TBIT 'Qantas' Business Lounge - extremely confused, as are staff

[RooFlyer]

Interestingly I'm currently at the Airline Loyalty Conference in San Diego.

Qantas is noticeably absent, but this lounge saga is providing a great case study into "what not to do" when dealing with your premium customers. All the other airlines are shaking their heads at the level of incompetence displayed.

<snip>.

Wow, just looked up the web site - that looks like an interesting 'do'! I see a few airlines presenting (Delta, JetBlue, United, Qatar, Spirit), but mainly seems to be those parties who airlines partner with for points and the 'facilitators' for that. Would that be correct?

Who are the conference attendees, in the main? Might be a useful AFF gathering site next year .

I assume Qantas isn't there because they know all there is to know about 'Loyalty'.

 

[moa999]

Interestingly I'm currently at the Airline Loyalty Conference in San Diego.
.

Are AA or CX/BA (as joint lounge owners) reps there and what do they say about the issue??

If the cause of the problem is AA not paying for lounge access (and I do say IF), then it does put the oneworld/QF lounge manager in an awkward position given I would assume they have KPIs/profit/bonus targets to meet.

If a decent percentage of pax aren't getting funded, then service levels, food/drink quality will have to drop for everyone else - and I sure wouldn't want that

 

[blackcat20]

If the cause of the problem is AA not paying for lounge access (and I do say IF), then it does put the oneworld/QF lounge manager in an awkward position given I would assume they have KPIs/profit/bonus targets to meet.

If a decent percentage of pax aren't getting funded, then service levels, food/drink quality will have to drop for everyone else - and I sure wouldn't want that

But that isnt the customers issue. Why should a passenger entitled to access be denied because the airline won't pay its bill?

 

[dfcatch]

Wow, just looked up the web site - that looks like an interesting 'do'! I see a few airlines presenting (Delta, JetBlue, United, Qatar, Spirit), but mainly seems to be those parties who airlines partner with for points and the 'facilitators' for that. Would that be correct?

Who are the conference attendees, in the main? Might be a useful AFF gathering site next year .

I assume Qantas isn't there because they know all there is to know about 'Loyalty'.

Are AA or CX/BA (as joint lounge owners) reps there and what do they say about the issue??

If the cause of the problem is AA not paying for lounge access (and I do say IF), then it does put the oneworld/QF lounge manager in an awkward position given I would assume they have KPIs/profit/bonus targets to meet.

If a decent percentage of pax aren't getting funded, then service levels, food/drink quality will have to drop for everyone else - and I sure wouldn't want that

There's three strands to the conference, FF programs is one, cobrand (think credit cards) is another, as is ancillary revenue.

Actually - I fully support changing the lounge access rules (if that is what is required). But there is a way to do it and a way not to do it.

You can't just make up the rules as you go along, in contravention of the published access rules by your own airline on your own website.

Secondly - as a few airlines here have pointed out to me, you need to give notice to your members, particularly of a material change (if considered a material change).

Thirdly - even if you change the policy, you then need to implement a grace period where you allow members in under the old rules, but gently inform them that there has been a change.

What you can't do - is unilaterally issue a directive via email where you demonstrate a lack of care at the least, a lack of knowledge at the worst, and then direct your staff to belligerently enforce your "made-up-rules-on-the-run".

And if this actually happens to be a deliberate change in policy - then someone needs to lose their job over the massive mishandling of the implementation.

 

[moa999]

You can't just make up the rules as you go along, in contravention of the published access rules by your own airline on your own website.
Secondly - as a few airlines here have pointed out to me, you need to give notice to your members, particularly of a material change (if considered a material change).

And if this actually happens to be a deliberate change in policy - then someone needs to lose their job over the massive mishandling of the implementation.

While I agree the implementation of this (?change) has been badly done by, It seems very similar to me to the situation that resulted in Qantas Club members having BA lounge access substantially restricted.
BA unilaterally stopped allowing access to rebranded Terraces-Galleries. Some period where QF seemingly tried to negotiate/change it (and if I recall RedRoo was also quiet), and then finally a change in the rules (effectively retrospectively)

Somehow don't think that access to a single lounge/tightening of rules to a single lounge could be considered material.

But that isnt the customers issue. Why should a passenger entitled to access be denied because the airline won't pay its bill?

Because ultimately the lounge is an independent business unit. How about an alternative question.
In order to meet their budget, the lounge manager has three choices
- Charge every lounge guest USD5 per beverage
- Downgrade beverages to basic beer and 2buckchuck only
- Restrict access to those pax flying AA out of a different terminal

(And note I don't see anything in the oneworld rules preventing 1 and 2, but I know which would cause more outrage on this forum)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Because ultimately the lounge is an independent business unit. How about an alternative question.
In order to meet their budget, the lounge manager has three choices
- Charge every lounge guest USD5 per beverage
- Downgrade beverages to basic beer and 2buckchuck only
- Restrict access to those pax flying AA out of a different terminal

(And note I don't see anything in the oneworld rules preventing 1 and 2, but I know which would cause more outrage on this forum)

Lounge access is a contractual relationship. If you are entitled to enter the lounge, it is not for the passenger to look 'behind the scenes' to understand the commercial element, or whether the lounge is a separate business unit or not.

Qantas Club members have paid for access, other OW elites (AA's on domestic itineraries excluded) have paid for lounge access through the fares they buy and the decision to fly OW rather than another competing carrier.

The alternative perhaps is to have current First Lounges dedicated to First and business class paid passengers only ($ or award), and business class lounges become 'status' lounges, open to golds and platinums.

 

[mannej]

As I said before, Qantas are quick to jump onto social media for praise and small individual grievances, however when it comes to actually rectifying major failures (this incident, the Los Angeles Downgrade etc etc), they tend to disappear.

Funny you mention RedRoo disappearing with the LAX downgrade thread. They were first to respond if I recall correctly.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Funny you mention RedRoo disappearing with the LAX downgrade thread. They were first to respond if I recall correctly.

QF did not actually address the issue IIRC. For example, 'how are refunds calculated?' was not answered.

 

[blackcat20]

Lounge access is a contractual relationship. If you are entitled to enter the lounge, it is not for the passenger to look 'behind the scenes' to understand the commercial element, or whether the lounge is a separate business unit or not.

Qantas Club members have paid for access, other OW elites (AA's on domestic itineraries excluded) have paid for lounge access through the fares they buy and the decision to fly OW rather than another competing carrier.

The alternative perhaps is to have current First Lounges dedicated to First and business class paid passengers only ($ or award), and business class lounges become 'status' lounges, open to golds and platinums.

Exactly. Their finances etc are not my problem, I am entitled to access based on the rules available. This whole situation is a big mess and not a great look for QF and what is supposed to be a premium lounge.

 

[N860CR]

Funny you mention RedRoo disappearing with the LAX downgrade thread. They were first to respond if I recall correctly.

Yep. Quick to jump into what they thought was a small customer grievance which could be rectified (and therefor lead to positive PR), but slow to actually identify that there was a larger systematic issue.

Again, I apologize if anyone here is personal friends (either physically or in their mind) with "RedRoo", but they are at the end of the day nothing more than a number of people from Qantas marketing. I don't see anyone getting upset about the attacks on Citi after their social media team has become involved in the recent devaluation scandal.

 

[timster]

'Red Roo' did post an 'important' piece of news today ....
http://www.australianfrequentflyer....s-welcomes-aa-to-syd-71526-3.html#post1339983

 

[mannej]

QF did not actually address the issue IIRC. For example, 'how are refunds calculated?' was not answered.

RedRoo did state in that particular thread that the communication was ongoing between the family of the OP and QF. It was stated that this information would not be disclosed publicly in the thread.

I wasn't surprised at the time considering that the thread had the feel of a mob mentality about it.

 

[DC3]

Lounge access is a contractual relationship. If you are entitled to enter the lounge, it is not for the passenger to look 'behind the scenes' to understand the commercial element, or whether the lounge is a separate business unit or not.

Qantas Club members have paid for access, other OW elites (AA's on domestic itineraries excluded) have paid for lounge access through the fares they buy and the decision to fly OW rather than another competing carrier ...

Exactly. The lounges are not meant to return a profit, or even to break even. They are a benefit/service provided to (eligible) paying passengers. Yes, they would be allocated a budget, but we aren't concerned with the $$ to run them.

 

[PLANT]

OP Should have spoken to a manager..... Staff at tbit are poorly trained at lounges for all airlines..... I had a manager over ride a junior abrupt dragon that refused me with priortiy pass into another lax lounge...

 

[LordChaos]

OP Should have spoken to a manager..... Staff at tbit are poorly trained at lounges for all airlines..... I had a manager over ride a junior abrupt dragon that refused me with priortiy pass into another lax lounge...

I was informed none were available. It was approx 6AM - I find it hard to believe that there isn't a manager on duty, but that was the line.

 

[dfcatch]

The issue is more complicated than that.

And yes at 6am unlikely to have a manager available.

 

[dfcatch]

I can report that local (LAX) and SYD QF management are well aware of these issues and are actively working on resolving them.

When I have more to report - I will.

 

[RooFlyer]

You may be limited in what you can say, but are LAX and SYD management aware that the e-mail sent from the Sydney QF gent, posted above seems to be responsible for a lot of of the current cluster-fest?

 

[dfcatch]

I believe that they are well aware of the offending email and particularly of the erroneous paragraph therein.

I'm pretty confident that they are aware of all the aspects and dimensions of the problem.

I'm not sure about the resolution plan, but I'm confident that we'll have an update soon.

 

[eminere]

OW's VP of corporate communications has clarified the access rules: Oneworld clarifies Qantas lounge access rules in Los Angeles - Australian Business Traveller