Qantas lounge shoe policy - this is concerning

[JohnK]

We are all different. I am glad they are checking.

Thongs and all the glamorous variations belong at the beach. If you have a medical issue then it is just as easy to wear loose fitting shoes.

And before I get blasted my socks and shoes do not fit me more than half the time as I was gifted with chronic swollen feet. I wear slip on type of shoes.

 

[travelislife]

It has got ridiculous. We have just got back from an around the world trip all in business class, attending all manner of lounges often wearing thongs. Our last flight, QF domestic, PER-MEL. My wife dressed nicely enough but with thongs on has to get out dirty muddy runners and put them on with no socks (it was either those or put the ski boots on as they would accept that too!). So smelly, dirty runners (or something stupid such as ski boots) are deemed better and nicer than clean feet in nice thongs. It is crazy, let them make judgement on someone's whole outfit to weed out the look they aren't after because I think what they are doing is actually making it worse! This blanket ban is just crazy because it only affects the capital cities in Australia and is madness for all the people coming off international connecting flights.

More of an issue is all the people who put their feet on the tables in the lounges...but that's for another thread.

 

[Flying mermaid]

It has got ridiculous. We have just got back from an around the world trip all in business class, attending all manner of lounges often wearing thongs. Our last flight, QF domestic, PER-MEL. My wife dressed nicely enough but with thongs on has to get out dirty muddy runners and put them on with no socks (it was either those or put the ski boots on as they would accept that too!). So smelly, dirty runners (or something stupid such as ski boots) are deemed better and nicer than clean feet in nice thongs. It is crazy, let them make judgement on someone's whole outfit to weed out the look they aren't after because I think what they are doing is actually making it worse! This blanket ban is just crazy because it only affects the capital cities in Australia and is madness for all the people coming off international connecting flights.

More of an issue is all the people who put their feet on the tables in the lounges...but that's for another thread.

We have the same problem in Canberra where we have to connect to all International flights. So for e.g. I have booked business class flights for my daughter and her partner cbr-syd-sin in April. She is connecting on to Langkawi and would like to wear a pair of lovely dressy sandals on the flight. However they have a bit between the toes and no back strap (although a bit of a heel, so definitely not suitable for a beach!), so I have told her she can't wear them. So in spite of paying many thousands of dollars for flights, Qantas is dictating what a business class customer can wear if they want to receive the benefits of a business lounge on departure. Anyway she has asked me to book her on Singapore in future and that is what I will do.

 

[NZflygirl]

Stage a protest across the country outside the lounges
have to admit I bring a pair of shoes for the lounge then slip em off after

 

[Willy]

Stage a protest across the country outside the lounges
have to admit I bring a pair of shoes for the lounge then slip em off after

I fully support QF on their lounge dress code. The lounges belong to Qantas - private company. They are entitled to set the dress rules as they see fit (subject to any statutory obligations) and to adopt discretion on a case by case basis as they feel warranted. There is a strong sense of entitlement undertone in this thread - perhaps other carriers aren't as stringent with their dress code and therefore they may be a better option for critics of the QF lounge dress code to park their loyalty - after all, I suspect for the overwhelming majority of us, the lounges are a complimentary benefit of our QFF status in any case, therefore criticism of those rules does seem to be a bit of a whinge.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I fully support QF on their lounge dress code. The lounges belong to Qantas - private company. They are entitled to set the dress rules as they see fit (subject to any statutory obligations) and to adopt discretion on a case by case basis as they feel warranted. There is a strong sense of entitlement undertone in this thread - perhaps other carriers aren't as stringent with their dress code and therefore they may be a better option for critics of the QF lounge dress code to park their loyalty - after all, I suspect for the overwhelming majority of us, the lounges are a complimentary benefit of our QFF status in any case, therefore criticism of those rules does seem to be a bit of a whinge.

Private company - yes. But they were coming cap in hand asking for tax payer guarantees not so long ago when they were in severe financial difficulty.

When you implement policies that are not consistent and are based on little substance, it is fair for them to be questioned. Why would an airline, which not so long ago was begging for my taxpayer assistance, turn away passengers because of a toe divider?

'You must wear enclosed footwear' - simple, understandable, reasoned policy which can be justified on OH&S grounds. 'You can't wear a shoe with a toe divider, even if you're pregnant, but you can wear shoes 6 sizes too big' makes no sense.

 

[love_the_life]

For me there are 2 main issues about the shoe debacle:
1. The fact that the 'toe divider' rule is in force is only some lounges, not others and in none of the International lounges. Either you have a rule or you don't. If they make a blanket rule, enclosed shoes for all lounges although I wouldn't be overly pleased I would comply and;
2. The inconsistency of the lounge staff in allowing some sandals with toe dividers and rejecting others. It seems to be at the whim of the dragon on at the time. In some instances reported here (and even photographed), if a shoe has a back strap it is a sandal so OK but then in other cases, it is rejected as a thong because of a toe divider.

 

[vetrade]

........The lounges belong to Qantas - private company. ......

A little OT but that's incorrect. QF is a public company.

 

[offshore171]

'You must wear enclosed footwear' - simple, understandable, reasoned policy which can be justified on OH&S grounds. 'You can't wear a shoe with a toe divider, even if you're pregnant, but you can wear shoes 6 sizes too big' makes no sense.

It would make no sense justifying the policy on an OHS basis. It's about setting a minimum standard of presentation and has nothing to do with safety. In any case an airside lounge is an extremely safe environment and any attempt to use an OH&S line would be laughed at. It's probably the safest place in the airport. No trolleys, no blades, small bags only.

FWIW, I support the policy. No thongs is a very simple and clear rule. Others have suggested that they look at the person's overall state of dress, but that then becomes highly subjective and open to discrimination.

No thongs, means no thongs.

 

[Pushka]

For me there are 2 main issues about the shoe debacle:
1. The fact that the 'toe divider' rule is in force is only some lounges, not others and in none of the International lounges. Either you have a rule or you don't. If they make a blanket rule, enclosed shoes for all lounges although I wouldn't be overly pleased I would comply and;
2. The inconsistency of the lounge staff in allowing some sandals with toe dividers and rejecting others. It seems to be at the whim of the dragon on at the time. In some instances reported here (and even photographed), if a shoe has a back strap it is a sandal so OK but then in other cases, it is rejected as a thong because of a toe divider.

Packing your thongs for Singers Dame?

 

[Flying mermaid]

I fully support QF on their lounge dress code. The lounges belong to Qantas - private company. They are entitled to set the dress rules as they see fit (subject to any statutory obligations) and to adopt discretion on a case by case basis as they feel warranted. There is a strong sense of entitlement undertone in this thread - perhaps other carriers aren't as stringent with their dress code and therefore they may be a better option for critics of the QF lounge dress code to park their loyalty - after all, I suspect for the overwhelming majority of us, the lounges are a complimentary benefit of our QFF status in any case, therefore criticism of those rules does seem to be a bit of a whinge.

Except there is nothing on the web page about business class fares requiring a dress code - just that flying business entitles you to a business class lounge. If Qantas wants to have a dress code then it needs to put it in the part of the webpage that deals with purchasing business class fares, so that a person who doesn't belong to the Qantas club (either via membership or status), knows that when they purchase a business class or first class fare they are not entitled to use the business lounge at a connecting port or on return if they don't have exactly the right things in their feet (and that varies from lounge angel to lounge angel).

 

[basso]

Private company - yes. But they were coming cap in hand asking for tax payer guarantees not so long ago when they were in severe financial difficulty.

So what? They didn't get a single cent, and even if they had, it wouldn't have given the government any right to say anything about this policy.

 

[basso]

I There is a strong sense of entitlement undertone in this thread -

Not wrong - all these thong threads are absolutely dripping in the 'sense of entitlement'.

 

[Flying mermaid]

No thongs, means no thongs.

So what is the definition because I am confused. I thought I had finally got a handle on it after I saw the pictures at the entrance to the lounge, but then I had to revise that given what a friend told me that she had been told by a lounge angel and then I have had to revise it again based on posts recently. Basically I no longer have any idea apart from the beach wear that I used to call thongs, which seem to be a sub class of a greater group....No wonder Qantas can't get priority boarding, priority baggage right - they are probably spending all their training resources trying to get staff to recognise a thong.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It would make no sense justifying the policy on an OHS basis. It's about setting a minimum standard of presentation and has nothing to do with safety. In any case an airside lounge is an extremely safe environment and any attempt to use an OH&S line would be laughed at. It's probably the safest place in the airport. No trolleys, no blades, small bags only.

Alcohol. Glassware. Passengers under the influence of alcohol. Staff walking around. Trolleys being pushed by staff (service and cleaning). Passenger baggage being towed on the ground.

I'd reckon 'enclosed footwear' could pass the bar in terms of OH&S.

 

[offshore171]

I'd reckon 'enclosed footwear' could pass the bar in terms of OH&S.

On planet Cotton Wool

 

[NZflygirl]

I haven't really read the thread but I disagree it's all about entitlement. I think it's more about the toe divider being the deal breaker for lounge access as lacking any form of common sense. If a lady is dressed to the nines, could walk the red carpet or enter any 5 star establishment with her jimmy choo's with their toe divider but not get into a Qantas domestic lounge because of a toe divider then it's not rocket science there is something wrong here.

I understand they're trying to provide some standard of dress by making up a dress code but toe divider as a tipping point??
It's clearly losing sight of the overall picture.

I think what the general public thinks should be taken into consideration because they are the target market. And you should listen to your target audience. Everyone gets to vote on govt policies parties and elections, so why not do an in house QF customer survey on the toe divider? Either that or be proactive and tidy up their definition of the shoes they don't want. If they can't do that properly, they shouldn't bother doing it at all. Some form of reasoning would be welcomed like is it the noise flip flops make? Well compare that to some of the other loud shoes people wear who you hear coming a mile away. Ban them too! Obviously that's a ridiculous train of thought. Is it the rubbery beach wear looking ones because they look like beachwear? Then say so! Don't ban the toe dividers that look like they cost $500 because they probably do and no doubt have never seen a day at the beach.

I wore some blingy non $500 toe divider shoes to a QF int lounge without incidence, but admittedly don't wear them anymore as I set off the screening detector and had to take them off. The guy looked at me and was like "shoes". So meh.. Can't be bothered taking them on and off at screening. I don't think I've worn rubber beach flip flops. I don't find them comfortable for lots of walking as the sole is a bit thin. But I wear my Birkenstocks to the airport sometimes. I think they look tidy.

Anyway I apparently abide by the rules but doesn't mean I agree with them.

 

[offshore171]

policies parties and elections, so why not do an in house QF customer survey on the toe divider?

My understanding is that they have done exactly that, and the feedback for the thong ban substantially outweighed the pro thong position.

My take is that the thong ban came in to address the real scruffy end of the scale - people rocking up in thongs, stubbies and VB t-shirts. But since they need to be able to define and publish a policy, the thong ban is blanket. It applies to rubber thongs and the fancypants variety. Otherwise there would be endless ugly arguments at the front desk (like the collared shirt barneys you occasionally see at the members stand at the football). So blanket ban it is. At least people know where they stand.

 

[love_the_life]

Packing your thongs for Singers Dame?

Funny you should ask. Actually I don't wear thongs (or any sandal with a toe divider); my toes never do harden up and they are just uncomfortable. I bought a pair a few years back to wear to the pool etc but think I have worn them maybe three or four times in total. Probably sandals or plimsols for me on the plane (those feet tend to swell a bit!).

 

[JohnK]

Still can't understand how some people travel only with thongs.