So what would happen if BA did this in their lounges
Mar 13, 2015, 7:55 pm
#32
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: US Air, UA BA LH AI DELTA MARRIOTT CHOICE SGP
Posts: 9,883
When a vendor sells something at a agreed upon price ( regardless of discounts, currency, awards,2-41- , ) which it also lists at $18000, then you are entitled to what it promises for $18000.
Mar 13, 2015, 8:05 pm
#33
Join Date: May 2014
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,092
It's used by the poster as part of some sort of "I deserve better because I paid so much!" moral complaint. But the reality is that the majority of people in those lounges haven't paid a whole lot, many in fact having paid nothing themselves. And it's a bit *rich* to use price point as a means to gain the moral high ground for your demand to get thoroughly wasted on your employer's dime.
Mar 13, 2015, 9:11 pm
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Programs: ►QFWP/LTG►VA WP►HyattExpl.►HiltonGold►ALL Silver
Posts: 21,995
Cut off after 3 drinks in 1¾ Hours - RSA Cited - MEL F/L
This thread should be retitled:
"Cut off after 3 drinks in 1¾ Hours - RSA Cited - MEL F/L"
The unreasonableness of such is basically what it's about ...
"Cut off after 3 drinks in 1¾ Hours - RSA Cited - MEL F/L"
The unreasonableness of such is basically what it's about ...
Mar 13, 2015, 9:20 pm
#35
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK now Melbourne
Programs: QF Plat (OWE)
Posts: 74
Mar 14, 2015, 2:53 am
#36
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austria (Vbg)
Programs: LX SEN, BA Gfl/GGL, IC Dia, HH Dia, Hyatt LT GLOB
Posts: 1,585
Ensuring that customers do not become intoxicated is their job as is
Encourage customers courteously and diplomatically to drink within appropriate limits.
Recognise erratic drinking patterns as an early sign of possible intoxication and take appropriate action.
Politely decline requests for alcohol to be dispensed in a manner that is irresponsible , or which encourages the rapid or excessive consumption of alcohol , and advise customers of the reasons for the refusal.
That the response that the complaint to qantas came back with comfirmed that the staff were acting in accordance to the airline's policy seems that to suggest that it they did their job
Encourage customers courteously and diplomatically to drink within appropriate limits.
Recognise erratic drinking patterns as an early sign of possible intoxication and take appropriate action.
Politely decline requests for alcohol to be dispensed in a manner that is irresponsible , or which encourages the rapid or excessive consumption of alcohol , and advise customers of the reasons for the refusal.
That the response that the complaint to qantas came back with comfirmed that the staff were acting in accordance to the airline's policy seems that to suggest that it they did their job
In which world are we living today? Where is one's own responsability? I must really go back a long time to remember an intoxinated person in a lounge - it's not an everydays problem. If you do apply this RSA logic, most passengers in the CCR or the GF would be "dry" after a short time based on my last vists there and seeing how the champagne bar is frequented
And we all know how many top-ups of G+T are possible on a European flight and the crew is happily offering it, on my last LHR-ZRH flight, the passenger next to me in 1F had 3 refills in an hour... 
I don't drink on my CE flights because I have to drive - I am responsible! This is even when being offered more booze during the flight or when the bar is open in the lounge - I am responsible for myself and my safety.
And just to be clear: if someone is intoxinated, he/she should not be served! Period. But following a "health & safety" (a la compliance) approach is a little bit far stretched IMHO. The next time you won't get served a burger in the CCR/GF as this has been the fifth time in the week passing through and to prevent obesity the staff suggests a salad instead!
And to keep in mind, one reason for RSA being in place is also to mitigate liability during a lawsuit involving intoxication by providing evidence of intent on the part of the establishment that serves and sells alcoholic beverages - a "reasonable efforts defense."
Mar 14, 2015, 8:50 am
#37
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania
Programs: Milege+, SkyMiles, AAdvantage, HHonors Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,685
Mar 14, 2015, 9:28 am
#38
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: US Air, UA BA LH AI DELTA MARRIOTT CHOICE SGP
Posts: 9,883
It's not used on a contractual level - because technically the price paid has absolutely no bearing on whether you are allowed or not allowed to get hammered in a lounge. Establishments licensed to serve alcohol all have to follow the law on alcohol whether they serve discounted pints of lager or extravagantly expensive champagne.
It's used by the poster as part of some sort of "I deserve better because I paid so much!" moral complaint. But the reality is that the majority of people in those lounges haven't paid a whole lot, many in fact having paid nothing themselves. And it's a bit *rich* to use price point as a means to gain the moral high ground for your demand to get thoroughly wasted on your employer's dime.
It's used by the poster as part of some sort of "I deserve better because I paid so much!" moral complaint. But the reality is that the majority of people in those lounges haven't paid a whole lot, many in fact having paid nothing themselves. And it's a bit *rich* to use price point as a means to gain the moral high ground for your demand to get thoroughly wasted on your employer's dime.
It is a rare gift when one can say with authority when someone else writes and one ascribes the motives. If most people did not pay $ 18000, then maybe they are jealous that person X can ?
Mar 14, 2015, 9:39 am
#39
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: TK*G (E+), IHG Plat Ambassador
Posts: 7,884
Mar 14, 2015, 10:09 am
#40
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: QFF Gold, Flying Blue, Enrich
Posts: 5,366
Mar 14, 2015, 10:23 am
#41
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,940
To answer the OP's question, there would be a lot of huffing and puffing on here to start with (never flying with BA again, CX won't ever do this etc.), tailing off to a residual protracted whinge with occasional added jibes. After about 2 years, all will be forgotten and it will be business as usual. The older members here will be free however to tell tales of what it was like before the changes.
Mar 14, 2015, 12:15 pm
#43
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
You really should read the linked thread. Keeping people legally sober is not RSA. Keeping people legally sober is so far removed from intoxicated it is laughable to even suggest this has something to do with RSA. Enforcing this as a fixed airline policy that applies to all people regardless does in fact ignore RSA which is supposed to be about the individual patron.
Given the scary consequences for breaching these regulations (I have previously been licensed under the RSA scheme), I hardly think erring on the side of caution is beyond the limits of reason. That's also why when I worked in a UK supermarket I ended up checking the ID's of a handful of people who turned out to be in the 30's - yes it may be incredibly unlikely that they're under-age, but I'm not going to risk a criminal record over it.
That being said, I'd be more inclined to believe that this was a cost-cutting measure more than anything.