Qantas Club Dress Standards...Stubbies, singlet and thongs....What the???

[jetlagger]

There was a guy in the QP in Narita couple of weeks ago.. Singlet, shorts & thongs... sort of out of sync with the rest of the nicely attired folk enjoying the lounge. :shock:

 

[ashleyn]

There was a guy in the QP in Narita couple of weeks ago.. Singlet, shorts & thongs... sort of out of sync with the rest of the nicely attired folk enjoying the lounge. :shock:

Is it that hard to enforce some sort of dress standard ? Boardies are for the beach, not the QP, entry denied. Singlets are OK in hot climes, not on a plane or the QP, entry denied. Thongs (on the feet), good for the beach but not in the QP, entry denied.

Never going to happen of course.

 

[anabolism]

An AA pilot thought a T-shirt that mocked federal security agents and included the words, "Terrists gonna kill us all" would scare passengers? Just how stupid does he think we are?

And to learn Qantas requires footwear! Who cares if people want to go barefoot or not?

 

[anabolism]

Is it that hard to enforce some sort of dress standard ? Boardies are for the beach, not the QP, entry denied. Singlets are OK in hot climes, not on a plane or the QP, entry denied. Thongs (on the feet), good for the beach but not in the QP, entry denied.

I say lighten up. The days when men dare not venture out of the house without a jacket, tie, and hat are long gone. If you don't like someone else's fashion taste, either don't look or take pictures and post them along with snide remarks.

 

[11sjw]

I say lighten up. The days when men dare not venture out of the house without a jacket, tie, and hat are long gone. If you don't like someone else's fashion taste, either don't look or take pictures and post them along with snide remarks.

That's fine but when the QP lists a dress standard as an entry requirement it becomes more than a persons sense of fashion. "Smart Casual" I think most would agree that that doesn't include boardies, singlets or thongs.

 

[greenfish]

That's fine but when the QP lists a dress standard as an entry requirement it becomes more than ne persons sense of fashion. "Smart Casual" I think most would agree that that doesn't include boardies, singlets or thongs.

As discussed in one of the hiviz threads, the dress code is at the particular QP manager's discretion. If you're really offended, ask to speak to the QP manager and point out the source of your complaint.

 

[ashleyn]

As discussed in one of the hiviz threads, the dress code is at the particular QP manager's discretion. If you're really offended, ask to speak to the QP manager and point out the source of your complaint.

1.2 Each Member of the Qantas Club is responsible for complying with, and ensuring that their lounge guests comply with, these Terms and Conditions and the Club Rules.
10.7 Smart, casual dress standards apply at all times. Individual lounge managers will have discretion to administer these standards as they reasonably deem appropriate in the circumstances.

 

[anabolism]

"Smart Casual" I think most would agree that that doesn't include boardies, singlets or thongs.

I don't know -- these days I think "smart casual" means you aren't shirtless and barefoot..."casual" means either shirtless or barefoot..."relaxed" is both.

 

[Kef]

LOL... Isn' that smart casual for some folk in Queensland?

 

[tuapekastar]

I think we are all agreed there is/should be a dress code. The bone of contention is exactly what that code entails. I don't think even the most ardent proponent of 'wear whatever you like as long as it is clean' is going to be all that comfortable sitting in the QP next to say, a 220kg, 5 feet tall man wearing a g-string and fishnets..and only that! So a thread like this will never achieve a resolution or a consensus (and that's probably a good thing)...what's fine by you may not be by me, and vice versa.

 

[ReLoad]

A 220kg, 5 feet tall man wearing a g-string and fishnets..and only that!

I'm a bit disappointed that you had to drag me into the conversation, I mean I only did it once your honor.

 

[spentan]

I usually fly for personal travel, and therefore I'm usually wearing denim shorts, or for comfort sake, Basketball shorts, and a t-shirt, as well as Birkenstock sandals (cost around $140 a pop).

I've usually paid (not really) good money to get to Platinum, and therefore if I wanna wear those clothes (which are decent), in the business lounge or first lounge, then why shouldn't I be able to?

I don't see the point of a lounge if you have to be uncomfortable during the flight in order to get in. lol

 

[straitman]

I'm a bit disappointed that you had to drag me into the conversation, I mean I only did it once your honor.

It's OK as we still have the photos :!:

 

[Isochronous]

I say lighten up. The days when men dare not venture out of the house without a jacket, tie, and hat are long gone. If you don't like someone else's fashion taste, either don't look or take pictures and post them along with snide remarks.

It is sad that we no longer maintain such standards of dignity and elegance

 

[anat0l]

And to learn Qantas requires footwear! Who cares if people want to go barefoot or not?

Would you be comfortable travelling by air without footwear?

Apart from the obvious impracticalities associated with where you may need to traverse, it also represents a significant OHS risk which you are bringing onto yourself.


What is wrong with people having a bit of sense of decorum? You wouldn't turn up to a job interview with frivolous dress sense, even though the interviewer is evaluating the same human being.


Unfortunately, the task of enforcing a dress standard is a bit too difficult. Not that airlines couldn't do it, but pax are given too wide a berth these days to be able to complain and get away with it all. (Particularly in America, people are finding it too easy to wear whatever they like then claim the First or discrimination if they are pulled up).

 

[simongr]

Would you be comfortable travelling by air without footwear?
Apart from the obvious impracticalities associated with where you may need to traverse, it also represents a significant OHS risk which you are bringing onto yourself.

The thing is that this only brings a risk to themselves so shouldn't they have the right to decide?

I don't agree with the choice and recall on my last flight on QF how the pax next to me had his socks off rubbing his foot against the laptop stowage compartment at the front of the J cabin...

 

[anat0l]

The thing is that this only brings a risk to themselves so shouldn't they have the right to decide?

I don't agree with the choice and recall on my last flight on QF how the pax next to me had his socks off rubbing his foot against the laptop stowage compartment at the front of the J cabin...

I believe that legally Qantas has to do something to discharge its responsibility in this matter.

That, of course, involves making sure that the premises it owns (if any) and the aircraft is safe to walk around, but it can also insist that appropriate footwear be worn to further its safety obligations.

Without such measures to discharge its responsibilities, a pax who is injured, even if bare foot, can argue that they had no idea that it was significantly risky to be bare foot on an aircraft, and claim a damage against Qantas. On the other hand, if someone arrives on the aircraft with footwear, then removes them and then injures themselves, provided Qantas did everything they could to ensure an otherwise safe aircraft then they have no liability owed to the pax. Similarly, if someone boards a flight and has no footwear, but Qantas does not offload them, supply them with footwear (can be argued as unreasonable) or otherwise forces them to wear some, then Qantas places themselves at risk of legal proceedings later as they have (actively or passively) endangered a pax.

I'm broad brushing here but I'm sure someone can be more specific with respect to these matters. I know it's nice to have the world punish the foolish and leave it at that, but the legal system (particularly in Western countries) just won't have it that way.


In any case, the practical implications are why would you want to be bare foot anyway. Shoes aren't just for comfort and looks - they protect your feet. I'm not sure how that can be a bad thing.

 

[simongr]

In any case, the practical implications are why would you want to be bare foot anyway. Shoes aren't just for comfort and looks - they protect your feet. I'm not sure how that can be a bad thing.

I agree - I wear my shoes with the PJs until after take off on int'l flights - just in case (this is the influence jb747 has had on me). My biggest concern in the event of an emergency would be non-shoe wearers injuring themselves and slowing down my escape from the burning wreckage.

 

[Rebekkap]

I agree - I wear my shoes with the PJs until after take off on int'l flights - just in case (this is the influence jb747 has had on me). My biggest concern in the event of an emergency would be non-shoe wearers injuring themselves and slowing down my escape from the burning wreckage.

Yes, plus one to that - I wouldn't care if they were only endangering themselves, but if they're endangering me by holding up my exit in an emergency, the selfish buggers can wear footwear, thanks!

 

[Dee Thom]

Yes, plus one to that - I wouldn't care if they were only endangering themselves, but if they're endangering me by holding up my exit in an emergency, the selfish buggers can wear footwear, thanks!

Guess who will be the first to complain about cut feet from glass or protruding aluminium after departing Y. Those in J didn't make it !!!

Cheers,
Dee.