Leumas

It doesn't matter. As far as I'm concerned - 'Nick' was acting as a QF staff, i.e., a representative. Regardless of whether his actions were his own initiatives or from higher up, I consider that as QF's action. Frankly, if he was only the messenger and personally didn't mind us staying, I suspect a lot of people would say something like that to pass the buck.

It was QF that decided to refuse entry, not Nick.

To me, loyalty is a two-way street. Through their actions (not just this drama, but the QFF changes, etc.), QF have demonstrated that they do not place customer loyalty as high as we (or at least I) think they do. Consequently, I'll be adjusting my behaviour to how I preceive QF preceive us.

Gaia - I fail to see how we were being combative. We didn't break any rules, we were claiming what has always been a documented benefit. We were kicked out not because of capacity problems, not because of noise (we hardly got started), but because QF have implemented "Nick's Rule" for that afternoon. We're merely asking why QF can change the goal posts when situations fit.

NM

Perhaps also section 7.2(b) may have come into play . Not a good move from QF and from what I have read here (I was not there to experience first hand), not handled in an appropriate manner.

I choose to fly QF because I have been well looked after by the airline over many years. And I don't fly on red-e-deals. My last two months will total over A$20,000 in airfares in paid business class when my next ticket is issued later this week. Much of the time I personally pay the difference between my company's economy class travel policy and business class fares. Its Qantas that gets the revenue for my loyalty. I am glad I was not treated in the same manner as other WP members were on the weekend.

everywhere

I remember very well when this happened. It was in the newspapers and enough frequent flyer's I knew changed to QANTAS but only for a few weeks. One nutcase [QC] started sueing and lost [naturally].

Never heard of anyone being ejected from the lounge however.

AndersB

I agree with you gaia that we do plenty of tongue-in-cheek references to alcohol consumption, QP etc that could be viewed as not that high-brow. However, I think it is a between-the-lines way of keeping the discussions informal and open.

As a general observation, I think a customer should be treated with respect, whether frequent or not, whether perceived as sophisticated or not, and whether a Flyertalk member or not.

However, your posting raises the interesting issue if this action by Qantas was targetting Flyertalk members in particular.

Another important question remains: Has Qantas changed lounge access policy for Platinum Flyers, and if so, why has there been no official communication about it?

Fair enough, we should be able to take a look at ourselves in this. In what way do you think has this forum been combative leading up to the OzFest incident?

Lis

Firstly, I was in the Qantas Club on Saturday afternoon. I am SG with an on-hold Qantas Club membership. I also held a legitimate boarding pass for travel that evening. I was also in the Qantas Club for ozfest, and within my rights - as a travelling Gold - brought in techgirl as my guest.

All I can say is that I am completely embarassed at the way my guest was treated in that lounge. As a legitimate traveller, with a right to be in there, (and I was not asked to leave - as I was travelling on an onward flight) I am absolutely mortified that Qantas handled the situation the way it did. I am entirely entitled to bring a guest in with me, if I am travelling that day, and they don't have to be flying.

As one of the few under-25s in the lounge, (*wink* ozstamps) I was well-behaved, and in fact consumed three cups of tea and a few pieces of rockmelon whilst in the lounge. If Qantas had an issue with 'freeloading', perhaps they should consider a Blue Room approach. You'll quickly see me move my business elsewhere.

Just for the record, last week I spent $1,000 on four legs of super-short haul domestic Qantas travel. I am seriously annoyed at the way Qantas has humiliated my guest, as well as all the other international guests who were legitimately in the Qantas Club.

At the same time, I would urge all those affected by Saturday to consider writing a letter to John Anderson supporting the open skies plan so that we can see more competition for Australian travellers and more opportunity to move our business elsewhere.

ozstamps

This Qantas web link below seems crystal clear and totally unambiguous to me as to: "where does it say that a platinum member not travelling can take 2 people".

http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying...s/loungeAccess

Lounge Access at a glance

Qantas Club lounges Partner, associated & oneworld lounges Qantas Club lounges

Domestic Australia and New Zealand lounges

Platinum Frequent Flyers
Access - Can access lounge at any time
Guest - 2 guests (do not need to be travelling)

--------------------

To answer another part of your question, Platinums totally aside I am personally aware of 12 folks in that lounge who had same day OW tickets, and were entitled to, and did invite in a guest. i.e. there are 24 persons right there who absolutely he had no right or cause to evict, and who had been admitted in the usual manner after their flying credentials had been checked at ingress by QC staff. I was sitting at a table of 4 and one of these, a QC member was flying that day, and had a Guest who was sitting with us. Basil Fawlty did not even ask to see this person's ticket. Just ordered us all to finish our drinks and leave.

I know many of these 24 also left in disgust at the jack-booted way this power tripping little twerp was handling the Platinum members, and their guests.

As Dave Noble has posted earlier, the Qantas T+C do say QF reserve the right to restrict entry in case of busy Clubs or inappropriate dress, or inappropriate behaviour etc, etc, and no-one here would have an issue with that I feel sure. Had they simply said "Sorry - you may not enter today" - this thread would not exist.

They do not seem to say in any of their T+C they reserve the right to later aggressively toss out, based on the whim of a power tripping mis-Manager, people who have met all the entry requirements, are well dressed, respectful, very quiet, and are having a quiet drink in a near empty club with their 100% legal entry guests.

The appalling PR this has caused Qantas has already outweighed 100 fold the cost of a few drinks they would otherwise have supplied.

Glen

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Thanks Glen - but wasn't this the link that can no longer be accessed directly from the main QF page? (ie without the direct link you have posted?)

In any event... I have found it elsewhere stated quite clearly under: Qantas Club - benefits - Invite a Guest.

http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying...sClub/benefits

Regards

WG

ozstamps

I got the impression it was this little guy's personal decision on the day to create his own new rule, and as outlined in post #38, this is how he responded to your question:

A few folks on the day had obtained this little guy's name. I do not think I have seen it posted here. Does anyone recall it?

Seems more formal to refer to him as "Mister xxxxxx" and not the "officious little twit" I do agree, but that's tough when no actual name is known.

Glen

AndersB

So guests of travelling members were booted out, not just non-travelling Plats and their guests.
And he ordered a travelling member out of the lounge also.

Amazing.

SFU

Maybe if QF PR Dept had been made officially aware of the gathering in advance, along with pax names and status, they would have realised the opportunity and taken advantage of it - a couple of bottles of champagne on arrival, BTS tour of QF facilities, informal chat with A380 layout design team on facilities frequent/premium passengers would like to see in the new aircraft - such a FANTASTIC opportunity from a PR perspective.

My suspiscion is that the QF lurker may be a QP Manager, took umbridge at his lounge being 'taken advantage of' and "scammed", and took action. Methinks he's currently undergoing a bit of urgent attitude readjustment with the HR team, a sick feeling in his belly.

So, if you want to blow this up, let me know...I've got the contacts all through media. I don't think I'll get Alan Jones or John Laws to bite on this one, though....

IainF

Several years ago, I was due to go to Bali with my wife. The bombing in Kuta happened one week before we were due to go. As a result we were not able to go. Fair enough.

However, the refund from Qantas took 4 months to be returned.
I tried every method possible to get the refund out of qantas, ringing, writing etc.
I finally decided to boycott QF until I got my money ($9000) back.
I had to fly Vermin locally and AIR NZ internationally....both of which I really do not like but....
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79888


I think from memory, I spent several thousand dollars in the period NOT with Qantas.

As I said earlier in this thread, what is the combined number of SC's currently held by the WP's etc who attended and what is that worth $ wise to QF?

ozstamps

If you look at my post #42 you'll see this was indeed the idea last year, and I gather Qantas was not interested whatever. I did not make the approach, but that was the feedback from the FT'er who did. I agree with you, seeing the heavy top Elites from foreign carriers who were in that group, it made perfect business sense. To anyone except Qantas.

To contrast the Qantas strong-arm and aggressive approach, look at post #38 as to what Continental Airlines did just last month for 250 FlyerTalkers. ANYONE on FT who wanted to come was invited, not just CO elites. Anyone reading this was invited.

CO had their CEO and his top 5 Execs wine, dine and organise a behind-the-scenes tour of their operation in Houston. Full formal sit-down dinners we are talking here, at a cost of $10,000s. Not just a few glasses of domestic wine :

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...2&postcount=38

That turned into superb and ongoing PR for CO, and QF saving a few bucks on drinks has blown their foot off here, and created $10,000s of ill-will.

Contrast Qantas appalling handling of their own top Elites and International visitors, to the management of Tarmac Tours.

Tarmac Tours were otherwise fully booked this weekend, and knew the day could not be changed. They added on at great inconvenience to scheduling, a totally separate Tour for our bus of 44 FT'ers. Our driver Ian was the one from last year, who is an airline nut, and empathises totally with the Flyertalker ideals and profiles, indeed he is a regular Airline BB poster himself. They went right out of their way to make a first time exception to the collection at International airport and drop off at domestic - for the folks to hopefully then keep enjoying an hour in the afternoon visiting the Qantas Club.

Tarmac Tours I am sure got an 11 out 10 score for effort and professionalism, and Qantas has got a 'zero minus' score by most scorecards on this thread.

My guess is that Tarmac Tours will in time get HUNDREDS of paid future bookings generated solely by the positive word of mouth and enthusiasm those 44 FT'ers pass on. Had they dug their heels in, and told me the tour was not possible, none of that future business would have eventuated of course.

THAT was smart PR. And contrasts sharply with Qantas attitude. Interesting.

Glen

NM

And add to that the fact that due to a recent rule change by Sydney Airport (not TT), no photography was permitted on the tour. TT took the initiative to inform you before the tour that the rules had changed. That was good proactive customer services, rather than just letting you all turn up with camera in hand only to find they had to be left behind at the Int terminal. Even though they didn't make the rule, and from all accounts do not agree with this new rule, they still took the initiative to inform you about it.

QF on the other hand did not make any effort to inform anyone of this new rule about same day onward travel for lounge access. I am sure that any QF staffers who had read the threads on the board could have very easily determined your email address and let you know beforehand that lounge access was not going to be available.

ozstamps

NM - good points as always. ^

In fact the sign on the screening machine said any items deemed not to comply would be confiscated, so we really appreciated the advice that was pre-advised to us, and indeed not one person was allowed to have a camera on the Tarmac Tour. But likewise none had one confiscated! I needed to give the Tarmac Tour driver a complete printed manifest of all 44 real names on board and country of domicile, and they reserved the right to inspect our photo ID's which we also needed to carry.

It is 100% clear to all who were there that Qantas had this plan worked out well in advance - this was no spur of the moment thing. If someone thought this was "clever" it has backfired enormously.

As you say had Qantas showed the courtesy and awareness and common sense to have communicated this decision in advance to any of those actively involved with the Qantas Club visit, their wishes would have been respected.

My email address has been posted here dozens of times. I'll repeat it again in case someone at QF reading this cares to offer some damage control or explanation or apology - ozstamps at bigpond.net.au

Indeed, we could have all had a far more leisurely lunch AFTER the Tarmac Tour at the Observation Deck lounge than the rushed one we did, so as to visit the Qantas lounge. Everyone loved that elevated venue, and it indeed has a far better view of the airport than the Qantas Club.

Glen

mcsmcs

This whole incident stinks!!!

I have booked my upcoming trip to HKG on Virgin and as per their deal will be given comp gold status. ( this would never happen at QF)

I do at least 8 trips to HKG every year so there goes a lazy 50k in revenue and if all goes well I will take this spend to VA.

MCS