Qantas lounge shoe policy - this is concerning

[footy99]

The technicalities aren't obvious either, even in the extremely unlikely event you hear the rules before arriving. For instance, on topic here, no thongs means this is always fine:

This is always out:

And this usually bars you from entry, but sometimes you get away with it:

 

[UP4014]

RSL clubs have been doing it for years, bring back long socks with shorts I say.

But seriously, RSL clubs have been doing this sort of stuff for years without issue, I don't understand why QF do have an RSL dress code sign out the front.

Matt

 

[Flying mermaid]

I think the lounge access rules are on the qantas website and I think that anyone who is buying J for the lounge have ample opportunity to inform themselves..

Well not really - the rules are under Qantas club. So if you are not a frequent flyer and go to Qantas' website and have a look at the info on business lounges (both domestic and international), under business airfares there is not a word about dress rules. You could easily be caught out.

Qantas clearly do not want to enforce the rule for international customers, but have either not thought about international customers connecting to/from a domestic port, or have put it in the too hard basket.

 

[Pushka]

You almost had me converted to cruises with one of your trip reports, but this all sounds rather unpleasant - think I might stick to safaris

Its all good. Just the forums that go into tanties. If you try one, start with a Med cruise.

 

[JohnK]

So totally ok for 18 and 19 year olds to have half their cough cheeks hanging out in public?

No it is not but they are old enough to be able to make stupid decisions.

Saw a lady today at SYD T3 (late 20's early 30's) with husband/boyfriend and 2 young kids with her cough cheeks hanging out. Seriously not a good look. I don't care that some people are mistaken this is fashion. This is stupidity at its ugliest.

PMSL. hahahahaha That's gold.

Glad you find that funny.

 

[Isochronous]

The Qantas Lounge is meant to be a more classy environment than the local RSL anyway. They attire regulations should continue to be enforced.

 

[footy99]

The Qantas Lounge is meant to be a more classy environment than the local RSL anyway. They attire regulations should continue to be enforced.

The RSL isn't a brief sitting area before getting on the train - maybe they should enforce them in train stations too.

It's a pretty easy decision. Ban thongs on the plane and it makes perfect sense to ban them in the lounge. But considering everyone is wearing to the lounge whatever they are wearing on the plane, it is completely non-sensical to attempt to enforce different dress codes for the two. Thus the current farcical trial in a couple of domestic lounges.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The Qantas Lounge is meant to be a more classy environment than the local RSL anyway.

It's an economy class lounge. Functional, yes. 'Classy'? I dunno.

I reckon the rules should reflect the market it's aimed at... casual, relaxed, value-for-money.

If a member is willing to fork out the membership fee, or contribute enough to QF's revenue to gain access, they should be allowed to wear what they feel comfortable in.

 

[opusman]

Same reason. People want to wear their beach gear to formal dinners.

What would you know about formal dinners?

 

[JohnPhelan]

And this usually bars you from entry, but sometimes you get away with it:

These should be out on grounds of:
a) safety in case of evacuation
b) sheer ugliness.

 

[Flying mermaid]

These should be out on grounds of:
a) safety in case of evacuation
b) sheer ugliness.

Oh come on! They are quite pretty for a 20 something. And look at the matching nail polish - I can almost remember doing that (through a haze of senility).

 

[moa999]

Can't get worse than the SCG..

After some press from a not so young lass who was turned away from wearing a less than knee length skirt, they published a 20pg 'Style Guide' which was literally a Country Road/Ralph Lauren catalogue.

Essentially they reversed the knee length rule for women - but introduced a weird new rule for the Members stand For Men - Along with no shorts, pants only no wrips, no thongs, no sneakers and a collared shirt came ---- no blue jeans. -- so a $20 pair of white/pink/khaki was fine but not blue.

Thankfully the blue jeans rule has now been reversed

 

[JohnPhelan]

There's no excuse for anyone reading this thread getting caught out. But it is a nuisance. Gotta remember to wear closed shoes for beach trips to the coast because my airport is one of the 0.01% on the planet where that is a requirement for the pre-flight lounge. That's OK because I'm aware of it - 99% of people aren't as we're finding with the 100s of daily social media complaints from people who arrive in their usual flight clothes to find they can't access what they paid for because this is one of the 5 or 6 lounges in the world with very technical dress requirements that knock back both beach goers and people dressed for the oscars depending on which technicality you didn't know about.

The intention is to allay complaints about seeing fat blokes in singlets by getting them to put a shirt on. The result is unadvertised technical rules that catch just as many of your best dressed customers as your most casual ones and ends up with half your clientele, essentially chosen at random, not getting what they paid for. What they really need is some big cheap shirts to lend the blokes in singlets and leave all the lounge dress codes the same. Then everyone's happy and the current fiasco is sorted.

Thanks for your opinion. Others have a different one.

I congratulate Qantas on upholding standards (both in safety and appropriateness).

 

[JohnPhelan]

Oh come on! They are quite pretty for a 20 something. And look at the matching nail polish - I can almost remember doing that (through a haze of senility).

Pretty awful and pretty unsafe in the case of an emergency evacuation, especially if fuel or hydraulic fluid may be involved.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I congratulate Qantas on upholding standards (both in safety and appropriateness).

Except this whole thread is that they don't uphold safety or 'appropriate' standards.

We know that it only applies to some lounges. Doesn't apply on board. And they allowed a passenger to wear shoes 6 sizes too large.

 

[JohnK]

What would you know about formal dinners?

I have read about one or 2 formal dinners in my time! And I think I walked past one by accident many years ago. Does that me an expert? :mrgreen:

 

[travelislife]

Ok, so plenty of arguments both sides here. I don't see it as a sense of entitlement I see it as 'what is the accepted norm around the world'? Can anyone else name another company that has this policy?

Also it is ridiculous because it doesn't achieve its intention of 'smart casual' dress. Dirty runners, fine. Ski boots fine. A woman wearing mans shoes 6 sizes too big, fine. Ridiculous.

Also can anyone answer me why it is only for a select number of lounges? I.e it is fine for the Bali bogans to be in singlet and thongs in the international J lounge.

I absolutely agree that people should be neatly attired. But especially for women where open toed shoes are pretty typical even when dressed to the nines the policy seems ridiculous. I also find it quite funny how some people are so 'entitled' (the word being thrown around here) to not be able to enjoy themselves based on how someone else is dressed when it shouldn't affect them at all.

Behaviour is a whole different story and is in no way linked directly to how someone dresses. I would much prefer a clamp down on feet on the seats/tables, using the servers at the buffet, mobile phone zones, etc.

If anyone can answer how this policy is actually achieving the desired aim I would love to hear it, because from what I have seen and now read Qantas would prefer people looking like clowns, but only in 4 cities in the world.

 

[offshore171]

I don't see it as a sense of entitlement I see it as 'what is the accepted norm around the world'? Lmber of lounges?

Since you're taking that line, I'll make the observation that pretty much the rest of the developed world does not wear thongs for air travel. It's largely Australians that insist on wearing thongs, singlets and showing two inches of beer gut and an inch of cough crack.

Good on Qantas for drawing a line in the sand. It was needed.

Other cultures have some clear social norms around appropriateness of footwear styles to various situations. For example, in Italy thongs are very much for the beach only and they tend to go one notch more formal when choosing footwear for any scenario.

I was in Japan recently and saw a hotel guest pulled up for wearing the hotel supplied slipppers in the lobby. These were acceptable only in the pool area. And yes, it was an Australian.

 

[love_the_life]

Just to add to the confusion or stir the pot; isn't it the case that in an emergency evacuation using the slides, the instruction is for high heels to be removed? So perhaps the dress code for safety as in the type of shoes worn onboard (and therefore unless you wish to change footwear on boarding, in the lounge as well) is that it should be closed in, flat shoes

 

[Deleted member 29185]

i do support QF efforts with the dress policy.

^^^ Says it all really. A dress standard is not new in many public venues and in fact desirable in many instances (including airport lounges IMHO). Don't want to comply, don't. Go elsewhere.

The hard part is drawing the line (which does have to be drawn somewhere). Thongs and singlets are out and I'd guess this trumped up story may have been a case that the ladies sandals looked like they just got dragged three city blocks tied to the bumper bar of a garbage truck. Appearance does count, but it may also be simply a case of an over-zealous lounge dragon. I hope it continues.....and in fact expands to include turfing out the pigs with their feet on chairs. It wouldn't take long to establish an acceptable standard of dress/conduct. Let's face it, most people in a lounge are fairly regular visitors there and most of the problems being encountered just now bear a direct relationship to the fact QF (and others) have predominantly left discretion about what constitutes an acceptable standard, to the customers. That clearly wasn't working (as we've seen from many threads here on AFF) so who can blame them. Embrace it......with a great deal of luck, it's here to stay.

Jandals belong in a chilly bin !

.....and then turf the whole lot in the wheelie bin!