LHR T5 Galleries access denied for additional child guest

[parksie]

You are really quibbling here. There are any number of travel situations in which I might be "expected" (based on being a living feeling human being) to help people out. Eg child vomits all over self and mum, and I hold the other baby while she cleans, or I open a door for a person with reduced mobility, or I move seats WITHOUT being threatened with being offloaded, or I swap the meals with the girl sitting next to me because she can't eat something...and I have done all of these things when needed as you might expect. A stressed out family with lounge access who need a shower should be helped. I'm sorry but there is no such thing as "rules are rules" unless you are a robot or have the heart of one. And seriously if I were spending 50k plus on airfares with an airline, and they cant comp me 50L of H2O and a three minute shower, that's it for them.

Couldn't agree more - well said!!

 

[The Rok]

There was a solution to this though. He could walking in with just one of the twins while mum waits outside with the other two children. Once hidden in the lounge, maybe in the toilet, dad walks out and walks back in with mum and both other children. If anyone questioned them they could just say that this is the same girl I cam in with earlier, check your CCTV…..

 

[rechoboam]

There must be other solutions too. Perhaps medhead can help but it would be based on the Koenigsberg bridge problem.

 

[Princess Fiona]

There must be other solutions too. Perhaps medhead can help but it would be based on the Koenigsberg bridge problem.

See post #10

 

[rechoboam]

See post #10

I don't get it though, same number of children, no? Actually now I think about it the solution to the bridge problem was that there was no ideal solution- or something.

 

[medhead]

And BA's response to that was 'child not wait here'.

trouble is it was a private conversation with my children. (sorry that wasn't clear in what I wrote) BA have no place interrupting my private conversation.

In any case, the rules as linked clearly state that all of them were allowed to enter. Each member is allowed one child upto 13 years old in addition to the normal guest allowance. So the family was allowed 2 children plus 2 guests. More that enough to cover the 3 people required, one spot to spare in fact.


Sent from the Throne

 

[amaroo]

BA lounges aren't worth the hassle - visited their CCR over X-mas only to be disappointed with service, stuffed up pre-bookings, facilities, food & general stuck up feel of the place & staff.

Their T3 Flounge is a joke for OWE. Yeah, come on in but....no dining room access for you unless you are traveling F. On any given day at SYD Flounge the place is overflowing with BAEC members stuffing themselves at our tables

Even if you are traveling F (like us) you will still be sent back to front desk to get some silly, stupid, poxy stub of an invitation so that you can be granted access to a very underwhelming dining experience.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

trouble is it was a private conversation with my children. (sorry that wasn't clear in what I wrote) BA have no place interrupting my private conversation.

In any case, the rules as linked clearly state that all of them were allowed to enter. Each member is allowed one child upto 13 years old in addition to the normal guest allowance. So the family was allowed 2 children plus 2 guests. More that enough to cover the 3 people required, one spot to spare in fact.


Sent from the Throne

It may be a private conversation, but as soon as the adult leaves the child, then BA has the right to say 'no'.

I'm not sure the rules are that clear cut - they also say only one child is permitted per adult... and a guest must be over 12 years... go figure...

 

[medhead]

It may be a private conversation, but as soon as the adult leaves the child, then BA has the right to say 'no'.

They can say no until their blue in the face, if the adult has left there is very little they can do about it. kick the child out? call the police?

I'm not sure the rules are that clear cut - they also say only one child is permitted per adult... and a guest must be over 12 years... go figure...

It is a family policy, while not explicitly stated it might be a reasonable assumption to say the child is in addition. Also it doesn't say a guest must be over 12, it says "children over 12 years of age are counted as a guest". One implication is that children under 13 are not counted as a guest subject to the limit imposed in the Child Access Guide table.


Sent from the Throne

 

[amaroo]

You two remind me of two others on the FT QF board

 

[MEL_Traveller]

They can say no until their blue in the face, if the adult has left there is very little they can do about it. kick the child out? call the police?

that's what I have been saying. Calling the police would be the appropriate option. You cannot expect the lounge staff to be responsible for your child (and any emergencies, or taking note of where they might wander off to) while the supposedly responsible adults are refreshing themselves in the Elemis Spa.

 

[medhead]

that's what I have been saying. Calling the police would be the appropriate option. You cannot expect the lounge staff to be responsible for your child (and any emergencies, or taking note of where they might wander off to) while the supposedly responsible adults are refreshing themselves in the Elemis Spa.

Yeah, because police love getting involved in what is basically a domestic situation.

Elemis Spa? Seems you can't help misrepresenting the situation. Shame you can't understand that no one (me at least) is asking them to be responsible for the child. They are making themselves responsible by their choices. That is their problem. They can always make different choices if they don't like the problem they've created.

The responsible adult looks after the needs of ALL the children in their care as best they can, by balancing many factors include lounge access rules. You have no idea what the parent was planning to do. They very much might have returned in 30 seconds after dumping excess luggage in the lounge to sit with the child. Really you should stop making up bovine excrement to create one limited, extreme scenario that is most likely wrong.


Sent from the Throne

 

[eastwest101]

He's travelling CBR-xSYD-xLHR-CPH with his wife and three children (one girl about 11, twin girls about 8). He's SG; his wife bought a QP membership prior to leaving Australia.

So have we figured out if access was rightfully denied by BA? - or is the information available from BA so confusing as to allow interpretation either way? I am finding it pretty difficult to even locate the area of the BA website that has conditions of entry to their lounges in any sort of sensible format.

 

[medhead]

Based on the qantas website I think it is likely that access was wrongly denied. The obvious caveat seems to be that BA make up their own rules and ignore agreements when it suits.


Sent from the Throne

 

[Princess Fiona]

So have we figured out if access was rightfully denied by BA? - or is the information available from BA so confusing as to allow interpretation either way? I am finding it pretty difficult to even locate the area of the BA website that has conditions of entry to their lounges in any sort of sensible format.

I'm pretty confident that the access was denied as it goes against BA Lounge Access rules ie. One guest for QP/SG/WP and only CL can have two guests.
The Section on BA access on the QF website is IMO wrong ( unless they have negotiated some super level access that even GCH don't have) and like everything else it will be amended in time.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yeah, because police love getting involved in what is basically a domestic situation.

Elemis Spa? Seems you can't help misrepresenting the situation. Shame you can't understand that no one (me at least) is asking them to be responsible for the child. They are making themselves responsible by their choices. That is their problem. They can always make different choices if they don't like the problem they've created.

The responsible adult looks after the needs of ALL the children in their care as best they can, by balancing many factors include lounge access rules. You have no idea what the parent was planning to do. They very much might have returned in 30 seconds after dumping excess luggage in the lounge to sit with the child. Really you should stop making up bovine excrement to create one limited, extreme scenario that is most likely wrong.


Sent from the Throne

It's no longer a domestic situation where a child is abandoned on private property. The whole point is you don't have to ask permission to leave the child. If you walk away leaving the child and they don't do anything then they are accepting responsibility by default. By acting in the way they did it makes it clear they are not going to.

It is not their problem, you cannot simply leave a child, without permission, on someone's private property.

 

[eastwest101]

Okay - so it all hangs on the definition of what is a guest and what is a child. If BA stuck to their access rules and were actually rightful in thier denial of a 3rd child for the QP and SG parents, then does that trump/over-ride the Qantas Club family policy? I am guessing - yes - in the UK with a BA lounge.

I think we can now say that in the Qantas Club access policy they need a lot of:

**###%%%+++'s saying "except where BA choose to arbitrary/unilaterally vary any aforementioned access"

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Okay - so it all hangs on the definition of what is a guest and what is a child. If BA stuck to their access rules and were actually rightful in thier denial of a 3rd child for the QP and SG parents, then does that trump/over-ride the Qantas Club family policy? I am guessing - yes - in the UK with a BA lounge.

I think we can now say that in the Qantas Club access policy they need a lot of:

**###%%%+++'s saying "except where BA choose to arbitrary/unilaterally vary any aforementioned access"

you forgot the '^^^s' and '~~~s'

 

[medhead]

It's no longer a domestic situation where a child is abandoned on private property. The whole point is you don't have to ask permission to leave the child. If you walk away leaving the child and they don't do anything then they are accepting responsibility by default. By acting in the way they did it makes it clear they are not going to.

It is not their problem, you cannot simply leave a child, without permission, on someone's private property.

That might be valid if it is private property, but I'd guess it is a public place. Secondly, the child hasn't been abandoned at all. They are waiting. Third it is their problem once the adult walks away.


Sent from the Throne

 

[JohnM]

interesting point just raised by a family member who asked 'if the child is left there alone, what if something goes wrong?'. What if the lounge desk was busy, child needs to go to the bathroom and just goes off without being noticed. Mr PhD then comes back when shower is finished but child is not there. Don't you think the first question would be to the lounge entry staff asking 'where is my child?'

What happens when 11 year old can't find the way back to the lounge? Full scale search because Mr/Mrs PhD were taking the luxury of a Elemis amenitied shower while letting their 11 year old wander around terminal 5.

We are struggling in this household to find any positive in the he PhDs' approach.

With respect, I hear what you and others have been saying but I think some hyperbole has crept in at various points.

The elder child was not left to "...wander around T5". She was told to wait at the door. Plenty of times I waited in public places when I was 11 or less. It's not like leaving a very young child who can't read or understand things going on around them.