Platy

So, turn that on its head...QF has an business opportunity to offer a service so it can differentiate its offering from competitors. It chooses not to. Lounge dragons seem not endowed with a modicum of discretion (or if they are they chose not to use such in the case of the OP).

Many I know who travel first / business have turned their backs on QF.

QF international can't be bothered to service key ports like PER and CNS!

One extended family flies in regularly from the UK to Perth in first. Of course QF has virtually no international flights from Perth (save a seasonal AKL and domestic grade 737 to SIN...please!). So their business goes directly to EK - why fly into MEL or SYD to backtrack to PER.

I am based in CNS: there are virtually no international flights from CNS any more (save a Dash 8 to PNG) so I turn to CX (to avoid backtracking to BNE / SYD /MEL) which has maintained its association with our local town over many years.

QF dumps its first passengers onto JQ!

A local friend in CNS was travelling regularly from CNS to LHR in first on QF until they put her on JQ as part of a full paid up first class fare and she never set foot on one of their aircraft ever again.

QF lounge staff are called dragons for a reason!

Compare my own two recent lounge experiences: JAL check in / first lounge going out of their way to facilitate seating to enable myself and travelling companion to seat together versus a QF lounge dragon doing her best to separate myself and travelling companion away from our pre-requested seats whilst blaming my travel arranger (which of course was me!) and denying the airline was responsible for the attempt re-allocation and being utterly rude about the whole process (the cabin wasn't even full). I travelled 7 airlines in two weeks and QF was the worst.

Poor service compared with competitors

Whereas QF inflight service is usually good, my flights on CX, JAL, SQ have blown me away: QF is just simply not at that service level. I personally would choose SQ over QF for a first class trip back home to the Uk in a flash.

...i could go on...

The bottom line is that QF needs to keep more focus on the customers if it is to compete effectively!

Being inflexible with lounge access per the example of the OP is just plain nuts if you value your customers.

Most herein just don't seem to "get" the concept of good customer relations...

Globaliser

So QF management are seriously at fault for deciding not to provide a facility that few airlines provide anywhere, and that only in a few places when they do?

Would you have QF positively market this to incoming F passengers? Do you think it would be an appealing prospect? Do you really think that it would engender brand value? "When you've cleared all the formalities here in the international terminal, we're happy to invite you to use our domestic departures lounges to freshen up even though you're not flying anywhere else today. We can't carry your checked bags on the inter-terminal transfer bus because that's an airside sterile area. So simply take all your bags with you to the train station, pay for a ticket to go to the domestic terminal, put your checked bags into the luggage storage facility (it's only a nominal cost), and then enjoy the airside facilities."

That wouldn't be very practical, coming as a positive suggestion from QF.

Princess fiona

I get good customer relations. I work in an industry where that's a prerequisite.

Again, what airlines with an F cabin into Australia offer a superior service on arrival for those people you know who have taken their business elsewhere?
That seems to be the point of the thread.

Eg. Is chauffeur drive offered for passengers on similar routes and cabins where QF doesn't offer this?
This would be a reasonable point of difference IMO. Something that QF should definitely consider.
Arrivals lounge access at a domestic terminal not co-located and not accessible by those with checked baggage is not something that they should consider adding to the product. I agree that in the case of the OP the lounge staff could have exercised discretion.
I disagree that they are "Lounge Dragons" in general. I myself have been permitted to utilize the lounge and permitted guest access in circumstances that were at the discretion of the lounge staff.

Platy

Many people I know have turned their back on QF for a variety of reasons as I have clearly explained above.

QF need to find ways of not losing customers!

I think we are agreed that a situation where lounge dragons turn away arriving F customers is not good for business - it provides an unnecessary reason for customers to turn against the provider. If the lounge dragons had used a little discretion when faced with an arriving F class passenger the OP's needs / expectation could have been easily met with minimal cost to the airline against a fare value of around USD15,000 to $20,000! There are only two airports in the whole of Australia with F passengers arriving off QF operated flights. There are only two or three F class QF operated flights a day into those airports, so we are talking about exercising discretion for a handful of people at most (some of which may already be QF WP, P1 or CL).

If I've accessed the correct page of information on the QF website, chauffeur drive is no longer offered by QF for its USA routes, only for MEL-DXB-LHR and SYD-DXB-LHR and matches the EK offering. IIRC Etihad offers chauffeur drive for F pax. Let us wait and see if Qatar introduces such a service when they launch their A380 services to Australia.

So, yes, you could travel to /from Australia to / from the USA on EY, EK and receive chauffeur drive. You can't do that on QF USA services.

QF also excludes some F customers from this service (you need the ticket to have been issued on QF stock).

Accepting your positive experiences, the application of discretion by the lounge dragons is inconsistent (experiences clearly differ) so there is an issue which QF management could easily address with some guidelines / training. In any case, I would expect that enabling entry to the lounge for an arriving QF F customer should be part of the product offering and not subject to the discretionary whims of the dragons - you may or not agree with the latter position.

Please see comments below on the practicalities of an arrivals offering.

Platy

Eh? What a logically dumb statement!

If the lounge dragon had allowed access there wouldn't have been a problem as cited by the OP, right?

One can only imagine what a QF executive / manager would say if they were informed that a passenger who had just paid for a $15,000 - $20,000 F fare had been turned away from the domestic lounge on a technicality.

Would that executive / manager praise the lounge dragon for following the rules to the letter or have a moment of customer connection and say hold on a minute, that was a bad call for that F class customer and we don't really want that to happen?

What do you think?

Platy

Why do you assume such an option would apply? Do you assume that QF lacks the imagination to conceive of a viable service offering harnessing a;ready in place infrastructure and resources?

You're (perhaps inadvertently) right, QF would have to provide an end-to-end service. And why not?

The infrastructure is in place.

QF already employs folk as concierges to facilitate the departing F experience. Why can't these employees aid the arriving passengers as well as the departing (I thought they were already available to arriving passengers in some airports to facilitate the arrival process):

"...Our dedicated First Hosts* will be on hand to anticipate your travel needs. In our flagship Sydney and Melbourne lounges, our First Hosts will contact you the day before travel with information on our facilities and to arrange anything else you may require for your journey..."

There are only two locations. And MEL doesn't have the bus ride anyway. Other airlines (e.g. LH) don't have a problem taking an F passenger for an airside car ride.

There are only a very few passengers to accommodate.

In the meantime, it's a simple case of management instructing the lounge dragons to welcome arriving F customers who may stumble over to DOM...

...why don't you look for positive opportunities rather than instantly be negative?! Too much thinking time in cost cutting mental mode ?

Globaliser

No, it is not. The physical lounge facility is in place, but nothing else is. So it would cost money. And despite your apparent attitude that there should be no limit on the amount of money spent on F passengers, that's not how the real world works. That includes the real world within which LH has to work, even if the current offering to its F passengers happens to be pretty generous.

Platy

Globaliser, would you like to share where you stand on the OP's issue: would it or would it not be reasonable for the lounge dragon to let the OP into the DOM lounge having just paid for an F class inbound flight on QF (even if technically not within the rules)? The cost of that would be negligible (wash one set of towels as part of a huge laundry run and possibly provide a plate of food).

Do you think that QF should or should not instruct the lounge dragons to let arriving QF F class passengers into a domestic lounge upon their request should their wander hopefully to the domestic terminal? Again a negligible cost to the airline.


Now to the idea of some more formalised arrivals benefits.

Regarding your statement:

"...despite your apparent attitude that there should be no limit on the amount of money spent..."

My words: "a viable service offering".

So we are agreed it would have to be cost-effective.

Why do you think the cost would be prohibitive? You already have:

• Domestic lounges
• First hosts ringing passengers to check their individual needs before the flight
• First hosts physically escorting passengers on demand on departure and arrival (at some airports)
• Chauffeur services to transport departing and arriving passengers (at SYD and MEL for LHR/DXB passengers)

The only missing ingredient is housing luggage when accessing the sterile area in DOM.

So in Melbourne:

• Pre-flight phone call establishes whether passenger wants to access lounge on arrival
• Perhaps the passenger is given the choice of either arrivals lounge access or the chauffeur drive (if off a LHR / DXB flight)
• If yes to arrivals lounge, first host meets passenger from aircraft (as now happens), but takes the extra few minutes (over and above the current offering) to lead the passenger through to the adjoining domestic terminal and through security to DOM lounges whilst arranging temporary storage of check in sized luggage (fin applicable) before entering the sterile area
• On departure from sterile area passenger collects check in sized luggage (as applicable)

In Sydney there would need to be an additional step to get between the terminals.

One answer would be to give the DXB / LHR arriving passers a choice between the chauffeur drive or arrivals lounge. Simple solution would be to vary the existing chauffeur arrangements to transport the first customer (ideally escorted by a first host) landslide between the terminals. QF saves the cost of chauffeur into the CBD (or wherever) and offsets cost of getting to the domestic terminal.

Is there some cost involved? Yes of course.

Could a system be reasonably viable? You'd have to run the figures. Neither of us know the answer.

Is the LH system "pretty generous" (your words)? Perhaps. Maybe though it attracts business and adds to unique branding so the cost-benefit becomes of interest. Without doing a cost-benefit analysis we just don't know. QF may have already done some sort of feasibility analysis. We just don't know.

The point remains that absent from any such formal arrivals service offering, the QF position of refusing entry to arriving QF F customers in the DOM lounge really is a very petty position, more likely to annoy and loose business than create a net cost saving.

Globaliser

Precisely. But I am not the one criticising QF management for not deciding to provide such a service when I do not have sound information on which I could base an opinion.I wasn't going to address the question of discretion, but as you put it so directly I will.

Like others on this thread, I have sometimes benefited from being allowed something that a strict application of the rules would not have permitted - including lounge access. I am always grateful when that happens, because an indulgence is not something which I expect or to which I am entitled. Thus, if I am told no (as I would expect to happen), I would not dream of complaining about it.

However, it's a common feature of FT that some people take the benefit of exceptions and indulgences for granted, and then complain when they are refused something that they should be refused under the rules. Usually, the complaint is along the lines of "Well, it would hardly have cost the airline anything to make an exception for me this once." Maybe that's right, but that's actually irrelevant. The rules say what they say. Anyone who complains about an application of the rules to them runs the risk of appearing to be complaining that the airline did not think that they are as important as they think that they are.

Platy

Well, it is possible to hold an opinion with a caveat - "I would love to see a formalised arrivals lounge facility offered if it proved viable for the airline" or "I think it would be good for QF to develop its product differentiation if an effective away can be found to do so".

My criticism of QF management was a general one (not specific to arrivals facilities). QF is failing to retain high yield customers based on the people I know. It has a problem. Management can choose to address its customer service issues by whatever means or pat itself on the back based on the results of superficial market research surveys (which don't sample the customers lost in my experience).

In any case the solution for the OP's situation is simple - if we accept the position that it's the rules that determine the outcome then management could change the rules (instruct dragons to allow access in OP's circumstances): that would be such a simple step to improve service levels. Taking that step has virtually no cost.

So...on that point, do you think it would be reasonable / prudent / good customer service / good business for QF management to change the rules thus (whether that is advertised for not) to allow arriving F passengers into a domestic lounge? (You have apparently avoided this key question?).

Incidentally, presumably for you to be granted rule exemptions at the lounge and benefit from an "indulgence", perhaps you have asked for such knowing full well that what you were asking for is outside the rules (?).

crub

Do you really think that offering arrivals lounge access is going to bring back high yield customers and/or stop them from leaving? Especially when no one else offers arrivals lounges in Australia?

I agree with you that it seems petty to refuse access at the domestic lounges. Like everything lounge related though it depends on who is manning the door, you would probably get a different result on a different day.

ConradS

I think the discretion argument with customer service is generally a pretty good one. In this case though the customer received what was paid for. I can't really see how this is a fail for Qantas.
In addition I can't see how there is any easy or cost effective solution for passengers not taking a connecting flight. Sometimes you just need to make your own arrangements.

Platy

It is a fail for QF when discretion is not applied to keep a first class paying customer happy on an issue which is petty and of minimal cost (as per the case of the OP). Ms Platy left a mobile phone in the QF F lounge one morning before flying F on EK to AKL and only realised during final stages of boarding - the EK staff retrieved the phone and brought it on a silver platter to our seats (broken screen and all!): we hadn't specifically paid for a lost and found service, but how impressed were we with EK and how many people did we tell how amazing the EK staff can be!

Simple issues can push a customer away. It is always far cheaper and easier to retain customers than to win them back. Stories of inflexible service are shared with others.

The customer may not have used other aspects of the product offering that were paid for (may not have had much to eat or drink, may not have made use of the first host, may not have had a free spa treatment) so cost the airline less than that budgeted by the airline on a per customer basis .

Platy

Lost customers

Once a customer has moved on it is difficult to get them back! There is a general rule of thumb that is costs 5 time more to win a customer back than to retain a customer in the first place. I doubt an arrivals lounge would make any difference to lost customers - the horse has bolted!

But whatever my opinion, the practical answer is that QF would need to survey lost customers to identify and then address any issues arising. I suspect that QF does not survey this subset as effectively as its loyal customer base. In any case, the market research I have personally experienced being conducted for QF lacks depth.

I have also found that when I have had periods of not flying with QF they have made no effort to contact me to see if my change in buying pattern is due to a product or service issue (this includes a period of some months when I was P1 and didn't fly with QF). Ok, that's a sample size of one.


Retaining customers

As already discussed above, the viability of various arrivals products offerings would need to be assessed in a feasibility study. Gathering and analysing data on how customers value different aspects of the product / service would be needed to inform any conclusion. Arrivals facility might be just one of several ideas to air. As stated in an earlier post above, QF may have already gone through such a process with respect to arrivals - we don't know.


Domestic lounge access

Whilst some agree that a level of discretion would be win-win for customer and airline, consistency is an important consideration. That there is inconsistency at all is indicative of an opportunity for QF management to identify and train on common scenarios where discretion could be used and how such could be reasonably applied.

As proposed above, IMHO it would be good business practice for QF management to advise domestic lounge staff to allow access to arriving QF F passengers and not leave the matter as a grey area, since it avoids the risk of annoying and even losing a high yield customer on a technicality.


Following the herd

Sure other airlines don't offer arrivals facilities at SYD / MEL. But I don't accept that QF's product / service offering should necessarily be determined by what other airlines don't do.

IIRC, there are no other competitor first class flights directly between Australia / NZ and North America if we accept AA as an alliance and codeshare partner: Delta, Virgin, United, Air NZ, Air Canada, Hawaiian., etc., all offer a business class product with a lie-flat bed (Hawaiian to come).

Does this mean QF should give up on its first class SYD-LAX, SYD-DFW and MEL-LAX flagship A380 product? Or does that mean QF has a point of differentiation and thereby more likely to snare cashed up high yield customers?

(Complex analysis on future product will be ongoing by QF (e.g. the new 787s may serve US routes without a first class per current 747s)).

Note that product differentiation can have high brand value: LH has chauffeur from lounge to aircraft, EK has showers on board, EY has the residence and apartments, etc.

Obviously there will be parallelism in product /service offerings comparing airlines first class offerings (all passengers need to have some great food and wine, a comfy seat that turns into bed, etc), but it can also make sense to seek innovation and points of difference.

Given the lack of other first class offerings to North America you could argue there's no point to offering formal arrivals options, chauffeur drive, etc. But you also have to decide where to draw the line to differentiate the first class product from ever-improving business class offerings!

On the other hand, the Australia-Europe market is far more competitive for first class: JL, BA, SQ, EY, TG, and QR (to come) in addition to alliance partner EK (others as well?). Add in options for one leg business and one leg first and there's lots of competition.



Clearly, QF needs to make sure that it keeps its innovation and investment hat on despite a pervasive cost cutting culture.

Dave Noble

I disagree ; whether to provide access to an arriving passenger is something that should be defined at a corporate level and then a policy defined which can be published and lounge agents should follow

Individual agents should not be trying to define what should be offered. This is a great way of creating disparity based on agents and the complaints where someone is allowed once and then starts complaining when refused another time