Does anyone know the latest info on admirals club member access to Qantas lounges?

Does anyone know the latest info on admirals club member access to Qantas lounges? Im seeing conflicting info online, it looks like the rules have changed recently. Thanks in advance

It would help people answer if you state where you are seeing the conflict?

Maybe we need to start a Flyer talk wiki/thread where people can update their experiences?

Maybe we need consistency?

I'm on 'record' here on AUSBT about this issue with QF, as are a number of other members. Some examples seen include:

* lack of clarity on what constitutes a QF/ 'partner' lounge & where

* acess for Silver FF's using 'complimentary' Annual passes

* access rules for non-OneWorld JV lounges such as EK (and destinations), as well as othe JV partners.

6 tiers of FF (CL, Plat1, Plat, Gold, Silver, Bronze) x 5 base QF lounges which include CL, QC, First (int), Business (int), Business (dom) etc is bound to be complex.

Throw in Oneworld access, a major JV partnership with EK .. and add other JV partners - is bound to create a level of complexity which requires decent explanatories. This is currently lacking.

I am also at odds with why the oneworld web site is able to show the following:

- 'Qantas Frequent Flyer Gold members, regardless of their oneworld tier status, cannot access Qantas Domestic Business Lounges'.

- 'American Airlines and Qantas offer programmes enabling customers to pay to gain access to their lounges.'

Surely, if oneworld can recognise that QF sells subscriptions to the Qantas Club, then QF ought to be able to provide greater clarity as well, on their own program?

I've always thought that the QF website is pretty good identifiting what is a Qantas lounge and what is an Associated lounge, and has a clear statement on the EK access.

The issue normally is that people haven't read the website.

I agree there is some confusion on other oneworld access at times.

Actually, I think that the reverse is more likely to be true.

The oneworld lounge policy is generally consistent across the board with all its member airlines. However, both QF and AA (both founding members) sell memberships - and this is clearly shown with relevant exceptions on the oneworld site.

While the QF website does a *reasonable* job, there are still inconsistencies, lack of clarity and omissions on the site. However, not too many people walk around with access to the full website, given that technology has moved them to 'mobile' and 'apps'. Many people don't wish to traverse all the jargon that they may not be familiar with on a daily basis. An app is generally preferable for most people - provided it is well executed.

If you look at each of the flavours of QF's mobile apps, there are major inconsistencies across the board (not just lounge access but entire functionality) between the Apple iOS, Android and Windows platform. Its a fairly 'half-assed' job at best.

Finally, you state that 'the issue normally is that people haven't read the website'. The original poster of the question has read the website and has found inconsistencies - just as many others do. One only needs to look towards the number of lounge access questions asked on this site to see that there is a lack of clarity.

Hell, how many people understand the consequences of booking an EK flight number vs a QF flight number when travelling on an Emirates codeshare and seeking to earn max QF points? You might and I / others on ausbt might - but that doesn't mean that the average 'Joe Blow' does.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what exactly you don't understand and therefore is confusing. 

What requires more clarity? 

The issue that the OP mentions is about AA Admirals access to QF lounges, which is really for AA to clarify. But having used one in the last 12 months, I have had no dramas accessing QF lounges with an AA Admirals 30 day pass.

I think adequate and appropriate verbiage needs to be on both parties' websites.

Don't you just want to get the relevant people of both airlines in the same room, lock the door and get them to thrash out any inconsistencies and update their respective websites so that the information is consistent in letter and spirit?

Perhaps... but I'm still confused as to what the issue is?

The problem is the AA Admirals Club and QF Qantas Club joint arrangement has resulted in an unintended consequence (poor service design?). It is in the best interest of both parties to make the provisions as unclear as possible to limit the numbers exploiting the "loophole".

Unintended consequence = Short term access Qantas Club.

We can deduce that it was unintended since short term (daily/monthly) access are not part of the product spec for Qantas Club. The demand and supply conditions in Australia allow Qantas to charge, at a minimum, annual fees, which becomes prohibitively more expensive if one does not renew membership upon expiry ("first time" admin fee that cost as much as a year's membership that kicks in after a period of absence).