P1 Fail

[boomy]

Definitely. The exit row seat with no one in front, or a PE seat with someone in front, albeit a little further away than a standard Y seat. I know which one I'd choose.

I would choose PE any day, especially QF PE which is probably best in the category. F&B much better then Y to enjoy day flights and on night flights it's acceptable to recline on all classes anyway, making the PE seat more comfortable for sleep then Y seat.

I do get the point of loosing space if someone reclines in front of you. On B737, if are unlucky to sit on row 2 or 3 and someone reclines in front of you it becomes worse then row 4 and even worse then rows 13/14 but given the choice of exit row with no one in the front or J seat with someone maybe reclining in the front, I don't know anyone who will decline the upgrade

 

[ozbeachbabe]

As I've commented earlier - choice between 34B on 747 PE vs Row 32 on 380 Y - I'll take the 380 seat without hesitation.

I also find/notice a significant difference in my comfort when disembarking from a 380 vs a 747. Noise, pressure etc all have a significant impact.

If I HAD to fly on a 747 in Y and I had run of the cabin, by myself - I'd take an exit row. With SWMBO I'd take one of the rear pairs. But as I've said - I wouldn't choose QF if that was my flight option.

What's the legroom like in 34B compared to 43C? Is the legroom better say in a non-bulkhead row 35B than 34B?

As I mentioned in another thread about A380 seating in whY, I chose 32K on QF2 DXB/SYD which I was happy with although next time given the choice I think I would rather 33K so I could stretch my legs under the seat in front.

My ankles got puffy and that hasn't ever happened to me previously on any flight - even in whY, so I'd rather run the risk of 32K reclining into me and know I could stretch my legs out fully.

I'll stick with row 44 for QF15 in October I think unless a pair of seats opens up down the back in the second or third row of the two's.

 

[dfcatch]

I would choose PE any day, especially QF PE which is probably best in the category. F&B much better then Y to enjoy day flights and on night flights it's acceptable to recline on all classes anyway, making the PE seat more comfortable for sleep then Y seat.

I do get the point of loosing space if someone reclines in front of you. On B737, if are unlucky to sit on row 2 or 3 and someone reclines in front of you it becomes worse then row 4 and even worse then rows 13/14 but given the choice of exit row with no one in the front or J seat with someone maybe reclining in the front, I don't know anyone who will decline the upgrade

Given my compact nature - the extra recline/pitch of PE is less important to me than exit/bulkhead/primo seat position or aircraft. F&B doesn't bother me on TPAC flights as I usually overindulge in the lounge. (Have ruined WAY too many degustations )

But of course - random Y seat compared to random PE seat - that's different.

But I don't leave seat selection to chance on TPAC flights. A MEL-SYD - don't care nearly as much.

Totally agree with what you say about the 737.

What's the legroom like in 34B compared to 43C? Is the legroom better say in a non-bulkhead row 35B than 34B?

As I mentioned in another thread about A380 seating in whY, I chose 32K on QF2 DXB/SYD which I was happy with although next time given the choice I think I would rather 33K so I could stretch my legs under the seat in front.

My ankles got puffy and that hasn't ever happened to me previously on any flight - even in whY, so I'd rather run the risk of 32K reclining into me and know I could stretch my legs out fully.

I'll stick with row 44 for QF15 in October I think unless a pair of seats opens up down the back in the second or third row of the two's.

34B (PE) has much more legroom that 43C (Y).

I didn't compare 35 obviously - but the very compact lady in 35 required wrenching my seatback everytime she wanted to get up or readjust. So assuming she simply isn't just incredibly rude - the clearance ain't that much more. But I think you'd be fine in 34.

380 - yes, 33 will give you much more legroom than 32, at the expense of a recliner, but if traveling with His Lordship, then you don't have any strangers to climb over - so I would think you've got the right plan.

 

[blackcat20]

I would choose PE any day, especially QF PE which is probably best in the category. F&B much better then Y to enjoy day flights and on night flights it's acceptable to recline on all classes anyway, making the PE seat more comfortable for sleep then Y seat.

I do get the point of loosing space if someone reclines in front of you. On B737, if are unlucky to sit on row 2 or 3 and someone reclines in front of you it becomes worse then row 4 and even worse then rows 13/14 but given the choice of exit row with no one in the front or J seat with someone maybe reclining in the front, I don't know anyone who will decline the upgrade

Nope, I'd much rather have no seat in front of me. I don't sleep much/at all so I like to be able to move around as I please, and I feel trapped when there is a seat leaning back towards me. Food...meh. I dont mind Y food, and can eat in the lounge first anyway.

 

[Mr_Orange]

You all seem to be overlooking the benefits of a much wider seat in PE. That, for me, is the clear winner over whY, although the additional leg room and service is nice and welcomed.

 

[andye]

You all seem to be overlooking the benefits of a much wider seat in PE. That, for me, is the clear winner over whY, although the additional leg room and service is nice and welcomed.

Dr Evil's Scottish partner-in-crime would appreciate the wider seat

 

[Mr_Orange]

Dr Evil's Scottish partner-in-crime would appreciate the wider seat

I'm sure he would . Not really relevant, but I am not a portly character, but object to constantly rubbing shoulders with the person next to me as is the case in whY.

 

[RichardMEL]

If you were denied entry to the F lounge, or the domestic J lounge - would you be upset at your denial of benefits to which your status level entitles you?

I haven't seen anyone tackle this one so I'll get someone's shackles up again with my 2 cents

As a WP or SG or whatever, these benefits, such as J lounge/F Lounge access (or whatever) are concrete published benefits. Ignoring the case that someone may be denied to a dom J lounge for wearing thongs and a ripped singlet (let's not go there ) there is, to me a fundamental difference between being denied a concrete published benefit, and a benefit that is open to interpretation such as the P1 SST "promise" (for want of a better word).

ie: you can't argue the notion of a QF Plat having access to all designated OWE First Class Lounges. It's a published and defined benefit (for now ) and as such it's black and white. If you're denied without good reason (see thongs/singlet example above) but because, for example, an agent doesn't understand the rules or has applied them incorrectly then absolutely go to town and jump up and down - I would!

however part of the argument here, at least to my reading, is that the P1 team (or QF anyway) has not provided dfcatch with a benefit they provide. However the wording isn't exactly black and white. On the surface yes, it is (before someone jumps on me) but hold on, when you take the extra circumstances of this case in point, such as when exactly SST were aware of the aircraft change specifically and how they were empowered or not at that time to do anything (prior to dfcatch's call) vs res, or whoever had control of the situation, then it's easy to say they should have monitored and proactively followed up, rebooked, texted, etc etc per the wording of the SST "mantra" but it's simply not that clear to those of us on the outside exactly the sequence of events and if whoever was working SST on the 24th of August into the 25th were able to fulfill that promise (which aside from my somewhat pedantic point here, is still my feeling the core issue here is - of internal qf processes).

flame proof, non ripped, singlet on. fire away

 

[opusman]

I haven't seen anyone tackle this one so I'll get someone's shackles up again with my 2 cents

I didn't tackle it because it was a completely specious argument. But you handled it nicely

 

[dfcatch]

I didn't tackle it because it was a completely specious argument. But you handled it nicely

RichardMel - you missed a major point.

The T&Cs clearly allow the Lounge Manager to deny entry for many, many reasons. Including for example - guest allowances being subject to lounge loading.

So, while you state that WP access to an F lounge (for example) is black and white and not open to interpretation - it's NOT actually as black and white as you explain.

That was the point of my question which Opusman still hasn't answered.

Presumably - he would be upset at the denial of benefit provision at his status level (as you - RichardMel - have outlined well).

I am similarly upset at the lack of benefit provision at my status level.

He didn't respond - because he understands.

Of course - one day in the future - when Opusman suffers a service failure and complains that he doesn't receive a benefit to which he believes is "black and white" - there'll be many on here who tell him he's being unreasonable, that it's just a part of flying etc etc.

I however - won't be expressing any schadenfreude - as I believe a service failure is a service failure is a service failure - period.

Now - if I was complaining because I wasn't granted entry to the CL - then by all means have a go.

But clearly, Opusman feels that benefit provisions are more of a "guideline", so those that criticize him in the future would be fairly within their rights (even though that's not my approach).

 

[opusman]

I didn't respond because you're clearly unable to have a sensible discussion without resorting to name-calling.

Access to lounges is a published benefit of status.

Having your ego stroked and massaged by your personalised SST indentured valet is not, no matter how much you might think your own self-importance entitles you to it.

 

[dfcatch]

I didn't respond because you're clearly unable to have a sensible discussion without resorting to name-calling.

Access to lounges is a published benefit of status.

Having your ego stroked and massaged by your personalised SST indentured valet is not, no matter how much you might think your own self-importance entitles you to it.

No, you made a silly facetious comment to which I called you out as being "silly".

You've acted childish ever since - despite my invitation to you to respond to a legitimate question (which RichardMel has the intellectual capacity to do so in a reasoned manner).

You've resorted to several ad-hominem attacks on me in this thread.


But - I'd like you to respond to my substantive question to you, namely:

"Do you, or do you not support the provision of status benefits to those whom those status benefits have been advertised?"

It's a simple question. You refuse to answer.


I'm all for you challenging me on legitimate questions/factors such as:

1/ whether monitoring of travel is in fact an advertised and promoted benefit of P1

(I and others have provided evidence in this thread that this has in fact been advertised and promoted).

And

2/ whether an aircraft downgrade from a 380 to a 747 constitutes a "disruption" (and therefore whether such "P1 assistance" should be expected)

(I have been informed by a QF staff member that in fact, the QF11 downgrade was indeed listed as an "International Disruption" on their Operations Bulletin (as it was described to me). Red Roo could easily confirm this fact or advise that the staff member advised me inaccurately.



My ego is irrelevant, the provision of published benefits is not.

Once again :

"Do you, or do you not support the provision of status benefits to those whom those status benefits have been advertised?"

And given that, as you put it, "Access to lounges is a published benefit of status", I imagine you'd be disappointed if you were denied that published benefit.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

there is, to me a fundamental difference between being denied a concrete published benefit, and a benefit that is open to interpretation such as the P1 SST "promise" (for want of a better word).

I would consider the below a published benefit and not really open to any interpretation: Unsurpassed service? Ultimate level of personalised service? Making every journey an absolute pleasure???? That is, unless you consider equipment change>seat change>no contact from QF>calls to QF P1 to fix>hands up in air as that's another department as unsurpassed service, the ultimate in personalised service and the prelude for a journey of absolute pleasure? Didn't think so;



Qantas Platinum One - Unsurpassed service and privileges

As our top tier membership level, Platinum One members are rewarded with the ultimate level of personalised service. All the benefits of Platinum apply, plus extra special privileges that make each journey an absolute pleasure.


PS. This thread is best enjoyed with warm popcorn and a pre-flight glass of bubbly

 

[samh004]

Certain posts may have been edited if they crossed the line. Please remember to debate the topic, and not each other.

This thread is open again.

 

[Happy Trails]

P1 Fail = Piffle.
Homophonically, sort of.

 

[RichardMEL]

I'll omit the byplay between dfcatch and opusman - of which I have zero interest in contributing...

RichardMel - you missed a major point.

The T&Cs clearly allow the Lounge Manager to deny entry for many, many reasons. Including for example - guest allowances being subject to lounge loading.

So, while you state that WP access to an F lounge (for example) is black and white and not open to interpretation - it's NOT actually as black and white as you explain.

This is, to me, splitting hairs into minute detail to support an argument. The core comment I made (to me anyway) still applies.

In the case of lounge access as a defined benefit (which was the crux of the core question above) it absolutely is. Indeed, no mention was originally made of guests r attire or any other particular reason one could get banished from a lounge despite status providing that befit.. and even if I did try and take 10 people into the F lounge and they said no, I doubt they would refuse ME and 1 guest (or whatever the exact published benefit is - i think it's 1) from entry - the others would just have to go use the Tiger lounge.

I still feel my argument is still valid. In the case of being refused entry due to guests, or attire or whatever, that is not the airline NOT honouring one's entitlement under the published status benefit but, potentially, an individual case issue. For example if I go to the BNE J lounge in thongs and a ripped singlet and am denied entry, it's not because my status doesn't allow me in, so it's hardly a case of me not being given the benefits of that status.. in fact it would be a case of me ignoring(or forgetting) the published policy of the lounge. Totally different - same with trying to take in too many guests. If I'm entitled to 1 and I try and take in 2, and if the lounge is overflowing and they say sorry but you can only bring 1 in because it's full.. they are still providing the defined benefit. If I choose to go elsewhere because I can't get both my guests in, that's my call.

If a lounge manager, again for example, declares I'm too drunk or rude or whatever to be allowed into the lounge - that's well a judgement call and another issue, but again wouldn't be related to my FF status - which is what you're trying to argue.

Now IF I rocked up to the SYD F lounge with my 1 guest and was turned away and told it was because I was not permitted to with my status specifically, then yes, that would be a denial of published benefit - and I would be pissed off!!!!

Again - there are clearly definied, published benefits at each status level - things like lounge access rights (yes, subject to T&C), priority check-in, boarding, bonus points - so on and so forth - that are clearly stated and clear to verify per published policy. The wording of what the P1 SST offers in terms of special services, is clearly (as this thread shows) open to interpretation (eg: what exactly constitutes a "flight change") - for better or worse it's a grey area - and until QF can provide a written policy one way or the other that definies specific criteria for such things it will forever remain one (and this ignores the whole issue of internal communication within QF and responsibility, and authority of the SST to act, as outlined elsewhere - all of which are very legitimate issues to my way of thinking)

My 3 cents (sorry I know I do ramble on)

 

[RichardMEL]

I would consider the below a published benefit and not really open to any interpretation: Unsurpassed service? Ultimate level of personalised service? Making every journey an absolute pleasure???? That is, unless you consider equipment change>seat change>no contact from QF>calls to QF P1 to fix>hands up in air as that's another department as unsurpassed service, the ultimate in personalised service and the prelude for a journey of absolute pleasure? Didn't think so;



Qantas Platinum One - Unsurpassed service and privileges

As our top tier membership level, Platinum One members are rewarded with the ultimate level of personalised service. All the benefits of Platinum apply, plus extra special privileges that make each journey an absolute pleasure.


PS. This thread is best enjoyed with warm popcorn and a pre-flight glass of bubbly

yes but you've hit on one of the core "issues" here (for me anyway). The marketing guff aside, it seems to me that the issue is how QF categorises a equipment downgrade of this nature. That's it. Nothing else changed.

The other issue, as discussed elsewhere, is of the internal QF processes and authority of the SST, but all of that, I think, is predicated on how QF defines this change. As dfcatch wrote above - is it considered a "disruption" or not? Or perhaps it is by ops and res - for many obvious reasons of crewing, reallocating pax whoose seats no longer exist (specially F), but perhaps not to some other depts (eg: SST) and that is an issue for QF to resolve it seems, or at least clarify.

I ignore all that rubbish about "unsurpassed service" (what does that mean anyway - I mean in a concrete sense) "Ultimate level of personalised service" - as defined by who? Your ME3 sheiks, princes, queens, PM's and Presidents would probably have a far different expectation and experience of such things than me, your 2nd tier P1 member, or someone like my sister who just texted me saying she loved EK Y from ATH-DXB. I am sure MANY of us have very different expectations or ideas reading such flowery language which could be taken to mean anything. Me, as unhealthy as it is, I take it with a large grain of salt.

 

[BD1959]

Apologies, dfcatch, if this has already been covered ... I keep zoning in and out with some of less substantive comments being made.

The crux could be - as others had alluded - that QF do not consider a downgrade to a 747 to be as important as you yourself. You've also highlighted - quite well I thought - where you though QF failed along the way: no proactive calls, no ownership of the issue when you spoke with them etc etc.

Have you - since - called the P1 line and asked to speak with a supervisor and run through why you're feeling so aggrieved and what you think they've failed?

I can hear you say "I shouldn't need to" and I agree, but if this is upsetting you so much that you're posting here (seemingly) every 5 mins:

1. (As I said previously) QF have an ongoing issue of an unhappy P1

2. You're wasting far too much time on people who don't care when you could be getting the core issue addressed.

... just a thought!!

Regards,

BD

 

[JohnK]

Choosing whY over PE seems idiotic to me irrespective of the equipment the seat is on. It takes all sorts though....

Why is it idiotic?

I have been given an op-up from economy bulkhead to 2nd row premium economy and the person in front reclined the entire flight. You don't have to agree but it made my flight uncomfortable. I would have preferred to stay in 43H. Had I been op-uped to a premium economy middle seat that would have been much worse.

I guess we all see things differently and place different importance on certain things.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

I am sure MANY of us have very different expectations or ideas reading such flowery language which could be taken to mean anything. Me, as unhealthy as it is, I take it with a large grain of salt.

Agree. Individual expectations do differ greatly - I guess as I have been lucky to be on the end of great proactive customer service from many different companies I know the level that can be achieved with a little bit of care and process.