Does WP guest for Qantas F lounge need to be on same flight?

[durbrain]

Not just me. It is logical that you are a Qantas Platinum in the eyes of Qantas staff. A Oneworld Emerald is anyone with that tier from other Oneworld airlines. If Qantas didn’t want to distinguish between the 2 there wouldn't be this wording in the rules.

It may be 'logical' to you, but there is nothing to back this claim. And there needs to be separate wording for QF status and OW status entitlements because there are situations where you can have QF status but not OW and vice versa.

Your interpretation is slightly flawed. You can't be a Oneworld Emerald when flying Qantas and a Qantas Platinum when flying Jetstar. You are one or the other not either when it suits you. Obviously a Oneworld Emerald flying Jetstar has no access to First lounge?.

Under strict interpretation of the QF and OW rules as stated, you are both QF WP and OWE when flying QF metal, but only QF WP when flying Jetstar. I agree a non-QF OWE has no access the First lounge when flying Jetstar (even on a QF codeshare). It is your assumption that the 2 schemes are mutually exclusive, but I have not seen any evidence to back this.

Aldo don't take everything you hear from call centre staff as gospel. Most times I know more than they do and I am sure I am not the only person here on AFF in that situation. Many call centre staff have thanked me for bringing them up to date with things they did not know.

Anyway hope that Red Roo can respond to finally clarify the interpretation in your eyes.

I agree. But what I was told was explained in a rationale manner with specific examples outlined and is in keeping with the rules as stated so I choose to believe him.

 

[dairyfloss]

Wow - Hot topic. Just wanted to add (?) a data point to the positive for having had OW rules applied after politely asking in advance, on arrival, to guest a colleague at the SYD F Lounge. I was flying QF to SIN. He was flying CX to HKG, and running 15 mins behind me. Lounge Angel at the time said "Absolutely, no problem - so long as he's on a OW flight today, we're ok"... I've only ever had need to ask this once, so can't add anything more than that.

Edit: this was in or about June last year.

Cheers,
Matt.

 

[defurax]

Wow - Hot topic. Just wanted to add (?) a data point to the positive for having had OW rules applied after politely asking in advance, on arrival, to guest a colleague at the SYD F Lounge. I was flying QF to SIN. He was flying CX to HKG, and running 15 mins behind me. Lounge Angel at the time said "Absolutely, no problem - so long as he's on a OW flight today, we're ok"... I've only ever had need to ask this once, so can't add anything more than that.

Edit: this was in or about June last year.

Cheers,
Matt.

But according to the OP this is only an anecdote and completely irrelevant! :mrgreen:

 

[durbrain]

But according to the OP this is only an anecdote and completely irrelevant! :mrgreen:

Yes agree. Far stronger evidence is strict interpretation of the rules as stated on QF and OW websites. But thanks for posting that anecdote nonetheless!

 

[dairyfloss]

But according to the OP this is only an anecdote and completely irrelevant! :mrgreen:

It wasn't irrelevant to my colleague traveling on CX, who had absolutely no idea such a fantasy place ever existed! I'll be sure to go in 'A Current Affair' hidden camera mode, for next time!

Cheers,
Matt

 

[Abdul_A350]

I just asked the First Host when contacted for my trip tomorrow, she consulted a colleague or perhaps even two, it took a little while, and the answer was that "OneWorld Emerald" status for the purpose of a Qantas lounge means status earned with another airline. Which is a very similar position to the second post in this thread. But of course still purely anecdotal.

 

[Kangol]

durbrain, this is evidence to show that you are wrong.
When you lose, don't lose the lesson.
The point here is not for any of us to disgrace you in public or bring shame to your family or highlight your failure (you don't need help with that), but to provide written and truthful information for the good of the community.

This is from my sister who enquired about an identical situation.
Online chat on the QF website:

So the whole "an airline can set whatever rules they want for their own FF members" comes true - whether they be the same or different to the OW agreement for alliance partners.

To repeat:

The one world emerald status eligibility is for members that are not Qantas's but our one world alliances loyalty programmes.

 

[defurax]

So it took 8 minutes for the agent to provide the answer, that's quicker than the 2 weeks the OP had to wait for clarification!

 

[andye]

An interesting demonstration of cognitive biases (confirmation, expectation and optimism primarily).

The initial answer seemed logical, was beneficial to the customer and was given to the OP by a plausible source. However, it was wrong, as the multiple experienced experimenters knew

 

[durbrain]

durbrain, this is evidence to show that you are wrong.
When you lose, don't lose the lesson.
The point here is not for any of us to disgrace you in public or bring shame to your family or highlight your failure (you don't need help with that), but to provide written and truthful information for the good of the community.

This is from my sister who enquired about an identical situation.
Online chat on the QF website:

To repeat:

Yes, thank you. But that is the opposite of what I was told. So I am not sure how your chat 'trumping' my advice also by an FF team member 'proves' your point. As I said, I am satisfied as to the interpretation that my agent provided me as it is in line with every word in both the QF and OW rules. I have no doubt your chat dude also feels he is correct. They can't both be right.

I will await clarification from Red Roo.

 

[defurax]

So I am not sure how your chat 'trumping' my advice also by an FF team member 'proves' your point.

I thought you wanted some evidence in writing...while you can only provide hearsay from a phone conversation...

 

[durbrain]

I thought you wanted some evidence in writing...while you can only provide hearsay from a phone conversation...

Urrr...how does advice via online chat from an FF agent 'trump' advice over the phone from an FF agent?

I will accept an official statement from Red Roo or some other equally authoritative statement. Online chat to 'disprove' my phone chat hardly does it.

 

[durbrain]

If I type out a transcript of my phone conversation does that make it more official?

 

[Kangol]

Yes, thank you. But that is the opposite of what I was told. So I am not sure how your chat 'trumping' my advice also by an FF team member 'proves' your point. As I said, I am satisfied as to the interpretation that my agent provided me as it is in line with every word in both the QF and OW rules. I have no doubt your chat dude also feels he is correct. They can't both be right.

I will await clarification from Red Roo.

There is a difference between evidence and proof. I did not use the words proof, prove nor proves. If you do not understand why that is important, it would be of benefit to you to learn it first and then resume interacting with other humans.

I don't know the identity of this "chat dude", but my reasonable interpretation is that Teresa is a female name.

The important part again: "The one world emerald status eligibility is for members that are not Qantas's but our one world alliances loyalty programmes."

Not your night, or day, or week, or past couple of months, is it...

 

[defurax]

I will accept an official statement from Red Roo or some other equally authoritative statement. Online chat to 'disprove' my phone chat hardly does it.

But why would you believe Red Roo? Just another QF employee...
Even though it's been quite enjoyable, I think I'm done with this silly thread.

Thanks again Kangol for posting the online chat!

 

[durbrain]

There is a difference between evidence and proof. I did not use the words proof, prove nor proves. If you do not understand why that is important, it would be of benefit to you to learn it first and then resume interacting with other humans.

I don't know the identity of this "chat dude", but my reasonable interpretation is that Teresa is a female name.

The important part again: "The one world emerald status eligibility is for members that are not Qantas's but our one world alliances loyalty programmes."

Not your night, or day, or week, or past couple of months, is it...

Dude, if playing semantics if your thing then knock yourself out. "Proof" or "evidence", whatever wankerish term you prefer, your implication was that your chat dialogue was "evidence" that I was wrong. I am saying your chat dialogue offers conflicting information to that given to me over the phone. I do not see how your "evidence" trumps my "evidence".

I can read. I do not agree with what your chat dudette has stated. Happy international women's day.

 

[Kangol]

An interesting demonstration of cognitive biases (confirmation, expectation and optimism primarily).

The initial answer seemed logical, was beneficial to the customer and was given to the OP by a plausible source. However, it was wrong, as the multiple experienced experimenters knew

Right out of Kahneman & Tversky, Taleb, Ariely.... who else?

 

[durbrain]

But why would you believe Red Roo? Just another QF employee...
Even though it's been quite enjoyable, I think I'm done with this silly thread.

Thanks again Kangol for posting the online chat!

Well then I'm not sure any level of 'proof' will be satisfactory to you. If that is the case, then ppl such as yourself are better off doing what they believe in. Those who believe they are entitled to OW access/guesting rights can attempt to utilise those rights (and in the case of hindrance, refer to the rules as outlined by my FF agent). Those who adamantly believe that we are wrong can continue living in their world where they are treated as 2nd class citizens by Qantas. No harm to the latter group, a potential benefit to the former. Everyone is a winner!

 

[JohnK]

Yes, thank you. But that is the opposite of what I was told. So I am not sure how your chat 'trumping' my advice also by an FF team member 'proves' your point. As I said, I am satisfied as to the interpretation that my agent provided me as it is in line with every word in both the QF and OW rules. I have no doubt your chat dude also feels he is correct. They can't both be right.

I will await clarification from Red Roo.

I am not sure what clarification you need.

To Qantas you are a Qantas Platinum. To Cathay, AA, BA, MH, Finnair etc you are Oneworld Emerald.

It really cannot be any clearer.

 

[Abdul_A350]

Well then I'm not sure any level of 'proof' will be satisfactory to you. If that is the case, then ppl such as yourself are better off doing what they believe in. Those who believe they are entitled to OW access/guesting rights can attempt to utilise those rights (and in the case of hindrance, refer to the rules as outlined by my FF agent). Those who adamantly believe that we are wrong can continue living in their world where they are treated as 2nd class citizens by Qantas. No harm to the latter group, a potential benefit to the former. Everyone is a winner!

If you speak to people at the lounge you are about to attend the next day, it can perhaps be considered an accurate sign of what the rules will be when you arrive.