Clearly there is a lack of understanding here - certainly at least on my part because I can't follow the lines of reasoning here put forward. I prefer to not do these things over the internet because reason is often (alas) the first thing to exit via the window, but if it's that important, I want to try to make sure I've got the facts straight;
It seems an obvious truth (not just to an accountant and financial auditor but to anyone out of highschool) that even if you tried your hardest, you really couldn't make much of an impact on a given lounge's bottom line by consuming more of the consumables on offer. Remember what the input cost levels are actually at and you'll realise there is just no way you could hurt the bottom line that much. If they removed ATA because a lounge's variable costs increased by $700 a year, they may well do so, but it wouldn't be justified. Even with many people doing it, it isn't material. Remember the people who have ATA are Gold or Plat flyers who must have already spent a fairly reasonable sum to earn said status. MarkD, I agree 'someone has to pay' for the 'free' beer - in my case, there would be something left over from the $15,000 (give or take a grand, I'm using round figures) I've put through VA in the last 6 months to pay for some component of the catering offered by the lounge. Is that really in any doubt at all? My spend would be significantly less than many other Plats and Gold who aren't as self funded as I am. If we're all putting that much business through, there is certainly enough for a few Asahi's at a cost of $1.50 each to the lounge and a few coffees at 50c each input costs.
The variable costs just can't add into it because they are immaterial. Compare this too the lads who bought one of those AA AirPasses - the worst offenders (
The frequent fliers who flew too much - latimes.com) were able to run up $1m cost to the company annually. Even if you used the lounge every day (four beers, couple of coffees and food every visit) you'd be flat out to run up additional variable costs of $2,700.
The only problem seems to me to be space available. I agree, if there are heaps of people clogging up the lounge using ATA at times when you have pax who just need to get in there, get a coffee and some brekky before a flight, then that's bang out of order. But this is already compensated for by the fact that ATA can be refused on the basis that the lounge is crowded. If this is fairly enforced (and it should be) then ATA should, by the terms and the essence of the benefit itself, never be a problem and should certainly never be revoked network wide.
At any given time, the impact of ATA users who have not just got off a flight is going to be very minimal. It just stands to common sense and basic reason - ATA is practically unthinkable for all ports except OOL, and even then, the impact just isn't going to be significant.
So if I have understood right, the fear is that because of the very unusual, unique and specific properties of one port, and the frequent ATA access to that port's lounge by a small handful of already high-budget-high-yield (by definition) status holders (status matched pax excluded) enabled by said properties, occasioning in the increase of less than a rounding error in variable costs of the lounge network (compensated for many times over by said pax's travel spend), therefore, you won't be able to get a coffee in MEL having got off a flight from SYD.
If the decision makers at VA seriously went down that line of reasoning, they are welcome to it. I don't see why anyone should follow.
Also, when I said 'single handedly bringing about an end to ATA' I was of course being subtle, ironic and facetious (all of which is easy when communicating in a medium without tone or body language). In that same post, I was explaining how I could complete a trip to the lounge in 10mins - how much damage could anyone do to anything in that sort of time frame (perhaps 2 mins max in the lounge)? And I wouldn't be 'bragging' about bringing down a benefit for anyone, particularly the people with whom I share an affinity as fellow stewards of the lounge and the airline as a whole, and of course, myself. Is getting a coffee or a beer once a week and being in a lounge for a couple of minutes that offensive to someone? Ever notice some random walk into a lounge, grab something quick, drink it, then put his glass down on the cleaning trolley on his way out and think "h
ow dare he? what a 'self centred cough hole', struting through the the place as if he owns it! (strutting through the place for a very small length of time and consuming a very small part of the consumables - as IF he owns a very small part of it, which he must do by definition because he was able to come in here in the first place and has either paid for membership or has a large travel budget, both of which have funded this whole venture)!!". Doesn't make much sense to me when put like that, made about as much sense to me when put in different words elsewhere in this thread. Who really is being self centred here? Like I said, I must be misunderstanding something - help me out here.
There does seem to be a bit of the old thought mechanism at play here - everyone driving faster than you is a bloody idiot, everyone driving slower than you is a pest.
And here I was hoping to never get tangled up in 'one of those threads'.
And I'm still looking forward to meeting everyone and seeing the lounge tomorrow ^_^
edit: and I hope this is a decent and entertaining post cause it was my 100th! Nice way to bring up a century /richiebeanud
)
