15 year old son not allowed in lounge
 

From https://www.qantas.com/us/en/frequen...ub/access.html :

As the lounge staff implied, this will be a part of their liquor license, not just a Qantas policy. Both the passenger and Qantas can be liable to fines, up to and including the loss of their license.

It's also stated in the T&Cs for the Qantas Club :

I feel totally sympathetic to your story, and it sounds like they were not very nice about it, but it's true - the liquor licenses mean he shouldn't be in there because he can go up to the self serve liquor and get whatever he wants, no ID required. If there was a liquor license sting, there would legitimately be a huge fine and they would lose their license, an absolute disaster.

Also I don't know about Qantas, but with the Air NZ Koru lounge pass you can't use it to get someone else in, even your own flesh and blood unless you are there and they are a guest.

There is so much about this story that doesn't make sense.

Platinum gets the same lounge access as Platinum One. So daddy's P1 card makes no difference there. So why give it to him? Was it meant to be a "Don't You Know Who My Daddy Is" to get Qantas to break the rules?

I suspect it may be that using his own card , it may well have flagged to the member of staff that this person was under the age of 18 and declined access

The agent in Brisbane was perfectly correct in that (a) the kid is not allowed to use the card and (b) needs to be accompanied by an adult

Whether the aspects relating to a fine are correct or just being made up or exagerrated, I don't know

My guess is the card was used since if he had tried to get in on his own ticket and platinum status his age would have showed up on screen and he would have been denied? So perhaps the card is a way to avoid that happening.
​​​​​​
I am not criticising it. I would probably try it myself. But I wouldnt be surprised when it didn't work!

It would surely also raise eyebrows if his age showed up as 50!

Nice little rant, but no real complaint. The lounge dragon just followed the rules and OP was technically committing a fraud. I am surprised that OP even has balls to write about it here...

When I was 18/19 I looked extremely young and was hired to vet companies (as a mystery shopper, not as an official sting but as a practice for a real sting) to see if they would sell me alcohol. Pretty much everyone declined me, except one time at one store. I felt pretty bad because that person probably just instantly lost their job, so I take liquor licenses pretty seriously as a result of being on the other side.

A bad life lesson for a teenager !

OP broke the rules, by giving his card to someone else, even his son, particularly when his son had sufficient status but needed the treasured "fake ID" to get into a bar.

Given the seriousness of the issue to the carrier, OP is very lucky. There are many carriers which would have revoked status on the spot.

Im lost on why the person would have instantly lost their job - since you were 18, the person didn't commit any wrongdoing surely?

Usually the problem is that the cashier didn't ask for an ID

Legally they were required to ID me here in New Zealand as I looked well under 25.

If travelling domestically alone your 15 year old should be declared to QF (..."You should list your child as a Young Passenger so they are identifiable to crew in the event of a delay or disruption..."): did you do this?!

The irony in this case is that QF would allow the 15 year old to supervise younger children during domestic travel (further rules apply to international travel for obvious reasons).

As others have stated, liquor laws are usually strict and good on QF for applying them.

There are some anomalies in liquor laws (remarkably in the state of QLD you do not have to be over 18 or even 16 to serve alcohol in a bar, for example, only of legal age to work (13 years) and be paid the adult rate of pay according to the minimum standards set by the Hospitality Industry General Award, so your son could have a job in a bar, but not drink or be served in said bar in QLD).

So in this case, QF is (probably) simply applying the legislation in a responsible manner.

It MAY also be the situation that the outbound flight was during hours of non service of alcohol and the inbound when the bar was operational, which is why the lounge agent was more relaxed (although did not follow the rules and on that basis IMHO QF should not have allowed your son into the lounge in SYD.).

There is also the point that QF probably doesn't want folk handing out their loyalty cards to others to claim benefits, which aren't due to that person and / or would be applying due diligence to ensure the card had not be "found" or stolen.

I'm not for a minute suggesting you yourself are a bad parent, but do consider that situations and perceptions differ and what might be the norm and "heathy" in one case does not necessarily apply in another.

For example, deciding to use 15 year old as a "babysitter" in such a public and high activity environment, may reflect parenting styles and individual personalities / maturity levels of kids differ: no problem in many cases (aside the liquor laws).

QF itself allows supervision by a 15 year old when travelling.

On the other, by way of contrast, placing a child into an adult role can have dire unintended psychological consequences in certain specific scenarios (e.g. becoming a surrogate adult partner in separation cases). A former partner was brought up in a household where the kids were expected to be surrogate parents in various respects and this did them no end of lasting psychological harm.

Facilitating maturity and independence and self confidence good - transfer of roles bad. Somewhere balance!

IMHO QF lounge staff shouldn't be accepting the role of responsible adult when you go off duty free shopping and should presumably be informing you not to leave the children unaccompanied in the lounge! Apart from compliance with the liquor legislation, consider what the legal liability would be in the event of an accident or event! QF would likely be unwilling to incur any unnecessary business risk. Since your children are supposed to be accompanied in the lounge it might be that you would be legally responsible for any mishap even though not physically present - perhaps some liability defaults to QF(perhaps a legal brain herein can clarify).

QF has to be legally compliant on the one hand (i.e. manage alcohol responsibly) yet apply balanced rules on the other (e.g. allow accompanied travel with a 15 year old sibling).

FWIW, as traveller, I would not expect to come across children of any age under 18 in a lounge unaccompanied by an adult on the basis of liquor laws and my own personal opinions on responsible parenting. I avoid buying drinks in our local QLD bars / restaurants manned by staff blatantly under 18 years (although it's legal). I would probably bring unaccompanied children in a lounge to the attention of the QF lounge staff. I respect opinions will differ, perhaps strongly, on such matters, and my opinion should not be taken as a personal criticism of the OP.

What does that even mean? How impossibly subjective is that? I can see why many places now have a "card everyone" policy if staff are meant to try to make judgement calls like that. Ive seen high school students who I would take for much older, and 40 somethings who look more like teenagers to me.... (My cousin Ian was being asked for ID well into his 40's... He used to show them a photo of his wife and 3 kids...lol)

If the staff member in question says "looked over 25 to ME" how can anyone second guess that? Ridiculous.