written in black and white without a *, ^, #, @, >, ~ footnote and still had no luck.

Maybe the other sections of the QF website are wrong and the FAQ is correct. As mentioned, it's probably only the Singapore lounge where the benefit can be used but it's a benefit nonetheless. And as far as I'm concerned, if the FAQ is changed in the negative, I'll consider it a loss of another Platinum benefit.

The bigger issue, I believe, is you can't trust what's on the QF website. There have been other examples and the inconsistencies are just ridiculous.

 

[JohnPhelan]

So the person who made the sneaky adjustment didn't notify the FAQ team. And I've fallen foul of the Qantas inconsistency. It's all well and good to have that nice little Platinum benefit on the website for all to see; quite another to realise it's a lie.

A "lie" is a deliberate falsehood. This sounds more like this one reference was overlooked when the other references were updated. Hopefully it will be updated now. People do make mistakes - not everyone is out to screw you over with "lies"!!

 

[Danger]

A "lie" is a deliberate falsehood. This sounds more like this one reference was overlooked when the other references were updated. Hopefully it will be updated now. People do make mistakes - not everyone is out to screw you over with "lies"!!

Perfectly fair. "Lie" may well be considered over the top and I absolutely have no issue with people making mistakes.

There has been no comment from Red Roo so I'll be sure to post the response I get from QF (if any) when I write the letter. As others have mentioned, it will also be interesting to see if and when the FAQ is deleted.

 

[DC3]

I would suggest that with the genesis of this thread, qantas social media staff are now aware and the question and answer page referred to is almost certainly to be changed soon enough making this all moot.

But whether it's a moot point in the future is not what is being raised, above.

It's about access, now. Any of this is subject to change in the future, but we are discussing the current access rules aren't we?