MEL First lounge joins PER RSA push

[tuapekastar]

He stood by his opinion that we'd had too much and that he had proof.

That's unfortunate but to be expected I guess. Sounds like he was wrong, and quite possibly being vindictive. As you say, you were almost certainly quite capable of legally getting behind the wheel of a car (I know I would have been, after four of their piddling serves in four hours).

Like I said in the other place, it is a good reason to like self serve.

 

[JessicaTam]

JohnK have you not read the thousands of accurate, inciteful and intelligent posts that both JT and bc have contributed to AFF? They are very rational and intelligent people - well seasoned in all facets of the flying game particularly lounges and lounge etiquette - I think they may be far better placed to decide which course of action was appropriate at that point in time.

Thank you.

 

[JessicaTam]

I have PMed Red Roo to advise them of this thread.

I will be putting together an email to a senior member of the customer service team in the next day or two to outline our experience.

I sincerely hope that there was a mix up with the tables and the record of drinks consumed. I will know in future to ask for the 'bill' as I was not aware that this could be requested. Unfortunately I don't consider being RSAed so soon after commenting on the staff to be a coincidence.

JohnK, I took the opportunity to chat to the lounge manager/first host at the time I was giving them some chocolates (as I do). When he asked how our experience was I felt it appropriate to reply honestly. I was not overly critical, merely saying that the staff seemed "disinterested" and not as attentive as we were used to.

I should note that the QF staff member I spoke to changed shift with the staff member who advised us that we would not be served any more alcohol soon after I had spoken with him.

 

[anat0l]

Whilst I do not excuse the notion that the staff may have been vindictive (hiding behind the veil of RSA) let alone carrying poor service standards, what are the notional points of RSA?

Getting "RSA" wrong on either side of the scale can result in disastrous consequences for the staff. With a rise in alcohol related incidents on planes with very little reprimand of the perpetrators (but a very high criticism of the providers of alcohol involved), I would not be surprised if airlines were starting to get very edgy about alcohol. Even if it fits the "guidelines" (e.g. 1 standard drink per hour).

As someone in a service role, how do you make the call if someone has had too much or not, and then if they had had too much, how do you justify further when they show resistance (aggressive or otherwise)? The argument of "we served you more than 1 standard drink per hour" is not necessarily conducive to being sufficient proof.

Note that I am not implying that the OPs actually "had too much" or were aggressive, belligerent or otherwise offensive.

I would definitely lodge a complaint about the service standard, as that is independent of how much alcohol you had, or the RSA issue, and was present earlier than when the "RSA issue" had come to a head anyway.

 

[basso]

Whilst I do not excuse the notion that the staff may have been vindictive (hiding behind the veil of RSA) let alone carrying poor service standards, what are the notional points of RSA?

The biggest issue with the whole thing is the focus on the 'server' being wrong. If something happens, people always focus on why they were served alcohol, rather than on the actual people that committed the offence. On the other side, no-one likes being cut-off and always blames the 'server' for getting in wrong. The old 'I did nothing wrong' that emits from the mouths of almost anyone that gets cut off. The move away from people taking personal responsibility for the actions lies behind all this.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

To be honest the service in the SYD lounge has had some issues for a while. A couple of visits back I was told (as a First class passenger) to 'go up to the restaurant and get your own menu' when sitting at one of the recliner-chairs by the window. When I was then ready to place an order, I was told to 'go to the restaurant' to do that. Yes the lounge was busy, but that's where it's sometimes important to recognise your F passengers.

That was last year - so probably not Accor by then?

(edit to add - i see this thread is about the MEL lounge. Not SYD as I was referring to.)

 

[blackcat20]

The biggest issue with the whole thing is the focus on the 'server' being wrong. If something happens, people always focus on why they were served alcohol, rather than on the actual people that committed the offence. On the other side, no-one likes being cut-off and always blames the 'server' for getting in wrong. The old 'I did nothing wrong' that emits from the mouths of almost anyone that gets cut off. The move away from people taking personal responsibility for the actions lies behind all this.

While I agree, in this case we didn't do anything wrong. Three people quietly enjoying a meal, not being loud or disruptive. We just wanted a second glass of red each.

 

[JessicaTam]

While I agree, in this case we didn't do anything wrong. Three people quietly enjoying a meal, not being loud or disruptive. We just wanted a second glass of red each.

I would go further than quiet, and suggest we were almost subdued.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Anyone tried to find the RSA guidelines? A google search returns plenty of results for training courses, but little information as to what the guidelines actually are.

I was surprised the other day to meet a friend for lunch who decided they wanted a glass of wine before driving back to their office. I suggested they abstain, but the waiter stepped in and said 'you're allowed two drinks in the first hour, and one each hour after that, so go ahead and have something'.

7 drinks in 4 hours would exceed RSA guidelines (according to our waiter's calculations). 4 would clearly be within.

 

[markis10]

Anyone tried to find the RSA guidelines? A google search returns plenty of results for training courses, but little information as to what the guidelines actually are.

I was surprised the other day to meet a friend for lunch who decided they wanted a glass of wine before driving back to their office. I suggested they abstain, but the waiter stepped in and said 'you're allowed two drinks in the first hour, and one each hour after that, so go ahead and have something'.

7 drinks in 4 hours would exceed RSA guidelines (according to our waiter's calculations). 4 would clearly be within.

I believe the Victorian act is the one that takes precedence in this case.

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt8.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/5B5B50D062CAB086CA257D09001C51C3/$FILE/98-94aa076%20authorised.pdf

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I believe the Victorian act is the one that takes precedence in this case.

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt8.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/5B5B50D062CAB086CA257D09001C51C3/$FILE/98-94aa076%20authorised.pdf

sure, but it would be nice if there was a clear outline - easy to find and read - for customers. That's what I'm having difficulty finding.

 

[medhead]

Seems to be some confusion going on around here. Both of you are talking about the guideline for being under the limit to drive a car. Males 2 standard drinks in the first hour and 1 for following hours, female 1 standard drink an hour. I doubt these are RSA guidelines, otherwise in theory everyone would be able to drive if RSA kept them under the driving limit.

Of course your blood alcohol limit is also highly dependent on the individual. Have heard stories of people with access to proper, official police testers that were surprised about the amount they had to drink to go blow over the limit.

Not sure if your friend had anything else to drink but there is no need to 100% abstain from 1 glass of wine with lunch if driving, if they have an open driver's licence. Learners, P and some other restricted licence holders have a 0 blood alcohol limit, hence couldn't drink.

Whilst I do not excuse the notion that the staff may have been vindictive (hiding behind the veil of RSA) let alone carrying poor service standards, what are the notional points of RSA?

Getting "RSA" wrong on either side of the scale can result in disastrous consequences for the staff. With a rise in alcohol related incidents on planes with very little reprimand of the perpetrators (but a very high criticism of the providers of alcohol involved), I would not be surprised if airlines were starting to get very edgy about alcohol. Even if it fits the "guidelines" (e.g. 1 standard drink per hour).

As someone in a service role, how do you make the call if someone has had too much or not, and then if they had had too much, how do you justify further when they show resistance (aggressive or otherwise)? The argument of "we served you more than 1 standard drink per hour" is not necessarily conducive to being sufficient proof.

Note that I am not implying that the OPs actually "had too much" or were aggressive, belligerent or otherwise offensive.

I would definitely lodge a complaint about the service standard, as that is independent of how much alcohol you had, or the RSA issue, and was present earlier than when the "RSA issue" had come to a head anyway.

Anyone tried to find the RSA guidelines? A google search returns plenty of results for training courses, but little information as to what the guidelines actually are.

I was surprised the other day to meet a friend for lunch who decided they wanted a glass of wine before driving back to their office. I suggested they abstain, but the waiter stepped in and said 'you're allowed two drinks in the first hour, and one each hour after that, so go ahead and have something'.

7 drinks in 4 hours would exceed RSA guidelines (according to our waiter's calculations). 4 would clearly be within.

 

[anat0l]

One thing for sure is that overcaution of RSA results in a customer service complaint.

"Undercaution" (or negligence) of RSA results in both a customer service complaint and a legal complaint.

Oddly enough, in both cases, the fate of the server may well be dismissal! Even in this case, if this complaint is followed through, the server could well be needing to look for another job. (I'm not saying we should feel sorry for them, just saying it's a viable consequence).

Another point is, if someone is "cut off" by the staff (or simply refused more drink), but then takes more from the self-service bar - whether or not that action results in intoxication or not - who bears the responsibility then? I assume it would still be the licence holder (in this case, the lounge) anyway. Could it be in any way feasible that "cutting (people) off" has to account for the possibility of utilising the self service bar?

 

[anat0l]

Seems to be some confusion going on around here. Both of you are talking about the guideline for being under the limit to driver a car. Males 2 standard drinks in the first hour and 1 for following hours, female 1 standard drink an hour. I doubt these are RSA guidelines, otherwise in theory everyone would be able to drive if RSA kept them under the driving limit.

That's actually a good point. The legislation linked by markis10 doesn't define intoxication with any reference to driving BAL, let alone the ability to safely operate a vehicle of any sort.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the "1 standard drink per hour" (roughly, I know I'm fudging here) is more or less lenient than the Act/Regulation definition; the latter is, in fact, very subjective, as it relies on a judgement call rather than any given rule of thumb, unless the relevant industries have published "friendly" guidelines that attempt to operationalise the Act/Regulation (something that MEL_Traveler would be more useful than the Act/Regulation).

 

[markis10]

That's actually a good point. The legislation linked by markis10 doesn't define intoxication with any reference to driving BAL, let alone the ability to safely operate a vehicle of any sort.

Indeed, the definition was what I was curious about. Remarkably broad, perhaps deliberately so in order to reduce possible loopholes.

 

[RooFlyer]

Oh, oh. I am used to carrying paperwork for lounge entry entitlements, keeping screenshots of offer registrations etc, taking pictures as I pack my checked luggage, and other 'proof I did it' type of things ... now I have to keep a record of drinks I am served in Qantas First Lounges? Maybe I get the server to sign and time my notebook every time a drink lands on the table?

I have absolutely no reason to doubt JessicaTam's recounting of what transpired, nor her conclusions. Anyone who has access to the F lounges in MEL or SYD would likely agree that they are one of the highlights of the QFF program ... surviving as nearly every other aspect has been chiselled away. Accor service has been criticised in the past. But this goes beyond that.

 

[Gold Member]

Cryptic?

Theres a hidden AA status run in there for 500 SCs at $500! Might need seven drinks to decipher...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Not sure if your friend had anything else to drink but there is no need to 100% abstain from 1 glass of wine with lunch if driving, if they have an open driver's licence. Learners, P and some other restricted licence holders have a 0 blood alcohol limit, hence couldn't drink.

my surprise was because I suggested my friend abstain, but the waiter stepped in to contradict that. the waiter doesn't know the background of the person I was with, so it was odd that they would encourage drinking, despite a suggestion otherwise.

 

[anat0l]

my surprise was because I suggested my friend abstain, but the waiter stepped in to contradict that. the waiter doesn't know the background of the person I was with, so it was odd that they would encourage drinking, despite a suggestion otherwise.

Question is, had your friend got behind the wheel and had an accident, could the establishment where he was served a drink be held responsible? Especially if he was tested to be under the mandated limit anyway?

But this has little to do with RSA anyway.


In conclusion, I'd like to think this is an isolated incident (yes I realise this is blinding - pun intended - obvious, but seriously). The fact that the service was poor anyway to start with (this in and of itself is worthy of a formal complaint even without referencing anything about the alcohol service) reinforces that thought, and has little (read: nothing) to do with RSA. You know that theory when someone looks at you and immediately doesn't like you, so whilst they won't say it to your face they will make life as difficult as possible for you?

What is also clear is that RSA Act/Regs are as clear as mud. It has detrimental consequences for the licensee all around anyway if there are grievances, though clearly one of those kinds of grievances is "preferred" through using RSA as an unconditional stop sign.

 

[anat0l]

... now I have to keep a record of drinks I am served in Qantas First Lounges? Maybe I get the server to sign and time my notebook every time a drink lands on the table?

In a real RSA complaint or even a situation like this, such evidence would help very little, and furthermore would also not assist the complaint at hand.