Confirmation of F Lounge Guest/Access Rules for QF FF vs Oneworld status

[durbrain]

So if I'm a QF WP flying CX metal on a CX flight number, which rules apply?

Both apply. And since the OW criteria are more generous, you can bring in a guest on any other OW flight.

 

[Anna]

Both apply. And since the OW criteria are more generous, you can bring in a guest on any other OW flight.

It's not a situation that is covered in the email. So hopefully I won't encounter a firebreathing lounge dragon.

 

[medhead]

It's not a situation that is covered in the email. So hopefully I won't encounter a firebreathing lounge dragon.

Even if it was covered, good luck getting a CX lounge gatekeeper to accept the words of Yuhan from QFF service centre.

 

[Anna]

Even if it was covered, good luck getting a CX lounge gatekeeper to accept the words of Yuhan from QFF service centre.

I was thinking more about the F lounge at SYD, not any CX lounges. I think the OP's email was only talking about QF lounges anyway so Yuhan's reply needs to be interpreted in that context.

 

[durbrain]

It's not a situation that is covered in the email. So hopefully I won't encounter a firebreathing lounge dragon.

Yes, although it wasn't explicitly referred to in the email, the interpretation is nonetheless identical.

As you are a QF WP travelling on a OW marketed and operated flight you have QF WP entitlements:

Platinum Frequent Flyer	Next onward flight must be on a Qantas^, Emirates^, Jetstar Airlines+ or oneworld operated and marketed flight. # One guest allowed and must be travelling with the member on the same flight.

And as a OWE travelling on a OW marketed and operated flight you have OWE entitlements:

Emerald	Next onward flight that day must be on a oneworld operated and marketed flight.# One guest allowed and must be travelling on a oneworld operated and marketed flight.#

QF FF program has confirmed that QF and OW status are not mutually exclusive and that you can be both as long as you fulfil both criteria. Therefore you are entitled to the less restrictive guest privileges.

 

[straitman]

durbrain,

I seriously hope that this information they have given you is correct and that this puts an end to the matter.

The problem I have (and I'm sure others have) is that you have this once and the overwhelming experience from numerous others is precisely the opposite. If the previous interpretation from lounge staff is incorrect and they have now been told otherwise then great.

Only time will tell with this from what i can see.

 

[JohnK]

It's not a situation that is covered in the email. So hopefully I won't encounter a firebreathing lounge dragon.

It won't do you any good on the day of travel if the staff refuse you entry.

I was in the F lounge on 16 March and asked the person at the service desk if I was a Qantas Platinum or Oneworld Emerald. They weren't sure. "Oh.... that's a good question...." Technically I am also Oneworld Emerald not just Qantas Platinum. Can I bring in a guest that is not on my flight? "Oh.... that's a good question.... I'll have to check with the supervisor.... wait a few minutes...." That's fine. It was a hypothetical question.

Good luck and do bring a copy of the email.

 

[RichardMEL]

Hence the suggestion to keep a copy of the email on hand in case you run into difficult staff

.... who are just as entitled to ignore it. At the end of the day it is up to the discretion of lounge staff. Sure, a print of an email from someone at QF *may* help, but the staff could just as easily say "well that could be anyone" or similar and refer to their own interpretation of the rules.

Hopefully not though

 

[durbrain]

.... who are just as entitled to ignore it. At the end of the day it is up to the discretion of lounge staff. Sure, a print of an email from someone at QF *may* help, but the staff could just as easily say "well that could be anyone" or similar and refer to their own interpretation of the rules.

Hopefully not though

No, they absolutely are not entitled to ignore it. When you have spent $20K with a company to reach a status level with certain listed benefits, those benefits are not at the discretion of some lounge monkey. It is clear from previous experience, that the above situation is rare enough that most lounge staff don't encounter it regularly enough to be familiar with the rules. Nonetheless, you have an official written answer that has come from a QF FF supervisor; a conclusion he has come to after careful consideration of both interpretations presented to him and in consultation with senior staff.

If your guest is rejected from the lounge, then that is pure mistaken ignorance on the part of the staff. They are no more entitled to reject your guest as they are entitled to reject you on the basis of a feral haircut.

Nonetheless, from a customer service point of view, I would find it hard to believe that lounge staff would reject you having read the email. It reflects very poorly on a company when there is conflicting advice making it look like the left hand has no idea what the right is doing. It's in their interest to act in favour of the customer as they know they'll almost certainly get complaints otherwise.

 

[medhead]

No, they absolutely are not entitled to ignore it. When you have spent $20K with a company to reach a status level with certain listed benefits, those benefits are not at the discretion of some lounge monkey. It is clear from previous experience, that the above situation is rare enough that most lounge staff don't encounter it regularly enough to be familiar with the rules. Nonetheless, you have an official written answer that has come from a QF FF supervisor; a conclusion he has come to after careful consideration of both interpretations presented to him and in consultation with senior staff. That's not what the letter says.

If your guest is rejected from the lounge, then that is pure mistaken ignorance on the part of the staff. They are no more entitled to reject your guest as they are entitled to reject you on the basis of a feral haircut.

Nonetheless, from a customer service point of view, I would find it hard to believe that lounge staff would reject you having read the email. It reflects very poorly on a company when there is conflicting advice making it look like the left hand has no idea what the right is doing. It's in their interest to act in favour of the customer as they know they'll almost certainly get complaints otherwise.

Actually, the lounge staff are full empowered to determine who gets access to the lounge. If they deny you then you will have no recourse excepted to send an email to customer care, and hope that you don't get a form response. Calling them a monkey and pulling a DYKWIA act over the amount of money you've spent is unlikely to help your case.

BTW I suggest you read the letter carefully. Yuhan did not decide anything. It clearly says he referred the question to someone else who made a determination.

 

[RichardMEL]

Let me clarify what I was trying to say....

At the end of the day lounge access is subject to the discretion of the agents at any one time. Remember they can cite "capacity" or whatever excuse they like if they're pushed into a corner. Am I condoning this? Of course not.

Let me put it another way. Say you're the lounge agent and you have an (incorrect) view of the policy. Passenger X rocks up and wants access, you politely inform them that no, they can't get in. They shove a printed piece of email (or copy on a phone screen) of an email supposedly(to their thinking) from QF saying it's OK. What would you do in the case that you feel you're in the right? Now, common sense and customer service would probably suggest that you call internally to clarify the position(and you may get yet another answer! ) but busy lounge etc.. the agents manning the entry have final say.

that was my point. remember the agents don't have to care if the passenger spends a million bucks or not with QF. Common sense says they should, but I bet it's no fun sitting on the door having to deny people access for this, that or the other (and I'm not even including the domestic "thong police" job which would be shocking).

I'm not defending uninformed(or poorly trained I should say) agents, or QF policy vagueness or the like just simply trying to say that it's all well and good to have a clarification but from the point of an agent who feels one is not allowed access, just showing them an email that for all they know is not actually from QF, probably means nothing.

Really though hopefully the instance of this sort of thing happening is very rare. Perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything with my argument. Really though it's up to staff on duty at the time of seeking entry as to if they will allow entry.

my 8 cents.

 

[durbrain]

Actually, the lounge staff are full empowered to determine who gets access to the lounge. If they deny you then you will have no recourse excepted to send an email to customer care, and hope that you don't get a form response. Calling them a monkey and pulling a DYKWIA act over the amount of money you've spent is unlikely to help your case.

BTW I suggest you read the letter carefully. Yuhan did not decide anything. It clearly says he referred the question to someone else who made a determination.

Yeah ok whatever. Nobody suggested pulling any DYKWIA rubbish. If you were rejected from the F Lounge as a QF WP simply because an 'empowered' lounge staff had a brain explosion, then I would think you would have rights to complain without being considered DYKWIA.

I am amazed that there is such passionate resistance on this board against what is a benefit that has now been clearly clarified for the majority of members. I made an effort to get a definitive answer (which I did twice) whilst others did nothing but cough and moan about how I supposedly couldn't read English or couldn't interpret "clear cut" rules. I have posted that information so that others can use it to their benefit. But it seems some people are never satisfied.

The rules are clear. They have been clarified by a senior member of the QF FF team in writing. For the eternal pessimists who think the glass is always half empty, clearly you are happy to be declined your entitlement without question. Good for you.

 

[defurax]

how I supposedly couldn't read English or couldn't interpret "clear cut" rules.

So you want a medal or something?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Actually, the lounge staff are full empowered to determine who gets access to the lounge. If they deny you then you will have no recourse excepted to send an email to customer care, and hope that you don't get a form response. Calling them a monkey and pulling a DYKWIA act over the amount of money you've spent is unlikely to help your case.

BTW I suggest you read the letter carefully. Yuhan did not decide anything. It clearly says he referred the question to someone else who made a determination.

No, the lounge staff are not empowered to ignore the rules and substitute some other criteria of their own choosing.
Whether you will get anywhere by arguing with them on the day is a different question entirely.

 

[kevrosmith]

This is great... thanks durbrain for going to the effort to seek clarification. It is certainly different to my previous interpretation of the rules, but this clarified interpretation is certainly to our benefit overall.

I think a few may just be skeptical as to how individual lounge agents may respond, given past experiences.

I'd certainly prefer the "written response" to be a letter, on Qantas letterhead, with a legitimate signature before I even attempted to use it as weighty evidence. I've had many experience myself where some Qantas staff do not like to be shown to potentially know less about their own policies and procedures than customers, and some of them don't react very nicely, unfortunately.

From my own perspective, I'm not looking forward to attempting to use some Lounge passes for an upcoming family trip in which I'll be wanting to include some children as guests under the Adult's pass. Red Roo has previously confirmed on this forum that children may be allowed under the Lounge pass allowance, but I've never seen it anywhere in writing other than here, and it's certainly not written on the Lounge pass, so I hope that the agents in both BNE and NRT are fully aware of this policy.

There area so many examples of inconsistency and anecdotes where agents got it wrong that people can't help but be skeptical.

 

[medhead]

Yeah ok whatever. Nobody suggested pulling any DYKWIA rubbish. If you were rejected from the F Lounge as a QF WP simply because an 'empowered' lounge staff had a brain explosion, then I would think you would have rights to complain without being considered DYKWIA.

I am amazed that there is such passionate resistance on this board against what is a benefit that has now been clearly clarified for the majority of members. I made an effort to get a definitive answer (which I did twice) whilst others did nothing but cough and moan about how I supposedly couldn't read English or couldn't interpret "clear cut" rules. I have posted that information so that others can use it to their benefit. But it seems some people are never satisfied.

The rules are clear. They have been clarified by a senior member of the QF FF team in writing. For the eternal pessimists who think the glass is always half empty, clearly you are happy to be declined your entitlement without question. Good for you.

emotional and now passionate? There is no passion in my post. Regardless of whether it is a brain implosion (that's an emotional term), if you're denied access to the lounge being able to send an email to customer care later is not going to get you into the lounge. That's the reality, take it or leave it, but stop the attacks on my character. I certainly never said you can't complain.

A call centre supervisor is hardly a senior member of the QFF team. But the point is that Yuhan did not interpret the rules as you claim. He deferred to someone else.

it was a while before we received confirmation that the more generous access rules applied.

No, the lounge staff are not empowered to ignore the rules and substitute some other criteria of their own choosing.
Whether you will get anywhere by arguing with them on the day is a different question entirely.

I didn't say they are empowered to ignore the rules. Why misrepresent my post?

 

[RichardMEL]

Yeah ok whatever. Nobody suggested pulling any DYKWIA rubbish. If you were rejected from the F Lounge as a QF WP simply because an 'empowered' lounge staff had a brain explosion, then I would think you would have rights to complain without being considered DYKWIA.

That depends how one does it. My argument has simply been that at the end of the day if the lounge agents, rightly or wrongly(in this case wrongly) declare you to not be allowed entry then showing an email from QF is unlikely to get one far since the agent will consider themselves the authority on the matter. Politely requesting they clarify ma get one somewhere, or not depending on the situation and agents involved.

I am amazed that there is such passionate resistance on this board against what is a benefit that has now been clearly clarified for the majority of members. I made an effort to get a definitive answer (which I did twice) whilst others did nothing but cough and moan about how I supposedly couldn't read English or couldn't interpret "clear cut" rules. I have posted that information so that others can use it to their benefit. But it seems some people are never satisfied.

I'm sorry I haven't seen any resistance (passionate or otherwise) and many thanks for your efforts to seek clarification (me included).

The rules are clear. They have been clarified by a senior member of the QF FF team in writing. For the eternal pessimists who think the glass is always half empty, clearly you are happy to be declined your entitlement without question. Good for you.

Again, who said anyone would be happy to be declined? I think maybe you are misinterpreting posts (and perhaps I'm thinking my own comments on this thread which are NOT meant to suggest that one would or should be happy if declined)

Franky if the rules were clear then there would be zero need for clarification from anyone as to the matter, and confusion and unfortunate denials of entry in a a small number of (fairly rare) situations.

I think kevrosmith made a good summary in their post about it.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Hi everyone,

Following the never ending thread that was closed for circuitous arguments ("Does WP guest for Qantas F lounge need to be on same flight?" - http://www.australianfrequentflyer....yer-program/does-wp-guest-qantas-f-73290.html), I have finally received written clarification from a QF FF Supervisor.

Well done and thank you.
Good work persisting in the face of such overwhelming (and overconfident) opposition.