QC Lounge Access Updated

[JohnK]

This thread is really confusing me.

As a QF Gold, as far as I am aware you have to be travelling on a QF or Oneworld marketed flight, domestic or international, that day to have access to a Qantas Lounge. So if the QF Gold has to meet certain criteria then surely the guest would have to satisfy the same criteria?

There appears to be an anomaly between a QC member and a QF Gold given complimentary QC membership. I can understand giving a QF Platinum anytime access to a Qantas Lounge but a QC member allowed to bring in a guest not travelling that day does not sound right to me.

I have only just recently acquired Platinum status and received the Platinum handbook. It mentions anytime access to Qantas Lounges worldwide.

 

[kpc]

but a QC member allowed to bring in a guest not travelling that day does not sound right to me.

This has always been the case for QC members if IIRC...in fact, up to the last round of changes, life QC members could bring in up to 2 non travelling guests into the QC; they could bring in 1 guest without a guest pass, and could bring in a second guest using 1 of the (?)10 guest passes given annually.

 

[straitman]

I'm actually quite sure this is a left hand, right hand situation and that QF will clear up the anomalies as soon as they are pointed out.

Having said that I'm also sure a couple of anomalies will remain as it will suit their purpose for them to remain.

 

[Groundfeeder]

and could bring in a second guest using 1 of the (?)10 guest passes given annually.

I thought those were long dead as I've got 3 plantations worth in my office drawer for the museum.

 

[DTM1]

I thought those were long dead as I've got 3 plantations worth in my office drawer for the museum.

You're right. They are a thing of the past. Of completely no use or value now (unless you want to give them to you kids/sell them on Ebay like some dodgy people do/make a fire)

 

[kpc]

and could bring in a second guest using 1 of the (?)10 guest passes given annually.

I thought those were long dead as I've got 3 plantations worth in my office drawer for the museum.

...in fact, up to the last round of changes, life QC members could bring in up to 2 non travelling guests into the QC; they could bring in 1 guest without a guest pass, and could bring in a second guest using 1 of the (?)10 guest passes given annually.

see the red bit...

 

[Josh]

For QF Gold, you can bring in 1 guest to domestic QC; guest must be travelling with member - I suppose this means on the same flight? In the past, the guest needs not be travelling.

I think this must be incorrect. The page states that QC members can bring one guest to the QP who is NOT travelling, but SG cannot. It also states that as a SG, if I am on a JQ flight, i can bring a non-travelling guest.
Firstly, I would have assumed that SG would be more "importacant" to QF than QC members.
Secondly, why would QF let SG's on JQ flights bring a non-travelling guest, and not SG's on QF flights? That doesn't sound right to me.

In my opinion, the majority of the text on the page needs to be completely re-worded to make it clearer.

As a SG myself, for all my regular flying, I usually have my g/f drop me off at the airport (I mostly fly alone). If they stop letting her into the QP with me before the flights, i will be seriously unimpressed.
Not that they check your BP much anyway. I've only ever been asked once. It was in MEL - I think it was by a noob

Cheers,

Josh

 

[simongr]

Not sure I agree that SG are more important to them than QC. QC members have paid for the lounge access and are also paying for the flight itself - SG members are just paying for the flight.

It does seem strange - as SG but with a suspended QC membership because I am SG it means that I have paid for something but because I have spent a heap of money on QF flights I cant use the benefit :/

I guess I should be glad that mrssimongr never has a burning desire to drive to the airport with me

 

[serfty]

... Not that they check your BP much anyway. I've only ever been asked once. It was in MEL - I think it was by a noob ...

No - not a noob -

MEL T1 QP staff have a reputation as being the most diligent on checking entry credentials ...

 

[NM]

Perhaps Qantas wanted to change the rules for everyone so that all guests must be travelling with you, but they believed that would be a bitter pill for people who have paid for a Qantas Club membership based on the understanding they could invite a non-travelling guest such as their spouse when dropping them at the departure airport.

Since the Gold and Platinum FF status provides a complementary Qantas Club membership, perhaps they believed it was possible to alter the guest rules for these complementary memberships while leaving the paid memberships unaltered for the time being.

Just speculation of course. But it does go to show that Qantas continues to be ambiguous in their wording of terms and conditions.

 

[straitman]

Perhaps Qantas wanted to change the rules for everyone so that all guests must be travelling with you, but they believed that would be a bitter pill for people who have paid for a Qantas Club membership based on the understanding they could invite a non-travelling guest such as their spouse when dropping them at the departure airport.

Since the Gold and Platinum FF status provides a complementary Qantas Club membership, perhaps they believed it was possible to alter the guest rules for these complementary memberships while leaving the paid memberships unaltered for the time being.

Just speculation of course. But it does go to show that Qantas continues to be ambiguous in their wording of terms and conditions.

serfty,

This certainly sounds plausable to me, however it still doesn't address the members who paid for QP membership and have now had this 'suspended' because they are now SG or WP.

It really sounds like they (QF) need to have a serious discussion with themselves to sort out what they really mean. Whilst it's ambiguous it leaves open quite a few possibilities and not all of them are bad :!:

 

[serfty]

serfty,

This certainly sounds plausable to me, however it still doesn't address the members who paid for QP membership and have now had this 'suspended' because they are now SG or WP.

It really sounds like they (QF) need to have a serious discussion with themselves to sort out what they really mean. Whilst it's ambiguous it leaves open quite a few possibilities and not all of them are bad :!:

Maybe NM ...

I would not be surprised if the seeming contradictions were deliberate; that's consistent with many qantas.com pages and other documentation in relation to this topic.

 

[serfty]

FWIW, Qantas have also revamped the 'Business Traveler' tab on their web site.

It's now labeled "Business Solutions" and contains different content/menu structure.

 

[Optics]

serfty,

This certainly sounds plausable to me, however it still doesn't address the members who paid for QP membership and have now had this 'suspended' because they are now SG or WP.

This is not really inconsistent. As you state, the paid membership is suspended, so the rules for that paid membership are also suspended. Should the member lose their WP or SG status, their paid membership will be reinstated and they will then be eligible for the paid membership rules for the remaining duration of that paid membership.

But does it really matter anyway? Do they ever check that a guest of a WP or SG is flying? I rarely take guests in, but on the occasions I have I don't remember then checking. This could change with the new rules of course.

 

[simongr]

This is not really inconsistent. As you state, the paid membership is suspended, so the rules for that paid membership are also suspended. Should the member lose their WP or SG status, their paid membership will be reinstated and they will then be eligible for the paid membership rules for the remaining duration of that paid membership.

But does it really matter anyway? Do they ever check that a guest of a WP or SG is flying? I rarely take guests in, but on the occasions I have I don't remember then checking. This could change with the new rules of course.

The thing is that the day they do check will be the day that teh guest isn't travelling. For those people whose SO does drop them at the airport - taking away the benefit is a bit off.

 

[Optics]

The thing is that the day they do check will be the day that teh guest isn't travelling. For those people whose SO does drop them at the airport - taking away the benefit is a bit off.

I was not commenting on the acceptability of the change (if it is a change), just on whether its application to WP/SG was consistent. I would not be happy if I turned up with my SO, who was not travelling, and she was not allowed in. The cost of parking usually makes the option of taking a non-travelling SO into the QP unattractive anyway .

 

[justinbrett]

I think it's a mistake.

First - it's a stupid idea that Qantas Club members have more privileges than elite members - especially if those elite members aren't able to pay for said privileges. (Not to ignore the fact that elite members, are in fact also Qantas Club members - according to the terms and conditions).

Take BA - you can't pay for lounge access, you have to be an elite FF. On the other extreme, AA elite members on domestic travel have to pay also for lounge access. If Qantas goes down this road, they have to offer elite members to opportunity to become paying members.

But above all - the FF and QC terms and conditions still say you can bring in non-travelling guests. It also says any changes will have 6 months notice and be sent in the mail to members - this hasn't happened.

Thus I can only assume this webpage is in error.

 

[Josh]

Just as I, and many other people suspected! SG guest access conditions were incorrect!

As just posted on Flyertalk:
Correction to Qantas Club Lounge Access Page - FlyerTalk Forums

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to actually enquire about this!

Cheers,

Josh

 

[flying1977]

Its great that Qantas has finally updated the access information.

There seems to be a number of rules in regards to lounge access, the way the information is displayed seems pretty clear and correct to me.