LAX lounge question
Sep 11, 2002 | 8:45 pm
#17
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Circle City
Posts: 3,568
*sigh*...
1. BA/QF lounge is horrible.
2. CX/LA lounge is horrible.
3. Admiral Club in T3 is horrible.
4. Admiral Club in T4 is horrible, but not as horrible as the others.
5. Right now, there are five Oneworld airlines operating out of Tom Bradley (QF, BA, CX, LA, and EI)
6. Those five airlines have (iirc) 10 flights a day going out, four of which are Qantas.
7. AA is building a new Flagship lounge in Terminal 4, due to open sometime between tomorrow and eternity.
8. When the Flagship lounge opens in Terminal 4, Qantas will move operations.
9. Oneworld won't build a lounge because the member airlines are cheap.
Conclusion: There is not a decent Oneworld lounge in LAX for the same reason there isn't in Tokyo. No airline claims it as a hub, so it won't be provided by a "host" airline, and so it is truly shared, and the costs will truly be shared. All the airlines will look at it as a single route, as in, "why should we pay that much more for a lounge for a destination that is only one of many of our destinations?" Then the fact that Qantas is leaving is factored in, and the justification goes down even further. I just stated that I don't agree with this logic. Nothing more, nothing less.
1. BA/QF lounge is horrible.
2. CX/LA lounge is horrible.
3. Admiral Club in T3 is horrible.
4. Admiral Club in T4 is horrible, but not as horrible as the others.
5. Right now, there are five Oneworld airlines operating out of Tom Bradley (QF, BA, CX, LA, and EI)
6. Those five airlines have (iirc) 10 flights a day going out, four of which are Qantas.
7. AA is building a new Flagship lounge in Terminal 4, due to open sometime between tomorrow and eternity.
8. When the Flagship lounge opens in Terminal 4, Qantas will move operations.
9. Oneworld won't build a lounge because the member airlines are cheap.
Conclusion: There is not a decent Oneworld lounge in LAX for the same reason there isn't in Tokyo. No airline claims it as a hub, so it won't be provided by a "host" airline, and so it is truly shared, and the costs will truly be shared. All the airlines will look at it as a single route, as in, "why should we pay that much more for a lounge for a destination that is only one of many of our destinations?" Then the fact that Qantas is leaving is factored in, and the justification goes down even further. I just stated that I don't agree with this logic. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sep 11, 2002 | 9:27 pm
#18
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Boca Raton, FL DL FO/MM AA EXP SPG PLT
Posts: 968
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Darren:
9. Oneworld won't build a lounge because the member airlines are cheap.
Conclusion: There is not a decent Oneworld lounge in LAX for the same reason there isn't in Tokyo. No airline claims it as a hub, so it won't be provided by a "host" airline, and so it is truly shared, and the costs will truly be shared.</font>
9. Oneworld won't build a lounge because the member airlines are cheap.
Conclusion: There is not a decent Oneworld lounge in LAX for the same reason there isn't in Tokyo. No airline claims it as a hub, so it won't be provided by a "host" airline, and so it is truly shared, and the costs will truly be shared.</font>
AA has two daily flights out of SCL and five codeshares operated by LA. Yet, they have a lounge in SCL comparable to the great LA lounge.