I thought this problem was fixed. This is absolutely disgraceful. It shouldnt matter which terminal STVR was flying out. If he/she was on AA and allowed access into TBIT then what is the issue?? It is absolutely disgraceful Qantas sets their own rules, completely disregarding the oneworld agreement!!

Very, very disheartening indeed. Just when I had my hopes that QF fixed their issues.

I have a flight out of LAX today and will attempt to stop by. Hopefully I don't get escorted out by security.... otherwise will have to send several more complaints...

It could be that QF have some justification for not following the rules: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25650228-post382.html. If the agreement is that the operating carrier of your next flight should pay for your use of the lounge, that carrier is AA, and AA is failing to pay then QF does have some reason to be unhappy. Whether they should be taking it out on the passenger is another matter.

It suggests that AA did not think through having TBIT departures before they had an air side link from T4. However when they have that link passengers with the "right" to access the Oneworld lounge might well prefer to use it so the problem will not go away.

Id take anything a front line lounge employee says with a grain of salt. This is apparently the same employee who claims that the oneworld lounge won't be a oneworld lounge any longer.

There is also this post: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25642812-post14.html

Sure. Assuming that what that agent says is true, the correct way to go about it is to publish a policy (and maybe put up a sign) saying no AA (maybe at every qantas lounge) rather than being passive agreessive about it and taking it out on customers by calling the cops.

My guess as to why that hasnt happend is that it just isn't true.

I was on an AA flight to be clear. Not even sure to whom I could complain. I'm a QF elite and it's a QF lounge but the lounge agent seemed most put off/annoyed with American.

They were not willing to show me anything written. I tried reading the oneworld rules online and the agent started processing other pax while I was reading it. He said its a new policy as of a few months. I did get a business card of a manager ("but I am the manager!" he said at first). It's just an email something like lounge concierge at hallmark aviation dot com

Well, not going to make it to the lounge today as my flight is out of the eagles nest. But I encourage the few of us with nonAA ow status to continue trying....

Did you hear back from BA? I contacted BA exec club after being rejected and they just forward the oneworld lounge access policy to my, stating I had access. Would be nice if they contacted Qantas to explain and clarify the situation

FYI.. "hallmark" is the company that QF uses to manage (the front desk?) the lounge. In the emails that were published, many of the people on the chain were hallmark employees.

I am quite disappointed that QFs Vice President of Operations at LAX has been unable to address this issue. People have reported that he claims to have done so, but these continuing issues point to a significant breakdown.

I have not had a reply yet but I wrote an actual letter to the manager quoted in the press release on the lounge opening. He, or more likely a minion, may eventually reply. I included my email in case he wanted to respond more swiftly!

I have also written to the author of the QF email but haven't had a reply from that direction either.

There seem to be some suggestions that one should really write to AA if it was an AA flight as they are supposed to pay a fee for your entry. This does not seem fair but who knows what arcane rules govern the whole thing.

I have previously used BA status to enter BA lounges on BA flights and AA lounges on AA flights so that particular aspect would not have mattered.

At the time of that press release, there were no AA flights out of TBIT. They could use that argument. Hence the reason why some agents at the lounge have said AA not paying the fees. Whatever the case may be, AA, along with BA, CX, and QF need to sort this out.

I believe the jcl lounge is operated by BA, CX, and QF which is why you see their logos on there but QF taking the lead. Fcl being solely operated by QF.

Qantas manage both lounges: "oneworld Los Angeles Lounge" and the "Qantas First Lounge".

What part doesn't seem fair: that you should have to write AA, or that AA should have to pay for lounge access? Considering that AA probably does have to pay for every lounge entry into a partner lounge, they may not be terribly excited about getting the problem fixed. In fact, they may have put the LIH flight in TBIT specifically because it has a very low number of AC members and thus the lowest amount of passengers inconvenienced due to lack of lounge access. And the yields of the flight may not justify paying for lounge access.

As to whether it's "fair" that AA should have to pay another oneworld carrier for use of their lounge, I don't see any other way it could work. If it were a free-for-all, there would be no incentive for AA or any other carrier to operate a lounge in an airport where there was another oneworld lounge. It would be a race to the bottom.

It may in fact already be sorted out, other than a lack of proper communication to the passenger. It's quite possible that AA has the attitude that it doesn't want to pay for lounge access for the few domestic departures from TBIT, when it operates several AC's at LAX. Also, consider that the state reason for denial of entry by the lounge personnel may or may not have any relation to what the actual reason is.