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
