Just when you thought you had seen it all in the Qantas lounge...

[drron]

However doing this can be fraught with risk in this enlightened age as I discovered recently. Was told in no uncertain terms by a woman (carrying a bag of shopping in each hand) that she was perfectly able to open doors herself and I really should stop imposing my toxic masculinity on people! And the kicker was I wasn't even aware she was approaching the door from the other side due to the reflective coating on the glass.. As my dear mother used to say, it pays to be be polite...

My standard line is to say Sorry I thought you were a lady. No good comebacks to that line yet.

 

[MARTINE]

Yes sadly - human decency is now rare. Having manners is somehow seen as snobbish.
Lets not mistake respect and consideration for condescension and ‘othering’

 

[RichardMEL]

The mentioned rules seem to be domestic only ? Are they the same for the first class in Sydney or Melbourne ?

You're correct. It's only for certain domestic lounges. International anything goes.... well... I suppose most anything

Post automatically merged: Feb 11, 2023

I would say "sorry I thought you were a man"

Why do I hear this perfectly as pronounced by Basil Fawlty???

 

[RichardMEL]

Some interesting thoughts expressed about the idea of manners vs regulation and even the suggestions of servitude and so on.

Complex issues in some ways which depend on one's own perspective - specially for those of differing cultural backgrounds to the "standard" Australian (ie: white or Western in the main) culture. and generally accepted norms. I can appreciate some differing views specially from the past that contribute to this and how some people might react to some efforts to be polite (eg the door holding example)

It's funny yet not funny that I was trying to talk to a friend recently about the idea of equality and the idea of (as an individual person) treating people fairly and the same no matter gender, race, religion, FF status, footy team (well maybe not Collingwood ) etc etc. I was told as a male this wasn't right and that I had to "do more" for certain minorities and women. I'm not exactly sure what that means when it comes to holding a door or being polite to someone in a shop, cafe .. or lounge, but I digress.

I feel very hesitant to comment further about the problems these days that SOME notion of manners/courtesy can bring - as described earlier - but I was thinking when I read one of the posts that sometimes showing some courtesy can result in a lashback. I've had it once or twice myself and while it can be quite a surprising experience.. I think it probably reflects more on the other person than myself. Most of the time with things like opening doors, I usually hear someone behind me and just hold a door or lift/elevator or whatever open on instinct without seeing who it is (not that it would change my action of course).

I do agree that things like dress codes are nothing to do with manners/courtesy. While an extreme example, I am glad we do not have such things as "Morality Police" in Australia, and in most modern societies. What one wears has nothing to do with how one chooses to act. I remember one time, many decades ago, in the bad part of a certain big US city I would up in a bikie bar full of some very tough and imposing folks. Yep, I was intimidated for sure. Turns out they were a bloody great bunch. We had a great time (specially when the barkeep saw my aussie passport for ID and they were all tickled pink). What start out as a possibly quite worrying evening became a very memorable time. moral: you shouldn't judge a book by its cover - even if it has mangoes.

I would say that manners is about showing respect to others, being aware and thoughtful towards others. Now sure, one could argue that someone who does not want a door held for them - that we should be aware of this - but I can't read minds (thank goodness!). For me it's being polite, treating others the way I would want to be treated and to be considerate of others (so not yelling into my phone, for example).

Luckily this morning in Woolies I did get a thanks and smile from a young lady that I offered to go first as we arrived at a queue point roughly together. Part old fashioned "ladies go first" I suppose (and I can understand why some might have an issue with that) but I am usually a person to defer, so I would motion to go forward if it was a male or female. I am glad I didn't get scolded though for that though.

 

[MARTINE]

Some interesting thoughts expressed about the idea of manners vs regulation and even the suggestions of servitude and so on.

Complex issues in some ways which depend on one's own perspective - specially for those of differing cultural backgrounds to the "standard" Australian (ie: white or Western in the main) culture. and generally accepted norms. I can appreciate some differing views specially from the past that contribute to this and how some people might react to some efforts to be polite (eg the door holding example)

It's funny yet not funny that I was trying to talk to a friend recently about the idea of equality and the idea of (as an individual person) treating people fairly and the same no matter gender, race, religion, FF status, footy team (well maybe not Collingwood ) etc etc. I was told as a male this wasn't right and that I had to "do more" for certain minorities and women. I'm not exactly sure what that means when it comes to holding a door or being polite to someone in a shop, cafe .. or lounge, but I digress.

I feel very hesitant to comment further about the problems these days that SOME notion of manners/courtesy can bring - as described earlier - but I was thinking when I read one of the posts that sometimes showing some courtesy can result in a lashback. I've had it once or twice myself and while it can be quite a surprising experience.. I think it probably reflects more on the other person than myself. Most of the time with things like opening doors, I usually hear someone behind me and just hold a door or lift/elevator or whatever open on instinct without seeing who it is (not that it would change my action of course).

I do agree that things like dress codes are nothing to do with manners/courtesy. While an extreme example, I am glad we do not have such things as "Morality Police" in Australia, and in most modern societies. What one wears has nothing to do with how one chooses to act. I remember one time, many decades ago, in the bad part of a certain big US city I would up in a bikie bar full of some very tough and imposing folks. Yep, I was intimidated for sure. Turns out they were a bloody great bunch. We had a great time (specially when the barkeep saw my aussie passport for ID and they were all tickled pink). What start out as a possibly quite worrying evening became a very memorable time. moral: you shouldn't judge a book by its cover - even if it has mangoes.

I would say that manners is about showing respect to others, being aware and thoughtful towards others. Now sure, one could argue that someone who does not want a door held for them - that we should be aware of this - but I can't read minds (thank goodness!). For me it's being polite, treating others the way I would want to be treated and to be considerate of others (so not yelling into my phone, for example).

Luckily this morning in Woolies I did get a thanks and smile from a young lady that I offered to go first as we arrived at a queue point roughly together. Part old fashioned "ladies go first" I suppose (and I can understand why some might have an issue with that) but I am usually a person to defer, so I would motion to go forward if it was a male or female. I am glad I didn't get scolded though for that though.

I just finished reading an article in Guardian about NZ bringing in mandated portable toilets on van to overcome the ‘freedom van types’ leaving No2’s all over country when travelling (despite access to facilities). I could not believe half the comments saying this was fascist middle class NIMBYism.
Really - since when did it become acceptable or excusable to defend dumping all over the country?

 

[kyle]

The truth is, the dress code is not so much about trying to exclude particular types of clothing - it is about trying to exclude the kind of person who might wear that kind of clothing. It is a very lower-middle class attitude to dress up for a special occasion and to seek the exclusion of people who don't. Those who are genuinely elite are comfortable knowing they are elite and do not feel a need to flex their status. The super-rich have not worn jackets and ties as their leisure wear of choice for a very long time - except when they run up against a dress code.

I agree with this.

Also some people seem to think that if offices can have dress codes, why can't lounges? The obvious difference is, in the office, I get paid so I'll oblige though not 100% willingly, but in the lounge, I'm paying!

 

[JohnK]

Safety? How do you work that out?

I know it's already been mentioned but someone drops a glass of wine/ beer and it shatters all over the place, it's not wise to be walking around barefoot as it's dangerous.

Let's forget this silly "but I'm comfortable" line. When out and about do as others do and everyone is comfortable. Remember a lounge is not your home so it includes no feet up on tables/chairs either.

P.S. that attire is awful.

 

[kyle]

probably the workplace rules apply to those working there and not the travellers or ff members.

If the lady was infact wearing PJs and entered the lounge , did the lounge staff express no objection ? As someone has already highlighted , the rules around dress code mention when you enter but not after you are in.

Exactly. OHS rules apply to employees and not the patrons, but some seem to misinterpret or misrepresent this or just being ignorant.

 

[lovestotravel]

Melon man in Sydney T3 lounge just now at 3pm. Ok he’s a nitwit but also walking around on the phone to see if anyone looking at him.


Melon head is being ignored and heads back to his seat.

In a domestic lounge, makes it even better.

If it was international I'd almost allow it, as I despise getting changed into PJ's in a tiny aircraft toilet

 

[Guvner]

Exactly. OHS rules apply to employees and not the patrons, but some seem to misinterpret or misrepresent this or just being ignorant.

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (OHS Act)​

Public safety aspects:

• Section 2(1)(c) (Object): To ensure that the health and safety of members of the public is not placed at risk by the conduct of undertakings by employers and self-employed persons.
• Section 23(1): An employer must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons other than employees of the employer are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the conduct of the undertaking of the employer.
• Section 24(1): A self-employed person must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the conduct of the undertaking of the self-employed person.

While the OHS Act is focused on the safety of employees, it has a very broad public safety component. Essentially any health and safety hazard created as a result of work or work-related activities can be considered under the public safety scope of the OHS Act.

These aspects are the primary public safety duties which are expanded upon in the more specific requirements of the OHS Act (for example, design of plant and buildings).


Undertakings of employers includes providing a safe environment for everyone who enters the workplace, not just employees. That's the law.

 

[kyle]

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (OHS Act)​

Public safety aspects:

• Section 2(1)(c) (Object): To ensure that the health and safety of members of the public is not placed at risk by the conduct of undertakings by employers and self-employed persons.
• Section 23(1): An employer must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons other than employees of the employer are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the conduct of the undertaking of the employer.
• Section 24(1): A self-employed person must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the conduct of the undertaking of the self-employed person.

While the OHS Act is focused on the safety of employees, it has a very broad public safety component. Essentially any health and safety hazard created as a result of work or work-related activities can be considered under the public safety scope of the OHS Act.

These aspects are the primary public safety duties which are expanded upon in the more specific requirements of the OHS Act (for example, design of plant and buildings).


Undertakings of employers includes providing a safe environment for everyone who enters the workplace, not just employees. That's the law.

That's right. My point about misinterpreting, and reading too much into it. Employers should provide a safe environment and not expose others to risk, meaning if there is spilled liquid and broken glass, it's cleaned up. But imposing a dress code seems to be a way for them to absolve their liability.

And yes I was having lunch barefoot at a licensed cafe in a Sydney seaside suburb on the weekend. They didn't mind at all.

 

[Guvner]

That's right. My point about misinterpreting. Employers should provide a safe environment and not expose others to risk, meaning if there is spilled liquid and broken glass, it's cleaned up. But imposing a dress code seems to be a way for them to absolve their liability.

No it’s about assessing risks and implementing frameworks, controls and codes of conduct which mitigate those risks. The risks are not exclusive to just employees. Mitigating those risks is the legal responsibility of the employer. If the code of conduct includes wearing shoes it’s because the employer has assessed that risk as consequential and likely to occur. That code applies to everyone who enters the workplace, its not selective.
There's proactive and reactive controls. Cleaning up spills or broken glass is reactive. Risk management 101.
I have not misunderstood or misinterpreted anything.

 

[kyle]

No it’s about assessing risks and implementing frameworks, controls and codes of conduct which mitigate those risks. The risks are not exclusive to just employees. Mitigating those risks is the legal responsibility of the employer. If the code of conduct includes wearing shoes it’s because the employer has assessed that risk as consequential and likely to occur. That code applies to everyone who enters the workplace, its not selective.
There's proactive and reactive controls. Cleaning up spills or broken glass is reactive. Risk management 101.
I have not misunderstood or misinterpreted anything.

Obviously some employers are more overzealous than others who choose to be more patron friendly. And of course there is contributory negligence so not sure why some are so strict as we would be responsible for injuries anyway.

 

[JohnK]

Not really. I’m advocating a live and let live position. My own cultural values do not come into it. I cannot see how my enjoyment of the Lounge is affected by whether or not another user is wearing shoes. Especially when everyone is going to remove their shoes the moment they board the plane.

Really? I have not had a flight yet that I'd want to walk around barefoot unless of course you're in your own suite.

The floor is littered with junk I would not want to walk on barefoot and let's not mention the state of the toilets especially the toilet floors.

 

[Quickstatus]

That code applies to everyone who enters the workplace, its not selective.

Given that slips and falls are more significant cause of claims in hospitality than broken glass in the floor, I'm surprised that hospitality industry don't ban high heels

 

[Guvner]

Risk and reward.

 

[Quickstatus]

I don't see patrons asked to wear ear protection equipment when going to a gig/concert. After all industrial hearing loss is a major claim.

Should I care what others wear?.
Yes, if I think that what people wear in the same location somehow impinges on my comfort.

No, if I don't give a s***.

 

[MrJetset]

Melon man in Sydney T3 lounge just now at 3pm. Ok he’s a nitwit but also walking around on the phone to see if anyone looking at him.


Melon head is being ignored and heads back to his seat.

Do you realise how creepy and stalkerish this behaviour is?

If you want to critique his choice of clothing, then please post your outfit from head to toe so we can all judge.

Do you really not understand how Bluetooth headphones and mics work? He is pacing while taking, which is exactly what the other man in the photo is doing. Frakly, I'd rather he did it in this area than right behind my head.

If I ever thought someone was photographing me or my family in a lounge like this, I'd speak to the lounge staff. QF dictate who enters their lounges.

1.3 Qantas reserves the right to refuse access to any person or to ask any person or their guest(s) to vacate the premises.

You may want to reflect why it triggered you so much?

Nope they aren’t sleep wear at all.
They are an Aussie brand
Island Style Clothing

I don’t personally see what the fascination is with what anyone wears in the lounge.
But hey it’s all free publicity I suppose.

Ditto, @Princess Fiona !

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Do you really not understand how Bluetooth headphones and mics work? He is pacing while taking, which is exactly what the other man in the photo is doing. Frakly, I'd rather he did it in this area than right behind my head.

It's very simple. Go into one of the booths on the side of the lounge to carry out your conversation. There is no need for you to be spilling your business in the lounge.

 

[clifford]

I personally don't care what anyone else in the lounge does or wears, as long as it doesn't impact upon my quiet enjoyment of the lounge. And I'm not sure how what anyone wears could do that.