Qantas lounge shoe policy - this is concerning

[footy99]

That was the dentist who thought fluoridation was the problem.

It's decay in standards that's the problem. The "it's all about me" generation.

But that's OK. Walk around with eyes closed and there is no problem.

It's hard to imagine a more blatant example of an "it's all about me" personality than Joe Bloggs genuinely getting incensed at what others are wearing and complaining about it for years on end. It's not about you Joe. Stop projecting your "it's all about me" personality onto others - it only applies to you!

You're right that is the problem. It's a shame Qantas have stooped to appeasing those personalities with these trial rules in a handful of lounges. Fortunately common sense has prevailed for the overwhelming majority and all other airlines so it isn't a huge deal.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Or in QF's case, for more "millennials" to become CLs, WP1s or attain other positions influencing QF's bottom line thereby encouraging QF to take notice of their supposed footwear preferences.

I've heard QF staffers debating why QF doesn't have a larger market-share of younger pax - perhaps if QF's market-share and in particular the QP did have more younger pax/members then they wouldn't have introduced the thong rule in the first place.

It wouldn't surprise me if Qantas was struggling to attract the younger demographic. Almost everyone in a decision making capacity at Qantas has grey hair. Not that there's anything wrong with this - however it doesn't exactly foster a culture for progress and innovation. The very thing millennials were brought up on...

 

[TomVexille]

Come on people we're being a bit silly here. Let's get back to basics. QF wants to make their lounges a bit of a better experience than your average boarding lounge. To that end they have enforced some dress standards, fairly common for similar establishments. Sure there have been a few problems but do any of you really think overall this is a bad idea ? Is it too hard to put on a pair of shoes ? Just leave your beach wear for the beach and not the QP or the Casino or any restaurant or club. You can't wear it there so don't wear it here, simple. (Flame suit on)

Absolutely, raise the standard. I just don't see why a woman can't wear a nice pair of sandals (ie. not rubber thongs).

By your definition, apparently. Not by mine. Please don't be so arrogant as to assume that your definition is the only one that could possibly be correct.

Other people do have a right to an alternate opinion.

Might not be your definition, but it is the definition of the Oxford Dictionary

noun

A light shoe with either an openwork upper or straps attaching the sole to the foot:

they were dressed in open-toed sandals

 

[love_the_life]

Spotted a pair of toe-divided sandals in the QP in Canberra this morning. Inconsistent as usual! They were very smart sandals - maybe the two male angels didn't see them!

 

[Pushka]

Bon Voyage Dame.

 

[medhead]

The new trial rules have nothing to do with safety. .

Good thing no one has made such a claim. What is being said is that people who wear thongs shouldn't anyway, because they are a safety issue in the event of an accident.

If we want to see a strawman it is taking that simply concept as a claim that the lounge attire rules are safety realated

 

[JohnK]

It's hard to imagine a more blatant example of an "it's all about me" personality than Joe Bloggs genuinely getting incensed at what others are wearing and complaining about it for years on end. It's not about you Joe. Stop projecting your "it's all about me" personality onto others - it only applies to you!

Sure. If you shift the blame it makes wearing thongs in public acceptable. Simply put thongs are for the beach and your own backyard. Not a lounge. Not an aircraft. Not a shopping centre. Not a sport stadium. It really can't get any simpler. It's not rocket science.

Now let's move focus slightly to the moron who thinks it's ok to sit at the 4 seater on the train with their dirty feet all over the seat. Is it "all about me" if I complain or is it actually "all about them"? And if simply turn my head then it's no longer a problem? Sure and now everyone is doing it on packed trains and most people like myself too afraid of confrontation so the disgusting practice continues.

 

[footy99]

Sure. If you shift the blame it makes wearing thongs in public acceptable. Simply put thongs are for the beach and your own backyard. Not a lounge. Not an aircraft. Not a shopping centre. Not a sport stadium. It really can't get any simpler. It's not rocket science.

Now let's move focus slightly to the moron who thinks it's ok to sit at the 4 seater on the train with their dirty feet all over the seat. Is it "all about me" if I complain or is it actually "all about them"? And if simply turn my head then it's no longer a problem? Sure and now everyone is doing it on packed trains and most people like myself too afraid of confrontation so the disgusting practice continues.

There's no blame to be shifted. Wearing thongs in public is acceptable, obviously. It's not rocket science. If you don't understand that, that is 100% your issue and no-one else's. And you'll continue to project those issues onto others until you sort it out.

I'm with you on your alternate scenario.

 

[Conrad_S]

Sure. If you shift the blame it makes wearing thongs in public acceptable. Simply put thongs are for the beach and your own backyard. Not a lounge. Not an aircraft. Not a shopping centre. Not a sport stadium. It really can't get any simpler. It's not rocket science.

Not even if it's my best pair and good socks!!!

 

[Anna]

It wouldn't surprise me if Qantas was struggling to attract the younger demographic. Almost everyone in a decision making capacity at Qantas has grey hair. Not that there's anything wrong with this - however it doesn't exactly foster a culture for progress and innovation. The very thing millennials were brought up on...

Yes. I can picture the scene at Coward St.

Meeting room 1

Staffer A: Thank you for attending today's meeting to discuss what to do about all the complaints about behaviour in the QP. Our valued pax travelling in J, our status pax and those other valuable people who fork out money or points for QP without travelling enough to earn status, have complained a lot about poor standards of behaviour, feet on tables and what not. What can we do to improve standards of behaviour?

Staffer B: If we impose higher dress standards it might make people behave a bit better. And let's make people line up for drinks in Perth, and serve alcohol one glass at a time.

Staffer A: Brilliant. Less alcohol costs and let's ban thongs in the QP. Good meeting everyone.

Meanwhile, in meeting room 2

Staffer A: Thank you for attending today's meeting about how to attract the younger demographic to fly QF. After all our prices are not that much different from the others. They can afford to fly QF just as much as they can afford to fly any other airline.

Staffers B, C and D: We need progress and innovation! We need to appeal to their sense of adventure and freedom! We need to get away from the old fuddy-duddy image of QF pax being middle-aged men in grey business suits and black shoes!

Staffer A: But they are our most lucrative customers. Hmm. Let's adjourn to next week.

 

[basso]

That's the thing that drives me INSANE about QF in general (and most customer service type organisations in general such as airlines)... not just shoe policy but most aspects of the customer experience is that most of the time it's fine, but then things get inconsistent and it's confusing and irritating, but I digress.

You mean, like apply rules consistently, unless it gives you, in your opinion, the wrong answer?

After reading this it seems the problem here is that while technically per their stated rules they've rejected the follow-up (ammended/corrected) claim per their stated rules, but omitting *common sense* - and this seems lacking in many areas where the letter of the rules is followed almost blindly without allowing for the application of reasonable common sense.

 

[RichardMEL]

You mean, like apply rules consistently, unless it gives you, in your opinion, the wrong answer?

You know, on the surface, that's a good pick up and I've got no issue with that. The point is well taken - In the one case I'm suggesting rules be applied consistently, and in the other I'm suggesting for common sense, ie: that some rules shouldn't be applied consistently. Definitely see the point - well spotted.

Perhaps I should amend my comment in the thread about the QF best fare policy to say that common sense should be made when designing the rules (which could also apply to the QP policy too which they seem to have tried to do but failed in the eyes of many). I mean my thought on the best fare policy in the case described was not that QF were applying their rules as stated (they were being consistent) but that there was a reasonable case from the OP (at least as stated) for a review - and it seems that, thanks to RR's intevention, this was done.

It's one of these grey areas, much like the whole "issue" raised about if one has a backstrap or not or a toe divider or not on their thongs/sandals etc (I honestly couldn't give a cough about this myself) - it's all open to interpretation.

Or let me put my common sense opinion in the context of the QP Dress code - As raised earlier somewhere in this thread - say you have a condition or something with your feet that require more comfortable footwear, supported by a medical certificate - this is where common sense should come in and someone be allowed access to the lounge (in my view).

Given that QF staffers are very subjective in their application of both policies it seems that an argument for common sense would fit no?

Anyway - guilty as charged

 

[blackcat20]

By your definition, apparently. Not by mine. Please don't be so arrogant as to assume that your definition is the only one that could possibly be correct.

Other people do have a right to an alternate opinion.

Ha! I'm far from arrogant, and people on here who know me would attest to that. And given the below, its not "my" definition. If it goes on my foot, its a shoe. Open toed shoe, but still a shoe.

Might not be your definition, but it is the definition of the Oxford Dictionary

Kate Cebrano appeared on the Project last night and briefly mentioned her shoe debacle. She clarified that they were in fact leather sandals, not thongs. I dont understand why the divide between sandals and thongs cant be leather versus rubber (and would keep those hideous Adidas slide out too).

 

[Flying mermaid]

Kate Cebrano appeared on the Project last night and briefly mentioned her shoe debacle. She clarified that they were in fact leather sandals, not thongs. I dont understand why the divide between sandals and thongs cant be leather versus rubber (and would keep those hideous Adidas slide out too).

I think there is a bit of a male/female divide here. I would think the vast majority of females would not regard a leather sandal with a bit between the toes as either a thong or as beach wear. Having read all the comments since this debacle began it seems to be females defending their right to wear a certain type of sandal (not thong) and men finding them repellant (the shoes not the females).

It also seems to me that everyone is OK with most of the rules i.e. dirty, torn clothes etc. It is only the extension of the description of rubber thongs to sandals with a bit between the toes that is causing a problem and even the lounge angels are clearly having problems with it.

 

[Milefest]

The kind of people that chuck a fuss about a dress code in a private lounge are the same people I don't want to share the lounge with.

 

[RichardMEL]

The Mermaid makes a very good point and I am sure this also passes on, unintentionally I am sure, to some of the lounge angels tasked with the unenviable job of enforcing this policy. Even with QF attempting to make the policy more clear the fact that there's a debate here about what is and isn't acceptable just shows how subjective it can be to different people, so how is one lounge agent (who is human and has their own ideas of this) to stay consistent with what others do given there's so many variations of footwear.

It makes me think of the age old community "standard" or (custom) if you like of the differing standards of wear for males and females - eg formal wear for men usually means a suit and tie minimum, and probably extends to black tie, but there's little variation there.. for the ladies, in general, it can be dresses (of differing lengths and designs - eg high cut, low cut, sleeveless, etc etc) and it's oft been that women appear (to me as a male anyway) to have far more range and choice in this sort of situation. I mean a male.. what your variation is tie or bow tie, the colour or design and if your jacket is single or double breasted.. but what else?

So yes, I can see that one's gender can, in some cases, vary one's perception of such things... and again drags a policy like this into a very subjective area.

Anyway I'm a male who isn't repelled by thongs or sandals or whatever. It's none of my business what someone else chooses to wear (though like others I think rubber thongs on an aircraft is hardly practical, but that's up to them). As I've long posted it's all about the behaviour.. or to paraphrase another well known saying "It's not what's on the foot that matters, but what you do with it..."

my 2 cents

 

[Pushka]

The definition of footwear requiring a heel strap removes most of the issues I believe.

 

[burmans]

The kind of people that chuck a fuss about a dress code in a private lounge are the same people I don't want to share the lounge with.

Not sure why I want to defend them but the type of people chuck a fuss probably don't much want to share the lounge with you (or apparently many others) either.

 

[Flying mermaid]

The definition of footwear requiring a heel strap removes most of the issues I believe.

yes except I think after I posted that picture (which I thought resolved it all), there were reports of bit between the toes shoes with back straps being rejected....

 

[JohnK]

There's no blame to be shifted. Wearing thongs in public is acceptable, obviously. It's not rocket science. If you don't understand that, that is 100% your issue and no-one else's. And you'll continue to project those issues onto others until you sort it out.

Thongs are actually not as acceptable as you think. There are many public places with restrictions on footwear to be worn but I am sure you will continue to boycott these places in your stance to wear thongs everywhere?