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

[opusman]

Seems pretty clear cut then.

 

[RooFlyer]

Thanks for posting that. The devil, of course is in the detail. Included in what the guy says is (my bolding):

“We have been liaising with Qantas and have asked them to remind their colleagues at Los Angeles of the oneworld lounge access rules – which they tell us has now been done."

"We do also make clear that some lounges may get busy at peak times, and access to them may be restricted as a result.”

That last line gives lounge agents carte blanche to refuse entry to anybody. The provision has always existed of course but now that the TBIT lounge operators have (it seems) been brought into line, they can happily trot out the "lounge full" or maybe even "lounge will get full" to keep refusing access to AA domestic pax, amongst others, "as noted recently by OneWorld's Vice President Corporate Communications Michael Blunt".

 

[LordChaos]

Seems pretty clear cut then.

Interestingly doesn't cover my original case - Alaskan is a non-Oneworld airline (but the flight number was the issue - which was a Qantas one).

However, I've since had independent confirmation from Jeff H- that I should have been granted access, though there is no plan for an upgrade of their boarding pass scanning computer to reflect this rule. Apparently, some training has been provided to desk staff to handle this contingency.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It would be helpful if Qantas could clarify that their staff are now across the rules. It is disappointing passengers were left to fend for themselves on this issue.

 

[grussellt]

It would seem appropriate that Qantas should make some form of apology to those customers who have been affected by this incorrect application of policy. It is no small thing to be denied access to a lounge after a flight from SYD-LAX and with a long connection domestically when that specific service has been paid for.

 

[Deleted member]

as has often been recommended here, I feel it is (Unfortunately) incumbent on us to print out the T&C's relevant to the trip and carry them with you. never underestimate the stupidity of someone with gate keeper powers .
" To a man / woman with a hammer, everything is a nail"!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

as has often been recommended here, I feel it is (Unfortunately) incumbent on us to print out the T&C's relevant to the trip and carry them with you. never underestimate the stupidity of someone with gate keeper powers .
" To a man / woman with a hammer, everything is a nail"!

Unfortunately the Ts and Cs would have been no match for the LAX lounge 'rules'. And don't even think about waiving around papers containing Ts and Cs... quite possible that could have been considered 'bullying' and resulted in the police being called (with the full sanction of the lounge manager )

 

[timster]

Hmmm .. 17 pages of complaints on AFF ... no action from QF.

AusBT contacts OW who reminds QF of their responsibilities at TBIT and gets some action.

Why do we bother ?

 

[Princess Fiona]

Hmmm .. 17 pages of complaints on AFF ... no action from QF.

AusBT contacts OW who reminds QF of their responsibilities at TBIT and gets some action.

Why do we bother ?

I think the situation behind the scenes was way, way more complex than that.........

 

[serfty]

Hmmm .. 17 pages of complaints on AFF ... no action from QF.

AusBT contacts OW who reminds QF of their responsibilities at TBIT and gets some action.

Why do we bother ?

There was plenty going on behind the scenes.

I would suggest thanking dfcatch since I believe they had more to do with it than anyone else.

 

[timster]

Well if there's a back story let's hear it.

Whatever the explanation, letting these things stew for 17 pages without a sound from QF is hardly good PR. Unless, as someone has suggested, that it was never a "mistake" but a deliberate "enhancement" that got out of hand.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Well if there's a back story let's hear it.

Whatever the explanation, letting these things stew for 17 pages without a sound from QF is hardly good PR. Unless, as someone has suggested, that it was never a "mistake" but a deliberate "enhancement" that got out of hand.

As serfty has stated there was plenty going on behind the scenes. QF were well aware of the problems at LAX. Just because it wasn't played out on the pages of AFF doesn't mean that it wasn't being dealt with by QF with involvement from many including dfcatch.

I personally think that a short post from Red Roo acknowledging that there were problems and stating that QF were addressing them would have been a good thing.
But I guess I'm not running QF Social Media and not privy to their rules of engagement.

 

[grussellt]

Today's quote for Qantas:
[h=2]THE ERA OF ENGAGEMENT[/h]
Engagement happens when we form meaningful, communications-empowered connections among individuals, teams, contacts, and customers. It supports participation across time and space and on any device, and leads to better business outcomes: more productivity, loyalty, enthusiasm, customer satisfaction, customer advocacy.

Perhaps this could be framed and placed at the entrance to LAX TBIT Lounge.

 

[Deleted member]

Unfortunately the Ts and Cs would have been no match for the LAX lounge 'rules'. And don't even think about waiving around papers containing Ts and Cs... quite possible that could have been considered 'bullying' and resulted in the police being called (with the full sanction of the lounge manager )

Sorry. I didn't say "wave" ( not waive) papers around. I did say carry hard copies of the terms and conditions. How that could be construed as bullying is beyond me. That's like say " look I have a ticket, let me on the flight" is bullying. Having supporting documentation is NOT bullying.

 

[opusman]

It is very strange to see the threads that Red Roo jumps in and replies to and the ones that are studiously ignored.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sorry. I didn't say "wave" ( not waive) papers around. I did say carry hard copies of the terms and conditions. How that could be construed as bullying is beyond me. That's like say " look I have a ticket, let me on the flight" is bullying. Having supporting documentation is NOT bullying.

spelling mistake aside! I was being slightly flippant there.

However... I was personally involved in a somewhat frightening abuse of power a couple of years ago when a gate agent called police because she was 'intimidated' by people approaching the podium after a 6 hour delay was announced. As people gathered around the podium to hear her speak about alternative arrangements, she lost it, yelling at everyone to 'step back'. She insisted she would only tell people one-by-one what was going to happen, not make a general announcement. This would have meant a long wait - a couple hours - instead of a couple minutes. When a couple of people asked her to make a general announcement so they could make alternative arrangements themselves if necessary, she called the police.

I have no doubt this same agent would perceive reaching into your bag, pulling out 'the rules', and attempting to get her to read them could be seen as 'intimidation'. It's that simple. Once police are called, the customer is in the wrong.

 

[Deleted member]

spelling mistake aside! I was being slightly flippant there.

..........

I have no doubt this same agent would perceive reaching into your bag, pulling out 'the rules', and attempting to get her to read them could be seen as 'intimidation'. It's that simple. Once police are called, the customer is in the wrong.

No more intimidating than reaching into my bag to produce travel documents. ( but what would I know). Making assumptions about how I would conduct myself is also dangerous. I take your point though on the overreaction by some people with gatekeeper powers. It strikes me that such "emotionally unstable" people would be better suited to a behind the scenes job ? If it's good enough to enforce a rule, then it's equally good enough to "prove" the rule. It works both ways.

 

[eminere]

I personally think that a short post from Red Roo acknowledging that there were problems and stating that QF were addressing them would have been a good thing.
But I guess I'm not running QF Social Media and not privy to their rules of engagement.

I agree. That would've been better form.

 

[RooFlyer]

As serfty has stated there was plenty going on behind the scenes. QF were well aware of the problems at LAX. Just because it wasn't played out on the pages of AFF doesn't mean that it wasn't being dealt with by QF with involvement from many including dfcatch.

I personally think that a short post from Red Roo acknowledging that there were problems and stating that QF were addressing them would have been a good thing.
But I guess I'm not running QF Social Media and not privy to their rules of engagement.

I wonder if dfcach was presented with the 'standard' Qantas Non Disclosure Agreement prior to any discussion

Public acknowledgement of problems (that is, lounge personnel humiliating passengers when passengers were wrongly refused lounge admission) may be prevented by some union contract, either in US or in Australia (Qantas staffer e-mail refers). Or simply by the old adage "Never complain, never explain."

 

[russ]

Hi Red Roo!