Air New Zealand Air Points - Refused lounge access at LAX

Hi

Myself and wife are both Stat Alliance Gold card holders, tonight we are flying LAX to AKL, turned up at lounge to be told by lounge staff that it is NZ policy to not allow gold card holders access unless booked in first or business.

We were told to try another lounge, like air canada or klm, as we would not be allowed in the AirNz lounge, I asked for a supervisor and was told none was on duty, I explained politely that *g have lounge access and was told leave of security would be called

Surely this must be a breach of policy, the lounge was empty by the way,

Excuse any errors as I am having to post from my cellphone !

Richard

They were wrong - you should have been allowed access. Next time, print out
the rules from the Star website which clearly states that 'G' Holders have lounge access.

I would email a complaint direct to NZ.

Do you carry a PDA when you travel? I have the *A lounge rules in my PDA so I can whip them out and educate the clueless when they try to give me BS. So far I haven't had problems with lounge entry like you, unfortunately, did. Most of us *G seem to have problems getting our two free drink chits at the UA RCCs when traveling internationally. More clueless idiots...

"leave or we call security" ??? :confused:

woaw, what did you do? Threaten to take off your shoes or something? ;)

As others have pointed out, they were wrong (they can refuse access if it is full, which, as you said, was not the case here).

GET GRUMPY

I mean it, NZ are horrible in this respect, when you get to Auckland write a letter tell the supervisor do what you can.

Similar problems have happened to me with Air New Zealand, I now carry around with me a printed document that gives written confirmation about access and dare I say it, rights.

Simply put, its not acceptable, make a fuss.

Simply put, its not acceptable, make a fuss.

I concur this kind of treatment is bloody annoying. "Call Security!?" Was this an actual NZ employee who did did or some third party lounge person?

She's either grossly mistaken or a liar but either way her handling of the situation was abhorent. Follow this up (I trust you took a name) in both email and written form.

I'll be doing this route shortly myself(as bmi gold) so would be grateful to know what/where you obtained the printed doc mrstaralliance to show lounge staff.

She's either grossly mistaken or a liar but either way her handling of the situation was abhorent. Follow this up (I trust you took a name) in both email and written form.


Unless, like happened to me recently, they refuse to give their name!

Its quite possible the lounge was full (its been packed to the gills each time I have been in it the last few years), but they should have said so and no excuse for rudeness.

Not if he said the lounge was empty :)

Hi

Myself and wife are both Stat Alliance Gold card holders, tonight we are flying LAX to AKL, turned up at lounge to be told by lounge staff that it is NZ policy to not allow gold card holders access unless booked in first or business.

We were told to try another lounge, like air canada or klm, as we would not be allowed in the AirNz lounge, I asked for a supervisor and was told none was on duty, I explained politely that *g have lounge access and was told leave of security would be called

Surely this must be a breach of policy, the lounge was empty by the way,

Excuse any errors as I am having to post from my cellphone !

Richard

After reading this error over and over on Flyertalk, I feel compelled to make a comment, and I have no intention of offending, just trying to "help" :D :

The word "myself" can only be used in a sentence when preceeded in that same sentence by the word "I".

Examples: "I cut myself"
"I did it myself"
"I went to the grocery myself"

Myself cannot be used as subject in this case.

One should say "My wife and I are both...........".
You wouldn't say, "Myself am a card holder". You would say "I am a card holder".

Why do people keep making this grammatical error? :confused:
Sorry to sound prudish, but I see this all the time and it has become annoying!

Its quite possible the lounge was full (its been packed to the gills each time I have been in it the last few years), but they should have said so and no excuse for rudeness.

Last year there was some buzz from Air NZ about a new lounge being in the works at LAX which should alleviate such capacity problems. Anyone know what the ETA for that is?

Unless, like happened to me recently, they refuse to give their name! A camera phone would be handy in such cases ...

In general, I've found the desk staff at the NZ LAX lounge to be buffoons. And that's been the case even though the last 4 or so times I've passed through there it's been as a first class pax.

After reading this error over and over on Flyertalk, I feel compelled to make a comment, and I have no intention of offending, just trying to "help" :D :

The word "myself" can only be used in a sentence when preceeded in that same sentence by the word "I".

Examples: "I cut myself"
"I did it myself"
"I went to the grocery myself"

Myself cannot be used as subject in this case.

One should say "My wife and I are both...........".
You wouldn't say, "Myself am a card holder". You would say "I am a card holder".

Why do people keep making this grammatical error? :confused:
Sorry to sound prudish, but I see this all the time and it has become annoying!

You need a hobby or a suppository, possibly both.

The OP mentioned that he was typing from a cell phone. I think he was trying to type out a message as quickly as possible using equipment that is not the easiest to type on. I don't think the OP had any idea he was going to be tested on grammar, prose or spelling.

Actually, the relevant question has not yet been asked.

It may have been an Air New Zealand lounge, but was it designated as a Star Alliance Gold Lounge? That is, did it have a sign outside specifically stating it was a Star Gold lounge?

A Star Gold has a right to entry into a Star Gold lounge when flying in economy, but not into a Star Alliance member lounge unless it is designated as a Star Gold lounge.

No I don't know if the NZ lounge is a Star Gold lounge or not, but if it is not, the agent was right. Regardless, threatening to call security is way off base.

I hope my English was ok. I certainly don't want to get scolded...

Last year there was some buzz from Air NZ about a new lounge being in the works at LAX which should alleviate such capacity problems. Anyone know what the ETA for that is?

It's actually a new joint Star Alliance lounge. Not sure of the timing, but it will be a while.

After reading this error over and over on Flyertalk, I feel compelled to make a comment, and I have no intention of offending, just trying to "help" :D :

Sorry to sound prudish, but I see this all the time and it has become annoying!



:rolleyes:



Compelled:

1. force somebody: to force somebody to do something, e.g., I felt compelled to listen.

2. force something to happen: to make something happen by force

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005.

In addition to asking for the agent's name, I'd also ask her for a copy of the rules that confirms her 'ruling'.

You need a hobby or a suppository, possibly both.
I hope my English was ok. I certainly don't want to get scolded...

One of the many reasons I love Flyertalk so much :D (On any other board this would already have degraded into mindless abuse rather than witty comebacks :rolleyes: )

Anyway back OT

A Star Gold has a right to entry into a Star Gold lounge when flying in economy, but not into a Star Alliance member lounge unless it is designated as a Star Gold lounge.

See here's my problem (as I'm guessing it is with many *Gs). I always presumed this 'Star Gold Lounge' signage was just to identify the lounge for those flyers who don't recognise all the member airlines, rather than a means for airlines to restrict entry to just their members? I thought there was an obligation to permit entry to any *G?

Not if he said the lounge was empty :)

Doesnt necessarily help. If the OP turned up early then the lounge may appear empty even though it becomes overcrowded before the flights leave. Besides which, from the reception desk you cant see how full the lounge is as its around a corner.

Actually, the relevant question has not yet been asked.

It may have been an Air New Zealand lounge, but was it designated as a Star Alliance Gold Lounge? That is, did it have a sign outside specifically stating it was a Star Gold lounge?

A Star Gold has a right to entry into a Star Gold lounge when flying in economy, but not into a Star Alliance member lounge unless it is designated as a Star Gold lounge.

No I don't know if the NZ lounge is a Star Gold lounge or not, but if it is not, the agent was right. Regardless, threatening to call security is way off base.

I hope my English was ok. I certainly don't want to get scolded...

The NZ lounge is a *G lounge.

See here's my problem (as I'm guessing it is with many *Gs). I always presumed this 'Star Gold Lounge' signage was just to identify the lounge for those flyers who don't recognise all the member airlines, rather than a means for airlines to restrict entry to just their members? I thought there was an obligation to permit entry to any *G?

No obligation. If the lounge is full then anyone can be turned away. The same holds true of all lounges - not only in the rules but in some (most?) countries a fire and safety requirement also.

Last year there was some buzz from Air NZ about a new lounge being in the works at LAX which should alleviate such capacity problems. Anyone know what the ETA for that is?

Last I heard was mid year. But then originally it was supposed to be ready early 2005.

It's actually a new joint Star Alliance lounge. Not sure of the timing, but it will be a while.

I think you may be thinking of the new lounge in LAX TBIT. Air NZ leaves from T2. The *G lounges in T2 are NZ Koru Club and AC Maple Leaf Lounge.

I just don't understand situations like this.

Now, since the reason given was not overcrowding, but that NZ policy does not allow entry, the NZ lounge agent was either (1) lying; or (2) misinformed.

Given the numbers of *G who must travel on NZ's flagship route, I find it hard to believe the agent(s) were misinformed. Thus, the only option seems to be that they were not being truthful.

I don't understand this. Firstly, why do they care? Secondly, surely they realize that the sort of people who have *G cards are the sort of people who are likely to kick up a fuss if they given this shoddy customer service. If *G start sending in complaints to Auckland, then presumably HQ will come down on the station manager like a ton of bricks, which will filter down to the staff.

Which is bad for them.

I don't understand! :confused:

EDIT: Also, condolences to Flashyphotos -- you seem to be suffering from a litany of problems with NZ at the moment :(

EDIT: In light of more informed posts further, it seems that the NZ lounge at LAX is NOT a full Star Gold lounge. I still think, however, that this should be more clearly advertised and explained.

Myself cannot be used as subject in this case.
Why do people keep making this grammatical error? :confused:
But Flyingfox, it's not an error because all of the rules of grammar have been suspended. You see, it was decided that if teachers enforced rules of grammar, kids might get their self-esteem hurt when corrected. To avoid this tragedy, everything goes these days.

To further the trend, apologists now have an excuse for everything, such as "he was typing on a cellphone" :rolleyes:

Remember the old days, when limited vocabulary and ineffective use of the English language was considered as loutish as wearing a wife-beater and shorts in first class? :cool:

And you wonder why I fly United!!

Doesnt necessarily help. If the OP turned up early then the lounge may appear empty even though it becomes overcrowded before the flights leave.

??? sory KF but are you saying the attendant can make a call on the likely useage of the lounge at a later stage and just decide to keep *g's flying economy out. :eek:

Of course even if the flight were fully loaded (68 First & Business) it wouldn't completely fill the LAX lounge which has a capacity of 80. That still leaves a minimum of 12 seats for the rest of us......I'm sticking withy grumpy LA who doesn't know the rules (& the image of a mature LAX LA springs to mind as I type). :(

I think you may be thinking of the new lounge in LAX TBIT. Air NZ leaves from T2. The *G lounges in T2 are NZ Koru Club and AC Maple Leaf Lounge.

You're right. I was. I forgot NZ flew out of T2.

I always presumed this 'Star Gold Lounge' signage was just to identify the lounge for those flyers who don't recognise all the member airlines, rather than a means for airlines to restrict entry to just their members? I thought there was an obligation to permit entry to any *G?

Nope. There are a number of lounges that are specifically NOT Star Gold Lounges, e.g., the Singapore Air Silver Kris lounges in Singapore and the SAS lounge in Bangkok.

The NZ Lounge at LAX has long been the source of problems - For years they have been turning away pax that are not in J/F [sending them to the NWA or AC lounges]; the manner in which they did it in is inexcusable however.

Currently they are extending the lounge and renovating it.

The NZ Lounge at LAX has long been the source of problems - For years they have been turning away pax that are not in J/F [sending them to the NWA or AC lounges]; the manner in which they did it in is inexcusable however.

Currently they are extending the lounge and renovating it.

I was through in Jan in C. NZ1 was cancelled, and we were re-schuled on the CHC flight. Even in Business, we were told we had to go to the NWA lounge- all CHC flights are sent via that lounge.

Otoh- maybe someone can check the signage. iirc, NZ and Air Canada advertise their lounge as 'First Class Lounge' currently. They may accept *A Gold,/Biz but there is no obligation.....

Just off the phone with the Air NZ call centre and asked for clarification while I was booking our own trip.

We are booked straight through LHR-LAX-CHC and seemingly unless traveling in business or first class (we're not) we would be denied access to what she called the 'transit lounge'.

No problem in using the Air NZ lounges for our domestic flights though and in AKL en route to Tahiti. Some confusion though surrounded our stopover in LAX on the way back and entering the lounge there at that point (she seemed to think that would be fine).

Since I'm unfamiliar with the geography of LAX and where the lounge(s?) are I just accepted that at face value.

Other than than though she couldn't have been more helpful playing around with dates for our itin and suggesting alternatives to bring the price down a bit.

Just off the phone with the Air NZ call centre and asked for clarification while I was booking our own trip.

We are booked straight through LHR-LAX-CHC and seemingly unless traveling in business or first class (we're not) we would be denied access to what she called the 'transit lounge'.


She's right that in-transit passangers going straight through on NZ1 are not allowed into the NZ Lounge unless they're in Biz/First - regardless of status.

However, if you're transferring to a later flight, then i believe there is nothing stopping you using these facilities.

She's right that in-transit passangers going straight through on NZ1 are not allowed into the NZ Lounge unless they're in Biz/First - regardless of status.

If it's a *G lounge, why is this true?

??? sory KF but are you saying the attendant can make a call on the likely useage of the lounge at a later stage and just decide to keep *g's flying economy out. :eek:

Of course even if the flight were fully loaded (68 First & Business) it wouldn't completely fill the LAX lounge which has a capacity of 80. That still leaves a minimum of 12 seats for the rest of us......I'm sticking withy grumpy LA who doesn't know the rules (& the image of a mature LAX LA springs to mind as I type). :(


There are several NZ flights leaving LAX in a space of a few hours.

Through pax on NZ1/2 arent allowed to visit NZ lounge at LAX unless in first or business. I can understand why even though I dont like it. I have both visited the lounge while on NZ1/2 and also visited the transit lockdown pen (airside).

NZ1/2 are on the ground for just over 2 hours. It can easily take that long to clear immigration and customs, go upstairs and back through immigration and security to get back to the lounge on mezzanine floor (yes sometimes it is quicker but sometimes its not & I have had occassions where get to lounge only to be hurried off for boarding which has just about completed already). By keeping the number of pax who do this as low as possible, NZ can track them down easier if they are late reboarding.

I've flown NZ F out of LAX twice. Both times, the NZ lounge was packed to the gills. I found the AC lounge much more comfortable.

Through pax on NZ1/2 arent allowed to visit NZ lounge at LAX unless in first or business. I can understand why even though I dont like it. I have both visited the lounge while on NZ1/2 and also visited the transit lockdown pen (airside).

NZ1/2 are on the ground for just over 2 hours. It can easily take that long to clear immigration and customs, go upstairs and back through immigration and security to get back to the lounge on mezzanine floor (yes sometimes it is quicker but sometimes its not & I have had occassions where get to lounge only to be hurried off for boarding which has just about completed already). By keeping the number of pax who do this as low as possible, NZ can track them down easier if they are late reboarding.

NZ may have good reasons and are certainly in their right to strongly encourage people not to go, but they cannot start making up their own rules. (and if it takes that long *G pax, it also takes that long for C/F pax, so that's not an argument not to allow access). *G = access to a *G lounge (unless full). Simple as that.

Not quite. Business & first pax are at the head of the queue at immigration - at least in respect of pax from this flight. *G in economy could arrive at immigration behind a further hundred or more people.

I've been on NZ1/2 when we were advised not to go to lounge at all due to over 800 people in immigration queue (not counting those from our flight).

NZ may have good reasons and are certainly in their right to strongly encourage people not to go, but they cannot start making up their own rules. (and if it takes that long *G pax, it also takes that long for C/F pax, so that's not an argument not to allow access). *G = access to a *G lounge (unless full). Simple as that.

The United States government can do whatever they like [as shown]. If they only want to let J/P class pax enter their country to use the lounge whilst flying through on NZ1/2 they will.

Not quite. Business & first pax are at the head of the queue at immigration - at least in respect of pax from this flight. *G in economy could arrive at immigration behind a further hundred or more people.

I've been on NZ1/2 when we were advised not to go to lounge at all due to over 800 people in immigration queue (not counting those from our flight).

That argument does not hold. What if a young *G in the first row of Y gets off more quickly than an elderly couple in C? I usually sprint out because I know the queues can be horrendous. Many people don't know/care.

I can see the reasoning, but I am surprised that NZ think they can just dream up these rules. However, from ntddevsys's comment it appears the US govt has something to with this?

Immigration officials do check BP of transit pax, although of course if you're transiting to different flight you may not have a through BP yet.

I imagine if you were *G in econ you could try to exit and visit the lounge, but its a lot of hassle for possibly no benefit and maybe risk NZ offloading you as no-show (or holding up the other 300+ pax) if you get delayed too much.

In my view the bigger issue is that US is not allowing easy international-international transits (compared with many other countries).

There are a few issues here that need clarification.

1. It is the US government that made the decision (not NZ) that at first no transit pax (inc US citiziens) from NZ1/2 were to enter the US when continuing on. These pax were to be held in Camp Xray while waiting for the onward connection.

2. NZ following a number of discussions managed first to be able to set up a mini lounge in Camp Xray followed by special permission to have only F and J pax be allowed to transit. The US did not allow this special consideration to go to *G but only a max of 68 pax. The US decides this, and NZ managed to get some decent treatment for F and J pax ^

We can argue about the logic of this backwards and forwards but as we all know the US is world renown for creating rules that make logical sense and are in the best interests of all people :rolleyes:

Also of importance is that, NZ has had for years a major lounge issue at LAX and uses the NWA lounge as an overflow. They have chopped and changed with deas on how to do this, for instance by status, by class or by flight (i.e. all those on LAX/CHC go to NWA).

In fact on busy days they not only restrict access to *Gs but also to Koru Club members.

What has not been discussed (or maybe I missed it), was the passenger starting in LAX or transiting through LAX. i.e. had the pax been told not to transit through customs, decided what the heck I will do it as I am in the first row and then arrived at the lounge where the lounge attendant was probably not too pleased.

Irrespective it is more the problem of the US that does not allow decent transfer facilities but insists on processing everyone. Given a 747 on any gien flight will have 5-10 pax who positive name match + others selected say another 5-10 pax for secondary screening, none of those people will make it back onto NZ1/2 and would then have to be depaned and accomodated at NZs expense it is understandable if NZ want to restrict the movement of its passengers. Of course not sure what NZ attitude would be if they told you not to transit, you decied to transit, you were selected for secondary screening and then missed the flight. :td:

Mark

Thanks for the further information Koru Flyer - that does change things somewhat.

Hi Guys Thanks for the useful replies,

I am now in the Christchurch lounge, so can read and reply a bit easier than on my cellphone,

In answer to some of the comments made,

The Lounge dragon was in AirNZ Outfit, I asked for a supervisor but was told none were on duty, I was in the lounge enterance so could see there were only 5 or 6 people in the lounge (I pointed this out when told it was full, and the reply was OH but it won't be later, so we cant let you in, I was told that all Star*Gs were directed to alternate lounges unless in Business or First) I was pointed towards a Northwest Airlines lounge and offered access there. But found the Air Canada Star Alliance Lounge very accomodating (And they were busy)!. I will be putting my feelings in writing to them when I get more than 24 hours on the ground

I did notice on the incoming flight from London they were allowing passengers in First and Business the chance to clear customs and use the lounge rather than being stuck in the transit lounge for the duration. They had an AirNZ Person in the Immigration hall who was diverting First/Business Class passengers in transit out fo the immigation line to a seperate officer who was processing them and then taking them up to the main AirNZ Lounge, Not sure if it will work if you are transitting in Economy on a *G as they were checking BPs and giving a special card

Anyway sorry I upset someone with my poor grammer!, Cellphone keyboard and muddled brain after a long trip caused a bit of homer-itus!

Off to AKL now then LAX in a couple of hours

Cheers Guys & Gals

Richard & Vicky

The Lounge dragon was in AirNZ Outfit, I asked for a supervisor but was told none were on duty, I was in the lounge enterance so could see there were only 5 or 6 people in the lounge (I pointed this out when told it was full, and the reply was OH but it won't be later, so we cant let you in, I was told that all Star*Gs were directed to alternate lounges unless in Business or First) I was pointed towards a Northwest Airlines lounge and offered access there. But found the Air Canada Star Alliance Lounge very accomodating (And they were busy)!. I will be putting my feelings in writing to them when I get more than 24 hours on the ground


This regularly happens at LAX due to the Lounge size; Infact everyone apart from First are occasionally directed to alternate lounge on certain flights. It is no excuse for the rudeness you encountered however, perhaps you were being pushy ? [But I wouldn't be suprised if they were just being rude] Mid Year the extension to the NZ Lounge at LAX is due to be opened. As for the transit immigration for NZ1/2 it is only available to pax in J/F.

This regularly happens at LAX due to the Lounge size; Infact everyone apart from First are occasionally directed to alternate lounge on certain flights. It is no excuse for the rudeness you encountered however, perhaps you were being pushy ? [But I wouldn't be suprised if they were just being rude] Mid Year the extension to the NZ Lounge at LAX is due to be opened. As for the transit immigration for NZ1/2 it is only available to pax in J/F.

Where will the new NZ lounge be?

Where will the new NZ lounge be?

IIRC a new structure is being added on to the northern end of the existing lounge to double the space available; then a fully interior refurbishment will begin.

The NZ lounge at LAX is a NZ Business class lounge. Koru members and Alliance members are admitted on a space available basis. NZ has several wide body flights daily out of LAX, and that fills their lounge to capacity and beyond. It is a courtesy that NZ performs for Koru and Gold Alliance members to use the KLM/Northwest Airlines lounge as an overflow, and all Gold members are welcomed there, as long as they are traveling on NZ. Most Koru and Gold complaints come from being accomodated at the KLM/Northwest Airlines lounge, which is a courtesy extended by Air New Zealand.That you saw there were only five people in the lounge is irrelevant, it is reserved for Business class NZ customers. That you refer to the hard working attendant as a "lounge dragon" is all I need to know about you. You default to abusive terms even in your post. I work closely with the NZ reps at LAX and I know one thing, calling security is never mentioned unless you are abusive, vulgar, or threatening. Lounge attendants have an obligation to protect the other customers from abusive people who will not accept the terms of their own agreements. And finally, stop blaming lounge attendants with such vitriol. You wouldnt believe how many people think the rules don't apply to them. It is the attendant's unhappy job to remind you that they do. As a visitor it is your job to live within your agreements and not become abusive. If you become abusive, you better believe the police will be called and your day will become seriously unpleasant. And in this day and age, very few will care what you feel about that if you have made an ugly scene.

Paragraphing anyone ?
Lounge attendants have an obligation to protect the other customers from abusive people who will not accept the terms of their own agreements.
I find this wretched statement rather dismal. Failing to accept the terms of what agreements exactly ?

The NZ Lounge at LAX is not an NZ Business Class Lounge. It is an Air New Zealand International Lounge and of course Business and First class customers take priority; due to the space constraints of the [IIRC] 80 Seater lounge NZ have decided not to allow Koru Club customers into the lounge; rather allowing them into the NWA/KLM Lounge. That is a term of the Koru Club members agreement.

NZ also attempt to insist that Star Alliance Gold use that lounge, which is where the problem arises here. Queue * access rules http://www.staralliance.com/star_alliance/star/content/SA_gold_member.html. The lounge was not full during the cited incident so the Lounge Dragon could have taken the paxes boarding passes and told them they would be required to leave when the lounge fulled.

I personally couldn’t really care about another *G being treated badly by a Lounge dragon but I do care about your attitude if you happen to work for any airline that I may one day fly. I will continue to call discourteous lounge attendants “Lounge Dragons” as is done by the majority of FlyerTalk members.

As you are in the know how is the Lounge extension going ?

Mmmmhhh...looks like we have ourselves an interesting new member (although maybe not from the passengers' side - the handle sort of gives it away)...

Withholding judgement for the moment, let me welcome imoninside to FT.

imoninside, welcome to FT and the NZ forum.

Wow, that was quite the potent first post.

NZ and the *A advertise to us, it's loyal frequent customers that the LAX lounge is a *A lounge as well as a NZ lounge. In the terms I have for my AC Elite membership, it clearly states that I have access to *A lounges. I am unsure, but their maybe something in there about being subject to space limitations. The OP mentioned their were few people in the lounge, it may well have been their were two 747s coming in and the lounge could have filled quickly, it does not appear from the OP's post that this was explained to him, if the case at all. I have not experienced a lounge dragon in LAX, but I have at another station, they do exist.

As you are an insider, you need to remember that we are your customers, that perception can be everything. The customer is always right, and when they are wrong, which they often are, they need to be shown very diplomatically why they are right but they need to see it another way ;) I own a business where customer service and perceptions mean everything. Like any business, I have my customers who will never be made happy, but I do my best.

It is always nice to have posters here who work within the airline/airport industry, you can be a huge help, and help us understand things from another point of view. I am sure their will several good debates, maybe even a few personal attacks, but I am sure you can be a huge help. I transit through your airport on several times a year, so any help is always appreciated.

Welcome to FT imoninside :)

We really are friendly here in NZ forum, so please dont let this thread put you off contributing.

I transit through your airport on several times a year, so any help is always appreciated.

Assuming you work at LAX then ditto. Maybe we could meet someday.

Not quite. Business & first pax are at the head of the queue at immigration - at least in respect of pax from this flight. *G in economy could arrive at immigration behind a further hundred or more people.

I've been on NZ1/2 when we were advised not to go to lounge at all due to over 800 people in immigration queue (not counting those from our flight).


Mhh US passport holders, green card, and special visa A/G and N have privilage to go through US line. Even if immigration is packed, I never need more than 15 minutes to pass immigration. getting my bags takes longer. (I am Non - US / non -green card holder)

I did say some can be quicker. Not all *G's travelling in economy will be in your situation.

Seems to me the easiest solution is for NZ to remove it's *G designation from the LAX lounge. At least until such time as the lounge has been refurbished/expanded and can accomodate more than just the J class pax.

If they can't currently accomodate Koru Club (let alone *G) at LAX, then NZ are leaving themselves wide open for customer dissatisfaction and bad word of mouth referrals. As per this particular thread.

Remaining a designated *G lounge, they are obligated by the * access rules, which they clearly can't currently accommodate and although they are providing some sort of alternate (KL/NW lounge) they don't seem adept at explaining the why/what/how.
Becoming a non *G lounge instantly solves a lot of those problems and with AC only having 1 late night flight (LAX-YYZ) AC should be able to accomodate the *G pax on the NZ flights in their lounge easily enough.
Am sure AC would love the extra revenue that will bring them as they have their lounge open anyway for their one flight that late at night.

I personally believe that the Lounge access rules are unsustainable in the long run. One should be able to access the designated lounges for the airline which they are flying but not simply any *G designated lounge [Most Star gold members would think this is the case anyway]. That way members still receive benefits when flying with other * carriers but airline’s aren’t paying for their passengers to full other * carriers’ lounges.

This would also increase the incentive for some airlines to have their own lounges. For example at SFO T-INTL. if NZ were to build a lounge under the current rules it would be overrun with UA*G alcoholic-pax but under my proposal it would only have pax for NZ services utilising its services.

There is no need for that as they can just opt to have a lounge that is not *G!

There is no need for that as they can just opt to have a lounge that is not *G!
They could but what about *G's flying their airline ? There are also those pesky J/F class scum flying on other * carriers.

There are many other benefits for all the member carriers' to adopt these rules such as financial savings and better service for pax travelling on their carriers.

The new section is nearing completion, the windows have been installed and interior finishing is almost done. Then the existing part will be renovated once the new section is opened. Target is July I have been told. I stand corrected on *G access..HOWEVER......the lounge is operated at capacity every night, that is why they are extending it. NZ accomodates its Alliance *G at the KLM/Northwest lounge, so they are fulfilling their terms to provde access. You could consider the KLM/NWA lounge the NZ annex....its just the way it is, there IS NOT ENOUGH SPACE.....no reasonable person would expect NZ to kick its very high paying Business class customers out to accomodate another airline *G coach passengers......would you, Mr Businessman? But thats just the problem....some people thrive on being unreasonable..if you have never worked with the public, particularly in the cloistered world of air travel, then you could not possibly understand the outrageous assaults that airline employees experience almost daily. Some people forget that they are but one of two to four hundred people on a flight...that the whole system depends on their cooperation and a willing surrender of their personal autonomy for the duration of the flight, including airport procedures. The system simply cannot work if every one demands special exceptions..thats just the nature of air travel, folks. I've owned a business for 12 years myself, and have been in sales and customer service for almost thirty years. I'm a professional at what I do. 99.99% of the people I deal with leave the transaction happy and complete. Thats why I point out that the staff at these lounges do not, as a habit, threaten to call security unless the passenger is threatening, abusive or cursing. I mean it has to be really outside acceptable behaviour. At that point the passenger has forfeited his "rights" under the terms of service which require all lounge occupants to conduct themselves in a manner which does not interfere with the enjoyment of other customers. Oh by the way..I don't format cyber posts as if it was technical writing OK?

Taupo, if you have a business, then you know the customer is usually wrong..and its our job to educate them. I mean if a customer said you should give him your product for free, would you believe he was right? Nonsense. The job of a business is to provide a service for a price. The job of a customer is to pay for the sevices rendered, not to demand extra add ons. If the paid for services are not rendered thats one thing, but the customer who demands something for nothing is NEVER right and its about time someone said so, because that is why the airlines are all going BK.

Thanks for the update on the lounge. Do you know which “zones” the extension will house ? I.E. will the lounge capacity be lowered whilst the existing lounge is undergoing refurbishment.

You present a very strong argument with solid reasoning. I think the general problem the OP has is the way that it was handled.

Taupo, if you have a business, then you know the customer is usually wrong..and its our job to educate them. I mean if a customer said you should give him your product for free, would you believe he was right? Nonsense. The job of a business is to provide a service for a price. The job of a customer is to pay for the sevices rendered, not to demand extra add ons. If the paid for services are not rendered thats one thing, but the customer who demands something for nothing is NEVER right and its about time someone said so, because that is why the airlines are all going BK.

It seems to me in this case the customer is not demanding extra add ons, but demanding a service that was promised to them as part of their purchase. Don't the airlines understand that when they promise services such as lounge access, pre-boarding, etc., and then don't deliver, customers will feel that they've been cheated and get upset?

I would think that a simple sign out front stating "All economy class *G members are requested to use our partner lounges - Northwest (across from gate X) or Air Canada (across from gate Y)." would solve the problem here. This way the customer knows that the promised service is being provided, and that the lounge attendant is not uninformed about access rules.

:rolleyes:

What is your point about my use of "compelled"? It is perfectly correct. One can be compelled in a psychological way - "forced" through psychological means. :D :D Nice try!

But Flyingfox, it's not an error because all of the rules of grammar have been suspended. You see, it was decided that if teachers enforced rules of grammar, kids might get their self-esteem hurt when corrected. To avoid this tragedy, everything goes these days.

To further the trend, apologists now have an excuse for everything, such as "he was typing on a cellphone" :rolleyes:

Remember the old days, when limited vocabulary and ineffective use of the English language was considered as loutish as wearing a wife-beater and shorts in first class? :cool:

Oh, finally, someone with an excellent point! I can remember when abbreviations were uncommon, as well. I think it all boils down to laziness. People cannot be bothered to learn how to speak and write properly! ;)

I would think that a simple sign out front stating "All economy class *G members are requested to use our partner lounges - Northwest (across from gate X) or Air Canada (across from gate Y)." would solve the problem here.

This way the customer knows that the promised service is being provided, and that the lounge attendant is not uninformed about access rules.

Can someone just refresh my memory on the location of the lounges ? I don’t remember them being across from Gate X and Y :confused:

I agree the sign would be a good idea "Due to renovations passengers travelling in Pacific Class on Air New Zealand that would normally have access to the International Lounge in Los Angeles are requested to use the NorthWest Airlines Lounge today. Thank you for your understanding.".

Don't the airlines understand that when they promise services such as lounge access, pre-boarding, etc., and then don't deliver, customers will feel that they've been cheated and get upset?
You forgot Priority Luggage Handling [or lack thereof] :D

The LAX lounges are on the mezzanine level. AC Maple Leaf Lounge is next to Koru Club and NW is the other side of the pier.

The LAX lounges are on the mezzanine level. AC Maple Leaf Lounge is next to Koru Club and NW is the other side of the pier.
Thanks for the refresh. Without too much trouble AC and NZ could merge lounges ?
Seems to have benefits for both carriers' such as reduced staffing costs. Passengers would receive greater lounge space as NZ departures and AC departures do not overlap much.

Seems to me the easiest solution is for NZ to remove it's *G designation from the LAX lounge. At least until such time as the lounge has been refurbished/expanded and can accomodate more than just the J class pax.

If they can't currently accomodate Koru Club (let alone *G) at LAX, then NZ are leaving themselves wide open for customer dissatisfaction and bad word of mouth referrals. As per this particular thread.

Remaining a designated *G lounge, they are obligated by the * access rules, which they clearly can't currently accommodate and although they are providing some sort of alternate (KL/NW lounge) they don't seem adept at explaining the why/what/how.
Becoming a non *G lounge instantly solves a lot of those problems and with AC only having 1 late night flight (LAX-YYZ) AC should be able to accomodate the *G pax on the NZ flights in their lounge easily enough.
Am sure AC would love the extra revenue that will bring them as they have their lounge open anyway for their one flight that late at night.

I couldn't agree more - this seems to be the obvious solution. The current arrangement just ends up aggravating a lot of the very customers they should be courting the loyalty of.

Just as a closing point to the thread I started

I am now back at LAX on my return leg to LHR, arrived at the LAX lounge today showed my BP *G and we both got access without any hesitation this time,

I enquired why I had been directed elsewhere last week, and was informed by the very charming young lady that

"Some of the staff that are on duty from time to time enforce rules that may not need to be enforced at the time for no logical reason"

Which in layspeak seems to be 'if they are in a mood you are screwed!!!'

Anyway on my way back to the UK, and thanks for the comments and points raised in this thread, and as I am in the lounge I don't have to type the thread on my cellphone so I CaN youse Prpper Englishe this time ;)

Cheers All

Richard

This is probably a stupid question, but please bear in mind that I have never been through LAX, but intend to in 2006. If the stopover on NZ1 is only about 2 hours, and it takes a while to get through immigration (If I understand correctly, ALL pax have to do this, even F & J, and even if they are continuing straight on to AKL), then is it really such a hardship to spend the remaining time in the transit lounge? Are the Y pax really such a herd of goats? Or is the transit area really basic?

I see that Priority Pass use the NWA lounge in T2 - I presume that this is only useful if, as a Y pax, you have had an overnight layover in L.A. and are returning to the airport to continue your flight?

Oh, Flashyphotos, what seats did you bag on NZ1 + 2? Any recommendations?
Thanks.

The special NZ transit pen at LAX is very basic (and crowded).

I travel quite frequently on NW from LAX, and for me it's often a bonus to chat to an NZ passenger in "our" lounge. Just think of it as opportunity for you to see how Skyteam passengers live! ;)