Surely it is now now time to change lounge access rules

[anat0l]

To put a slight tilt on this, I agree somewhat in principle with the OP. Ideas:

• First Class Lounge: QF (and possibly EK) First passengers (award, revenue or confirmed upgrade; onward or same day connected from), CL, P1 (with special use pass).
• Emerald Lounge: QF Platinum (not flying QF F), oneworld F other than QF F, oneworld Emerald, P1 without special FCL pass.
• ...then other lounges as per current model.

Don't pay much attention to the names of the lounges; I'm not in marketing and have no ideas right now.

I don't see the benefit of separating J passengers and "Business level" passengers (i.e. Sapphires etc.). I know SQ and LH do this, but:

• Each of them only does it at their respective home hubs. At outstations there is no such separation.
• SQ actually do a pretty damn poor job for the *G lounge, compared to their SQ SilverKris J lounge at SIN. I know this is meant to "encourage" more genuine SQ J revenue, but I find it somewhat an antithesis (and I'm sure Velocity Gold and Platinum members can resonate with this sentiment).
• LH Senator and Business class lounges have very little difference between them. Some say the food is better in one of them, but apart from keeping the crowds within themselves, and Senators have priority to the shared shower facilities over Business lounge passengers, it's like having one lounge split by a wall; personally, I'd rather they made a nice big airy lounge with a good food centre.
• The LH First Class Terminal in FRA is probably a key point of difference, but it's a lot easier for LH given that within *A there is no equivalent tier that allows F access unlike oneworld. That said, LH HON Circle members, even when travelling J or Y, may access the FRA First Class Terminal; the consolation is that obtaining LH HON Circle is extremely difficult (I'd say it gives SQ PPS Solitaire a good run for money, pun intended).

Some other unusual examples:

• MH have something replicating the model described above, except that there is a Business Lounge, First Lounge and Platinum Lounge. The last lounge is only for MH Enrich Platinums (a difficult tier to achieve). MH First pax must use the First Lounge. Naturally, this is only at KUL, and the Platinum Lounge is pretty small (about 2/3 the size of the SQ SIN TPR I'd reckon, for those in the know).
• EK probably have what is closest to what the OP wants. There are no Skywards tiers that can access the EK F Lounge in DXB (that said, there are only two elite tiers). And observing the EK elites who fly plenty of F - they are definitely not prepared at all to share their lounge with anyone who is not also flying F - not QF elites, not even EK elites (even those who may qualify for the rumoured new EK Skywards "Platinum" tier).

The main problems with the split F from Emeralds are:

• The "First Class Lounge" would need to be named something rather inconspicuous so it can be easily stood as a non-oneworld lounge - it is simply an extra facility afforded to QF F pax (just like the Concorde Room for BA F pax). The "Emerald" lounge would be a oneworld registered lounge at the Emerald / First level.
• The size of this First Class Lounge is not likely to be large, unless EK is included in access, or QF starts putting out more F services.
• What will be the key differences between the FCL and the Emerald lounge? If we look at BA CCR vs Galleries F, the only big difference is cabanas in the former (there is table service, but Galleries F has this too). If there isn't much difference, then the only key difference appears to be a bit of "privacy", viz. the same lounge with a wall dividing the masses. And if you think about SYD and MEL and start taking away the spa service from the Emeralds (who have always had only second go at reservations anyway, because bona fide F customers get first dibs of appointments), I think that'll start a riot...
• Is QF expected to replicate this lounge model across the entire network? Unlikely IMO, given that hardly any other airline does it as well. Not to mention that at outstations, the key differences between the two top lounges (excluding Chairman's Lounges) will dramatically decrease unless QF again replicates all those features across the network (e.g. spa, office suites, etc.)
• P1 access to the FCL should be regulated by passes (like BA GGL and CCR passes). You could do something like 2 FCL passes valid for 12 months (non-transferrable, eligible for entry of P1 member and standard guest allowance), then 1 extra FCL pass valid for 12 months for every 1000 QF SCs above 3600 SC. Giving P1 carte blanche access to a FCL undermines the reason for creating a FCL in the first place.

One would look at that and go, "Is it worth it?" I'd say probably not. If QF F started to expand its F services again, or included EK F in the mix, then it might be worthwhile, because then you have a real critical mass of bona fide F passengers (rather than a swathe of Platinums). Rather than the massive restructuring detailed, I'd rather QF spent that time and money on improving the F experience in other areas, e.g. at the airport before arriving at the lounge, or upon arrival. Even on board or something. In fact, why not spend the money rather than creating a segregated lounge system above and actually make bigger and better F lounges in SYD and MEL (and BNE and PER, and maybe ADL)? More shower suites (a better system too for amenities), larger spas, larger dining area, more spacious / airy. (I know QF's hubs at SYD and MEL are a little constrained right now for real estate, but there's got to be a way).

Anything that QF create for bona fide F pax would need to be equal or better than what we have now, without degrading the Emerald / Platinum lounge experience. Do it the other way and that's asking for trouble (particularly as it was not long ago that QF F lounges in SYD and MEL were proclaimed to be amongst the best in the world).

 

[NM]

Now to repeat myself... My proposal is to create a " true " first lounge, access restricted to passengers in F, CL and P1.
the WP and J and OWE are in another, and QP OWS and Gold in another, and yes stop the double SC.

So you are proposing that QF should have three separate lounges at locations like SIN? So they should follow BA's model at LHR with Business Lounge, First Lounge and Concorde Room? And to implement that across multiple ports including SIN? I can't see that being financially attractive to QF International at this present point in time, but I can see why a CL, P1 member or regular F passenger may desire this.

Of course the other approach is to remove F cabin from the SIN routes and hence no longer require an F lounge there. But that is another story altogether where the commercially important CL and P1 members may have to share facilities with less important Platinum and Gold members and other OneWorld Emerald and Sapphire members who may be travelling in Premium/Economy fares.

 

[Rebekkap]

Placing them where they deserve to be? Why do they deserve to be anywhere but the lounge to which they have been entitled for some time? Your beef seems to be the growth in numbers due in part to double SC offers. However there are P1s who got DSCs (me included) that would now be clogging up your elite lounge.

Then strip out my DSCs and I still have about 3000 SCs for last year - and by your rules that wouldn't get me into the F lounge. Those 3000 SCs were a combination of international J and a LOT of domestic whY. If I wasn't getting int'l F lounge then probably 50% of that would be switched to DJ.

Me too. I'm platinum thanks to a LOT of flying in Y - so much that I maintained platinum on both Virgin and Qantas last year, almost entirely through domestic Y flights. But the elite lounges when I travel for pleasure are one of the nicest benefits as far as I'm concerned - and I'd switch more of my flying to Virgin if I didn't get that with Qantas.

 

[medhead]

Now to repeat myself... My proposal is to create a " true " first lounge, access restricted to passengers in F, CL and P1.
the WP and J and OWE are in another, and QP OWS and Gold in another, and yes stop the double SC.

And the sole credible reason you've given for your proposal is the current, temporary situation in SIN. As a said, a knee jerk reaction based on a non-existent problem.


Sent from the Throne

 

[nlagalle]

Why? Because I am calling on QF to stop creating these false status holders?
If you want to be at these levels then put your bums in the seats and do the miles.

So you you really know how many people made WP because of the DSC promotion? I suspect it is a lot less than you think. It certainly hasn't in my opinion. number of guests I've seen are about the same at anytime I have been there.

oh and i earnt WP as a bum in seat with no DSC offer. Why should i be kicked out of the F lounge because you think it is overcrowded?

 

[simongr]

And the sole credible reason you've given for your proposal is the current, temporary situation in SIN. As a said, a knee jerk reaction based on a non-existent problem.

To be fair the lounge situation in SIN was pretty poor, is pretty dire and in the future is highly uncertain. This doesn't necessitate and across the board change though.

 

[nlagalle]

Now to repeat myself... My proposal is to create a " true " first lounge, access restricted to passengers in F, CL and P1.
the WP and J and OWE are in another, and QP OWS and Gold in another, and yes stop the double SC.

up til last year (when P1 was "invented") the true First lounge was first, CL WP and OWE. If it was a true First class lounge why would you allow P1 and CL in???? Should it not be F pax only??

 

[simongr]

up til last year (when P1 was "invented") the true First lounge was first, CL WP and OWE. If it was a true F lounge why would you allow P1 [-]and CL[/-] in????

Fixed that for you

 

[Fantic125]

In the past 12 months across various flights I've been into the SYD F lounge 8 times, HKG F lounge 7 times and SIN F lounge 9 times.

It's only my last 2 visits through the SIN F lounge (since it swapped as a temporary measure) that I've experienced any overcrowding in the F lounges.

A bit of a mountain out of a mole hill I think.

 

[drron]

Dunno, I guess QF can do what they want with their own Emeralds in their own Lounges - a bit like what AA do with theirs ...

Though the OP is talking about QF International F lounges and AA EXPs get access to the flagship lounges if on an international flight.
so here is the OPs dilemma-by OW rules OWEs are allowed F lounge access.His examples of SQ and BA are where the airline has added an extra class of lounge.Unfortunately for the OP if QF do this wont it be like the Domestic CL lounges therefore only for paid F and CLs.

So sorry Feper as a WP1 you would still be stuck with us plebs.

 

[TonyHancock]

I think the OP has raised some legitimate concerns. The real point is the new SG+ level QF has created through double status credits. As an example MrsH now freely roams the Dom J and Int F lounges up until mid 2014 after securing a massive 650 SC's.

Like the OP I have been to the Syd F lounge and not been able to get a seat in the restaurant. (On more than one occasion)

I'm certainly not advocating a change in access rules to the lounges, and I don't know how QF can realistically handle this. They have created PS+, SG+ and WP+ levels that receive SG, WP, and WP1 benefits respectively.

.....I wonder if I can call the P1 team to bump an SG+ from an F Lounge restaurant table?

 

[simongr]

.....I wonder if I can call the P1 team to bump an SG+ from an F Lounge restaurant table?

Why not call the SST and ask them to reserve you a table? Can't hurt to ask.

 

[spentan]

Why not call the SST and ask them to reserve you a table? Can't hurt to ask.

The few times I've been in the F Lounge at Sydney, there has been a reserved sign, which means that we've had to wait like 10 mins on a lovely sofa for a table.

The F Lounge Restaurant/Spa should be made larger, with more tables etc, so that more of the premium customers can use it, rather than cutting it down to more and more elite people.

I still think that anytime access to the J Dom Lounge, or at least the QP should be allowed for WPs or at least P1, there are many times when I take friends to the airport, and would love to get a drink and watch the tarmac from a sofa in the lounge.

And btw OP, I think a better option would be for the CL to allow P1s in to the Chairman's Lounge. Ultimately, obtaining 3600SCs in a year, is not easy by any means, and it really should be for the super frequent flyers.

This way you'd stop whinging about all the WPs in your F Lounge, and the only unhappy ones are the CL Members (of which there are not that many, and I'm sure the CL can accomodate).

*runs and hides*

 

[serfty]

Though the OP is talking about QF International F lounges and AA EXPs get access to the flagship lounges if on an international flight...

AA EXP get FL access in the USA only before travelling to non North American destinations or on specific transcontinental USA flights. Shortly am travelling SYD to MEL on a domestic flight from T1 - I get general F/L access merely by flying a Qantas marketed flight, an AA EXP in a similar situation flying AA within the USA would not.

 

[dk4]

Airline Business Magazine - September 2012 (pages 28 & 29) has the following alliance data.

2011 Market Share
Star Alliance - 24.8%
SkyTeam - 19.6%
oneworld - 15.1%

2011 Revenue
Star Alliance - $201.8bn
SkyTeam - $137.1bn
oneworld - $106.6bn

2011 NET PROFIT
Star Alliance - $2bn
SkyTeam - $1.6bn
oneworld - $1.9bn

So holistically for the carriers in each alliance, oneworld has, from a significantly lower market share than Star or Sky, and a significantly lower revenue base than Star or Sky, managed to make almost as much net profit at Star and more than Sky.

If we look at the value of net profit as a percentage of revenue, then oneworld becomes (by far) the most superior performing alliance.

Net Profit as a percentage of Revenue
oneworld – 1.78%
SkyTeam – 1.16%
Star Alliance – 0.99%


I would posit that the uniqueness of the "oneworld Emerald" proposition, as part of the overall alliance offer, helps position oneworld airlines to enable them to successfully target high value, frequent business class travellers, and produce the most successful return (based on revenue) of any alliance.

Emerald proposition ~ treat your alliance-wide frequent business class customers, to all bells and whistles of "first class", whilst they’re on the ground.

 

[Danger]

Surely it is now now time to change lounge access rules.

Has anyone apart from me noticed the rediculous amount of people in the First lounges at SIN, SYD LHR as well as the J lounges in SYD PER MEL AKL?

How can a lounge even pretend to be a First Class facility when people are required to stand or not be able to get a shower?

The time has come to get these first class lounges back to what they say they are, for First Class passengers, CL and P1 only.

This ridiculous marketing campaign of Qantas on handing out double Status credits has truly devalued the program.

It is like a primary school rewards scheme, give everyone a reward by making them platinum or gold.

Like a lamb to the slaughter. We will agree to disagree but full points for posting what you feel on what was always going to be an unpopular topic.

The perfect way to solve this is to look at the SQ example Silver Kris lounge is available for Business Class passengers and PPS. (Rough equivalent to QF WP) Star Alliance Gold don't get a look in.

But further to this SQ has a dedicated First Lounge available only to First Class passengers and PPS Solitare (P1 equivalent) this is what QF should be aiming towards.
This is not a case of kicking them out, it's a matter of placing them where they deserve to be, how is it at all satisfactory for QF's top revenue customers to have to battle for a seat, for a shower, for decent Internet access, anyone who has been through SIN in the last few weeks ( 4 times in 2 weeks for me) will surely see the issue. If QF wants to keep creating these "pretend WP's then they need to manage them without disturbing their top tiers.

At a guess I would also say SQ has more money in their pot (particularly as it's backed by the government, as I understand), has far more flights, far more passengers and certainly far more F seats.

Sorry to sound harsh, but you are an example of what I mean, 3000 SC does not entitle you to P1, it is through these double SC that QF are creating these false P1's and WP's.
At 3000 SC for the year you will receive all of your bonus points and then the choice of PG or more points, you already have been rewarded. To say that your deserve a higher level is false, unfortunately near enough should not be good enough, once you reach the 3600 requirement I will say congratulations and welcome you into the top tier and all the entitlements that will bring.

Why? Because I am calling on QF to stop creating these false status holders? If you want to be at these levels then put your bums in the seats and do the miles.

It's Qantas's program; Qantas is free to run it as it pleases. Don't get me wrong, I often have a beef with the rules it puts in place (like removing anytime access). But I don't think it's appropriate to say "false" WPs and P1s. It's no different to Qantas announcing a change to the SC table, like entitling a passenger to all F SCs when connecting from a J domestic flight to an international F. If Qantas sets the rules it's hardly creating "false" members.

Now to repeat myself... My proposal is to create a " true " first lounge, access restricted to passengers in F, CL and P1.
the WP and J and OWE are in another, and QP OWS and Gold in another, and yes stop the double SC.

It's First lounge purely by name. As others have noted, it's not a First Class lounge, just a First lounge, in the same way the domestic Business lounge is not just for Business passengers (and it wasn't all that long ago that domestic Business Class passengers had no lounge access based purely on class of service).

And btw OP, I think a better option would be for the CL to allow P1s in to the Chairman's Lounge. Ultimately, obtaining 3600SCs in a year, is not easy by any means, and it really should be for the super frequent flyers.

This way you'd stop whinging about all the WPs in your F Lounge, and the only unhappy ones are the CL Members (of which there are not that many, and I'm sure the CL can accomodate).

*runs and hides*

I think the bigger issue with the CL is it's not so much for ultra-high flyers; in many cases it's not. The lounge is more about privacy.

 

[medhead]

To be fair the lounge situation in SIN was pretty poor, is pretty dire and in the future is highly uncertain. This doesn't necessitate and across the board change though.

But the OP did refer to the current situation in SIN which is much worse than the previous arrangement. As it is only temporary it is not a prompt for a change as proposed.


Sent from the Throne

 

[anat0l]

But the OP did refer to the current situation in SIN which is much worse than the previous arrangement. As it is only temporary it is not a prompt for a change as proposed.

By extension you could also argue that the OP referred to LHR, which is completely operated by BA (not operated at all by QF) at T3 (the relevant terminal for QF ops). This means that QF has nearly no control over the size of the facilities there, unless it were to harness some sort of control over that lounge, or build its own lounge at LHR. Far from it that QF can influence the lounge access policies, especially since it is a oneworld registered lounge, too.

 

[TonyHancock]

It's Qantas's program; Qantas is free to run it as it pleases. Don't get me wrong, I often have a beef with the rules it puts in place (like removing anytime access). But I don't think it's appropriate to say "false" WPs and P1s. It's no different to Qantas announcing a change to the SC table, like entitling a passenger to all F SCs when connecting from a J domestic flight to an international F. If Qantas sets the rules it's hardly creating "false" members.

I think it is entirely appropriate to question the legitimacy of status levels created from the double SC offers. Yes the rules are created by QF but it doesn't make them right. Why shouldn't the OP have an opinion on the rules?

In this case QF sets the rules....and then changes them half way through the year...but only for the benefit of some members.

 

[Rebekkap]

I think it is entirely appropriate to question the legitimacy of status levels created from the double SC offers. Yes the rules are created by QF but it doesn't make them right. Why shouldn't the OP have an opinion on the rules?

In this case QF sets the rules....and then changes them half way through the year...but only for the benefit of some members.

The rules change was only incidentally for the benefit of some members - it was for the purpose of benefitting Qantas's bottom line.