LHR T5 Galleries access denied for additional child guest

[medhead]

It does state that a Guest pass is for guests 12 years of age.

It does not say that at all. It says if a child is old than 12 they will be counted as a guest. That does not mean the reverse is also the case. It does not say if the child is younger than 13 they can not be a guest!

It is an error of omission (and saying that children under 12 don't use guest passes) And then there is a limit on the number of children (one per member).

The limit is on the extra child not the total number of children, or guests.

So my theory is that this deliberate in its intent to limit the number of children to one per member, or two per couple, if both are members. Which gets back to my post before that maybe BA thinks that 3 kids per member couple is one too many.

So members are no longer allowed to have a guest. Sorry quote exactly where the guest entitlement is extinguished by the family policy. Quote where there is an age limit on the guest.


Sent from the Throne

 

[medhead]

Something like this?

%@^*+# = conditions of lounge entry open to interpretation of intent and/or if we or our partner airline are honouring our commerical-in-confidence lounge access agreement, which may or may not be found on our conditions of entry: OW_lounge_access_policy.com

Exactly.


Sent from the Throne

 

[amaroo]

That is just you reading it the way you want it to read.

You are allowed 1 child under 12, regardless of whether you call the child a guest or not.

FWIW, I agree with your interpretation.

There is much evidence on FT (by BAEC members) that the rejection is not a one off call by a rogue dragon therefore, it appears to be reinforcement of BA policy.

 

[simongr]

I think it could be interpreted both ways (hey look here's nice fence to sit on) - and given so I think they should be more specific in the rules. Given the carp on the QF website recently (esp on lounge access) I am not sure we should be taking the wording as the correct interpretation of anything.

 

[medhead]

FWIW, I agree with your interpretation.

There is much evidence on FT (by BAEC members) that the rejection is not a one off call by a rogue dragon therefore, it appears to be reinforcement of BA policy.

In all comes down to the meaning of "in addition".

I must also completely agree that what happens in practice does not match the rule on the QF website, which also isn't confirmed as valid. But it is a failure of logic to try to twist the meaning of the written rule to explain/justify the practice. Surely it is enough to simply acknowledge the disconnect.

I think it could be interpreted both ways (hey look here's nice fence to sit on) - and given so I think they should be more specific in the rules. Given the carp on the QF website recently (esp on lounge access) I am not sure we should be taking the wording as the correct interpretation of anything.

Totally agree, the wording is poor.

(there is a pragmatic part of me, just need to balance it against the regulator in me)


Sent from the Throne

 

[eastwest101]

There is much evidence on FT (by BAEC members) that the rejection is not a one off call by a rogue dragon therefore, it appears to be reinforcement of BA policy.

And I suspect - a recent reinforcement or "crack down" resulting from the recent T5 Galleries Access negotiations debacle where it seems that the OW partners are unable to reach a commercial agreement on reciprocal lounge access. Sorry - let me re-phase that from recent to "historic" - as we will soon need a curator to document how long this is taking....

 

[BAM1748]

Re: Galleries access... NOT quite 'reinstated'?

what's next from these people? going to a theme park where a ticket is two adults and two children, but expecting the third child free entry? buying one of those Fiji holidays where if two adults fly, two kids fly 'free', but demanding a free seat for their third child?

We're talking about using the shower in an airport lounge......

 

[BAM1748]

Re: Galleries access... NOT quite 'reinstated'?

Gee it would have been good to be there and guest the third child in just after they were refused.

Another reason why I avoid BA, a cough up over lounge access for a child.

 

[eastwest101]

Re: Galleries access... NOT quite 'reinstated'?

I too - would have got a great deal of satisfaction if I had been there and guested the little tacker in......

 

[Pushka]

Re: Galleries access... NOT quite 'reinstated'?

I too - would have got a great deal of satisfaction if I had been there and guested the little tacker in......

Yes, I would have done the same. Believe it or not medhead.

 

[medhead]

Yes, I would have done the same. Believe it or not medhead.

I totally believe you.

Only disagree about the reading of words, certainly wouldn't extend that disagreement into the practical matters.


Sent from the Throne

 

[amaroo]

And I suspect - a recent reinforcement or "crack down" resulting from the recent T5 Galleries Access negotiations debacle where it seems that the OW partners are unable to reach a commercial agreement on reciprocal lounge access. Sorry - let me re-phase that from recent to "historic" - as we will soon need a curator to document how long this is taking....

From what I've read the issue with children lounge access is the same for BA members (BAEC) & OW members alike.

When they restrict their own members - there isn't any hope for an alliance partner.

 

[eastwest101]

I will take your word on that amaroo - if BA are so rigid what do people with kids actually do? Especially families with more than 2 kids? Simply not travel or have they got other options/workarounds?

 

[amaroo]

I will take your word on that amaroo - if BA are so rigid what do people with kids actually do? Especially families with more than 2 kids? Simply not travel or have they got other options/workarounds?

The wealthy ones fly J or F with cash

The ones flush with points secure award seats in J or F

The smart ones get on FT or AFF and try & line up a lounge guesting with another member

The others....either encounter a nice agent that allows them in.....or, split the group.......or, they go & post a report on FT or AFF on how pathetic BA is & they will never fly BA again

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The wealthy ones fly J or F with cash

The ones flush with points secure award seats in J or F

The smart ones get on FT or AFF and try & line up a lounge guesting with another member

The others....either encounter a nice agent that allows them in.....or, split the group.......or, they go & post a report on FT or AFF on how pathetic BA is & they will never fly BA again

Yeah - it seems on the BA FT board that meny members there travel with their families in club or First,

Back to lounge access - the rules on the QF site are not clear, but we know that QF has had some problems with that.

I think it is a case of limiting the number of children per adult... maybe again going back to supervision in the lounge. They don't want too many youngsters running around. So over 12 then you can guest them as an 'adult'. Under 12, sorry, but only one per passenger.

As for being behind the OP's friend and guesting their child in, I am sure BA would then impose the 'you must be travelling with your guest' clause.

 

[Princess Fiona]

As for being behind the OP's friend and guesting their child in, I am sure BA would then impose the 'you must be travelling with your guest' clause.

AFAIK no such clause exists.
I have guested into the T 3 lounge the " spare " child of a GCH
Priceless

 

[serfty]

For Qantas operated international lounges, Qantas don't have that "must be travelling with ..." clause for guests of other non Qantas oneworld elites - they only have it for their own members.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

For Qantas operated international lounges, Qantas don't have that "must be travelling with ..." clause for guests of other non Qantas oneworld elites - they only have it for their own members.

ah ok. I thought i read over on the BA board on FT where someone guested someone in, but the family was asked to leave because the guester left for a flight.

 

[jamesatfish]

Very interesting going through this thread as I'll encounter a similar issue the next time I take my family overseas now that my wife has dropped back to SG.

Does anyone have a link to the actual child access policy on the BA Website (rather than the reference on QF's site?). I can't find anything on the BA site which states clearly whether children of any particular age are welcomed into a BA lounge without being counted as a guest.

 

[JohnM]

Very interesting going through this thread as I'll encounter a similar issue the next time I take my family overseas now that my wife has dropped back to SG.

Does anyone have a link to the actual child access policy on the BA Website (rather than the reference on QF's site?). I can't find anything on the BA site which states clearly whether children of any particular age are welcomed into a BA lounge without being counted as a guest.

Be prepared, be very well prepared - there is no leeway at BA in T5!

What effect do you think your wife dropping back to SG has? AFAIK, WP's can only guest one into the BA F lounges, as can SG into the BA J lounge.

If I'm correct (often known to be not the case!), a WP and a SG could guest two into the J lounge but the F lounge would be out of reach if it's more than you and MrsJSF.