Worst Domestic Qantas Lounges & What Can be Done About It?

[kangarooflyer88]

Ok, I’ll bite.
Define “PER > SYD on JQ as part of a return segment for a $36 fare”?
And no Max bundle?

Back in May last year JQ was running a promotion for Club Jetstar members where you could book SYD to PER for $36 return as a starter fare (i.e. with no inclusion). So naturally I signed up for Club JetStar and booked that fare:



In terms of the inclusions, I looked at those but didn't see the point as I figured I didn't need the status credits (turned out to be mostly true) and since this was just a long weekend trip, the 7 kg carry on limit should suffice. And since excellent seating on JQ is almost always guaranteed during check-in if you know how to check-in, there was no point in seat selection either!

-RooFlyer88

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Just thought I'd update this thread given the announcement earlier today from Qantas about their lounge refurbishment program:

The $100-million investment features four brand new lounges, including a new flagship First Lounge at London’s Heathrow Airport, and an extensive upgrade program of existing international and domestic lounges, including:

• New Hobart Qantas Club
• New Broome Regional Lounge with double the seats

What is interesting to note about this announcement are the domestic lounges they have focused on refurbishing. No doubt @RooFlyer is overjoyed that their lounge someday will lose its prestigious title of worst domestic lounge in Australia! Further along in the announcement they mention that seating capacity will increase by 50% from the current 96 seats to approximately 150 seats. I'm guessing (but could be wrong) that they are actually gonna make the lounge larger, and simply not head over to K-Mart to buy some additional deck chairs? Equally interesting were the domestic lounges not mentioned in the announcement which the poll suggests are in urgent need of refurbishment, namely Sydney domestic. Instead, QF has decided in their finite wisdom to upgrade the International J lounge at SYD, a lounge might I add that frankly doesn't need any refurbishment having been there a couple of times.

I'll conclude by a picture of Uncle Alan grinning at this announcement as he sees us domestic passengers continue to suffer in their lounges:

 

[jase05]

You have missed the important bit

• Proposed relocation into a brand new Hobart Qantas Club with larger premises in line with the overall terminal redevelopment. Targeting a 50 per cent increase in capacity from 96 to approximately 150 seats.

So, in 20 years time possibly

 

[RooFlyer]

You have missed the important bit

• Proposed relocation into a brand new Hobart Qantas Club with larger premises in line with the overall terminal redevelopment. Targeting a 50 per cent increase in capacity from 96 to approximately 150 seats.

So, in 20 years time possibly

Exactly. As I mentioned in the relevant thread, terminal redevelopment is slated after runway strengthening project, which won't be done without $100m + from the taxpayers. Fat chance.

The HBA 'new lounge' was the only one in the entire list of new, and scheduled reno/new lounges that didn't have a timeframe given. Work it out.

I'm confident that HBA will retain its crown as the worst lounge in the country (the poll in this thread needs to be read on a per-capita basis

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Exactly. As I mentioned in the relevant thread, terminal redevelopment is slated after runway strengthening project, which won't be done without $100m + from the taxpayers. Fat chance.

Perhaps Uncle Alan could provide the regional grant to make this a reality? APPLICATIONS OPEN FOR QANTAS’ $10 MILLION REGIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

The HBA 'new lounge' was the only one in the entire list of new, and scheduled reno/new lounges that didn't have a timeframe given. Work it out.

It'll be real interesting to see which of the two "renovated" domestic lounges will open first: Broome or Hobart? Now granted I have yet to visit Broome, but would be surprised if the airport and lounge is anywhere near as bad as Hobart!

I'm confident that HBA will retain its crown as the worst lounge in the country (the poll in this thread needs to be read on a per-capita basis

Per capita or not per capita, it doesn't make a difference in my mind, it's the worst. Sure people will complain that the QF lounges have old furniture, a food and bar selection that can't hold a candle up to the lounges at MEL or BNE. A Business Lounge that objectively provides worse views of the apron than the Club. But you know what? Every time I visit the QF lounges, I can always find a seat!

Also just for clarity, in case you mistyped that response and mean to say on a per-capital basis, yes Hobart would also be the worst in that regards as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Darwin QF domestic lounges are leagues ahead HBA!

-RooFlyer88

 

[jrfsp]

Perhaps Uncle Alan could provide the regional grant to make this a reality? APPLICATIONS OPEN FOR QANTAS’ $10 MILLION REGIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

It'll be real interesting to see which of the two "renovated" domestic lounges will open first: Broome or Hobart? Now granted I have yet to visit Broome, but would be surprised if the airport and lounge is anywhere near as bad as Hobart!

Per capita or not per capita, it doesn't make a difference in my mind, it's the worst. Sure people will complain that the QF lounges have old furniture, a food and bar selection that can't hold a candle up to the lounges at MEL or BNE. A Business Lounge that objectively provides worse views of the apron than the Club. But you know what? Every time I visit the QF lounges, I can always find a seat!

-RooFlyer88

BME is fairly pleasant actually albeit very small, definitely better than HBA. Im guessing BME is also related to increased space from the current terminal development (in progress)

 

[kangarooflyer88]

BME is fairly pleasant actually albeit very small, definitely better than HBA. Im guessing BME is also related to increased space from the current terminal development (in progress)

What does it say if a small regional airport can afford to redevelop but the terminal of a capital city airport in Australia cannot?

 

[jrfsp]

What does it say if a small regional airport can afford to redevelop but the terminal of a capital city airport in Australia cannot?

Very different ownership / leasing arrangements. HBA is certainly not unique, the issue is having our major commonwealth airports privately owned and run as investments in monopoly settings.

 

[RooFlyer]

What does it say if a small regional airport can afford to redevelop but the terminal of a capital city airport in Australia cannot?

In HBA's case, its not about affordability but extracting a maximum rate of return from a recent acquisition by trying to sponge off taxpayers to improve your asset. It says Schiphol Group (that link and the following Wikipedia is out of date - Schiphol since 2019 has a 70% equity interest in HBA).

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Personally I think if the press release simply said, Uncle Alan gives assistant $1000 from the petty change jar to improve the state of the HBA lounge, that would be more welcome news. I could see small but material things like improving the state of the restrooms or adding a pancake machine could make a big difference in the lounge experience.

Very different ownership / leasing arrangements. HBA is certainly not unique, the issue is having our major commonwealth airports privately owned and run as investments in monopoly settings.

Which to me doesn't make sense. If you are a monopolist, you want to extract as much $$$ out of the passengers as possible and so having a domestic terminal with plenty of shops and lounges with tenants paying a hefty premium for the real estate makes investor sense. If there are things that could be cut maybe things like security staffing, but otherwise investing in the infrastructure will yield long term profits.

In HBA's case, it's not about affordability but extracting a maximum rate of return from a recent acquisition by trying to sponge off taxpayers to improve your asset. It says Schiphol Group (that link and the following Wikipedia is out of date - Schiphol since 2019 has a 70% equity interest in HBA).

Perhaps, but the real question is whether taxpayers will fund the airport? It's clearly not an election issue either at the state or commonwealth level, and I doubt residents in Hobart council would support a rate hike to ensure those with QF Gold can have a little more room to stretch out. The fact of the matter is, Hobart's airport isn't a big deal. Aside from residents, people don't fly through the airport. The number of international services is limited, and frankly Hobart isn't seen as a destination for many Australians. If the state of terminals at Perth or Adelaide or even Darwin were in such disrepair, we would hear about it!

-RooFlyer88

 

[RooFlyer]

Notwithstanding that this may be another weak attempt at baiting, and I should know better:

Perhaps, but the real question is whether taxpayers will fund the airport?

Is that the real question? I'm amazed. But they shouldn't.

and I doubt residents in Hobart council would support a rate hike to ensure those with QF Gold can have a little more room to stretch out.

And I sincerely doubt Schiphol would ask the Hobart City Council for over $100mill to fund their runway project. Nor would they ask any of the other 11 or so councils serviced by the airport.

The fact of the matter is, Hobart's airport isn't a big deal. Aside from residents, people don't fly through the airport. The number of international services is limited, and frankly Hobart isn't seen as a destination for many Australians. I

Aside from residents, people don't fly through the airport - Just how ignorant can you be? That pre covid, HBA had about 2.6mill passenger movements (say, 1.3 mill return trips) might give you a small hint that tourism is a major industry in Tas. Some of them even come from interstate Southern Tas population is about 250,000.

The number of international services is limited - Correct. Which is why they want to strengthen the runway to enable larger, fully laden international services. A good idea, but Schiphol should spend their own money.

frankly Hobart isn't seen as a destination for many Australians. FFS - if you are going to bait, or even 'stir' , at least be a bit more imaginative, otherwise you just appear ignorant.

 

[straitman]

[mod hat] Just a short reminder (again). Discuss/attack the topic but not other members. [/mod hat]

 

[Cognac]

BME is fairly pleasant actually albeit very small, definitely better than HBA. Im guessing BME is also related to increased space from the current terminal development (in progress)

BME is not bad. Need the code to get to the current lounge rather than being a staffed entrance. But it's also usually pretty pleasant outside tbh. I certainly wouldn't have put it high on the list for revamps, but in the context of the redevelopment it makes sense.

BME are also hoping to attract more international tourism by getting direct flights from some locations as well (they did a couple of trials with Silk Air in 2018 and 2019).

So if HBA (specifically HBA ownership) gets its act together and gets the terminal upgrades underway it looks like Uncle Alan has set a precedent here of jumping in at the same time.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

I suppose one question I have is historically how have airports in Australia funded their terminal expansions? Was it simply from the airport operators or did some of the money come from one or more levels of government? In Canada, for instance, much of the airport upgrades come directly from the users in the form of an airport improvement fee which varies anywhere from $15 to $35 depending on the airport. Whether the airports have actually used all the money to improve is up for debate but certainly something to consider, particularly for these airports that seem unwilling or unable to upgrade on their own.

Another point to consider, is Hobart airport in a suitable location for further expansion? For instance could they add or extend runways easily or extend terminals? Having visited there exactly once I am inclined to think so but would love to hear the views of locals who are more versed on this topic, I reckon.

-RooFlyer88

 

[RooFlyer]

I suppose one question I have is historically how have airports in Australia funded their terminal expansions? Was it simply from the airport operators or did some of the money come from one or more levels of government? In Canada, for instance, much of the airport upgrades come directly from the users in the form of an airport improvement fee which varies anywhere from $15 to $35 depending on the airport.

Most major airports in Canada are owned by National Airports System, owned by Transport Canada. Most major airports in Australia are now privately owned, with much equity held by Super funds (domestic & offshore) or special-purpose, listed vehicles. So vastly different foundations and funding.

I dare say most of the airport expansion in Australia is now funded by a combination of debt and equity, with occasional contributions from State or Federal Governments for smaller airports or 'special projects'; maybe pork, maybe not. Talking 'historically', the Australian Federal Government owned and funded airports, before the privatisation in the 1990s.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Most major airports in Canada are owned by National Airports System, owned by Transport Canada. Most major airports in Australia are now privately owned, with much equity held by Super funds (domestic & offshore) or special-purpose, listed vehicles. So vastly different foundations and funding.

Didn't know that (and I'm Canadian!)

I dare say most of the airport expansion in Australia is now funded by a combination of debt and equity, with occasional contributions from State or Federal Governments for smaller airports or 'special projects'; maybe pork, maybe not. Talking 'historically', the Australian Federal Government owned and funded airports, before the privatisation in the 1990s.

How much of the expansion is paid for by the airport operator through debt and equity versus the airlines? Would it make a difference if Uncle Alan ponied up more than just the cost of the lounge upgrade at Hobart? Looking at flights I've booked over the past couple of months, I don't seem to see an airport improvement fee (or anything similar) on my receipts, which leads me to believe that the only way the airport is making money is through concessions and charging take-off/landing fees to the airlines which I assume is a cost "built in" to the price we pay as passengers. Would it make much of a difference if airlines could collect such a fee for passengers on the basis that the monies raised must actually be used for airport improvements?

Despite all the doom and gloom I hear about Australian airports, I would encourage folks to travel overseas for a moment and compare the state of airports in Australia to those over there. For instance, in my home country of Canada, sure the larger airports like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are nice, but the smaller airports like Edmonton, Calgary or London, Ontario are nothing to write home about. For instance there are WAY more lounges (both domestic and international) at Australian airports than Canadian airports despite Canada having a larger population and the country being considerably larger geographically necessitating air travel. Qantas has 24 domestic lounges here in Australia. By contrast Air Canada has 11 domestic lounges, mainly at the major airports like Montréal or Vancouver. And unlike Qantas, Air Canada doesn't have a separate lounge for their super elites - everyone must share the same Maple Leaf Lounge with the lounge being roughly the same size as a Qantas Club. Internationally, the lounge options are limited to generally one of two options: Plaza Premium or Maple Leaf Lounge. There's no Centurion and forget there being a BA (Emirates) lounge as they have in Sydney or Melbourne. For those saying the grass is greener elsewhere, may I suggest that it's simply a different tinge or yellow!

-RooFlyer88

 

[RooFlyer]

How much of the expansion is paid for by the airport operator through debt and equity versus the airlines? Would it make a difference if Uncle Alan ponied up more than just the cost of the lounge upgrade at Hobart? Looking at flights I've booked over the past couple of months, I don't seem to see an airport improvement fee (or anything similar) on my receipts, which leads me to believe that the only way the airport is making money is through concessions and charging take-off/landing fees to the airlines which I assume is a cost "built in" to the price we pay as passengers. Would it make much of a difference if airlines could collect such a fee for passengers on the basis that the monies raised must actually be used for airport improvements?

Speaking about Hobart, I think Qantas has zero interest in putting any more money into the lounge than they have to because firstly, there is no competitor lounge and secondly people keeps flying with QF and JQ. I mean, treating your customers with contempt has worked for many years, so why change a business model that works?

in a similar vein, airlines that fly to Hobart have no interest in pressuring the airport to provide better amenities such as air bridges, no matter how funded. They know those new airport costs will be passed on to them, and they would pass it on to the customers with possible impact on revenue.

Maybe, after some years after Schiphol have recouped some of their investment (remember, they bought from a Macquarie Bank entity, which was never going to be be a bargain), they may do something useful to the terminal. But as we've seen in pictures posted here it’s already bursting at the seams, almost every seat taken in the lounge, and at the departure gates. This resulted from the previous master plan, which they were halfway through enacting, including some terminal redevelopment, when they realised D'oh! it was totally inadequae for the customer base, so they put it off. Then Covid. iI’s just a coughpy airport with a grasping owner and customers (Airlines) who really couldn't give a stuff either.

 

[docjames]

Just thought I'd update this thread given the announcement earlier today from Qantas about their lounge refurbishment program:

What is interesting to note about this announcement are the domestic lounges they have focused on refurbishing. No doubt @RooFlyer is overjoyed that their lounge someday will lose its prestigious title of worst domestic lounge in Australia! Further along in the announcement they mention that seating capacity will increase by 50% from the current 96 seats to approximately 150 seats. I'm guessing (but could be wrong) that they are actually gonna make the lounge larger, and simply not head over to K-Mart to buy some additional deck chairs? Equally interesting were the domestic lounges not mentioned in the announcement which the poll suggests are in urgent need of refurbishment, namely Sydney domestic. Instead, QF has decided in their finite wisdom to upgrade the International J lounge at SYD, a lounge might I add that frankly doesn't need any refurbishment having been there a couple of times.

I'll conclude by a picture of Uncle Alan grinning at this announcement as he sees us domestic passengers continue to suffer in their lounges:
View attachment 317185

They’re upgrading the BUS in Sydney?

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Maybe, after some years after Schiphol have recouped some of their investment (remember, they bought from a Macquarie Bank entity, which was never going to be be a bargain), they may do something useful to the terminal. But as we've seen in pictures posted here it’s already bursting at the seams, almost every seat taken in the lounge, and at the departure gates. This resulted from the previous master plan, which they were halfway through enacting, including some terminal redevelopment, when they realised D'oh! it was totally inadequae for the customer base, so they put it off. Then Covid. iI’s just a coughpy airport with a grasping owner and customers (Airlines) who really couldn't give a stuff either.

Apologies for my naivety on this subject, but does Australia have fire codes as some other countries do? If so, then surely packing those many people into a departure lounge is getting close to any capacity limits set by the fire marshal? Then again, maybe Hobart isn't as packed as I remember!

-RooFlyer88

 

[MooTime]

Apologies for my naivety on this subject, but does Australia have fire codes as some other countries do? If so, then surely packing those many people into a departure lounge is getting close to any capacity limits set by the fire marshal? Then again, maybe Hobart isn't as packed as I remember!

-RooFlyer88

Is that a serious question? Does Australia have fire codes? oh my.

The lounges do stop ppl coming into lounges once a limit has been hit.

All commercial indoor spaces have their limits to codes, heating, cooling, fire etc.

Fire Marshalls only operate in an emergency, they don't stand on entry or walk the floor spaces counting heads day/night.