RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

[Princess Fiona]

But is is assuming all women handle their alcohol the same, and at a lesser ability than men.

It is and that assumption is based on the fact that there are gender differences in alcohol metabolism.
I agree that there are vast variations in an individual's metabolism based on various factors including but not limited to gender.

In any case for QF Lounge staff to use them as a reason for invoking refusal of service is a pretty ridiculous state of affairs.

 

[harvyk]

Just to play devil’s advocate for a second, I strongly suspect all QF customer service can legally do is state that they support the lounge in RSA decisions, since they were not there and can’t judge for themselves.
I also strongly suspect that once an RSA decision has been made, it can’t be reversed.


That said, RSA is not based on the number of drinks per hour, since number of drinks per hour is a poor measure for determining if a person is sober or not, and it’s not even a good measure for if a person is able to drive or not, which is why you no longer see “2 drinks first hour, 1 drink per hour thereafter for men” ad’s, since the number of variables which can affect a person’s ability is enormous, and can even alter between drinking sessions (eg if you’ve recently eaten or not and even the mood you are in can affect it).


Finally, given this is not the first (or even second) case I’ve heard about with the MEL FLounge, me thinks that RSA is perhaps been a little too quick to be applied / applied as retaliation against complaints / applied as a cost saving measure rather than as a way to responsibly serve alcohol.

 

[RooFlyer]

It is and that assumption is based on the fact that there are gender differences in alcohol metabolism.
<snip>.

Genuine Q: If you take a guy and a gal, as close as possible to the same physique, fitness, usual alcohol consumption etc, will they 'generally' metabolise alcohol differently and would it be such that they show 'affects' of alcohol at different times? Or is it a comparison between classes of people, with females I think generally smaller? (no flames for that comment, please! )

 

[opusman]

Finally, given this is not the first (or even second) case I’ve heard about with the MEL FLounge, me thinks that RSA is perhaps been a little too quick to be applied / applied as retaliation against complaints / applied as a cost saving measure rather than as a way to responsibly serve alcohol.

The small pours and drink limits are nothing but a cost-saving measure in my opinion. Is it any coincidence that the only lounge that has this as an issue (other than the PER QP which is admittedly full of bogans ) is the one that serves the most expensive booze?

The only question for me is, is it QF's decision or Accor's?

 

[Hvr]

With regard to 'short pours', could it be that they are actually providing standard serves, i.e. 100ml or whatever the standard drink size is for that beverage? I.e. one that contains 10 grams of alcohol?

[h=3]Champagne 12% alc. vol[/h]150 ml average restaurant serving - 1.4 standard drinks
750 ml bottle - 7.1 standard drinks

Alcohol - The Australian Standard Drink

If I'm correct then it means that the lounge staff are following their responsibilities re RSA. Let's not forget that RSA is a two way street. There are obligations on the customer and the organisation including serving staff.

 

[blackcat20]

With regard to 'short pours', could it be that they are actually providing standard serves, i.e. 100ml or whatever the standard drink size is for that beverage? I.e. one that contains 10 grams of alcohol?




Alcohol - The Australian Standard Drink

If I'm correct then it means that the lounge staff are following their responsibilities re RSA. Let's not forget that RSA is a two way street. There are obligations on the customer and the organisation including serving staff.

But four of those small pours over four hours does not result in a drunk, nor even slightly tipsy blackcat. So they are using RSA inappropriately IMHO.

As an aside, I seem to process alcohol quite quickly, and have the same issues with pain killers, as I learned when I had my wisdom teeth out....

 

[mooingchicken]

Genuine Q: If you take a guy and a gal, as close as possible to the same physique, fitness, usual alcohol consumption etc, will they 'generally' metabolise alcohol differently and would it be such that they show 'affects' of alcohol at different times? Or is it a comparison between classes of people, with females I think generally smaller? (no flames for that comment, please! )

Im not a doctor but metabolise isnt as simple as physique and fitness, peoples bodys burn/absorbe at all different rates depending on genetics, how you have trainned your body etc.
But that said I would think someone who has very similar weight/height, body mass densitiy, fitness and eatting habbits would be similar. but females generally have a higher BDI (body fat index) then males and less muscle density. but obviously this is not always the case

 

[straitman]

Just to be the odd one out here. Last Friday morning in the Melbourne F lounge I was given an appropriately full glass of bubbles and Sue was given a half glass even when she said no. (It was all done nicely and appropriately with the comment that It's never too early for Champagne.)

 

[medhead]

Sexist much?!

It's supposedly based on differences in metabolism and typical (average?) characteristics for each gender. Of course, there are wide variations for individuals. However, unless you consider being born a women as sexist, then no.

Sexist? maybe but this is whats been promoted for atleast the past 5-7 years that I can remember.
Males - 2 drinks first hour 1 drink each hour after
Females - 1 drink first hour 1 drink each hour after
https://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/con...o+get+to+.05+blood+alcohol+concentration+(bac)

You can up that to at least 25 years, in my recollection. I still have a stubby cooler provided at work 16 years ago with those guidelines on it.

 

[opusman]

You can up that to at least 25 years, in my recollection. I still have a stubby cooler provided at work 16 years ago with those guidelines on it.

Back in the .08 days the slogan was "Four men and women two". Can't remember how long ago that was but 25 years seems a long time and makes me feel old

 

[medhead]

Back in the .08 days the slogan was "Four men and women two". Can't remember how long ago that was but 25 years seems a long time and makes me feel old

The limit changed to 0.05 within a few years of getting my licence 28 years ago. I only said 25 years because that is the length of time that I've owned a car and partaken of the demon drink.

 

[Colster]

<totally tongue in cheek> Is the problem here the amount of alcohol that is getting served, the amount that people want to drink, or the lack of a nice preflight buzz? Perhaps lower alcohol level wine and beer would address the first (like at the cricket for non members) , the second and third potentially could be addressed by drinking prior to eating, or donate blood before turning up the lounge - we used to do that on a Friday night at uni to lessen the cost of a big night out! works wonders for the BAC

 

[blackcat20]

It's supposedly based on differences in metabolism and typical (average?) characteristics for each gender. Of course, there are wide variations for individuals. However, unless you consider being born a women as sexist, then no.

But they're telling me I must drink less because I'm female, and not taking into account my size, metabolims etc etc, so that is sexist.

 

[medhead]

But they're telling me I must drink less because I'm female, and not taking into account my size, metabolims etc etc, so that is sexist.

No they're not. they're applying a guideline that takes into account that females on average can tolerate less booze while remaining below the driving BAC limit. That is based on sex, even if it is not based on individual factors. If anything it is individualist, but it's not sexist.

 

[Flying mermaid]

But they're telling me I must drink less because I'm female, and not taking into account my size, metabolims etc etc, so that is sexist.

I am usually the first person to jump down people's throats at even a whiff of sexism, but in this case there seems to be quite a lot of science behind the fact that on average women can drink less than men. Obviously individual cases differ - I feel quite sure you can drink more than Mr FM but guidelines do have to work on averages. There is also research out that indicates women are more vulnerable than men to raising their cancer risk when drinking. I limit my drinking for health reasons (and also because these days a glass of bubbly seems to go straight to my hips), but I do find it a little creepy that people might be watching and judging...

 

[TheRealTMA]

This was a "full" pour on Friday, and the first of the day too....

However, that's a 'correct' pour for the glass - approx. up to the tangent. You're not in Kansas now blackcat20!

 

[opusman]

However, that's a 'correct' pour for the glass - approx. up to the tangent. You're not in Kansas now blackcat20!

The Etiquette Scholar says champagne glasses should be 3/4 full!

 

[blackcat20]

Regardless, they are still confusing driving limits with RSA. If they deny me a drink after 3 in 90 minutes based on "safe to drive" or even "female" rather than behaviour then they are doing it incorrectly.

 

[Kangol]

For those who were getting "short" pours, did you ask why that was the case? If so, what was the response?

 

[Anna]

For those who were getting "short" pours, did you ask why that was the case? If so, what was the response?

I just looked at her and raised my eyebrows a bit, and she poured some more. I didn't have to say anything.