LHR T5 Galleries access denied for additional child guest

[JohnM]

This afternoon I received an email from a friend, sent from LHR, who is as mad as hell after confronting the BA lounge dragons in T5.

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.

Believe it or not, he was refused entry for one of the children. Apparently, he told the 11 year old to sit outside and wait while the rest went in to get a shower and the lounge dragons said he couldn't leave the child unattended. He told them he wasn't - they were!

This guy and his wife are professional (both Ph. D's) mild-mannered people. I have NEVER experienced him so mad!

I mean, how brutal can BA be? Do their people have no sense of reasonableness? Do they have no capacity whatsoever to think for themselves and make a reasoned judgement about a situation?

 

[JohnPhelan]

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

This afternoon I received an email from a friend, sent from LHR, who is as mad as hell after confronting the BA lounge dragons in T5.

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.

Believe it or not, he was refused entry for one of the children. Apparently, he told the 11 year old to sit outside and wait while the rest went in to get a shower and the lounge dragons said he couldn't leave the child unattended. He told them he wasn't - they were!

This guy and his wife are professional (both Ph. D's) mild-mannered people. I have NEVER experienced him so mad!

I mean, how brutal can BA be? Do their people have no sense of reasonableness? Do they have no capacity whatsoever to think for themselves and make a reasoned judgement about a situation?

Whilst unfortunate for the family, this is not surprising. BA has long been known for a "no discretion" policy on additional guests. Both the gentleman and his wife are entitled to one guest each only, i.e. the two of them could take two guests into the lounge.

QF has long shown leeway for discretion in these circumstances; BA has not.

Given that BA's policy on this is clearly stated, I think the gentleman also needs to shoulder a portion of the blame here; the rules say he and his wife are entitled to two extras; he tried for three and got knocked back. He should have foreseen this, as he was trying to stretch the rules.

Moral of the story: stick to the published allowances (whether it be for lounge guests, carry-on, or baggage). When you stick to the rules, you won't be disappointed. If you want to chance your luck by asking for something extra, fine - but don't get mad when they won't give you something to which you are not entitled.

 

[JohnM]

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

Whilst unfortunate for the family, this is not surprising. BA has long been known for a "no discretion" policy on additional guests. Both the gentleman and his wife are entitled to one guest each only, i.e. the two of them could take two guests into the lounge.

QF has long shown leeway for discretion in these circumstances; BA has not.

Given that BA's policy on this is clearly stated, I think the gentleman also needs to shoulder a portion of the blame here; the rules say he and his wife and entitled to two extras; he tried for three and got knocked back. He should have foreseen this, as he was trying to stretch the rules.

Moral of the story: stick to the puiblished allowances (whether it be for lounge guests, carry-on, or baggage). When you stick to the rules, you won't be disappointed. If you want to chance your luck by asking for something extra, fine - but don't get mad when they won't give you something to which you are not entitled.

I fully understand what you're saying and the rigid interpretation of the rules - but twin kids aged 8? Surely a little discretionary leeway is not so hard for somewhat unusual circumstances?

 

[simongr]

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

I personally prefer a more rigid interpretation of the rules - and I think we would benefit from clarity on specificity up to what age to kids not count as guests. I don't think relying on "capacity constraints" to assess whether you should get access is right - it doesn't help you plan your journey at all.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

This afternoon I received an email from a friend, sent from LHR, who is as mad as hell after confronting the BA lounge dragons in T5.

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.

Believe it or not, he was refused entry for one of the children. Apparently, he told the 11 year old to sit outside and wait while the rest went in to get a shower and the lounge dragons said he couldn't leave the child unattended. He told them he wasn't - they were!

This guy and his wife are professional (both Ph. D's) mild-mannered people. I have NEVER experienced him so mad!

I mean, how brutal can BA be? Do their people have no sense of reasonableness? Do they have no capacity whatsoever to think for themselves and make a reasoned judgement about a situation?

one guest is one guest. it doesn't matter if that guest is 11 or 31, they still take the same time in the shower and still use the space that could be free for other passengers. the age of the passengers is irrelevant if they are old enough to use the facilities privately and take away the space from someone else.

the parents should pay for an additional qantas club membership if they wish to take in three guests between them, or secure status for the other passenger.

anyway... I don't believe the story because no parent would tell their 11 year old to wait outside while the rest of the family went in to shower.

the only person they should be mad at is themselves!

 

[serfty]

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

I fully understand what you're saying and the rigid interpretation of the rules - but twin kids aged 8? Surely a little discretionary leeway is not so hard for somewhat unusual circumstances?

In 1998, those under the age of 18 were not permitted in BA lounges at all ...

 

[medhead]

I personally prefer a more rigid interpretation of the rules - and I think we would benefit from clarity on specificity up to what age to kids not count as guests. I don't think relying on "capacity constraints" to assess whether you should get access is right - it doesn't help you plan your journey at all.

Totally agree. Uncertainty provides no means to plan. Currently the age is 4 or 5, isn't it?

one guest is one guest. it doesn't matter if that guest is 11 or 31, they still take the same time in the shower and still use the space that could be free for other passengers. the age of the passengers is irrelevant if they are old enough to use the facilities privately and take away the space from someone else.

That's not exactly correct. Having an 8 and 11 year old, I know that they would shower with their mother in a lounge. They wouldn't use the shower for the same amount of time as another adult as they would overlap with the adult they are sharing with and the time would be shorter than that required by 3 people.

anyway... I don't believe the story because no parent would tell their 11 year old to wait outside while the rest of the family went in to shower.

I would! I'd leave the 8 year old in fact. Why because it dumps responsibility on to the lounge dragon. Even if they don't have to watch the child, the child will be sitting there worrying them. Plus, of course, my 8 year old burst into tears, which is even better because the lounge dragon could do nothing about that besides listen. The dragon has decided to exclude the child and they need to wear the consequences of their decision.


Sent from the Throne

 

[Kangol]

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

This afternoon I received an email from a friend, sent from LHR, who is as mad as hell after confronting the BA lounge dragons in T5.

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.

Believe it or not, he was refused entry for one of the children. Apparently, he told the 11 year old to sit outside and wait while the rest went in to get a shower and the lounge dragons said he couldn't leave the child unattended. He told them he wasn't - they were!

This guy and his wife are professional (both Ph. D's) mild-mannered people. I have NEVER experienced him so mad!

I mean, how brutal can BA be? Do their people have no sense of reasonableness? Do they have no capacity whatsoever to think for themselves and make a reasoned judgement about a situation?

If the twins are identical, he could've made a case for them being *one* guest as they are from the same zygote

 

[Princess Fiona]

the parents should pay for an additional qantas club membership if they wish to take in three guests between them, or secure status for the other passenger.

the only person they should be mad at is themselves!

additional QP membership/ guest would be of no use in this situation as it does not permit an extra guest in BA Lounges

BAEC rules state that children under the age of 2 years can accompany parents/guardians independent of guest rules. Over 2 years they will be counted as a guest.
I feel a bit sorry for your friend JohnM having experienced exactly the same last year arriving at LHR from SYD.
Sadly the only legal workarounds on this are: to access based on class of service or hope that some kind soul will guest in your extra child.

 

[Princess Fiona]

If the twins are identical, he could've made a case for them being *one* guest as they are from the same zygote

I was thinking exactly the same thing.
I would have split the family between T5 South and North and used only one of the twins boarding passes at each entry point :mrgreen:

That was my "illegal" solution

 

[ReLoad]

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

Seriously, what a pack of heartless dragons.

Yes Rules are rules, yes they are clear, but you are talking about a lady who is travelling with 3 children. Have we as a society become so stagnant on the rules that this is ok to say "rules are rules".
Personally i think it is a heartless decision which indicates to me just how bad BA are.

As a father of twins i can empathise with the travellers plight, its not like you are asking for another seat in First class, Chances are with 3 pax already in the lounge they will be taking up a seating area for 4 anyway, nobody is going to sit next to the lady and the 2x 8 year olds anyway.

It's also a bit dissapointing to read some comments which show zero empathy.

 

[dfcatch]

Seriously, what a pack of heartless dragons.

Yes Rules are rules, yes they are clear, but you are talking about a lady who is travelling with 3 children. Have we as a society become so stagnant on the rules that this is ok to say "rules are rules".
Personally i think it is a heartless decision which indicates to me just how bad BA are.

As a father of twins i can empathise with the travellers plight, its not like you are asking for another seat in First class, Chances are with 3 pax already in the lounge they will be taking up a seating area for 4 anyway, nobody is going to sit next to the lady and the 2x 8 year olds anyway.

It's also a bit dissapointing to read some comments which show zero empathy.

You're right - and in fairness I don't think anyone here is showing a lack of empathy or sympathy.

But what is your solution to the "rules" so that it is fair and consistent and can be applied likewise.

Fact is that BA dragons are known to be heartless b!?,(!es so no surprise there.

Additionally the OP (on this issue) knew his guest entitlement, and tried to see if he could get an extra guest.

He got denied.

Are BA heartless - absolutely.

Is it reasonable to be disappointment at the "unreasonableness of the rules" - absolutely.

Is it reasonable to be "mad as hell" when not being allowed to bend the rules - no it's not.

FWIW - children are not guaranteed in a QP either (despite QF's accommodating attitude).

I think I should be allowed to take both my parents into the F lounge with me.... I can ask but I will no doubt get denied, and I should accept that.

I think I should be allowed to guest my parents into the CNS QP when they depart on their twice yearly trip somewhere (paid for by me or using my WP earned points), I can't and I have to accept that.

It's not a lack of empathy - just common sense.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

additional QP membership/ guest would be of no use in this situation as it does not permit an extra guest in BA Lounges

Yes - I see - you have to be 18 to join so that rules out the 11 year old in their own right.

In any event - one guest is permitted and this is clearly explained in all the relevant literature and lounge access conditions. No justification for anyone getting upset. Nor does it explain how proposing to leave the 11-yo unattended is somehow the fault of the lounge rather than the parent?? (I don't understand that argument.)

If lounge access was so important then a business class ticket could have been purchased (its even a cheap award) for the single LHR-CPH leg. If lounge access was not important enough to pay for it then they really didn't want it that badly anyway, and causing a scene achieves nothing.

edited as dfcatch posted just as I was posting... yeah I fall in the camp of no empathy and no sympathy... I would have, but that went out the window as soon as the father suggested leaving the 11 year old outside unattended.

 

[docjames]

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

I thought QP members were still excluded in T5?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

I thought QP members were still excluded in T5?

updated now. Access permitted on flights to Australia (incl via Asia) and connecting to or from those flights (so SYD-SIN-LHR-CPH would get access as its connecting in LHR)

 

[medhead]

Yes - I see - you have to be 18 to join so that rules out the 11 year old in their own right.

In any event - one guest is permitted and this is clearly explained in all the relevant literature and lounge access conditions. No justification for anyone getting upset. Nor does it explain how proposing to leave the 11-yo unattended is somehow the fault of the lounge rather than the parent?? (I don't understand that argument.)

This is so simple to understand. The lounge staff have a choice; they can enforce the rules or they can let in an 8 year old. They choose to enforce the rules. That means that one child has to stay outside (really waiting in the lounge entry) in order to comply with those rules. Surely you understand the benefit of having a shower after a long haul flight in terms of freshness. The 11 year old can be rotated in after one of the other children are finished. So this is a trade off between that need and the need to comply with the rules.

This becomes the fault of the lounge when they say that they can't leave the child outside. But they can't take the child in according to the lounge staff so the remaining option is one child stays outside. Simple. more over the child waits in the lounge entry area sitting on the seats that are probably provided and hence is unofficially supervised.

edited as dfcatch posted just as I was posting... yeah I fall in the camp of no empathy and no sympathy... I would have, but that went out the window as soon as the father suggested leaving the 11 year old outside unattended.

Why? What a total bizarre attitude. The child isn't really outside, but waiting in the entry and so is supervised. Plus I think about the cough I did as an 11 year old and waiting in the lounge entry is nothing to worry about.


Sent from the Throne

 

[docjames]

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

updated now. Access permitted on flights to Australia (incl via Asia) and connecting to or from those flights (so SYD-SIN-LHR-CPH would get access as its connecting in LHR)

but no access if you break your jounrey in LHR? ie. have a day or two then fly out of T5 = no access?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

but no access if you break your jounrey in LHR? ie. have a day or two then fly out of T5 = no access?

theoretically no - but this hasn't been clarified. If you fly from AU and break your journey in London, then try to get access for your onward connection to Europe you may no be allowed as you are not 'connecting'. But this is one of the questions we have asked the company rep on here, with no reply.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

This is so simple to understand. The lounge staff have a choice; they can enforce the rules or they can let in an 8 year old. They choose to enforce the rules. That means that one child has to stay outside (really waiting in the lounge entry) in order to comply with those rules. Surely you understand the benefit of having a shower after a long haul flight in terms of freshness. The 11 year old can be rotated in after one of the other children are finished. So this is a trade off between that need and the need to comply with the rules.

This becomes the fault of the lounge when they say that they can't leave the child outside. But they can't take the child in according to the lounge staff so the remaining option is one child stays outside. Simple. more over the child waits in the lounge entry area sitting on the seats that are probably provided and hence is unofficially supervised.



Why? What a total bizarre attitude. The child isn't really outside, but waiting in the entry and so is supervised. Plus I think about the cough I did as an 11 year old and waiting in the lounge entry is nothing to worry about.


Sent from the Throne

The lounge entry can become quite busy, both with pax just coming in and those asking questions. It is unreasonable to expect the lounge staff to also keep an eye on an 11 y/o and accept responsibility.

I do not understand why, if you are unable to understand the rules, or pay for entry, that you should expect it. And as i have said before, other, legitimate passengers may have been waiting to use the shower. Having two or three passengers in there takes longer than 1.

 

[medhead]

The lounge entry can become quite busy, both with pax just coming in and those asking questions. It is unreasonable to expect the lounge staff to also keep an eye on an 11 y/o and accept responsibility.

I do not understand why, if you are unable to understand the rules, or pay for entry, that you should expect it. And as i have said before, other, legitimate passengers may have been waiting to use the shower. Having two or three passengers in there takes longer than 1.

They are not being asked to take responsibility or supervise at all. They have no obligation to do either of those things and I wouldn't expect them to do it either. However, if the child went missing they would have to answer a few questions from the police at the least, like what did you see? Why was the child there? Why didn't you let them in? Uncomfortable questions even if ultimately they are not responsible. This is why leaving the child out there works, it forces the issue, while still complying with the rules. In my case I trust my 11 year old to be safe in that situation.

Now exactly how can entry for a child be purchased? Not via QP membership.

Having 2 or 3 passengers in the shower also take shorter than 3 consecutive passengers using the shower. That was your point that the extra child would take the same time as another adult thus preventing their use of the shower. That's just not true. In fact my family can do this in less than the time it takes 1.5 adults to use the shower. Also consider that 2 child were allowed IAW the rules, they were legitimate to use your terminology. There is only a marginal extra time requirement for a 3rd child. We also don't know the gender of the children involved, which adds another range of possibilities.


Sent from the Throne