Galleries access... NOT quite 'reinstated'?

[Grogan]

Cheers for that serfty

 

[MEL_Traveller]

well... the only thing is that Athens is a Terraces Lounge... not Galleries... so there is potential that QP still has access on the way home.

Then the remainder as Serfty says - access ok at LHR.

 

[nlagalle]

When this issue was first announced as 'solved' on 27th January, 2012, I (and some others) posted that we thought the handling of whole matter was "NOT well done Qantas". (then came the trashing of us from many others for saying this )

I still say it wasn't handled well then and it is not being handled well now. I just wish I didn't have to say it.

But again: NOT well done Qantas. Soon it will be (a staggering) 5 months.

Sort it out for goodness sakes.

(Sorry Red Roo, nothing personal)

Why is it "not well done Qantas" when everything points to BA moving the goal posts? What would you suggest they do?

 

[eastwest101]

I think - to mix metaphors a bit - it could be a case of BA moving the goalposts and QF being asleep at the wheel....


I am considering running a book on whether "What is the Deal with Priority Boarding on QF?" or this issue is sorted out first....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Why is it "not well done Qantas" when everything points to BA moving the goal posts? What would you suggest they do?

while not wanting to beat up on poor RR, it is not well done because of the time lapse, and the fact that the reported outcome doesn't seem to match with what we were told.

Equally as BA might have moved the goal posts, it could be that QF didn't read the written agreement and the extent of its operation before posting that everything has been 'reinstated'. The odd part is that the QF website was never updated (and still hasn't been). That to me suggests that it is a QF issue, not a BA one.

If QF had been so sure that everything had been fixed, they would have updated the website immediately. That they didn't seems to indicate things were still being worked out perhaps? And if that is the case, why report it had been finalised?

Overall, given this was first reported in October, there has been little general communication of the changes to Q club members as a whole. That means there would still have been passengers turning up at the lounge and being turned away. Is that a good position to leave your members in when a general email could have been sent?

 

[nlagalle]

I think - to mix metaphors a bit - it could be a case of BA moving the goalposts and QF being asleep at the wheel....


I am considering running a book on whether "What is the Deal with Priority Boarding on QF?" or this issue is sorted out first....

Well we don't know the internals between the two but you could be right, they werent paying attention to BA.

As for PB, it seems it is working in most cases..

 

[eastwest101]

while not wanting to beat up on poor RR, it is not well done because of the time lapse, and the fact that the reported outcome doesn't seem to match with what we were told.

Pretty much sums it up.

Equally as BA might have moved the goal posts, it could be that QF didn't read the written agreement and the extent of its operation before posting that everything has been 'reinstated'. The odd part is that the QF website was never updated (and still hasn't been). That to me suggests that it is a QF issue, not a BA one.

I too find it interesting that the QF QC website wasn't updated.

If QF had been so sure that everything had been fixed, they would have updated the website immediately. That they didn't seems to indicate things were still being worked out perhaps? And if that is the case, why report it had been finalised?

Probably we will never get a straight answer on this one.

Overall, given this was first reported in October, there has been little general communication of the changes to Q club members as a whole. That means there would still have been passengers turning up at the lounge and being turned away. Is that a good position to leave your members in when a general email could have been sent?

Even the most diehard QF supporter could only agree with this statement, maybe with all the emphasis on "Commercial Discussions" someone forgot about communication to their own customers? After all - I think the customers don't need all the gory details about QF's commercial arrangements every day but surely if it actually affects QF's customers experience then communication isn't too much to ask for is it?

It dosen't reflect well on BA or on QF that a member here had to do detective work at LHR and post an image of BA's point of view for QC members to find out what is actually going on.

 

[Austman]

Why is it "not well done Qantas" when everything points to BA moving the goal posts? What would you suggest they do?

They should sort it out between themselves and not take nearly 5 months (so far) to do it. I understand there is a problem. I do not understand why it has taken (and only so far) nearly 5 months to sort it out.

 

[nlagalle]

They should sort it out between themselves and not take nearly 5 months (so far) to do it. I understand there is a problem. I do not understand why it has taken (and only so far) nearly 5 months to sort it out.

Who knows what the sticking points are? I've seen negotiations take much longer than 5 months too.

 

[Sprucegoose]

As for PB, it seems it is working in most cases..

It wasn't on Friday 1700 syd to Mel.

It was a free for all......

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Who knows what the sticking points are? I've seen negotiations take much longer than 5 months too.

I must be a bit slow - but it just occurred to me that we must be talking about a LOT of qantas club members using BA lounges... if it was just one or two a day then why would BA care? They'd get a few pounds for the entry fee and the benefit of the member taking a BA flight rather than one of their competitors. If it was just a few people here and there then negotiations could have been done fairly quickly.

Come to think of it this must be a much bigger problem than just Heathrow. For the lounge entry circular to specifically exclude someone originating in New York (and connecting on to Europe), it must also mean there are significant number of members using lounges in outstations as well.

which then leads to the next thing I don't get... if we are talking about significant numbers using it at (say) New York... why would BA want to forego that revenue? It can't just be a case of one person per flight - it only makes sense to place restrictions if there are 5 or 10 people per flight. That would seem to be a lot of $$ (both from the fare and the lounge access fee) that BA is willing to forego.

Something just doesn't seem to add up here. Maybe BA/QF are having a bigger fight about something??

 

[Batesy]

I have been following this issue on this thread and the original thread and it seems to me that the time taken to have this matter still unresolved is clearly unacceptable.
I am confident that if I had a matter of clear importance to my customers and it took me over 5 months to resolve I would be out of a job.
I am QF gold and still have paid QC membership in the bank should I drop down a level. So like any other paid QC member I see this as "I had something, I paid for it, you took a component of it away, but still want me to pay the same cost"

Large public companies that rely on customers to generate their revenue and profits should not take so long to resolve.

 

[The Rok]

If someone is a QC member flying Y on a BA flight from JFK to LHR and then transiting onto a European destination, they will not get access to the Galleries lounge at present. I guess BA's thinking would be that they won't get access on any other airline flying Y either, and they are more than likely going to want the points/status credits so will fly BA regardless.

If BA are sticking to their guns on this then perhaps they have done their own cost/benefit analysis and decided the risk factor of losing business was not high enough. If your own Non Elite passengers do not get access, why allow some other airlines Non Elite passengers to have access?

Much the same as Qantas can amend the terms & conditions of FF membership or QC membership BA can amend the terms and conditions of lounge access that the granted to QF in order to suit their own needs.

I think a lot of people are missing what would appear to me to be BA's aim. They are not just putting new names over the doors of the lounges, they are renovating and rebranding them. It appears they are trying to lift the profile and raise the standard and exclusivity of the lounges, making them more desirable. If you are trying to encourage as many of your own frequent fliers to spend more money and to fly BA more often, then why would you damage that by allowing in Non Elite fliers from another airline? It doesn't make sense.

This issue is not with BA it is with Qantas. Qantas sold a lifetime product they knew they could not guarantee for a lifetime.

They either now have to start building their own international QC's (highly unlikely) or enter an agreement with another Lounge Provider (Priority Pass?) or am and the QC Lounge Access details to exclude BA Galleries lounges.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If someone is a QC member flying Y on a BA flight from JFK to LHR and then transiting onto a European destination, they will not get access to the Galleries lounge at present. I guess BA's thinking would be that they won't get access on any other airline flying Y either, and they are more than likely going to want the points/status credits so will fly BA regardless.

If BA are sticking to their guns on this then perhaps they have done their own cost/benefit analysis and decided the risk factor of losing business was not high enough. If your own Non Elite passengers do not get access, why allow some other airlines Non Elite passengers to have access?

Much the same as Qantas can amend the terms & conditions of FF membership or QC membership BA can amend the terms and conditions of lounge access that the granted to QF in order to suit their own needs.

I think a lot of people are missing what would appear to me to be BA's aim. They are not just putting new names over the doors of the lounges, they are renovating and rebranding them. It appears they are trying to lift the profile and raise the standard and exclusivity of the lounges, making them more desirable. If you are trying to encourage as many of your own frequent fliers to spend more money and to fly BA more often, then why would you damage that by allowing in Non Elite fliers from another airline? It doesn't make sense.

This issue is not with BA it is with Qantas. Qantas sold a lifetime product they knew they could not guarantee for a lifetime.

They either now have to start building their own international QC's (highly unlikely) or enter an agreement with another Lounge Provider (Priority Pass?) or am and the QC Lounge Access details to exclude BA Galleries lounges.

BA can't really amend the access conditions... they have (had) a contractual arrangement with qantas coverng qantas club access. so they are not free to do as they wish... unless that agreement was time limited and it has now expired.

BA seems to have gone beyond galleries... even if we exclude those, they now seem to be denying access at terraces as well potentially (althoug that is not clear... we had the example above about Athens, I wonder if access there is still granted).

they may figure it is not worth their while to keep the business, but they would be wrong to assume people can't get access elsewhere. you could get priority pass and a fair few visits for the same price as qantas club.

I think qantas has leverage if it wanted... but I'm guessing that is not in it's commercial interests. it could for example look to codeshare on cx or AY rather that BA. if qantas truly wants to be an Asian airline, let's ditch ancient ties to the mother land and get comprehensive code sharing on an Asian airline, one with a comprehensive route network and a hub that is pleasant and easy to transit.

 

[medhead]

If someone is a QC member flying Y on a BA flight from JFK to LHR and then transiting onto a European destination, they will not get access to the Galleries lounge at present. I guess BA's thinking would be that they won't get access on any other airline flying Y either, and they are more than likely going to want the points/status credits so will fly BA regardless.

Not exactly, QC members can get access to AA lounge in JFK if they fly another airline, compared to none with BA.

If BA are sticking to their guns on this then perhaps they have done their own cost/benefit analysis and decided the risk factor of losing business was not high enough. If your own Non Elite passengers do not get access, why allow some other airlines Non Elite passengers to have access?

Much the same as Qantas can amend the terms & conditions of FF membership or QC membership BA can amend the terms and conditions of lounge access that the granted to QF in order to suit their own needs.

The problem is that this is clearly not a case of BA changing their contractual agreement with QF for partner lounge access. If it was that simple QF would have notified the QC members of the change, they haven't done that. I think that BA's aim is to get out of the agreement they made using an underhanded tactic of changing the lounge name. They might ultimately be doing this to restrict access to QC members, but it is a poor effort to not be upfront and just cancel the agreement. It makes me wonder what penalties are built into that agreement, if BA aren't willing to just cancel it. Either way, BA are being exceedingly dodgy.

 

[Flashback]

This issue is not with BA it is with Qantas. Qantas sold a lifetime product they knew they could not guarantee for a lifetime.

You're missing the issue here .. it's ALL Qantas Club members that are unhappy, not just those with a lifetime product.

 

[The Rok]

You're missing the issue here .. it's ALL Qantas Club members that are unhappy, not just those with a lifetime product.

Not really. For those that have an annual membership have the choice not to renew.

 

[medhead]

Not really. For those that have an annual membership have the choice not to renew.

If qantas make the announcement that partner lounge access with BA isn't available anymore, then all QC members including lifetime IAW the aforementioned clause in the T&C.

 

[JetLagged]

You're missing the issue here .. it's ALL Qantas Club members that are unhappy, not just those with a lifetime product.

While not trying to inflame already raised emotions or the like, but may as well dive into the lion's den: I wonder how many of the posters to this and the original thread are talking about their loss of lounge access, and how many others being concerned, supportive for others and not themselves as they aren't affected at all? (having OW status of Emerald or Sapphire, or fly J/F, etc)?

Related to the issue, despite reading carefully all of the postings I am really at a loss to understand peoples' outright angst and anger at Qantas (enough other things to be really unhappy with Qantas about). Concern at the lack of communication, perceived changes to T&Cs many signed up to some time ago, I can understand. But the anger?

FWIW, in my opinion, BA is the one people should be getting up for unilaterally changing the conditions of lounge access for those with QP membership only, without, it might turn out (and sounds to me to be the case) informing their 'shake my hand' friends that they had done so. Nothing out of character for BA there.

OK - donning asbestos suit right now, and have nice large steaks for each of the lions!

 

[medhead]

While not trying to inflame already raised emotions or the like, but may as well dive into the lion's den: I wonder how many of the posters to this and the original thread are talking about their loss of lounge access, and how many others being concerned, supportive for others and not themselves as they aren't affected at all? (having OW status of Emerald or Sapphire, or fly J/F, etc)?

I had paid QC membership for many years before I got status and I'll have it after I no longer have status.

Related to the issue, despite reading carefully all of the postings I am really at a loss to understand peoples' outright angst and anger at Qantas (enough other things to be really unhappy with Qantas about). Concern at the lack of communication, perceived changes to T&Cs many signed up to some time ago, I can understand. But the anger?

Is there any anger?

FWIW, in my opinion, BA is the one people should be getting up for unilaterally changing the conditions of lounge access for those with QP membership only, without, it might turn out (and sounds to me to be the case) informing their 'shake my hand' friends that they had done so. Nothing out of character for BA there.

OK - donning asbestos suit right now, and have nice large steaks for each of the lions!

Maybe so, but QC members have the relationship with QF and QF have the arrangement with BA. QF and BA have to deal with the issue between them. A QC member getting up BA is useless. I am also amazed at the number of people here who think that partner lounge access was based only on a hand shake. Ya reckon the lawyers would have said "hand shake? yep all is good"?