mmonster

I know this is a rather redundant question...

Of course the answer is YES as a Star Gold, but SQ (extremely bad) has been saying a big fat NO to me at the entrance.... I ran out of energy to argue, so I said I would just like to go for a browse...

I have been doing a lot of lounge shopping @ HKG, I love the lounge for Thai, and the UA one is not bad, I has been great the 2 lounges work together for shower queues.. I showered at UA one since the TG one is so very full.... the staff rang the other lounge and booked me in from TG.

I know the NZ one is just next to SQ @ SYD and SQ is one floor up from NZ's @ MEL been having extreme difficulty getting to the SQ one at MEL, since AirNZ do not open check in at hours when SQ do not operate (so that SQ's would be closed until it opens again much later, NZ's flight would be gone by the time it reopens)...

Technically, can SQ say no to *G members from entering? I guess I can go where-ever I want?

deconz

Sadly SQ don't think much of *G pax travelling in Y with them. If the SQ lounge carries the *G signage then they can't really refuse entry. However, be aware that in SIN their main SilverKris lounge IS NOT labelled *G. Instead they offer in T3 a very inferior KrisFlyer lounge that doesn't even have bathroom facilities. This lounge is dedicated for *G pax travelling in Y.

If you're holding a boarding pass for another * carrier then SQ lounge dragons are not keen to let you into those lounges on their network that are labelled *G. Of course you are perfectly entitled to enter the lounge as long as it's open but be prepared for a fight!

zqsn5678

were you decline the entry at sliverkris lounge at SIN?

that is not a "star gold" lounge, it's a SQ business class lounge for SQ pax travel in C.

star gold pax (travel in Y) can only access "star gold" lounge where you will see a star gold logo at the entrance. many airlines combine the star gold and c lounge together, however some dont. this is also another reason you dont see star gold logo at f lounge.

Xiaotung

NZ can say no to *G wanting to check in baggage for free on Seat Only fares and no additional bag in Business so yes SQ can say no to NZ*G getting into their lounge.

Both are breaking the *G rules but who can do anything about it?

mmonster

well, I understand they have special lounge at SIN, their hub to ring-fence this, TG has the same arrangement at BKK.... but.... the lounge I want to get in at SYD carries the *G logo....

I show them the new toy from AirNZ, the International *A G plastic that adds to the thickness of my wallet...... she was most un-pleased...... making me so unwelcomed.......

Shazzadude

NZ claim they follow the rules by allowing seat-only to have an additional carry-on. SQ's version of wriggling out of it while keeping within the rules I guess is through the inferior lounge they have for *A in SIN.

Xiaotung

False claim. *A rules say nothing about carry-on. What about business class? No excuses there.

trooper

I don't actually agree either airline is "breaking the rules"..

SQ have always allowed access to lounges designated as "*Gold"..

There is no rule that requires a *A airline to so designate ALL of their lounges. (The example of F lounges already mentioned is a good one)

NZ offer a fare with NO baggage allowance... *G are entitled to an "additional" bag or baggage weight....

The problem is that the word Additional can be fairly interpreted as requiring an allowance to start with..

If I have one car and get a second one it can be termed an "additional" car...

If I don't have a car at all, and then get one, who here would describe it in those terms?

So.. while I don't LIKE either situation, I tend to think claims of "rule breaking" are incorrect..

If someone could quote *A rules that CLEARLY indicate those airlines are in the wrong I would be happy to see them...

Xiaotung

I agree that it logically makes sense to allow just one lounge access in any airport. The alliance has no obligation to give you multiple lounge access.

NZ may be able to get away with the Seat Only with your interpretation. But how do you explain their Business Class allows no extra bag? I would be interested in your thought.

cavemanzk

Easy, they have enforced a maximum checked baggage limit. Which is part of there terms of service.

Who really needs more than 3 bags anyway? that does total 69kg

Xiaotung

Interesting. I have to question your ability to understand the English language. No offence. Have a read of the *G rule:

Extra Baggage Allowance - an additional 20kg (44 pounds) where the weight concept applies, or one additional piece of luggage where the piece concept applies.

Name one other *A carrier who enforces a maximum limit. If they can set or manipulate the limit then who needs rules?

You may be right that most people don't need more than 69kg. But what if I just need to check in more than 3 light pieces? I can't understand why premium pax can't have that flexibility.

I find there are always people who defend whatever NZ which is really quite shocking.

Rebound

AKL-LHR in August in Business, my one bag was 26KG, i had to take 3 KG's out and move into my carry on... otherwise a $75 excess baggage fee...

What a joke!

Xiaotung

Anything between 23 and 32 kg should count as 2 pieces instead of charging excess fee in my opinion.

zqsn5678

Excellent example of 23 kg per bag for c pax. Hardly any airlines limit their C/F pax with 23 kg per bag. They all allow 32kg per bag with x number of pieces.

cavemanzk

Bags over 23kg require a 2 person lifting method therefore costs the airline more. Both increased staffing and increased ACC levy's.