LHR T5 Galleries access denied for additional child guest

[pagingjoan]

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

.... We also don't know the gender of the children involved, which adds another range of possibilities.

Sent from the Throne

Three girls, according to the OP.

 

[amaroo]

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

Tough luck with getting knocked back. Leaving a child alone in a terminal is the parents choice not an employee from an airline lounge.

Never really thought that a shower is worth more than the safety of a child.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

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

by allowing the child to sit there they would be accepting responsibility for the child's safety. this creates a duty of care. duty of care can be breached and give rise to an action in negligence. what if there was a fire (as happened at the qantas club) and the parents are forced to leave by an emergency exit. should the staff take responsibility for the child left behind? or what if the child is sitting theree waiting and wants to use the toilet? why on earth should the staff have to leave their post and accompany the child?

on no level does leaving a child unattended make sense, or should accrue responsibility on the lounge attendants.

lounge access could have been arranged for the additional passenger simply by using points, or buying outright, a club Europe ticket for the lhr/cph sector. it's 610 miles, so just inside zone 2. (I already acknowledged the child couldn't buy qantas club membership as too young).

I don't really care how long it takes for the family to shower. an extra person takes extra time. I wouldn't want to be waiting in the queue behind one person only to find they go in with two or three! that's crazy. I might actually have a short connection and not have the time to wait, and I'm not the free loader. my right trumps theirs.

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?

 

[medhead]

by allowing the child to sit there they would be accepting responsibility for the child's safety. this creates a duty of care. duty of care can be breached and give rise to an action in negligence. what if there was a fire (as happened at the qantas club) and the parents are forced to leave by an emergency exit. should the staff take responsibility for the child left behind? or what if the child is sitting theree waiting and wants to use the toilet? why on earth should the staff have to leave their post and accompany the child?

on no level does leaving a child unattended make sense, or should accrue responsibility on the lounge attendants.

Well I guess they shouldn't have seats at the lounge entry for people sit in while waiting for someone in the lounge. All of those things makes sticking to the rules even in this case even more stupid. The lounge staff have created the problem, possibly by enforcing management directions, that is why they should have to deal with the consequences of their choices. What do you suggest they do? Instead of being negative why not put up a solution.

lounge access could have been arranged for the additional passenger simply by using points, or buying outright, a club Europe ticket for the lhr/cph sector. it's 610 miles, so just inside zone 2. (I already acknowledged the child couldn't buy qantas club membership as too young).

Right so buy the onwards flight in a separate PNR. If you think about it carefully that is not a solution. Unless you what to tell us about following the rules if they missed the connection due to a delay of the inbound flight.

I don't really care how long it takes for the family to shower. an extra person takes extra time. I wouldn't want to be waiting in the queue behind one person only to find they go in with two or three! that's crazy. I might actually have a short connection and not have the time to wait, and I'm not the free loader. my right trumps theirs.

Your first statement is wrong, an extra person does not necessarily take longer. Secondly, three legitimate people on the lounge using the shower together takes less time than three legitimate people using the shower separately. So you will actually get into a shower quicker. Which addresses the concern you raised initially.

I would also suggest your freeloader remark is bang out of order. They were legitimate, to use your terminology and definition.

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?

Wow! I don't know how anyone can even think of such a ridiculous analogy.


Sent from the Throne

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

Well I guess they shouldn't have seats at the lounge entry for people sit in while waiting for someone in the lounge. All of those things makes sticking to the rules even in this case even more stupid. The lounge staff have created the problem, possibly by enforcing management directions, that is why they should have to deal with the consequences of their choices. What do you suggest they do? Instead of being negative why not put up a solution.



Right so buy the onwards flight in a separate PNR. If you think about it carefully that is not a solution. Unless you what to tell us about following the rules if they missed the connection due to a delay of the inbound flight.

Your first statement is wrong, an extra person does not take longer. Secondly, three legitimate people on the lounge using the shower together takes less time than three legitimate people using the shower separately. So you will actually get into a shower quicker.

I would also suggest your freeloader remark is bang out of order. They were legitimate, to use your terminology and definition.



Wow! I don't know how anyone can even think of such a ridiculous analogy.


Sent from the Throne

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.

 

[Canny man]

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

BA lost my business due to a similar incident. I was flying with my wife and 2 kids (12 and 9 at the time). I had a paid for F ticket they were in PE. Due to the rules I was unable to guest in the T4 lounge (when it was on its last legs befre the refurb). Another passenger offered to guest the additional. Problem solved and in we went.....or so we thought.
Next thing we know the Lounge manager was standing in front of us demanding to know where the 'guester' was. As he wasn't with us we were in breach of lounge rules and one of us had to leave.

We had no alternative but to move on to sequential guest mode to ensure kids were fed and watered before their long flight.

I know there are rules. But it seems petty that the additional kid can cause legit users of the lounge to miss out as they have to babysit outside. The BA lounges even had a kids play area - so no loss of space for other guests. This is something QF get right.

 

[medhead]

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.

If a child is considered an adult for lounge entry purposes then they are an adult for waiting purposes. There is the failure in relation to children.

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.

Your point was that the extra guest would take as long as an adult showering separately. I'm simply stated that is wrong and hence your complaint has no merit.

BTW I know how long it takes my family to shower at the same ages and gender (as it turns out). But you have no idea how long any other unknown adult takes to shower.

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.

Whatever you reckon.

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.

using the spa is another false analogy, as your second guest would be occupying a full allocation of that "facility". An extra child using a shower with the rest of the family does not occupy the full allocation of an adult. Pure and simple.


Sent from the Throne

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If a child is considered an adult for lounge entry purposes then they are an adult for waiting purposes. There is the failure in relation to children.



Your point was that the extra guest would take as long as an adult showering separately. I'm simply stated that is wrong and hence your complaint has no merit.

BTW I know how long it takes my family to shower at the same ages and gender (as it turns out).



Whatever you reckon.



using the spa is another false analogy, as your second guest would be occupying a full allocation of that "facility". An extra child using a shower with the rest of the family does not occupy the full allocation of an adult. Pure and simple.


Sent from the Throne

the law does not agree with you. an 11 year old is still a minor. Lounge entry or fare rules are independent of that law. (and in the same way, an airline charges a passenger over 12 the full adult fare does not mean that child has the right to sit at an exit row 'as an adult'). If the lounge staff approved the 11 year old to sit there a liability potentially accrues.

Once again, your assumption that a child will take less time in their own shower is simply that (an assumption). There is no proof except for your family Our family is different. We don't shower together (at least not at 11 - that would be a bit strange to us). Time taken in the shower varies according to lots of things. If the 11 year old had long hair and decided to wash and blow dry that then they could take longer.

 

[Princess Fiona]

The whole shower debate is really not an issue. There are ample facilities at T5 and IMHO no-one will be inconvenienced by an extra 11 year old.
The problem arises when everyone wants to take in their extra 11 year old/ nanny/granny/mistress flying long-haul on a Y ticket.
BAEC solution to this is to have a "no discretion" rule and they stick to it. We may not like it but there isn't a lot we can do about it.
There are some very heated threads on this subject over at the BA Forum on FT.
Basically a lot of their elites don't want BAEC to have any discretionary access for families, period.

 

[lovestotravel]

Rules are rules

Case closed

 

[eastwest101]

Whilst I often don't agree with medhead I do think that this situation needed some common sense by BA. Medhead has got a good point about having to buy a separate PNR or an access by class of service as a workaround - it isn't really a realistic alternative, unless you think everyone can afford to fly their family around on J class. I don't think thats fair. The OP has already stumped up 2 x QC memberships plus airfares for 2 adults and 3 kids.

Guesting of the extra child by someone else is an exercise in hair-splitting and seems to be encouraged by BA own conditions of access, it should be expected by people whom make the rules.

The analogy with the family pass for a theme park or say cinema is not really appropriate because a family of 2 adults and 3 kids would expect to pay for the family pass and also for one additional child, and the theme park would be willing to accept the extra child at said fee.

I think a simple "charge per use" for extra minors acompanied by parents whom have lounge access would have been the most logical and acceptable for all concerned. Really - how difficult could that be? Could even be pre-purchased upon booking. And I wouldn't think that JohnM's friend would have had a problem with that, and more revenue for BA plus less time wasting by lounge dragons having to enforce impractical rules for families travelling together.

 

[Princess Fiona]

This is nothing to do with QF, this is the implementation of Lounge Access rules by BA.
IMHO it would be beneficial if OW were to have a Family/Minors lounge access policy

 

[JohnM]

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

While I fully concur that 'rules are rules', it is impossible to set rules (or legislate) for every conceivable situation or eventuality.

I am fully aware of how rigid BA can be but my friends weren't. They had access for the whole family at the QF lounges earlier so had a a reasonable presumption that's how it worked.

They were not deliberately trying to 'scam' an extra person in. It was clearly a family with slightly unusual circumstances (twins).

My opinion, simply put, is that a little common-sense discretion could have been exercised by the BA lounge dragons in a situation like this.

 

[Canny man]

Excellent suggestion re 'purchasing' guest access

I wouldn't have a problem if I was asked to fork out say 5 to 10k ff points to add a child guest.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Whilst I often don't agree with medhead I do think that this situation needed some common sense by BA. Medhead has got a good point about having to buy a separate PNR or an access by class of service as a workaround - it isn't really a realistic alternative, unless you think everyone can afford to fly their family around on J class. I don't think thats fair. The OP has already stumped up 2 x QC memberships plus airfares for 2 adults and 3 kids.

I was talking about one ticket, even an award for a few thousand miles to gain access. I believe one member was by status, so they only purchased on Qantas club membership.

If we were going to introduce pay per use, then BA would have done that. The I could take both my elderly parents in with me if i wanted to. ATM we buy appropriate entry through class of service, or just don't expect to use the lounge. Nor would we pull the cheap prank of trying to elicit some sort of sympathy by leaving one elderly parent outside while the others went in.

 

[medhead]

the law does not agree with you. an 11 year old is still a minor. Lounge entry or fare rules are independent of that law. (and in the same way, an airline charges a passenger over 12 the full adult fare does not mean that child has the right to sit at an exit row 'as an adult'). If the lounge staff approved the 11 year old to sit there a liability potentially accrues.

Once again, your assumption that a child will take less time in their own shower is simply that (an assumption). There is no proof except for your family Our family is different. We don't shower together (at least not at 11 - that would be a bit strange to us). Time taken in the shower varies according to lots of things. If the 11 year old had long hair and decided to wash and blow dry that then they could take longer.

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.

I think you'll find that being a minor is only coincidentally related to children not getting an exit row.

The shower time is not an assumption it is simple logistics. Adult showers, then gets out, dries, gets dressed, dries hair, applies makeup, cleans teeth, repacks bag. While the adult is doing all those things after getting out of the shower, the children can shower, get out, get dried, get dressed. There is an overlap in the tasks such that they can be performed concurrently. This results in efficiency in using the facilities. It also means that only one shower "cubicle" is occupied not 2 or 3, further efficiency. The required time is naturally reduced by these efficiencies.

As for the showing together. 1. Same gender together, I don't shower with my children. 2. We only do this in lounges when efficient and quick use is required because there are other people waiting who might have a tight connection. 3. A full wash, condition and blow-dry of long hair is not undertaken for the same reasons as 2. 4. What we would normally do at home doesn't apply to a lounge out of consideration of the needs of others. eg I don't read a good book for 30 minutes before having my shower.


Sent from the Throne

 

[medhead]

. Nor would we pull the cheap prank of trying to elicit some sort of sympathy by leaving one elderly parent outside while the others went in.

frankly characterising leaving someone outside as a cheap prank is poor form. I would leave my child, or grandparents if still alive, outside simply in fulfillment of the lounge access rules. No sympathy wanted or expected. But on the other side of the coin the lounge staff will get no sympathy from menif my child bursts into tears. It is a simple business arrangement, if BA want to make it that, with the support of all those people on FT by the sound of things.


Sent from the Throne

 

[Paddy55]

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.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Wow! I don't know how anyone can even think of such a ridiculous analogy.

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.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I think a simple "charge per use" for extra minors acompanied by parents whom have lounge access would have been the most logical and acceptable for all concerned. Really - how difficult could that be?

How many airlines do this? Hardly any. So it's either not that easy, or they don't think it makes good business sense.