laxarrival

This may need to be merged, but thought was worth a new thread now. SKL no longer allows *G on a domestic itinerary access. Apparently, this changed a week ago. Still allowed for international flights.

I asked the nice lady at the front what rule changed, and mentioned the website rules say access is allowed. So she handed me her iphone and showed me the email from someone named Cynthia that states no access for *G on a domestic itinerary.

Major bummer. Now I'm hungry. Always like to get my late night dinner there before my flights. And used to schedule flights out of SFO specifically to use the lounge first.

indo79

This is a bummer, why does SQ always seem to come up with their own rules?

oh well, I guess it is due to the abuse of UA *G flyers that led to this

Nelumbo

If UA could make RCCs at HKG and NRT not too far behind the neighbor lounges of its *A partners, why couldn't it at the international terminal of its international gateways?
UA *Gs would rather stay in the RCC if it has quality similar to the SKL.

*Gs on UA need to bring UA face up this issue.

ryan182

I suppose it was only a matter of time.....its a bummer though.

SAN 1K

So is the Lufthansa lounge at Dulles next on the hit list?

eponymous_coward

But UA *Gs don't have lounge access to a US-based RCC unless they have an international itinerary- and they would have access to the SKL on an international itinerary out of SFO under this policy. This doesn't change that. What it does do is keep cheaptastic *G FTers† from getting a free lounge visit at UA and SQ's expense when they're flying SFO-DEN/LAX/whatever- which isn't what UA wants to provide as a benefit to *Gs on domestic itineraries (if they did, they would just open up the RCCs to USA-based *G on ALL itineraries).

I wonder if a similar memo is going to go out to the LH lounge at IAD or elsewhere.

†(that is, the ones who are from the USA-based airlines, I'd guess, so maybe an AC, BD or other or non-USA program's *G card would still work)

FriendlySkies

I had never visited the SQ lounge


I really hope not! LH is the main thing that makes IAD bearable!

iceman77_7

I was allowed entrance into the lounge two days ago (11/28) as a cheaptastic UA *G FTer on a SFO-LAX trip. Agent at the desk took down my MP#, I assume so that SQ can receive compensation from UA for the visit.

sinoflyer

Bummer, but it's the sensible thing to do.

I agree. UA should have something similar to US's Envoy Lounge (PHL) at SFO in the least, and ORD as well as IAD. But I don't know how practical it is, given the space constraints especially at ORD and IAD.

nov11

I had the same experience as OP - I was denied entry on my YVR-SFO-LAX BP earlier today. I was told that it's only for outbound international flight - not even for connecting international flights. Was also told that SQ only changed the rules last week.

GoAmtrak

Ah well, it was great while it lasted.

The point is that the RCC hard product is tired in many locations and the soft product is stingy. If the new domestic United Clubs turn out to be anywhere near as nice as the SFO SKL or any AC MLL (which I doubt they will be), I'd gladly pony up for membership. But I refuse to now, given the poor value proposition. It's rare that I need an airline club to get work done or feel comfortable, so if I do pay for access I have high expectations. I already get great irrops handling by calling the 1K line. And the complimentary RCC swill alone isn't worth the fee.

I'd also gladly pay very slightly higher fares to have domestic lounge access as a *G, or even just to have the lounge standards rise a bit to justify paid membership. But alas, the domestic market clearly doesn't work like that. AC has much greater pricing power as a virtual monopoly in many markets and thus sees fit to make the MLLs very nice and the access policy quite liberal. At least, I can only presume a causal relationship there.

Given the status quo, it's only in the best interest of any CO/UA/US *G to use the benefit they're supposedly entitled to -- that basically all other airlines' *G members get all the time -- when the opportunity presents itself. There is no *A rule against a *G using the lounge of *A carrier x while flying *A carrier y domestically. If LH and NZ do follow SQ's lead, I believe the party's completely over for this domestic access perk. But you can't fault us for enjoying it while it's available. If anything, I hope UA is reminded by this phenomenon that their lounge product is nothing special (which also seems to be true about domestic competitors' lounges, unfortunately).

The only way I'd "pay" for RCC membership is if I could give up an MP perk. As a 100% domestic-flying 1K, I'd consider forgoing two or three SWUs in exchange for access to the current lounge product.

mherdeg

Dude, since when can someone named Cynthia do an end-run around the *G lounge access policy?

kevinsac

Because they can? I think that's reasonable, to request an international out-bound flight.

NCommander

It's a fair bit of devaluation to the *G product as a whole. I already find it extremely annoying that CO/UA/US *G disallowed domestic lounge access (nor do I find that the product they do offer being worth the price they ask for it).

Pingtung

what's the point, from a passenger standpoint, of an alliance if all the supposed benefits have all these exceptions to them?