LHR T5 Galleries access denied for additional child guest

[JohnM]

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.



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.



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

Thanks, medhead. From my understanding of what my friends did your outline encapsulates what happened. They were stunned that BA did not function like QF on lounge access (we all know differently but this was their first experience of BA).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That might be valid if it is private property, but I'd guess it is a public place. Secondly, the child hasn't been abandoned at all. They are waiting. Third it is their problem once the adult walks away.


Sent from the Throne

understand they are your opinions, but they are not supported by the law. lounges are not public property, they are private. And the child is effectively trespassing once permission to leave it there is expressly denied. the adult would also be trespassing once in the lounge contrary to instructions not to leave the child. you cannot just dump a child on someone and say it is their problem!! (except at a public school).

In response to JohnM - the child wandering around T5 was a possible scenario where child is left to wait, but wants to use a bathroom, so goes off to look for one, possibly not remembering how to get back to the lounge.

 

[simongr]

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...

Eligibility and Access to The Qantas Club lounges

Wow that is a very generous policy - up to 17 is really quite old. If I maintain platinum for the next few years as boygr grows - still getting access to the F lounge for all three of us is awesome (although I can see mrssimongr ending up in the spa whilst I have to take boygr to explore the technology gadgets in the main [-]shopping centre[/-] airport...

 

[medhead]

understand they are your opinions, but they are not supported by the law. lounges are not public property, they are private. And the child is effectively trespassing once permission to leave it there is expressly denied. the adult would also be trespassing once in the lounge contrary to instructions not to leave the child. you cannot just dump a child on someone and say it is their problem!! (except at a public school).

In response to JohnM - the child wandering around T5 was a possible scenario where child is left to wait, but wants to use a bathroom, so goes off to look for one, possibly not remembering how to get back to the lounge.

Have another read, I didn't write it was public property. You're the only person talking about dumping a child. Everyone else is talking about telling the child to wait for the return of the parent. You don't know when or how that will happen and you really have no ability to draw any conclusions, about wandering off or any of that other cough you've dreamed up.

Anyway, what your saying just doesn't stack up. If it is private property then they have just as much of a duty of care for an adult waiting as for a child. There is no added responsibility that they don't already accept having an adult wait for someone in the lounge.

BTW a child is a person not an "it".

Sent from the Throne

 

[Jrvsl]

Thanks, medhead. From my understanding of what my friends did your outline encapsulates what happened. They were stunned that BA did not function like QF on lounge access (we all know differently but this was their first experience of BA).

QF need to bring some of the other OWE members out of the dark ages. Not only re lounge access but also baggage allow. - esp BA & AA.

 

[medhead]

QF need to bring some of the other OWE members out of the dark ages. Not only re lounge access but also baggage allow. - esp BA & AA.

Actually, the BA carry in allowance seems rather generous. It seems to tell me I'm allowed a 136cm bag and a 101cm laptop bag weighting upto 23 kg


Sent from the Throne

 

[TonyHancock]

Actually, the BA carry in allowance seems rather generous. It seems to tell me I'm allowed a 136cm bag and a 101cm laptop bag weighting upto 23 kg


Sent from the Throne

Has it gone up? I thought it used to be 126cm + 101cm @ 23KG

Given BA's lounge policy I presume you are supposed to pack children in your hand luggage.

 

[Jrvsl]

Actually, the BA carry in allowance seems rather generous. It seems to tell me I'm allowed a 136cm bag and a 101cm laptop bag weighting upto 23 kg


Sent from the Throne

I am referring in particular to the 23 kg limit per bag v QF which is 32 kg. ie when you catch AA from IAD to LAX then QF its a 23 kg limit. One consistent policy across OWE incl a family policy would negate these issues. I note OWE already has such policies such as F lounge access.

 

[simongr]

I note OWE already has such policies such as F lounge access.

Actually it doesn't have consistent policies - CX allows two guests to the F lounge for CX Diamond and only one guest for OWE. Just one example.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That might be valid if it is private property, but I'd guess it is a public place. Secondly, the child hasn't been abandoned at all. They are waiting. Third it is their problem once the adult walks away.


Sent from the Throne

Have another read, I didn't write it was public property. You're the only person talking about dumping a child. Everyone else is talking about telling the child to wait for the return of the parent. You don't know when or how that will happen and you really have no ability to draw any conclusions, about wandering off or any of that other cough you've dreamed up.

Anyway, what your saying just doesn't stack up. If it is private property then they have just as much of a duty of care for an adult waiting as for a child. There is no added responsibility that they don't already accept having an adult wait for someone in the lounge.

BTW a child is a person not an "it".

Sent from the Throne

sorry - I misunderstood what you were meaning by public place.

There is however difference between a child (or other passenger in need of assistance) being left and an adult who is deemed able to look after themselves. The former, if accepted by the lounge staff, imposes responsibility for care. The latter (beyond providing a safe environment) does not. The adult can look after themselves in the event of, say, a fire (and we know that is not beyond the realm of possibility given the Qantas Club fire in melbourne). I also have been evacuated from a lounge at heathrow (VS) because of a fire alarm. It happens.

The story in the paper would not be about BA denying lounge access, it would be about the parents leaving their child behind while they went to shower.

As an aside - we know the parent in the case of the OP was going to ask their child to wait while they went and had a shower. That takes time - at least 10-15 minutes. Quite possibly the same amount of time the child may need to go to the toilet. It is not an unreasonable risk assessment.

 

[smithy]

Ph.D or no PH.D... sounds to me that the parents were putting themselves first, regardless of the rules at BA.

 

[ReLoad]

Yes the rules are the rules.
Yes The lounge dragons were within thier right to bar entry.
Yes the travellers should not have expected entry.
Yes they were wrong to get mad and angry as BA was within thier rights
Yes it is ok that some people want the rules enforced to the strict letter of the law.
Yes it is an example of BA loosing business and very poor customer service.
Yes the travelers will tell every single person they know aout how BA is cough and wouldnt help them out.

I'll ask a loaded question; If BA had galleries lounge access for families like what QF allows through its doors would it make for a meaningful lesser experience for other passengers in the lounge?

Whilst i am no customer service expert, i would have thought that something like this costs BA very little to allow an extra child in, and offers good karma and brownie points whith its customers. By not doing it all they are doing is alienating people who in turn will tell all and sundry about how bad BA is. Its a bit of a no brainer to me really.

Poor juju BA, very poor juju.

 

[amaroo]

I suspect that BA are more worried about their own BAEC bread & butter customer that access their lounges in numbers, rather than a few colonials that A) are not members of BAEC B) don't fly enough to be awarded with status C) have a membership of another airline that allows paid entry - which they do not.

I've been knocked back at SYD Flounge when traveling J on QF ticket & QF metal.....me (WP+), wife(SG), son aged 8(SG), daughter aged 6(SG), MIL aged 75(SG). FWIW, I can't see how BA acted any different to how QF treated my family.

I didn't get upset or leave one of the party at the door.

 

[rechoboam]

It doesn't matter whether the child is abandoned or who has duty of care, if the lounge staff (unfortunately) don't let the child in and they are left at the door, BA certainly have the right to order the whole family out. They are in control of the area and can deny access.

Knowing what I know about UK child protection practices and agencies I would not let any child out of my sight in that country.

 

[Timba-Jet]

Comparing 2 parents trying get lounge access for their 3 kids to 2 adults trying to guest in 3 adults is not the same.

In the family situation its not reasonable to expect the kids to earn their own status to access lounge in their own right. BA and any other airline that does not try to accommodate families deserve all the heat they get IMO.

Thinking to when I was 11, I would have no issues taking care of myself for a short period of time. I don't have kids, but would have every confidence to ask my niece to stay here for 15 minutes, do not wander and I'll be back, I would not leave her for alone for an extended time.

Each parent or guardian would have to make this judgement call based on the child's maturity.

 

[simongr]

I'll ask a loaded question; If BA had galleries lounge access for families like what QF allows through its doors would it make for a meaningful lesser experience for other passengers in the lounge?

I agree that is a good policy (as I referred to above) and I don't think the marginal cost/impact on others would be significant... but

I suspect that BA are more worried about their own BAEC bread & butter customer that access their lounges in numbers, rather than a few colonials that A) are not members of BAEC B) don't fly enough to be awarded with status C) have a membership of another airline that allows paid entry - which they do not.

This is the key thing - there are obviously rumblings from BAEC (who might be concerned about a ex-BMI members influx) members about non-status/non-premium pax - these are the people drive BA's revenue so likely to be listened to.

I wonder if the pax had had status whether the outcome would have been different...

I've been knocked back at SYD Flounge when traveling J on QF ticket & QF metal.....me (WP+), wife(SG), son aged 8(SG), daughter aged 6(SG), MIL aged 75(SG). FWIW, I can't see how BA acted any different to how QF treated my family.

I didn't get upset or leave one of the party at the door.

I would have seen this as a great excuse to lose the MIL...

More seriously though you should have been able to access the J lounge under the new (?) QF policy.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I agree that is a good policy (as I referred to above) and I don't think the marginal cost/impact on others would be significant... but



This is the key thing - there are obviously rumblings from BAEC (who might be concerned about a ex-BMI members influx) members about non-status/non-premium pax - these are the people drive BA's revenue so likely to be listened to.

I wonder if the pax had had status whether the outcome would have been different...



I would have seen this as a great excuse to lose the MIL...

More seriously though you should have been able to access the J lounge under the new (?) QF policy.

No the outcome wouldn't have been any different even with status.
We were refused as 2 x WP to take an extra child in ( hence for future travel our two mini-misses will be on Business UK tickets)

Amaroo's family could all access the J Lounge on their own status ( SG) irrespective of any family policy. QF were enforcing the one adult guest rule in the F Lounge.

We can go around in circles on this thread but the end result will be the same. BA will not change their inflexible guest rules to accommodate families. The best way forward is to have the correct information published on the QF website so that families can plan their trips in advance and devise their own workarounds ( which may include avoiding BA and/or QF altogether for those trips to Europe)

 

[Moody]

QF have a 1 guest rule, but they also have a family policy that has allowed me to guest the wife and kids in to the lounge every time.

BA have a 1 guest rule, which is enforced (in my experience) religiously at Heathrow. Even to the extent that my initial compromise of "The wife can shop whilst my 4 and 2 year old kids can come in with me" was met with incredulity from the dragon that I could even think that was OK. So me and the 2-year-old sat in the near empty lounge whilst the missus and master 4 wandered the terminal like refugees.

But ..... at Gatwick and Edinburgh I have had no trouble guesting the whole family in multiple times (ala the Qantas policy), and I have experienced similar "generosity" at various One-World lounges.

So BA are being both inconsistent and just a little bit nasty, but I am past caring now and all I can do is put as little business through them as possible.

 

[JohnM]

We can go around in circles on this thread but the end result will be the same. BA will not change their inflexible guest rules to accommodate families. The best way forward is to have the correct information published on the QF website so that families can plan their trips in advance and devise their own workarounds ( which may include avoiding BA and/or QF altogether for those trips to Europe)

That's true, PF, but one of the causes of the problem is the inconsistency between what QF does for families and what BA does.

OK, people should read the fine print but to most Australians heading to the UK and using 'family friendly' QF lounges on the way, the concept of being rejected by BA comes as a complete shock - especially when it's at the end of a rugged journey and with just little taccas involved.

At just the time when you want and need to use the services you've been experiencing, you can't. That's why it hits so hard and normally mild-mannered people lose their cool. It's just that they find it hard to see through what seems a very brutal response.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I totally agree JohnM
Having gone through the same experience as your friend. The walk of shame down the escalators isn't very pleasant, kids think they have done something wrong "The ladies in Singapore were much nicer Mummy".
The best thing we can do as a community is to make people aware of the differing policies, continue to lobby QF to advocate on our behalf and post away in the meeting threads where travelling alone and able to help out our fellow travelers/ families.