platinum - thrown out of galleries first at heathrow, waiting for explanation

[MelUser]

The poor chap is probably still on the plane and if, as it seems, he is travelling in economy class, he will arrive in quite a disheveled state and need some rest before responding!

 

[Skyring]

I've got VH-VZC "Innisfail" screaming in my ear about ten metres away as I write this. I like my office.

I'm a regular user of the BA First lounges at Heathrow in T3/5, and I've never had any problem getting access alone or with a companion, even when dressed for comfort in my usual cargo pants and polo and getting heavily stuck into the bubbly.

This whole incident sounds rather odd, and definitely worth a follow-up. One of the big benefits of OWE is access to First lounges, and while few (if any) meet the standard of QF SYD/MEL First, it's still a very handy comfort, especially travelling long-haul.

If BA are unilaterally denying access or (worse IMO) ejecting OWE pax, then it's a major embarrassment, as well as loss of amenity. This is the sort of thing that people switch alliances over.

 

[Mal]

I'm a regular user of the BA First lounges at Heathrow in T3/5, and I've never had any problem getting access alone or with a companion, even when dressed for comfort in my usual cargo pants and polo and getting heavily stuck into the bubbly.

This whole incident sounds rather odd, and definitely worth a follow-up.

I agree. I lost count of the number of times I've been in T3/T5 F lounges over the last year. Sometimes I'd get a cold greeting, but was never refused, moved on or otherwise made to feel like I shouldn't be there.

I don't know if we aren't being told the whole story, or some lounge agent had an ego trip. Perhaps it's a case of mistaken identity, and someone else should have been removed. The quote regarding access only for First pax is a little odd as well.

The only scenario I can think of where that might occur is during "Pre-Flight Dining", but it isn't F/J only early in the morning AFAIK in T3.

Hopefully the QF rep was able to sort things out and smooth things over.

 

[medhead]

Ah, no.

The full brunt of criticism and complaints should be levelled at BA.

I agree entirely that the criticism needs to be levelled at BA. However, BA can easily ignore the complaint as the OP is not a BA elite. Hence, the incident also needs to be notified to Qantas as well with the request that they enforce their oneworld agreement with BA. This is where the most leverage could be applied because it gets into commercial arrangements that cost qantas to provide benefits to BA customers. If there is a pattern of BA avoid those costs then qantas really should be protecting their shareholders value. So while immediate issues with the operation of the BA lounge are out of hands of qantas, the honouring of the oneworld agreement very much is in qantas' hands.

really a 2 prong approach is needed

 

[Dave Noble]

I agree entirely that the criticism needs to be levelled at BA. However, BA can easily ignore the complaint as the OP is not a BA elite. Hence, the incident also needs to be notified to Qantas as well with the request that they enforce their oneworld agreement with BA. This is where the most leverage could be applied because it gets into commercial arrangements that cost qantas to provide benefits to BA customers. If there is a pattern of BA avoid those costs then qantas really should be protecting their shareholders value. So while immediate issues with the operation of the BA lounge are out of hands of qantas, the honouring of the oneworld agreement very much is in qantas' hands.

really a 2 prong approach is needed

Except that there doesn't seem to be a pattern of BA removing people from lounges. It is not something I have heard of before. If BA were generally refusing to honour their commitment then Qantas's involvement may serve some purpose , but it doesn't seem to be the case to me

I don't see how complaining to Qamtas would get any more than what they had said on the phone

 

[futurism]

hi all
im in melbourne now

an update for you, looks like my first post caused quite some interest

Eventually I spoke to the qantas rep at Heathrow
yes I was in terminal 3 and yes I was flying with qantas
I have used this lounge many times before, trust me I know what I am doing, I am quite well travelled.

I am also very well spoken and fly around in a business capacity, its not like im a drug smoking hippy or something if thats what many of you were thinking.

The qantas rep turned up only 10 or so minutes before boarding. She was apologetic but offered nothing beyond an apology, she did mention that the BA staff seem to get it wrong on occasion.
By that time the staff who had told me to leave, and the reception staff who let me in, but then would not let me back in had left (they seem to rotate quite quickly).

So my post was just a heads up, just because you are entitled to use a lounge and have used it many times before, and are let in, doesnt mean they wont throw you out because they feel like it.
The lounge was pretty much empty as well.

I enjoyed my regular shower at the Singapore first lounge without issue, so I am not blacklisted or anything like that.

I will now read through the pages of responses and see if theres anything more to add.


to add

1. Was flying qantas QF10
2. was flying economy, seat 40G (the best seat in economy, like I said ive been platinum a while and I always get 40G)
3. Was allowed into the lounge, was sitting peacefully drinking water
4. Was approached, asked for card, showed it, told to leave.
5. Have used the lounge on 3 previous occasions without issue.
6. Spoke to qantas rep, in her little office just inside the galleries first lounge, she was apologetic but it was too late, plus I didnt really want a fuss made by then, I was over it.
7. Cant be sure it was personal, but the fact I was told to leave after being let in suggests it could be.
8. I called 131313 and put in my FF number and got through, whoever I spoke to didnt know what galleries was first, I explained it the qantas lounge at heathrow, she spoke to her supervisor and said as its managed by BA, its up to BA. I did ask for a note to be put on my account because I was sure I was right.
9. The signage on the various entrances tells you its for QF and BA and even has emerald on the First section sign I believe.

I will call up Qantas in business hours Monday and discuss with someone, I am more likely to get an informed person then rather than on the weekend.

 

[knasty]

2 weeks ago I had an ordinary experience in the BA First lounge @ T3. Showed my QF First boarding pass which quoted my measly QF Ruby status*. 1st dragon points at my status to the 2nd dragon and asks 'Can he get in with this'? The word 'First' must not have been quite big enough for her.

Lady behind me got into a debate with dragon over the status issue, stating she had always got in previously. His comment was 'If you got into the lounge previously you should think yourself lucky'! Classy...

* 'Intelligent' QF system twice overwrote my AA number in the system with my QF number. At LHR checkin said they were unable to overwrite it. At SIN they said the same thing - I complained, they phoned someone and after 10mins my BP had my AA number printed, but QF still credited me with the points...waiting to see if AA do too.

 

[Dave Noble]

2 weeks ago I had an ordinary experience in the BA First lounge @ T3. Showed my QF First boarding pass which quoted my measly QF Ruby status*. 1st dragon points at my status to the 2nd dragon and asks 'Can he get in with this'? The word 'First' must not have been quite big enough for her.

It is possible that she just missed that you were in 1st class and looked at the status; there is no question that a 1st class QF passenger should be permitted access to the 1st class section and since you did get in, it seems to be a non issue really

Lady behind me got into a debate with dragon over the status issue, stating she had always got in previously. His comment was 'If you got into the lounge previously you should think yourself lucky'! Classy...

Without knowing what status the other passenger had, it is hard to know whether the person was trying it on or not

Trouble is, is so many people do try it on ( and even amazingly get encouraged on this board to do so in many cases with extra guests etc ) that they are naurally wary

* 'Intelligent' QF system twice overwrote my AA number in the system with my QF number. At LHR checkin said they were unable to overwrite it. At SIN they said the same thing - I complained, they phoned someone and after 10mins my BP had my AA number printed, but QF still credited me with the points...waiting to see if AA do too.

I expect that you will find that you do not get the points credited to AA. If wanting to credit to AA, the safest bet is not to have the QF number in there in the 1st place or , if using it to get seating in advance, get it removed as soon as the seating is done and then get the AA number inserted.

Dave

 

[medhead]

Except that there doesn't seem to be a pattern of BA removing people from lounges. It is not something I have heard of before. If BA were generally refusing to honour their commitment then Qantas's involvement may serve some purpose , but it doesn't seem to be the case to me

I don't see how complaining to Qamtas would get any more than what they had said on the phone

Sure it is not going to achieve anything concrete. What it does do is record the incident officially with qantas. With all due respect to the vast amount of knowledge of AFF, it is up to Qantas to determine if there is a pattern in BA's treatment of QF elite customers, not AFF.

 

[Dave Noble]

Sure it is not going to achieve anything concrete. What it does do is record the incident officially with qantas. With all due respect to the vast amount of knowledge of AFF, it is up to Qantas to determine if there is a pattern in BA's treatment of QF elite customers, not AFF.

*shrug* each to their own; me I'd save the effort of making a complaint to when I think it would serve some purpose. If he thinks that it would make a difference then go for it

 

[medhead]

*shrug* each to their own; me I'd save the effort of making a complaint to when I think it would serve some purpose. If he thinks that it would make a difference then go for it

But that's the point isn't it. You (and I) have no way to know whether a complaint would serve a purpose or not. Only Qantas can know that.

 

[Dave Noble]

But that's the point isn't it. You (and I) have no way to know whether a complaint would serve a purpose or not. Only Qantas can know that.

I can make inferrences though; do you genuinely believe that complaining to QF will serve any real purpose at this stage?

 

[medhead]

I can make inferrences though; do you genuinely believe that complaining to QF will serve any real purpose at this stage?

Yes I believe it will serve a real prupose as stated. I don't believe it will get an immediate action or satisfactory response to the particular event. I also believe that BA should be contacted as well to deal with the issues related to the specific event.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Not very good knowledge of the rules by BA lounge staff or was there a personal vendetta in this story?
Is it sad that I carry a printout of the Oneworld Lounge Access rules in my travel wallet?

Good tip! And no, not sad at all. When you have inexperienced lounge dragons, it might save your day (or save face). Pretty poor on BA's behalf. OP was "in", then got booted out, hmm.

I'm planning on passing through LHR towards the end of year. As a QF WP, l would expect F Lounge access, regardless of class of travel, if on a OW member airline. I fly whY (can't afford J/F), and dress comfortable, ie, jeans and polo shirt.

 

[Dave Noble]

This is more or less what they have done.

Less being the key bit. They *have* called it a business lounge
It is , imo, no different to BA deciding that they will not allow OWS into their business lounges or a OWE into their 1st lounges, the latter being viewed ( it would seem ) as wrong from this thread. Surely should expect all the carriers to abide by the OW policy rather than being able to make up new rules on the fly

 

[Dave Noble]

4. So it would be a win-win to both QF & AA if QF was to adapt the "no domestic lounge access" policy toward AAdvantage Sapphires.

Except that that would be a breach of OW entitlements. Why is it seemingly ok to come up with ways to restrict entitled access to QF lounges whilst castigating BA for not allowing someone in

Perhaps a read of the AA platinum member's guide might be of value where it stipulates

Lounge access is not available when travel is wholly within the U.S., Canada, Mexico (except Mexico City), Bermuda, The Bahamas, and the Caribbean.

Also, as a consideration to what is international... if making a change to a booking for travel on Qantas from Sydney - Melbourne , this is something that the domestic AA desk cannot handle

Perhaps it would be to QF's benefit if they could get an agreement not to let QF members in... in fact , would it not be of benefit to both airlines if all lounge access based on status was withdrawn?

Even in practical issues, Qf has no problem granting admission to the Qantas Club so another point to show that lounge access is an entitlement.

If that is still unclear, I would suggest that the OW site page on lounge access ( oneworld - Lounge Access ) is pretty unambiguous

 

[ajw373]

Less being the key bit. They *have* called it a business lounge
It is , imo, no different to BA deciding that they will not allow OWS into their business lounges or a OWE into their 1st lounges, the latter being viewed ( it would seem ) as wrong from this thread. Surely should expect all the carriers to abide by the OW policy rather than being able to make up new rules on the fly

No the main jist of this thread is nothing alike. BA's lounge access policy said the guy should have been there but he was wrongly asked to leave. That is a legit gripe.

Qantas on the other hand have created a new domestic lounge with very clearly defined access rules. Now whilst I agree with you 100% that having the word business in the lounge name creates confusion, the bottom line is if they allowed access to one world sapphires they may as well not have a separate lounge. The access rules are quite sensible too.

 

[anat0l]

Why is it seemingly ok to come up with ways to restrict entitled access to QF lounges whilst castigating BA for not allowing someone in

Well, to take a page from Arguing by Dave Noble (i.e. basing it on the way and style that you have argued before), fundamentally all the talk about why QF seemingly flout the ow rules is not relevant to this thread and the OP.

To put it simply, the OP and the premise of this thread is that the oneworld rules state that the OP was fully entitled to enter the BA T5 GF, but instead they were removed (that's right - not refused but admitted and then removed). And the answer we can all agree on - as it would seem - is that the OP should have been granted access as per the ow rules.

The issues related to QF's flouting of the access rules is a separate issue which has no impact on the outcome of the OP's issue. So I will happily castigate BA about their flouting of the rules and we'll leave the whole other issue of QF's flouting the rules to another argument (even if it coexists in this thread) and another lynching if necessary.

 

[dk4]

Except that that would be a breach of OW entitlements.

I'm not talking about across the board Sapphire restrictions, I agree that Qantas lost the right to restrict access to any of its "Business Lounges" to other airlines' Sapphire elites when it signed up to oneworld, except maybe AA's. (And QF needs to remedy this situation OR accept their obligations to partner elites; there are two useful ideas presented already in this thread.)

HOWEVER, AA has the right to determine lounge access rules for their card holders. AA does NOT have to comply with 1W rules for its own program members, only those cards presented from other alliance airline programs.# (In the same way that QF or BA don't have to comply with 1W rules for their own program members, but must for elites from other programs.*)

Lounge access is not available when travel is wholly within the U.S., Canada, Mexico (except Mexico City), Bermuda, The Bahamas, and the Caribbean.

Clearing up any ambiguity by adding “Australia” to that list would be fairly simple. And as QF is the only 1W carrier to participate in the Admirals Club program, perhaps it would be quite reasonable for this restriction to be added formally?!

Perhaps it would be to QF's benefit if they could get an agreement not to let QF members in... in fact , would it not be of benefit to both airlines if all lounge access based on status was withdrawn?

LOL. seriously!?!

SUMMING UP, * I feel BA should honour the 1W terms, just as QF should. However, AA & QF (via the AC & QP) have a "special relationship", and there may be commercial validity in extending AAdvantage domestic lounge access restrictions formally to "Australia", as a commercial benefit to both partners.

# possibly part of the reason for QF enforcing the 4 ~ segments rule for QFF status?!

 

[serfty]

Maybe a moderator should break the new OW/QF/AA lounge issue to a new thread so that it can remain on its topic and this thread can get back on topic.

I was going to do this yesterday, but had not the time. Now done!

Please continue discussion here:

• Qantas Domestic Business Lounge - oneworld Emerald access Discussion