RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

[TomVexille]

yes, this can always go pear shaped....I have a policy of not complaining when it all comes at no extra cost (I often was flying on an international domestic leg paying as little as $150....so french champagne, and freshly cooked breakfast is all a bonus...no matter how slow the service)

But what does someone say when the QF staff ask you how everything is going? Do you lie and say it's going great when it obviously isn't?

 

[straitman]

I can assure you that we were all very well behaved. None of us had more than four drinks in four hours despite the F&B manager claiming that we had had at least 7 drinks each. It was far more likely to be retaliation as well as the staff confusing us with friends who had already left the lounge.

It was us who left the lounge to catch QF93 and I can assure you there was no sign of any of the group being remotely intoxicated.

 

[DC3]

Because the food and beverage manager threatened to kick us out and said that he would make sure we were not allowed to board if we did.

So are these types not accountable to anyone? The drinks are cut-off, with threats, and that's it?

 

[TomVexille]

So are these types not accountable to anyone? The drinks are cut-off, with threats, and that's it?

As we can see just from this thread. There isn't much one can argue in the face of RSA. I also happen to hold an RSA certification so I should know what I'm talking about. The F&B manager was working off incorrect information, but he didn't handle it well. And he magically appeared at the front desk as we left as well. All in all, it left a very sour taste of what I used to think was an excellent lounge.

 

[blaz]

But what does someone say when the QF staff ask you how everything is going? Do you lie and say it's going great when it obviously isn't?

yes...I lie....but I just say it was "fine"....this is code for "ordinary"....if it was good, then it was "Great!"

 

[RooFlyer]

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.

How can you quote what Ansett wrote and then state that you agree with Qantas because you have experienced drunken people etc etc? If you have any evidence that the people in question were 'drunk', then please give it to us, otherwise you may care to give Ansett the benefit of the doubt. And I believe what we are talking about is being served, or being denied service of drinks by QFF staff - not the all to common act of getting boozed up in a lounge and then staggering onto a plane.

this sounds suspiciously like somebody in your group was showing signs of overindulgence ...I have never experienced this ever in any Qantas lounge, and I have been known to put a few away...

Another pointing the finger of suspicion that the other AFF member was 'overindulged' based on their own experience but not there at the time.

I suggest that any member's own experience in a QF lounge (good or bad) is no reason to then naysay what some-one else has said they experienced. Deal?

 

[RooFlyer]

So are these types not accountable to anyone? The drinks are cut-off, with threats, and that's it?

I thinks that's a large part of what we are trying to find out .

 

[blackcat20]

I thinks that's a large part of what we are trying to find out .

That's the thing about RSA. No ifs, no buts. You can't argue with it.

 

[Kangol]

TomVexille, do you have a detailed description of this person?
It could be said that there's no value in choosing not to release that information... especially if you want to see an improvement in services.

 

[medhead]

That's the thing about RSA. No ifs, no buts. You can't argue with it.

This is the thing that astounds me about the OP's situation. Another 31 minutes and they would be within the guideline that was quoted. No option to wait, just cut off.

 

[TomVexille]

TomVexille, do you have a detailed description of this person?
It could be said that there's no value in choosing not to release that information... especially if you want to see an improvement in services.

The person who informed us that there would be no more drinks served had not been out on the floor prior. So I don't think he made the decision based on actually serving us. TBH I don't remember who the two or three waiters were as this was a few months ago in my case.

 

[blackcat20]

This is the thing that astounds me about the OP's situation. Another 31 minutes and they would be within the guideline that was quoted. No option to wait, just cut off.

We also weren't given an option to wait...

 

[blaz]

How can you quote what Ansett wrote and then state that you agree with Qantas because you have experienced drunken people etc etc? If you have any evidence that the people in question were 'drunk', then please give it to us, otherwise you may care to give Ansett the benefit of the doubt. And I believe what we are talking about is being served, or being denied service of drinks by QFF staff - not the all to common act of getting boozed up in a lounge and then staggering onto a plane.



Another pointing the finger of suspicion that the other AFF member was 'overindulged' based on their own experience but not there at the time.

I suggest that any member's own experience in a QF lounge (good or bad) is no reason to then naysay what some-one else has said they experienced. Deal?

Yes...you are correct....but sometimes the story doesn't make sense...and as Judge Judy says.
, if it doesn't make sense, then it isn't true (or at least, not the whole story....people are very good at leaving out the detail)....as I have stated, bottles of wine are available for self service, so the rule that was stated makes absolutely no sense (it was after 12pm, and wine is available for self serving...so why use RSA defence ?....something is fishy in the state of Denmark)

 

[pagingjoan]

Yes...you are correct....but sometimes the story doesn't make sense...and as Judge Judy says.
, if it doesn't make sense, then it isn't true (or at least, not the whole story....people are very good at leaving out the detail)....as I have stated, bottles of wine are available for self service, so the rule that was stated makes absolutely no sense (it was after 12pm, and wine is available for self serving...so why use RSA defence ?....something is fishy in the state of Denmark)

I think it was TomV who said that there was only beer available for self-service. (Although that's scarcely the point )

 

[TheRealTMA]

Oh no (s)he's not........

How do you know for sure?

 

[medhead]

Yes...you are correct....but sometimes the story doesn't make sense...and as Judge Judy says.
, if it doesn't make sense, then it isn't true (or at least, not the whole story....people are very good at leaving out the detail)....as I have stated, bottles of wine are available for self service, so the rule that was stated makes absolutely no sense (it was after 12pm, and wine is available for self serving...so why use RSA defence ?....something is fishy in the state of Denmark)

If we factor into the equation that it is only the cheap wine and beer that's available for self service, the smell shifts. We're not going to serve you anymore expensive wine and Champagne but go your hardest on the cheap stuff.

 

[TomVexille]

Yes...you are correct....but sometimes the story doesn't make sense...and as Judge Judy says.
, if it doesn't make sense, then it isn't true (or at least, not the whole story....people are very good at leaving out the detail)....as I have stated, bottles of wine are available for self service, so the rule that was stated makes absolutely no sense (it was after 12pm, and wine is available for self serving...so why use RSA defence ?....something is fishy in the state of Denmark)

I get it. You're skeptical because you don't want it to be true. I can only explain what happened to me. I can't make you believe me, but that's what happened.

 

[blaz]

I get it. You're skeptical because you don't want it to be true. I can only explain what happened to me. I can't make you believe me, but that's what happened.

I really don't care (can't access first lounge anymore...: ( ....demoted to life time gold sadly )....it is just that things don't add up....why use RSA excuse if they allow self serve wine (or even beer) ?...as I said, sometimes complaining about free stuff is seen as ungrateful , even if you feel like the service is lacking...better to write (a letter is worth a hundred phone calls)...we all see the world from our own perspective...this is human nature...so is waking up in a ****e mood.

 

[Steady]

I even had to go up to the bar to order dessert, and was snapped at and told to go back to the table. I wouldn't have gone up if someone had actually bothered to come to the table and see if we wanted anything.

This has happened to me once.

 

[RooFlyer]

Note that in posts 473, 474 and 476 the quoted bits are mis-attributed.

Edit. And #478