LHR T5 Galleries access denied for additional child guest

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not talking about the law, wrt the treatment by the lounge staff. As you say lounge entry is independent of the law. The lounge staff don't have to approve anything, They have already stated that person cannot enter. What do people who are waiting for someone in the lounge do? They sit in the waiting area like anyone else refused entry. Now if that independent law about minors creates a liability for BA, that's entirely their choice. Just as the parents can make their own choices about what they allow their child to do.

Or going back to my previous statement if the lounge staff treat the child as an adult under their lounge access rules, that are independent of the law, then it is good enough for the child to sit in the waiting area as a consequence of those independent lounge access rules.


Sent from the Throne

There are two entirely different issues here.

Lounge access only allows one guest. Parent then suggests minor sits by them self.

If the lounge staff were to allow that they would consent to accepting liability for the minor (if you like think of it as similar to in loco parentis). By saying 'yes you can leave them here' it implies some sort of care would be taken (not least of which if the child needed to use the bathroom or something else).

It would be the same if there was some other person in need of assistance... liability might also attract. Being a minor (at law) is just an example of where the law might deem such liability accrues with some sort of certainty. If it was a competent adult, no liability. But if it was an elderly, or disabled or other person in need of assistance then liability might also arise. It's all about whether or not a duty of care arises.

So - the law might creat a responsibility. BA chooses not to accept that and have said the child cannot sit by themselves. It is then for the parent to accept that they cannot lave the child unattended, and therefore they cannot enter the lounge.

There is absolutely no wrong doing in BA's attitude towards this. In fact it is the safest and most prudent course of action.

I maintain it is a cheap prank, at the expense of the child. No ordinary parent would ever consider doing something like that simply to use a lounge for their own pleasure while trying to pursue a point at the expense of the child (except maybe if this was the Von Trapp family where the 11 year old would probably insist the parents went in :))
 
So where do you draw the line then? When is it "reasonable" to expect the service provider to bend the rules for you, but not in other cases?


Evidently one scenario is "ridiculous", but the other is not. I don't see the basis on which you make these distinctions.

Ah, it's stupid because the situations are not the same. If they had purchased a airline ticket for a family of 2+2 and asked to sneak on a third child onto the flight the amusement park analogy might be valid.


Sent from the Throne
 
Ah, it's stupid because the situations are not the same. If they had purchased a airline ticket for a family of 2+2 and asked to sneak on a third child onto the flight the amusement park analogy might be valid.


Sent from the Throne

Ah - but they have! They have purchased airfares and memberships which come with 5 seats but only lounge access for 4 at LHR. They're trying to get an extra person in!
 
Agree with eastwest101's suggestion... allow the purchase of extra "family member" day pass... make it "child family member" day pass if needed... great suggestion oozing of practicality and common sense. :cool:

I agree this would be an ideal solution. But it won't happen - BA simply will not allow paid entry to its lounges - this is the cause of the whole "QC members denied access to BA lounges" debacle.
 
I would suggest that just because other companies don't do it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be a good idea. Maybe other FF schemes don't have family pooling but if VA do - then why can't that be a good idea?

I reckon it would be a winner for families as a point of difference, after all - its not like the OP and family will be transiting LHR every week. It would also make parents more accountable for kids behaviour in the lounges, by allowing lounge managers to invite families with disruptive kids to leave. Most kids I have seen in lounges have not been an issue - but I agree that in some cases there could be an issue. If the airlines want to make the lounges adults only lounges then that is their business (and probably another thread entirely!) but I think a fee for acompanied extra children could work and I was just trying to suggest a way that could allow reasonable access without taking away too much of the usebility and workability of the lounges.

I take MEL_Travellers point in good faith though - that if it were only a matter of a few thousand points (or a reasonable fee) and being able to stay seated with your family then I don't think anyone would be saying that wasn't fair. Personally - and its just my own opinion - I would think it better parenting to stay seated on the plane with the kids and supervise paid access to a lounge - rather than upgrading myself and mrs eastwest to J class and inflicting the kids on the Y cabin without supervision. I certainly am in favour of parental control of kids behavior and realise that airlines and lounge angels/dragons are not to be used as a child minding service.

I take others point about BA trying to discourage paid entry to lounges - and that is BA's business and also BA's problem when they are wondering why all their PAX are flying other airlines....
 
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.
 
anyway - just looking at the QF family access policy the rules as stated there make absolutely NO sense. One para says children over 12 are considered a guest at BA lounges, but underneath that is says only one child is allowed under 12. So the irony seems to be that if the daughter was 12, they could have entered as a guest, and one of the 8 year olds as a child... :confused:

Eligibility and Access to The Qantas Club lounges
 
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 make the mistake of assuming we are a society rather than a dysfunctional herd totally reliant on a written script to work out how to treat or mistreat others!

I experienced similar treatment trying to obtain medical care for a child recently. "computer says no".

So when I'm asked by BA to move seats so a family can sit together should my answer be "sorry, boarding pass says XX, I can't move as I do not allow myself any discretion"?

What if they ask a doctor for medical assistance on a plane- "sorry, I'm not on call"??
 
So when I'm asked by BA to move seats so a family can sit together should my answer be "sorry, boarding pass says XX, I can't move as I do not allow myself any discretion"?

you are required by law to comply with all lawful crew instructions. If the family concerned involved young children then that is related to safety, and you must comply.

on a slightly less certain legal ground, BA's terms and conditions also state they can reseat you for just about any reason. They could also ask you to move on those grounds.
 
There are two entirely different issues here.

Lounge access only allows one guest. Parent then suggests minor sits by them self.

If the lounge staff were to allow that they would consent to accepting liability for the minor (if you like think of it as similar to in loco parentis). By saying 'yes you can leave them here' it implies some sort of care would be taken (not least of which if the child needed to use the bathroom or something else).

It would be the same if there was some other person in need of assistance... liability might also attract. Being a minor (at law) is just an example of where the law might deem such liability accrues with some sort of certainty. If it was a competent adult, no liability. But if it was an elderly, or disabled or other person in need of assistance then liability might also arise. It's all about whether or not a duty of care arises.

So - the law might creat a responsibility. BA chooses not to accept that and have said the child cannot sit by themselves. It is then for the parent to accept that they cannot lave the child unattended, and therefore they cannot enter the lounge.

There is absolutely no wrong doing in BA's attitude towards this. In fact it is the safest and most prudent course of action.

The problem is BA is not asked if the child can be left there. BA have said no entry for the child. Parent has then instructed the child to wait. No one has asked BA if it is ok to leave the child there. The fact that that creates a problem for BA is exactly their problem. Don't get bogged down in the legalities and miss the big picture. This is a form of passive resistance. "Can only bring in one guest? Fair enough, thems the rules" "Child wait here".

This is the consequence of BA's approach to families. Sure they can enforce the rules. But customers can also utilise their right to access. If BA don't like the liability that they create by enforcing the rules then they have more choices. They could forcibly eject the child waiting at the front of the lounge. They could deny "legitimate" people access to the lounge.

Really you need to get past trying to decide who is wrong. No one has said BA is in the wrong. But it is entirely the parents choice if they leave the child unattended, for an indeterminate period of time. If BA doesn't like the liability that arises from their choices then they can always make different choices.

The time period that the child will be unattended is another interesting point. The BA staff have no way to know how long the child will be unattended. Maybe one parent, with legitimate access was going in to drop off their bag with the other 3 people with legitimate access and was going to then return 30 seconds later to sit with the 3rd child.

I maintain it is a cheap prank, at the expense of the child. No ordinary parent would ever consider doing something like that simply to use a lounge for their own pleasure while trying to pursue a point at the expense of the child (except maybe if this was the Von Trapp family where the 11 year old would probably insist the parents went in :))

now you're just making cough up. You said it was a cheap prank to get sympathy. Sorry but you have no way of knowing they were trying to get sympathy. More likely it was the most expedient approach to deal with the BS being served up by the lounge staff. Aside from the inappropriateness of the cheap prank comment you are now saying that it was done only for pleasure. That's a extremely poor attitude to have and I really feel sorry for your lack of feeling and understanding of fellow human beings.

I think a more likely explanation is that having a shower to refresh, even in shifts, was required for the overall welfare of the children after having got off a flight from Australia. That's is thinking about what is best for the children, even if BA is incapable of doing so.

Ah - but they have! They have purchased airfares and memberships which come with 5 seats but only lounge access for 4 at LHR. They're trying to get an extra person in!

Oh seriously! They have purchased 5 airfares. That the equivalent of the entry fee for an amusement park. They are not trying to get someone else entry to the aircraft.

For your analogy work it would have to be about something inside the park that is not available to everyone who purchases the entry (airfare). As I said it just is not valid.


Sent from the Throne
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

anyway - just looking at the QF family access policy the rules as stated there make absolutely NO sense. One para says children over 12 are considered a guest at BA lounges, but underneath that is says only one child is allowed under 12. So the irony seems to be that if the daughter was 12, they could have entered as a guest, and one of the 8 year olds as a child... :confused:

Eligibility and Access to The Qantas Club lounges

Which contradicts you're earlier statement that rules are rules, one guest per person only. BA was totally in the right. Now you seem to be saying the rules don't make sense. Trouble is BA acted on those nonsensical rules.

Edit: and having read the families bit, which seems to be new, each QC member is allowed [-]2 children[/-] 1 child (with BA) in addition to the normal guest allowance. www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/qantas-club-lounge-access/global/en#jump5

Sent from the Throne
 
Last edited:
you are required by law to comply with all lawful crew instructions. If the family concerned involved young children then that is related to safety, and you must comply.

on a slightly less certain legal ground, BA's terms and conditions also state they can reseat you for just about any reason. They could also ask you to move on those grounds.

Why do families want to sit together? I don't like travelling with children. Even my own.......
 
Why do families want to sit together? I don't like travelling with children. Even my own.......

Families with young children (minors) are required to sit together in the event of an emergency. The natural instinct of the parent will be to ensure the safety of their child. For this reason, sitting a junior member of the family without an adult can lead to problems if the parent decides not to head for the closest emergency exit, but to go against the flow and search for child.
 
anyway - just looking at the QF family access policy the rules as stated there make absolutely NO sense. One para says children over 12 are considered a guest at BA lounges, but underneath that is says only one child is allowed under 12. So the irony seems to be that if the daughter was 12, they could have entered as a guest, and one of the 8 year olds as a child... :confused:

Eligibility and Access to The Qantas Club lounges

Interesting, just had a look at that myself. Putting two and two together I think that section of the QF website was made up by someone trawling on BA.com
http://britishairways.com/travel/family-travel-plan/public/en_gb

The relevant section is that if a BA Gold or Silver is travelling with kid in a different cabin up to age 12 then they can guest them into the Lounge. Not very specific as to whether this is in addition to the one guest entitlement.

Overall I think it is a good move on the part of QF to finally clarify what we have all experienced and come to expect ie. Children can accompany their parents into QF Lounges

After our last family experience locked out of the Lounges in LHR, we will definitely look at burning points on Business UK tickets for our 2 youngest kids ( 18k each plus taxes).
 
Last edited:
The problem is BA is not asked if the child can be left there. BA have said no entry for the child. Parent has then instructed the child to wait. No one has asked BA if it is ok to leave the child there. The fact that that creates a problem for BA is exactly their problem. Don't get bogged down in the legalities and miss the big picture. This is a form of passive resistance. "Can only bring in one guest? Fair enough, thems the rules" "Child wait here".

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

I am quite sure the first thing they would have done if the child had been left there (without telling the staff) would be to page the parent and ask them to come back and take care of the child. Once they notice the child is there then it is as good as them accepting responsibility if they do nothing to remedy the situation.

Lounge access is a contractual right which you can choose to exercise or not. You cannot force someone to accept liability for your child (except for strictly defined circumstances such as at school). They have a choice to accept liability and they didn't. Which is fair.

If the parents had decided to leave the 11 year old outside the lounge, then the appropriate action may have been to call the police if the parents did not come out.

If I was the lounge attendant I'm afraid I would have done the same thing if that's what the rules stipulated. No shower trumps leaving the child.
 
A few points:

(1) People on this site can be a bit heartless. Even if you believe rules are rules you can still show some empathy and at the very least understanding - ie be nice.

(2) BA have made it clear that they do not want people travelling in Economy Class in their lounges. They do let them in for some flights and from some lounges but I really don't think they want them there.

(3) I have travelled with partner, 4 children and 2 nannies in economy class on QF and the QF First lounge has always been more than welcoming. It is an attitude thing I think. Having said that, most of my flying on QF is in J hence my ability to maintain Platinum status.

(4) AA have also been very good on admirals club access when travelling with an entourage, even if economy class.
 
After our last family experience locked out of the Lounges in LHR, we will definitely look at burning points on Business UK tickets for our 2 youngest kids ( 18k each plus taxes).

Interesting, my response would have been to use another carrier next time.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

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

the seats can be there for adult passengers. Or while waiting for a colleague. No responsibility arises in that case because lounge staff are not taking direct responsibility for your safety.

Given that you have no idea how long this family takes to shower, I think most people would accept that it takes longer for an extra person to shower than not. Our family would not have showered together at 11. I don't know of many who would.

My analogies are fair. The rules state one guest. The rules at a theme park often say 2 adults and two children. No difference wanting to bend the rules for an extra lounge admission than ask for an extra ticket for your child at a theme park. If the rules say one guest, and a second is permitted, that other guest should fall behind any other lounge user who is there within the rules. They have the contractual right to be there and use the facilities. Any additional would be 'grace and favour'. When i was allowed to bring a second guest into the QF F lounge in MEL the extra guest wouldn't have dreamed of asking for a spa treatment... simply because that would have taken it away from a legitimate user.


Wow, I can't believe what i am reading!

Even high court judges make decisions based on the facts presents - not always the letter of the law!

The subject is one that very much annoys me as well!

I fly all year by myself, don't eat their lousy food or drink their lousy drinks in the BA lounge and the only time I would like to take a guest into their lounge is when I travel with my family once every 24 months!

It isn't easy travelling with kids and if you have earned Platinum status or similar I think some leeway by the BA lounge managers should apply.
 
you are required by law to comply with all lawful crew instructions. If the family concerned involved young children then that is related to safety, and you must comply.

on a slightly less certain legal ground, BA's terms and conditions also state they can reseat you for just about any reason. They could also ask you to move on those grounds.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top