RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

[Julesmac]

Absolutely, but they aren't just another member, and they aren't your friend. They're Qantas. I find it odd that people don't seem to realise this.

I may have said before - Qantas (via RedRoo) and Virgin are absolutely CRAZY if they don't monitor this site and take on board the criticisms. AFF'ers have so much experience and wisdom. Sure many folk write when they are aggrieved but there is praise as well. No amount of expensive market research could provide the depth of feedback here which is generally based on solid experience. It seems to me we all WANT to support Qantas, and for it to be a great national airline. Sometimes, however things go awry and that's when our honest feedback could help them achieve greatness. Or at least halfway decent outcomes. Or am I being Pollyanna?!!

 

[ketsuzei]

they aren't just another member, and they aren't your friend. They're Qantas.

Thanks, I'll write that down somewhere after I finish teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Are you suggesting a crucifixion of Red Roo... Oh dear :-| . I'm sure Red Roo will be none too happy, though I guess it will put them onto the pathway toward Sainthood....

No not at all Rather a resurrection in support of this thread.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Thanks, I'll write that down somewhere after I finish teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.

Hope they were Easter eggs otherwise you'd just have egg on your face.

 

[JohnK]

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!

I am fairly sober after 2-3 beers and 4 vodkas in an hour. I start to get loud after ~17 drinks but if you leave me alone I am quiet.

But that is irrelevant. I should be able to decide how much is enough. Don't taint me with the lowest common denominator.

 

[JohnK]

I've fixed up the bad quotation marks in my posts - perhaps people could fix them in theirs - it is getting very confusing e.g. It looks like I said this when I didn't in medhead's reply.Post 499.

Not quite. Your post that I am quoting has a broken quote.

This thread is very confusing with all the broken quotes.

 

[Rebekkap]

I am fairly sober after 2-3 beers and 4 vodkas in an hour. I start to get loud after ~17 drinks but if you leave me alone I am quiet.

But that is irrelevant. I should be able to decide how much is enough. Don't taint me with the lowest common denominator.

After seven drinks in an hour (assuming they are standard drinks - if you're talking bottles of beer, they're actually more than a standard drink), you are well and truly intoxicated whether you think you are fairly sober or not.

Blood Alcohol Concentration - In The Know Zone

 

[serfty]

After seven drinks in an hour (assuming they are standard drinks - if you're talking bottles of beer, they're actually more than a standard drink), you are well and truly intoxicated whether you think you are fairly sober or not. ...

ok ... so what about the OP who had three drinks in an hour and three quarters who was denied a fouth with RSA cited.

Having posted that, that link is not relevant to the legal definition of intoxication in Victoria:

... a person is in a state of intoxication if his or her speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is noticeably affected and there are reasonable grounds for believing that this is the result of the consumption of liquor.

I know people who could easily have seven drinks in one hour who would typically show no visible signs of intoxication as per the regulation.

 

[Ansett]

Re Red Roo

I would just like to say that Red Roo does a good job here with limited authority and we have no issue with Red Roo. Our issue is the manner in which we were treated in the Melbourne F Lounge.

Red Roo has done many good things as can be seen in this thread http://www.australianfrequentflyer....rogram/red-roo-appreciation-thread-65796.html which was started by myself.

The reason I joined AFF was to learn how to make the most of my QFF membership and flying experience in general as well as having a forum where I have a voice that is heard.

When we group together we can influence decisions to a degree.

I feel that what happened to us was because we were flying JQ and were discriminated against as a result. We were entitled to be in the Lounge compliments of our status with QF and should have been treated the same as any other customer.

If we don't stand up and make noise what will QF take away next. Will they stop WP and WP1 from the J Lounges domestically when flying on JQ?

 

[farstar]

After seven drinks in an hour (assuming they are standard drinks - if you're talking bottles of beer, they're actually more than a standard drink), you are well and truly intoxicated whether you think you are fairly sober or not.

Blood Alcohol Concentration - In The Know Zone

Their standard drinks are high at 12g vs 10g in Australia but I guess that article is only meant as a guide as everyone is different. Having said that I would never have more than a couple of drinks before the flight as you could be refused boarding if the crew though you were intoxicated.

 

[opusman]

Will they stop WP and WP1 from the J Lounges domestically when flying on JQ?

WP1 - never!!

 

[Anna]

I know people who could easily have seven drinks in one hour who would typically show no visible signs of intoxication as per the regulation.

Alcohol-dependents much?

 

[serfty]

Alcohol-dependents much?

Perhaps ... some would say "have built up a tolerance", but again that's not relevant to this thread and the RSA cited over three drinks in 105 minutes.

 

[andye]

After seven drinks in an hour (assuming they are standard drinks - if you're talking bottles of beer, they're actually more than a standard drink), you are well and truly intoxicated whether you think you are fairly sober or not.

Blood Alcohol Concentration - In The Know Zone

e

On simple pharmacological principles for a given dose of alcohol, on average, a lean 80kg man will have a lower BAC than a lean 60kg man etc . If you add in (the reasonably wide) metabolic variation then it is quite possible for someone to have 7 drinks and still be in a low-range drink-driving zone. Such people will often not appear intoxicated (especially if they are habituated).

This doesn't mean that drinking enough to be habituated is a healthy lifestyle choice and might reflect a degree of alcohol dependency.

It also doesn't mean that if you are big you can jump behind the wheel of a car after 5 drinks-because of variation and habituation, it would be very difficult to predict a BAC based on size or apparent sobriety

 

[opusman]

Alcohol-dependents much?

You're just a bit of a wuss

 

[pagingjoan]

<snip>. This thread is very confusing with all the broken quotes.

Have corrected one of mine that was affected but still seems to be going awry when people are quoting a post that has already quoted another post.

 

[andye]

e

On simple pharmacological principles for a given dose of alcohol, on average, a lean 80kg man will have a lower BAC than a lean 60kg man etc . If you add in (the reasonably wide) metabolic variation then it is quite possible for someone to have 7 drinks and still be in a low-range drink-driving zone. Such people will often not appear intoxicated (especially if they are habituated).

This doesn't mean that drinking enough to be habituated is a healthy lifestyle choice and might reflect a degree of alcohol dependency.

It also doesn't mean that if you are big you can jump behind the wheel of a car after 5 drinks-because of variation and habituation, it would be very difficult to predict a BAC based on size or apparent sobriety

And often size does not reflect an increase in lean body mass

 

[Anna]

You're just a bit of a wuss

There's that old* saying - I drink an average amount, you drink too much, s/he is alcohol dependent

*which I may or may not have just made up

 

[RooFlyer]

But lots of help to individuals. I'm hoping there will some sort of resolution for the OP via RR. But I too have noticed the paucity of presence in a number of situations where there isn't good news to be spread. I dare say Qantas Loyalty policy, not RRs wish.

Sigh... stop viewing RR as an AFF member. They are an extension of QFF, nothing more.

The person(s) behind the account may be the nicest human since Jesus but on this forum they are Qantas.

Jolly good, you can stop sighing. I have always regarded RR as an extension of Qantas, and I have criticised some of RR's posting in the past. But I was simply discriminating between the position of the RRs, and what they can do/post unilaterally versus what they are limited to say via instructions from higher up.

I get really frustrated when some-one asks for a simple clarification of rules (which are rules - they must be written down and able to be quoted) and there is nothing in reply. The policy is undoubtedly (IMHO) 'positive messages only' - help individual pax in difficulty, make 'good news' announcements (which has backfired a couple of times - like Apple Watch application) and competitions.

In this thread, it would have been easy simply to quote the QF/lounge RSA policy, without further comment and that would have saved about a lot of angst against Qantas. But no.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I get really frustrated when some-one asks for a simple clarification of rules (which are rules - they must be written down and able to be quoted) and there is nothing in reply.

For example, a request to clarify how refunds are calculated in the event of an involuntary downgrade.