No Anytime access for Platinum members to 1st lounge or new J lounges from 0408

[Reggie]

I feel that Qantas can't remove Anytime access for at least 6 months after warning WP's of losing the right. It's not like an unenforced T&C, but more a published benefit that they can't easily wriggle out of.

There is a difference between turning a blind eye to a T&C and publishing a benefit.

I'm away at present, is it actually advertised or stated anywhere in the QP brochure? Even the letter they emailed didn't say anything of anytime access, it just said we could access lounges at these times.

 

[Mal]

I'm away at present, is it actually advertised or stated anywhere in the QP brochure? Even the letter they emailed didn't say anything of anytime access, it just said we could access lounges at these times.

Flying with Us - Qantas Club - Lounge Access

Member Type
Platinum

International First Lounge
Member and 1 guest can access lounge any time.^ Guest must be travelling with member.
International Business Lounge
Member and 1 guest can access lounge any time.^ Guest must be travelling with member.
The Qantas Club (Domestic lounge)
Member and 2 guests can access lounge any time. Guests do not need to be travelling.

^ Must be travelling, not necessarily on Qantas, British Airways or Jetstar to access the lounge. From 1 April 2008, you must be travelling on the day with Qantas, Jetstar, British Airways or any of the other oneworld members airlines to access the lounge.

Pretty clear to me as a published benefit.

(PS - There seems to be a typo on the page - my understanding was that J lounge Internationally wasn't affected by these changes - and shouldn't have the ^)

 

[Reggie]

Pretty clear to me as a published benefit.

Yep I have to agree it is published benefit, certainly one I dont want to lose.

 

[JohnK]

But I feel that Qantas was annoyed at Nth American pax finding easy ways to earn QF status to use the AA lounges and so worked on reducing their ability to use this loophole - unless they showed some loyalty to Qantas. I'm only singling out Nth American pax due to the AA restrictions on lounge access to their elites - I' sure there are other relevant examples as well.

I don't think Qantas was upset to lose them...

I totally agree that this particular type of loophole had to be closed. Fancy being able to attain QF Platinum with less than US$1400 spend per year, and without a single QF flight, and then have access to domestic AA lounges which in theory would be billed back to Qantas.

 

[thadocta]

I totally agree that this particular type of loophole had to be closed. Fancy being able to attain QF Platinum with less than US$1400 spend per year, and without a single QF flight, and then have access to domestic AA lounges which in theory would be billed back to Qantas.

Probably worthy of a new thread, but are we absolutely sure about that? I haven't been an an AA lounge for years, mostly only QF, BA and CX, with one AY lounge thrown in, but how is this billing handled?

At HEL, my card and BP were sighted, but not scanned or swiped. Domestic QP's merely sight BP's and cards, even for non-QF OW status members, so there is no record of non-QF elites accessing the lounges, so there is no way for QF to bill the airline the passenger is affiliated with. I have seen this in SYD DOM with JL, BA and CX members.

Dave

 

[serfty]

but how is this billing handled?

Maybe they put a tick on a tally sheet and bill later?

I have often seen the agents penning a manual notation when I enter at various lounges.

 

[Shano]

I have often seen the agents penning a manual notation when I enter at various lounges.

That was also my observation last month.

 

[serfty]

... On the other hand, I always see changes in rules as tests for what Qantas can get away with. I wouldn't like the anytime access to be dropped completely in a year's time because Qantas felt that they got away with the change this year without complaint.

In the bigger picture, I lose little from this move. But always cautious of the slow dilution of benefits.

What I find surprising is the 'watering down' to Int J/Dom QP rather than the complete exclusion I had been anticipating ever since Qantas made the anytime access rules completely clear on their web site back in June.

In any case, given this change, I do not expect any significant further variance to these particular WP access rules for two or three years at least.

What may happen is that WP could become significantly more difficult to attain in the meantime.

 

[Dave Noble]

What may happen is that WP could become significantly more difficult to attain in the meantime.

I don't see any reason to think that there would be such a change

Dave

 

[Shano]

Just my speculation, but perhaps QF will wait some period (2 years ?) to gauge the effects that the enforcement of the 4 sector rule has on the # of people with status (particularly WP), before considering changes to qualification requirements.

 

[dajop]

With strengthening of domestic competition with DJ's Velocity Program no including (albeit limited in scope) status, and entry of the Virgin Blue group into the Pacific market probably in 2008, I would be surprised if raising the bar for status was on the cards in the short term - perhaps something after the dust settles.

 

[oz_mark]

Just my speculation, but perhaps QF will wait some period (2 years ?) to gauge the effects that the enforcement of the 4 sector rule has on the # of people with status (particularly WP), before considering changes to qualification requirements.

I would have thought that they could work this out from everyones activity.

 

[Shano]

Just my speculation, but perhaps QF will wait some period (2 years ?) to gauge the effects that the enforcement of the 4 sector rule has on the # of people with status (particularly WP), before considering changes to qualification requirements.

I would have thought that they could work this out from everyones activity.

As you say, based on historical data they would get some indication of the potential drop in members with status due to those not flying the requisite 4 sectors. However, the nett result is likely to be different as some will make an effort to fly the 4 sectors and some won't / can't.

 

[moa999]

on the flipside wonder if AA tracks how many of its members live in Australia and fly predom on QF ??

 

[wandering_fred]

on the flipside wonder if AA tracks how many of its members live in Australia and fly predom on QF ??

As opposed to the members that reside in Australia and fly OW airlines other than QF?

It remains to be seen how effective the introduction of Econ+ by QF will be in changing my flying patterns. At the moment from SIN I can get to the USA (via LHR) on BA WT+ almost as cheaply as ordinary Econ transPac......... (OW of course)

Y(earning)MMV

Fred

 

[serfty]

I don't see any reason to think that there would be such a change

Dave

By imagining myself tasked with increasing Qantas profit I could think of many actions/changes that would reduce costs by more than the revenue loss such action/change may incur. This is one of them.

 

[turtlemichael]

By imagining myself tasked with increasing Qantas profit I could think of many actions/changes that would reduce costs by more than the revenue loss such action/change may incur. This is one of them.

Indeed.

Further, making the benefits more desirable but harder to get can have the effect of increasing revenue/profit. Soon it will be better lounge access in the international terminal and a better lounge in the domestic terminal in Syd/Mel/Bne. Maybe add in better access to upgrades and better access to awards. Put a higher price on it -let's say you only earn SC's from higher level fares. You don't even need to change the absolute qualification of 1200/1400.

My suggestion is that though some will fall by the wayside and have to suffer the indignities of SG, others will try harder to meet the new criteria because the status/benefits are seen as worthwhile. Net affect is more revenue for QF. Easy!

 

[garyjohn951]

I think they are tightening the noose by applying the current rules. 1. that there must be 4 QF sectors. I don't see a problem with this. Been in the rules for years, anyone signing up would have ticked the box they read the rules, etc.
2. By applying a stricter application of getting to the 1200 points. I know of 1 WP who has not got over 500 points the last 4 yrs but given WP, lost it last month and he complained !!!!
How many others were like him. They clean them out and the number of WP's will be less.

 

[straitman]

By applying a stricter application of getting to the 1200 points. I know of 1 WP who has not got over 500 points the last 4 yrs but given WP, lost it last month and he complained !!!!
How many others were like him. They clean them out and the number of WP's will be less.

Agree, however I also believe that a one off (or two) comp is not unreasonable as most of us have bad years occasionally.

 

[garyjohn951]

Yes, I thought of the 1 bad year and forgot to mention it. There should always be room for exceptions.