Qantas lounge shoe policy - this is concerning

[Pushka]

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....

Which is wrong. I have several sandals with those and they are most certainly not thongs.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Which is wrong. I have several sandals with those and they are most certainly not thongs.

I agree but very confusing for lounge angels needing to make decisions.... They get confused with entry rules, what chance with sandals While I don't ever wear anything that has a bit between my toes, before this debacle started I would never have called anything that wasn't a rubber, beachwear type sandal a thong.

I am continuing to learn though - I now know what Jandals are!

 

[offshore171]

I now know what Jandals are!

And gate lice too

 

[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.

They're acceptable in all the places you mention. Hop across to the F lounge and they're acceptable there. They constitute at least half the footwear on any aircraft, in every shopping centre and at every sports stadium (at least in summer). So do girls in little shorts, t shirts and everything else you seem to think is the end of the world. You'll notice half the women posting here wear what Qantas considers unacceptable thongs daily at work and don't consider them thongs.

Seeing a problem with that is entirely the problem of the observer and has nothing whatsoever to do with what is observed. That really should go without saying. When you fix your internal issues, the "problem" goes away because it is revealed the problem was entirely in your head all along.

That doesn't mean I'll start wearing them to weddings or other places where the occasion is designed to be less casual (some restaurants, etc). But where everyone except the most prickly judgmental dinosaurs consider them acceptable - such as all the places you mentioned - they are no more offensive to the general public than wearing a tie. Nor are girls in little shorts or t shirts for that matter.

So now I'm not wearing them to QPs. Although to be fair, Qantas now welcomes my Adidas slip ons, which everyone considers more casual than the old leather thongs, and has decided that what half the women here wear to work and sometimes formal occasions is no longer acceptable. So they have much deeper issues, all of which are perfectly acceptable and welcomed in their flagship F lounge across the hall.

Edit: I meant to multi-post your most recent post in there too as I was responding to it but haven't figured that out yet.

 

[Julesmac]

I've had a pretty ordinary day, but oh Lordy reading through this thread has cheered me up enormously.What a kerfuffle!

Don't we all recall the many restaurants and/or clubs in Melbourne that had a 'gents must wear a tie' rule - and the Maitre'D had a whole cupboard full for the delectation of the customers? That's all been relaxed now though places like the MCC have all kinds of rules about jackets with zips and other items of clothing. Folk who go recognise these are the rules of entry and abide by them. The difference with Qantas is that these rules are very clearly spelt out and enforced.......I think most posters are pretty well agreed that it's lack of clarity and consistency that's the problem.
But thanks all for lightening my day!

 

[Deleted member 29185]

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.

Yes and no. What about when they comply with the dress code but the "bouncer" is in the wrong? Take the scenario of a well dressed lady turning up in a pair of designer sandals expecting to gain entry to a lounge and be turned away because of a "no thong" policy designed (as much as I can understand) to stop the bogans from wearing in their Aussie flag emblazoned rubber thongs succinctly topped off with a tasteful (not) singlet advertising said wearers ability to choke a well known movie star lady from the X rated isle! Surely a bit of debate in an attempt to restore a well deserved and hard fought for dignity is not just warranted, but expected under the circumstances?

Please believe me when I say I'm all in favour of a blanket ban on thongs.......rubber, designer or Lord forbid the variety that is exposed along with a hideous tattoo and butt crack, but I think the argument here is not so much whether rubber thongs should be allowed or not (and I'm sure there are plenty of AFFers out there guilty of wearing those distinctly awful K-mart variety thongs into an airport and expecting some kind of respect for their "dress down Friday" approach) but to say none of these people are worthy of sharing a lounge with is very harsh IMHO. I usually enjoy spirited conversation and I also respect those who stand up for their rights.......more so when they are actually right! Unlike the hideous example of a sandal offered up earlier, some are very attractive albeit totally inappropriate in an emergency evacuation of an aircraft, but we aren't talking about that.....are we?

 

[offshore171]

And gate lice too

Astute observers will note that the thong is the preferred footwear for the Australian genus of Gate Lice

 

[coles525]

Dear everyone, please be advised that the picture below/attached is a shot of the thongs I wear all around the world.

From walking the streets in Australia, interstate flights, business lounges (domestic also if have access pass) and other overseas locations.

(I do have an older shot in this or another shoe topic...)

Unfortunately, I am required to eventually purchase a new pair, as these are far far warn.

 

[Pushka]

They arent thongs.

 

[coles525]

I and others here know they aren't thongs; but there may (I hope I'm dreaming! ) be a wicked witch of a lounge angel who defines them as such! ("Just look at all those holes, they cant be shoes..." )

 

[Flying mermaid]

I and others here know they aren't thongs; but there may (I hope I'm dreaming! ) be a wicked witch of a lounge angel who defines them as such! ("Just look at all those holes, they cant be shoes..." )

No I think you are safe. Mr FM and I had a huge fight over a pair of sandals he insisted on wearing on a recent trip to Sydney. They definitely had more foot on view than yours. He was adamant that they were allowed under the pictorial policy on display outside Qantas lounges and he was allowed into the business lounge in both Canberra and Sydney. Most of the difficulty seems to be over the definition for female sandals - we clearly have more crossover in genres which is where the problem arises!

 

[medhead]

Those are only acceptable if you also wear knee length socks, folded over at the top with two stripes neatly aligned on the folded over section.

Dear everyone, please be advised that the picture below/attached is a shot of the thongs I wear all around the world.

From walking the streets in Australia, interstate flights, business lounges (domestic also if have access pass) and other overseas locations.

(I do have an older shot in this or another shoe topic...)

Unfortunately, I am required to eventually purchase a new pair, as these are far far warn.

 

[offshore171]

Those are only acceptable if you also wear knee length socks, folded over at the top with two stripes neatly aligned on the folded over section.

Moreover:

Sandals + Socks = Beard

Its an immutable law of nature.

 

[opusman]

Sandals + Socks + Beard = ???

 

[offshore171]

Sandals + Socks + Beard = ???

A german. Or Physics lecturer.

 

[Milefest]

Yes and no. What about when they comply with the dress code but the "bouncer" is in the wrong? Take the scenario of a well dressed lady turning up in a pair of designer sandals expecting to gain entry to a lounge and be turned away because of a "no thong" policy designed (as much as I can understand) to stop the bogans from wearing in their Aussie flag emblazoned rubber thongs succinctly topped off with a tasteful (not) singlet advertising said wearers ability to choke a well known movie star lady from the X rated isle! Surely a bit of debate in an attempt to restore a well deserved and hard fought for dignity is not just warranted, but expected under the circumstances?

Please believe me when I say I'm all in favour of a blanket ban on thongs.......rubber, designer or Lord forbid the variety that is exposed along with a hideous tattoo and butt crack, but I think the argument here is not so much whether rubber thongs should be allowed or not (and I'm sure there are plenty of AFFers out there guilty of wearing those distinctly awful K-mart variety thongs into an airport and expecting some kind of respect for their "dress down Friday" approach) but to say none of these people are worthy of sharing a lounge with is very harsh IMHO. I usually enjoy spirited conversation and I also respect those who stand up for their rights.......more so when they are actually right! Unlike the hideous example of a sandal offered up earlier, some are very attractive albeit totally inappropriate in an emergency evacuation of an aircraft, but we aren't talking about that.....are we?

Sounds like you're confusing policy with enforcement.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Sounds like you're confusing policy with enforcement.

How so? I'd suggest it's not me that confused about it, but the confusion is apparently real.

 

[medhead]

Moreover:

Sandals + Socks = Beard

Its an immutable law of nature.

A german. Or Physics lecturer.

Not really the case for the Queensland of my youth. I have some vague recollections of a clean shaven, ex-WW2 Airforce english teacher who was a strong adherent to Sir Joh, possibly even the party spy at the school, sporting the sandals and socks look. I could be wrong, of course, it was some time ago. Perhaps a look that has only remained with certain sections.

 

[Milefest]

How so? I'd suggest it's not me that confused about it, but the confusion is apparently real.

I agree with you, obviously it's frustrating if they're not enforcing it consistently. Though it's QF's right to apply discretion on the enforcement of the dress code whether or not we like it, much like many other private establishments.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I agree with you, obviously it's frustrating if they're not enforcing it consistently. Though it's QF's right to apply discretion on the enforcement of the dress code whether or not we like it, much like many other private establishments.

It's not QF though. They have a dress code that apparently does not permit thongs to be worn in some lounges. The lounge dragons are the ones that are struggling with the term thongs. It seems fairly simple to most and if they persist with the policy (which I hope they do), before long, all the dragons and the vast majority of regular lounge guests will know the expectation.