RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

[mannej]

You tell me. Does Myer have to not sell kitchen knifes to someone in case they go and stab someone?

How about? in my opinion,if I looked up the licensing laws, I will find they make the holder of the liquor licence responsible for their own licensed premises only. As a general principle I doubt legislation makes people responsible for matters beyond their control.

I am asking the question Medhead. Legal liability is an interesting topic, hence why I asked if you could back that statement up with the relevant legislation, or you are basing it on your opinion only.

Your last statement suggests it's opinion only.

 

[medhead]

RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response ( Refused Drinks)

I am asking the question Medhead. Legal liability is an interesting topic, hence why I asked if you could back that statement up with the relevant legislation, or you are basing it on your opinion only.

Your last statement suggests it's opinion only.

Called it opinion informed by experience with other legal instruments and the context of the reported experience here. The requirements for RSA have been listed in thread. They are all around intoxication, disruption of others and anti social behaviour. I've yet to see anything that says RSA is about keeping someone legally sober just in case they go to another venue where they get intoxicated and disrupt others.

Keep in mind what has been reported here is enforcing a guideline keeping people below 0.05. Not even close to intoxication

 

[Princess Fiona]

I'm certainly not a frequent visitor to MEL F, SYD F being my home lounge but I have the same experiences there as Tom Vexville has stated and that is being asked what flight I'm on when I am ordering from the wait staff. Only asked the first time I order anything and not specifically asked for a BP IIRC. My experiences in SYD are quite different to this ie. never asked what flight I am on.

 

[mannej]

Called it opinion informed by experience with other legal instruments and the context of the reported experience here. The requirements for RSA have been listed in thread. They are all around intoxication, disruption of others and anti social behaviour. I've yet to see anything that says RSA is about keeping someone legally sober just in case they go to another venue where they get intoxicated and disrupt others.

You are pulling the straw man Medhead with your comments here.

What was questioned was your comment based on once someone leaves a licensed premises, it is someone else's problem then. Nothing about keeping people sober or if they pester others, but harm minimisation requirements based within RSA legislation

Whilst leaving a premises is the last act one may have on the licensed site, should something happen to a patron where RSA hasn't been followed and it can be proven, where does the liability lay?

So far all I can see is opinion and not much more.

 

[wingspan]

I agree with Qantas staff…there's nothing worse than intoxicated passengers on any flight…and sometimes its easy to think you are not unreasonably intoxicated when in fact you are. The lounge is not a "free for all bar" Its somewhere that members can sit in quiet contemplation, enjoy A beverage & something to eat, read a magazine, work on their computer or have some quiet conversation with friends before their flight departure. Even if after a 4th drink, people consider themselves "sober" they might then go on to continue drinking on board the flight - and then what? Other passengers often have to put up with loud animated voices and behaviour - although the "offender" may still see themselves as behaving normally. As a lounge member and having experienced the above, I'm with Qantas on this one!

Absolutely! I'd much prefer that some people are embarrassed by being RSAd than we have to put up with drunken people in lounges and on planes. I've certainly moved seats in lounges before to move away from crowds who've had a few too many (easier to do in the SYD F lounge than the smaller MEL F lounge, too). I understand that much of the discussion in the thread is to do with the way that RSA is being applied and inconsistencies - and I agree that is a problem. However, it could well be the case that other lounge members have complained about the behaviour of those who have been drinking too much. I'd prefer QF keep the majority safe and comfortable than to keep plying alcohol when someone's had too much. And I've certainly seen people who think they're sober in lounges and on board planes.

 

[blaz]

Qantas F lounges in Australia are waiter service.

I have been to Qantas first lounge in melbourne and sydney many times, and unless they have changed policy , you can help yourself to wines (placed next to food) ,or you can be served by waiters if you wish....but champagne can only be ordered by a waiter.

 

[Muriel]

Nothing to do with Royal Brunei not serving drinks. We generally travel Qantas - or one of their associates, or Virgin. If you've ever experienced loud, inebriated drunks on a flight, you'd know exactly what I mean.

 

[wombatpatties]

Outrageous. What's next? Limiting food intake to officially recommended calorie, fat and carbohydrate limits?

What happened to allowing responsible adults to make their own decisions?

I cannot see this happening....members have been known to complain about 1st class food,
but this time I do agree with Qantas and the RSA.,

If you have to drink that much before a flight, then you could (I said could) pose a problem on board.

 

[Flying mermaid]

I have been to Qantas first lounge in melbourne and sydney many times, and unless they have changed policy , you can help yourself to wines (placed next to food) ,or you can be served by waiters if you wish....but champagne can only be ordered by a waiter.

Really? Must have missed that - but then I don't think I have ever drunk anything other than champagne in the F lounges. Don't drink much and I love bubbly....

 

[blaz]

Really? Must have missed that - but then I don't think I have ever drunk anything other than champagne in the F lounges. Don't drink much and I love bubbly....

Pity...they have some particularly good wines too...eg WA Devil's Lair chardonnay which retails $40 a bottle....my favourite..

 

[pagingjoan]

In the very ealy days it was the BP that was requested while being sat at the table. On querying this I was told it was so the staff could prioritise service.

Thanks, Serfty. The prioritisation makes sense. And it would be more likely to stick in your memory, given that you asked for the reason, way back then. Guess it's yet another case of YMMV.

(Of course, there ARE F Lounge situations where you are asked for your BP when dining. LHR T3 dining room, for example - and, these days, with their reduced menu and peculiar service, just not worth the effort, in my view. But that's OT.)

 

[Flying mermaid]

Pity...they have some particularly good wines too...eg WA Devil's Lair chardonnay which retails $40 a bottle....my favourite..

I will mention that to Mr FM - he refuses to drink in the lounge, but I might be able to tempt him with a nice Chardonnay.

 

[medhead]

RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response ( Refused Drinks)

You are pulling the straw man Medhead with your comments here.

What was questioned was your comment based on once someone leaves a licensed premises, [-]it[/-]RSA is someone else's problem then. Nothing about keeping people sober or if they pester others, but harm minimisation requirements based within RSA legislation

Whilst leaving a premises is the last act one may have on the licensed site, should something happen to a patron where RSA hasn't been followed and it can be proven, where does the liability lay?

So far all I can see is opinion and not much more.

Sorry you've misread. My comment was that enforcing RSA is someone else's problem at another venue. Directly addressing the idea that the lounge has to worry about enforcement of RSA at the next venue. No strawman at all. I've fixed you post by insert what "it" happens to be.

Let's just recap. Venue A is not required by RSA to keep people legally sober in case they go somewhere else and have a drink. Venue A is required to apply RSA at venue A. Venue B is then required to apply RSA at venue B. In fact if we want a strawman argument I'll present this idea that a venue has to second guess if a patron will go somewhere else and have a drink.

There is also the massive strawman in suggesting that not keeping people under 0.05 is a failure to enforce RSA. Or even to mention "where RSA hasn't been followed" when my post is entirely based on the case of RSA being followed.

 

[drron]

Nothing to do with Royal Brunei not serving drinks. We generally travel Qantas - or one of their associates, or Virgin. If you've ever experienced loud, inebriated drunks on a flight, you'd know exactly what I mean.

Both in the lounges and aboard the majority of people disturbing my enjoyment have not been drinking,just loud obnoxious people who think that all the world should know what they have been doing.

I cannot see this happening....members have been known to complain about 1st class food,
but this time I do agree with Qantas and the RSA.,

If you have to drink that much before a flight, then you could (I said could) pose a problem on board.

Except that RSA legislation has been quoted before in this thread and what is being complained of is not consistent with RSA legislation.

 

[pagingjoan]

I have been to Qantas first lounge in melbourne and sydney many times, and unless they have changed policy , you can help yourself to wines (placed next to food) ,or you can be served by waiters if you wish....but champagne can only be ordered by a waiter.

Hmmm. If that is the case (And I'm not saying it's not. I've simply never used self-service for food or drinks in the MEL or SYD F Lounges, so had no need to take note.), then why has it been an issue for people being refused service? Why could they not have served themselves - other than for Champagne? That does seem to make nonsense of the whole RSA thing. Or am I missing something obvious?

It is the International lounges you are referring to, blaz?

 

[Matthews]

Just thought I would share this.

My partner and our daughter and son in law where in the lounge, sat in the dining room on Saturday the 7th March and over a period of approximately an hour and 45 minutes we all consumed 3 drinks each. We asked for an additional drink before departing and were refused.

It was explained that they were not allowed to serve any one more than 3 drinks in 90 minutes due to RSA. Whilst I understand and respect the need for RSA I am somewhat surprised at the interpretation being applied by the staff. Indeed we could have all gone to any bar in the airport and consumed far far more than this with out any objection and not prevented from flying.

None of us were loud unruly or disrespectful, we were however all well mannered and well behaved and certainly not in any way intoxicated or showing signs of being so.



I wrote to red Roo seeking clarification on the Policy re serving of alcohol in the Melbourne First Lounge and the response from the customer care team.

I'm inclined to agree with Qantas. I experienced drunken behaviour on board a flight from Darwin to Sydney where cabin crew and ground staff were forced to off-load a customer. The same customer was taking advantage of too many free drinks in the Qantas Club prior to departure.

 

[blaz]

Hmmm. If that is the case (And I'm not saying it's not. I've simply never used self-service for food or drinks in the MEL or SYD F Lounges, so had no need to take note.), then why has it been an issue for people being refused service? Why could they not have served themselves - other than for Champagne? That does seem to make nonsense of the whole RSA thing. Or am I missing something obvious?

It is the International lounges you are referring to, blaz?

Yes it is....have used them at least 10 times,...mostly Sydney International....and the wine is in two positions next to the food and soft drinks...I am guessing the RSA thing is about serving alcohol...helping yourself may come under a different law.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Yes it is....have used them at least 10 times,...mostly Sydney International....and the wine is in two positions next to the food and soft drinks...I am guessing the RSA thing is about serving alcohol...helping yourself may come under a different law.

I will be in the Syd one on 10 April and will take a photo. I guess having had a meal in the dining room, one doesn't tend to look at the food area, which at a quick glance has always just looked like a few cakes and things....

 

[pagingjoan]

I will be in the Syd one on 10 April and will take a photo. I guess having had a meal in the dining room, one doesn't tend to look at the food area, which at a quick glance has always just looked like a few cakes and things....

Yes, that's my impression of MEL. But, just for interest, will look more carefully on my next visit - and then order Champagne anyway.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Yes, that's my impression of MEL. But, just for interest, will look more carefully on my next visit - and then order Champagne anyway.

Well yes! I am not suggesting a move to the dark side, but useful to know.