Poor Mel QF F lounge service

[maninblack]

QF must be roo-ing (bad one I know) the day that it spent the money and made the commitment to that lounge. Given that, by my count, there are only 3 F services per day from Melbourne, the rest of the time it is servicing WP's and assorted OW Emeralds who choose to use it. I seem to remember talk initially that it was going to be for F passengers only - strictly. Still if they are going to have it open then the service provision should be top notch in all aspects. That is the purpose of it's existence.

 

[OverrideServlet]

I've been thinking about this a bit since the other JQi thread started.

I agree that the outcome of this specific situation is disappointing.

My stance on this is that I just don't trust humans enough to get things right 100% of the time. At the airport I rely on a number of inputs to make sure I get to the gate on time. Including:

• PA announcements from lounge staff.
• Flight status displays.
• My laptop - especially if I'm not within sight of a flight status board.
• My watch, or an alarm on my phone.

This is obviously of little help to the OP. But I just wanted to make the point that if you believe that the entire responsibility for your boarding your flight on time lies on the shoulders of lounge staff, then you and I probably have very different ideas about whether or not they are paid enough to care.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Maybe PM Red Roo first.
However this from the reports is not an isolated incident so maybe the Flounge staff need to be proactive when they know JQ pax are in the lounge and ring to make sure they are updated on boarding times.

Unlike QF flights, lounge staff cannot monitor the JQ boarding of a flight so they are totally reliant on JQi or whoever the handling agent is to update them so they're really flying blind. The difference is if a Qantas flight is boarding (QF metal) lounge staff can always sign into the boarding application & see if people have started boarding as it will show them how many pax have boarded & how many left to go.

Also if QF are looking for fail to board pax they can easily see the mobile phone from the passengers checkin record so would ring them first before offloading them. The JQ checkin/boarding record does not display pax contact numbers - staff would would have to access JQ reservations (Flightspeed?) to view that & they may not even be trained how to do that. Even if they were I really doubt they would go to that trouble as it would appear the staff prefer to start offload procedures than try to call the pax first which would be easier for all concerned.

QF must be roo-ing (bad one I know) the day that it spent the money and made the commitment to that lounge. Given that, by my count, there are only 3 F services per day from Melbourne, the rest of the time it is servicing WP's and assorted OW Emeralds who choose to use it. I seem to remember talk initially that it was going to be for F passengers only - strictly. Still if they are going to have it open then the service provision should be top notch in all aspects. That is the purpose of it's existence.

It's all well and good to have these First Lounges for their premium passengers but the reality is when travelling on JQ the minute you walk out the door of the F Lounge you cease being a Platinum frequent flyer & become just another JQ passenger.

 

[anat0l]

Unlike QF flights, lounge staff cannot monitor the JQ boarding of a flight so they are totally reliant on JQi or whoever the handling agent is to update them so they're really flying blind.

Don't really buy this. The QF clickety-clack old-school departures boards often display the flight information for all Qantas and Jetstar flights - doesn't matter who operates the flight, as long as there is a QF or JQ code it is on the board (along with oneworld flights and all codeshares). Now how do you suppose they update that departures board? I doubt it is driven by a direct feed from the MEL central system (and if it is then our OP has a bit of a case to answer - or MEL airports does).

Also if QF are looking for fail to board pax they can easily see the mobile phone from the passengers checkin record so would ring them first before offloading them. The JQ checkin/boarding record does not display pax contact numbers - staff would would have to access JQ reservations (Flightspeed?) to view that & they may not even be trained how to do that.

Which really points to a failure in the JQ systems (or to a more precise point, whoever designed the JQ systems and whoever on the JQ side was responsible for acceptance testing and the procurement of the said system). And why would JQ staff not have access to the res system, let alone not trained to do so? I understand the concept of tiered access control, but this is ridiculous. (And no, possibly cheaper training costs and faster training times are not good reasons. And I'm sure that the JQ contingent is not a bunch of human-skin-covered hollowed bone-balloons with two ears attached - they can actually know how to do this stuff if they were given both the rights and the training.)

Even if they were I really doubt they would go to that trouble as it would appear the staff prefer to start offload procedures than try to call the pax first which would be easier for all concerned.

I'm in two minds on this one. It shouldn't be much trouble to call the pax (that is, if the systems were set up not to go through that whole rigmarole), but I am very resentful of pax who deliberately hold up on-time departure by turning up late for boarding. (Some of them can't help it, e.g. medical, baby threw up, on crutches, tripped - fine - but I do know there are pax out there who like to push their luck for the sake of another beer, more shopping, a "business" call that couldn't wait for later, etc. - these people should be off-loaded without regret or compensation payable).


I get very nervous when there hasn't been a call for my flight at the scheduled boarding time, especially if I can see the aircraft there at the gate. I usually check other sources to see if boarding has commenced or it is really a delay.

In saying that, so far no QF lounge has ever let me down with incorrect boarding announcements. In fact, no lounge in the world has so far - that is if they actually make any boarding announcements (because a lot of lounges do not).

 

[serfty]

... Now how do you suppose they update that departures board? I doubt it is driven by a direct feed from the MEL central system (and if it is then our OP has a bit of a case to answer - or MEL airports does). ...

The MEL T2 central boarding monitor system appears to be schedule related rather than actuality - it operates by the clock. Many timesI have seen it show a flight as "Boarding" when I am at the gate and it certainly isn't.

 

[mannej]

Anat, I believe Oz knows the workings of the QF and JQ systems quite well

But I do agree with what you are getting at. If they are the same airline group, you think the systems would talk to each other, especially if one airline is trying to get people to use the other airline. With that in mind, if I was the OP, I would indeed provide feedback to QF and JQ as there are system failings that have occurred. It does not need to be sinister to get the point across, and I feel that if this has occurred before, it is something that needs to be addressed.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Which really points to a failure in the JQ systems (or to a more precise point, whoever designed the JQ systems and whoever on the JQ side was responsible for acceptance testing and the procurement of the said system). And why would JQ staff not have access to the res system, let alone not trained to do so? I understand the concept of tiered access control, but this is ridiculous. (And no, possibly cheaper training costs and faster training times are not good reasons. And I'm sure that the JQ contingent is not a bunch of human-skin-covered hollowed bone-balloons with two ears attached - they can actually know how to do this stuff if they were given both the rights and the training.)

I don't see it as a failure of the JQ systems - the system works fine if used correctly ie people open the res application look for a phone number & call pax. I think it's more a failure of inexperienced staff not using their noddle & a bit of common sense or logic.

I don't know for a fact a) whether the actual res application is loaded onto the computers at the boarding gates b) if it's a relatively inexperienced person at JQ who possibly wouldn't think to do that or c) an even more inexperienced person who doesn't work for JQi but another ground handler.

I'm sure there is a quite a high turnover of staff so if you have a constant stream of new people filtering through all the time, offload situations like we've seen will continue to happen.

I'm sure the training would be the absolute bare minimum required to enable staff to board passengers on flights. I'm happy to be corrected on this but I am doubtful this would includes the reservations bit, particularly if it's not JQi doing the boarding but a ground handler.

I'm in two minds on this one. It shouldn't be much trouble to call the pax (that is, if the systems were set up not to go through that whole rigmarole), but I am very resentful of pax who deliberately hold up on-time departure by turning up late for boarding.

I don't it shouldn't be too much trouble but if it wasn't too much trouble, why didn't they call KPC then?

In saying that, so far no QF lounge has ever let me down with incorrect boarding announcements. In fact, no lounge in the world has so far - that is if they actually make any boarding announcements (because a lot of lounges do not).

I'm sure KPC thought the same thing until it happened to him - there's a first time for everything.

 

[anat0l]

Anat, I believe Oz knows the workings of the QF and JQ systems quite well

I'm not saying she doesn't know the systems well, and I'm not saying I do know them well ('cos I don't).

But if ozbeachbabe is telling how it works, then in my opinion if I were designing the system or as the client if I were setting my expectations of how to use the system, I don't like what I'm hearing.

But I do agree with what you are getting at. If they are the same airline group, you think the systems would talk to each other, especially if one airline is trying to get people to use the other airline. With that in mind, if I was the OP, I would indeed provide feedback to QF and JQ as there are system failings that have occurred. It does not need to be sinister to get the point across, and I feel that if this has occurred before, it is something that needs to be addressed.

The systems don't even have to be bound to each other. They can exist separately; fine.

However, if QF want to be able to communicate about JQ flights (even if it is just as a "service" for JQ passengers, rather than a full-blown familial love-in), then they should be given the interfaces and checklists to do so. If that means login permissions to JQ's system, so be it. Ditto for JQ staff that need to communicate with QF.

 

[mannej]

I'm not saying she doesn't know the systems well, and I'm not saying I do know them well ('cos I don't).

But if ozbeachbabe is telling how it works, then in my opinion if I were designing the system or as the client if I were setting my expectations of how to use the system, I don't like what I'm hearing.



The systems don't even have to be bound to each other. They can exist separately; fine.

However, if QF want to be able to communicate about JQ flights (even if it is just as a "service" for JQ passengers, rather than a full-blown familial love-in), then they should be given the interfaces and checklists to do so. If that means login permissions to JQ's system, so be it. Ditto for JQ staff that need to communicate with QF.

No arguments there. At the end of the day, this shouldn't have happened, and perhaps the feedback is something that will help future passengers not suffer the same fate.

 

[anat0l]

I don't see it as a failure of the JQ systems - the system works fine if used correctly ie people open the res application look for a phone number & call pax. I think it's more a failure of inexperienced staff not using their noddle & a bit of common sense or logic.

Well then that in itself is a failure of the recruitment and training processes at JQ, plus the said staff (who should be thwacked in the head with prejudice).

I don't know for a fact a) whether the actual res application is loaded onto the computers at the boarding gates b) if it's a relatively inexperienced person at JQ who possibly wouldn't think to do that or c) an even more inexperienced person who doesn't work for JQi but another ground handler.

Once again, this comes down to JQ making sure they provide enough support to achieve all the necessary "user actions" without necessarily needing to (a) summon a supervisor (takes lots of time!) or (b) calling someone else to get the answer / action. (For the software engineering minded here, I'm referring to "use cases").

I'm sure there is a quite a high turnover of staff so if you have a constant stream of new people filtering through all the time, offload situations like we've seen will continue to happen.

I wonder why there is such a high turnover, and whether this is a good or bad thing per se.

Even then, why couldn't JQ be more discerning in their selection processes? Give potential candidates a simple or simplified subset of the system to work with as part of the interview process - if they can't reliably do something within a few days, send them on their way. Just as you wouldn't hire an accountant who couldn't use a calculator.

I'm sure the training would be the absolute bare minimum required to enable staff to board passengers on flights. I'm happy to be corrected on this but I am doubtful this would includes the reservations bit, particularly if it's not JQi doing the boarding but a ground handler.

In the end, JQ should ensure that they provide enough user actions / interfaces so that all staff responsible for boarding can achieve the tasks required plus some unusual scenarios. If they need to provide streamlined actions (i.e. a "single click" interface that is a quicker de facto compared to opening up many screens or steps) then so be it - that is what a lot of software and system design is all about, especially if the aim is to minimise training times.

As for non-JQ ground handlers, if this is a regular occurrence involving them then as JQ I would start to get mightily pi**ed off and possibly seeking redress and/or tightening the performance targets in the service contract.

I don't it shouldn't be too much trouble but if it wasn't too much trouble, why didn't they call KPC then?

Good question. I'd assume kpc had a contact number on his booking. So in the end, it seems more laziness on the staff to try and call kpc and/or the system won't allow them to find that information. From reading what you're saying about JQ's systems, the reason seems more on the former (who also didn't bother / forgot to call the lounges to put the PA through there).

I'm sure KPC thought the same thing until it happened to him - there's a first time for everything.

To say that I've never been let down by any lounge in the world (that does boarding announcements) is not to say that I completely rely on them. Quite the opposite - I always check notice boards, online statuses etc. first. That doesn't mean that I completely don't rely on lounge boarding announcements either! But if one source is contradicting the other then something is not quite right....

 

[jpk]

Had 2 similar instances at SYD:

1) JQi flight delayed, stopped being updated on the clacker board, F lounge staff said delayed so don't worry we will call you. Later on, board still not updating, queried with desk who rang and then told us to run for it as boarding had finished and flight closing. Not very cool.

2) JQi flight called, go down to gate and boarding not even close to commencing, lots of pax but no staff, took another 30 mins before JQ staff appeared to open up the gate.

It seems that JQ gate staff don't communicate well with QF lounges. Quite often they don't even update the airport signage - not uncommon to see delayed flights not updated, or they board and status does not reflect that on the screen.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Has anyone ever had this problem in Domestic Lounges? I'm nowhere near as frequent a flyer as most folks on here but since they started making JQ calls in the QP/J Lounge I have found them to be accurate. I wonder if it is exclusive to the international Lounges and ground staff ?

 

[thewinchester]

Wow some people will stick up for QF through thick and thin. What happened was inexcusable and the fact it happened in an F lounge and the OP was asked to cough up more $$$ for QF's mistake makes it even worse.

It has been said, but I fear it does need to be repeated - that you've incorrectly assessed the views of members.

I would categorise the views expressed as forgiving and granting the F Lounge staff the benefit of the doubt over this. The suggestion they're expressing a view because you perceive them to be 'fan bois/girls' of the carrier lacks any credible or factual merit.

QF must be roo-ing (bad one I know) the day that it spent the money and made the commitment to that lounge. Given that, by my count, there are only 3 F services per day from Melbourne, the rest of the time it is servicing WP's and assorted OW Emeralds who choose to use it. I seem to remember talk initially that it was going to be for F passengers only - strictly. Still if they are going to have it open then the service provision should be top notch in all aspects. That is the purpose of it's existence.

I would doubt this very much.

The F Lounge acts as an attraction to high status flyers to continue their custom of QF, JQ and Oneworld alliance carriers. This helps keeps bums on seats, and cash in the till. I dare say that QF wouldn't invest in such an endeavour if there wasn't sufficient return on investment (ROI) for the capital outlays required to establish it.

And it doesn't matter which carrier you fly out of SYD, QF still gets money in the bank from the lounge access cost charged back to any other carriers, as well as ground handling, check-in and other services they may provide. The F Lounge is just one plank in a suite of pax and carrier focused products that form the airlines service offering at this and other ports.

On the service perspective, you can't expect them to be exacting and perfect all the time. Lounges, like any part of an airline, are run by humans. You can have the best systems and procedures in the world, but human factors always play a major part in their delivery. This is a small bump in the road, and I'd assume the OP has raised his feedback through the appropriate channels so relevant parties can learn from the mistake and take relevant corrective action and procedural enhancement to prevent this in future.

Unlike QF flights, lounge staff cannot monitor the JQ boarding of a flight so they are totally reliant on JQi or whoever the handling agent is to update them so they're really flying blind. The difference is if a Qantas flight is boarding (QF metal) lounge staff can always sign into the boarding application & see if people have started boarding as it will show them how many pax have boarded & how many left to go.

Also if QF are looking for fail to board pax they can easily see the mobile phone from the passengers checkin record so would ring them first before offloading them. The JQ checkin/boarding record does not display pax contact numbers - staff would would have to access JQ reservations (Flightspeed?) to view that & they may not even be trained how to do that. Even if they were I really doubt they would go to that trouble as it would appear the staff prefer to start offload procedures than try to call the pax first which would be easier for all concerned.

It's all well and good to have these First Lounges for their premium passengers but the reality is when travelling on JQ the minute you walk out the door of the F Lounge you cease being a Platinum frequent flyer & become just another JQ passenger.

This seams feasible and reasonable, and again if the OP has been able to provide feedback there's a good chance these issues can be looked at with an eye towards delivering improvements across all carriers and entities involved.

 

[JohnK]

Sorry to hear about your recent experience kpc!

In saying that mistakes do occur from time but on this occasion it was a costly mistake for you and to a lesser extent Qantas. It is interesting that we are told we can rely on boarding calls but the systems are not in place to allow accurate transfer of information.

I would send some feedback to Qantas about the incident but I would simply write it off as a learning experience.