LHR T5 Galleries access denied for additional child guest

[Paddy55]

Go and read some of the threads on the FT board in the BAEC section - makes this one look a model of niceness and politeness about kids access. (Generally I find this board much nicer and friendlier on all topics).

Agree with you on that one.
Still, surprised at the volume of posts generated on this topic and passion with which people are speaking.

 

[Pushka]

But is that the case? It is documented differently on qantas.com.

I'd stopped deeply reading this thread due to the copious and high frequency posting in it but these caught my eye - and checking back it had been mentioned, but to clarify, the Qantas site indicates access to the OP's Friend should have been provided.
s.

But none of the children was the age of being entitled to be a Guest. Therefore, the Guest pass information is irrelevant.

Agree with you on that one.
Still, surprised at the volume of posts generated on this topic and passion with which people are speaking.

Because I guess deep down, even though most of us here travel with children, we love it when we don't! Especially other peoples children.

Deleting this bit in response to next post.

 

[JohnM]

I think like most on this thread, if you know that what you want to do, is not within the rules of what is allowable (and these are well documented), then if you manage to achieve what you want, then you are fortunate. You shouldn't consider yourself unfortunate if things don't work out as planned. And I am not sure what the PhD stuff has to do with any of the decision. If anything, it makes BA's decision very fair as they obviously don't discriminate between "well heeled" customers, and mere mortals like us.

I only included the bit about them being being professional people to indicate that they weren't just in it to throw their weight around. Kind of trying to head off any assumptions to the contrary. In retrospect, it was a mistake on my part as it caused an unnecessary distraction. There was not meant to be any snob overtones (in fact this couple are far from snobs).

The joys of cryptic and quick written communication . I apologise for the distraction caused by my clumsiness.

 

[medhead]

To re-iterate: (Eligibility and Access to The Qantas Club lounges)The implication from the qantas site is that one child under 12 years of age per member should have been permitted access in addition to the normal guest entitlements of the OP's friends.

Pedantically, there were three children under 12. Had the 11 year old been 12, then yes, they should have had access.

(Hair splitting much)

Pedantically, you are hair splitting too much. It says a child over 12 is a guest. However, that does not mean that a child under 12 can't be a guest. You may be allowed a child in addition to your guest allowance but that does prevent you from using your guest spot for anyone.

Or in mathematical terms it's not commutative. Child over 12 are guest does not equal guest are everyone over 12.


Sent from the Throne

 

[oz_mark]

Pedantically, you are hair splitting too much. It says a child over 12 is a guest. However, that does not mean that a child under 12 can't be a guest. You may be allowed a child in addition to your guest allowance but that does prevent you from using your guest spot for anyone.

Or in mathematical terms it's not commutative. Child over 12 are guest does not equal guest are everyone over 12.

It doesn't get around the statement that you are only allowed one child under 12 though.

 

[Pushka]

I only included the bit about them being being professional people to indicate that they weren't just in it to throw their weight around. Kind of trying to head off any assumptions to the contrary. In retrospect, it was a mistake on my part as it caused an unnecessary distraction. There was not meant to be any snob overtones (in fact this couple are far from snobs).

The joys of cryptic and quick written communication . I apologise for the distraction caused by my clumsiness.

Fair enough. But I have seen some fairly ordinarily behaved professional people. They dont end up in brawls and the like, but some do project a sense of entitlement.

 

[JohnM]

Fair enough. But I have seen some fairly ordinarily behaved professional people. They dont end up in brawls and the like, but some do project a sense of entitlement.

Please - as the clumsy OP I'm trying to close down value-judgement distractions .

 

[TonyHancock]

Fair enough. But I have seen some fairly ordinarily behaved professional people. They dont end up in brawls and the like, but some do project a sense of entitlement.

I've never been referred to as professional before! Quite like that!

I do have sympathy for the unfortunate parents, but I'm afraid that's the way it is. From my experience the BA Lounge dragons are not particularly keen on letting one receive the benefits one is actually entitled too, let alone providing additional benefits.

edit: whoops just realised I'm excluded from being a professional having just reread the bit about brawls*


*Once again the poster is attempting to derive humour in a crude manner. He would of course run a mile at the mere mention of a brawl!

 

[Pushka]

Please - as the clumsy OP I'm trying to close down value-judgement distractions .

I did delete my previous post in deference to your followup post to mine, but I think my post as quoted above is still valid. Perhaps not to your family, but if he was that angry, as you originally posted you had never seen him that angry, well - maybe he projected that anger at the time.

When we travelled with two children, and I wasn't a member, it was always with a crossing of the fingers at the desk as to whether we all got in. I hoped we would, but never expected to get in, and didn't get upset when we didn't get in. And that is the bottom line. So we were disappointed sometimes too, but certainly never angry.

 

[medhead]

It doesn't get around the statement that you are only allowed one child under 12 though.

Yes it does because you are allowed 1 guest and in addition 1 child. There is no limit that says a guest must only be people older than 12 even if a child must be younger than 13. So there would be a person taking the guest spot who is also a child and in addition a person who is also a child.

Simply put there is no age restriction on the guest. The age restriction on the extra child does not create an age restriction on the guest; it only works in one direction.


Sent from the Throne

 

[medhead]

But none of the children was the age of being entitled to be a Guest. Therefore, the Guest pass information is irrelevant.

sorry but there is no age restriction on guests. They can be any age even less than 12. Don't get confused by the restriction for children being under 13.


Sent from the Throne

 

[oz_mark]

sorry but there is no age restriction on guests. They can be any age even less than 12. Don't get confused by the restriction for children being under 13.

That is just you reading it the way you want it to read.

You are allowed 1 child under 12, regardless of whether you call the child a guest or not.

 

[medhead]

That is just you reading it the way you want it to read.

You are allowed 1 child under 12, regardless of whether you call the child a guest or not.

No, not at all. You are allowed one guest and in addition you are allowed one child. It is the extra not the base. Provide a link to any statement that your guest can only be older than 12. Because none as been provided so far.

Take another example of carry on baggage. Many airlines have an allowance like "1 item of X size and Y weight" plus "1 personal item like a laptop or handbag". What your saying is if I turn up with 2 personal items (and no main item) I've exceed the carry on allowance because I'm only allowed one personal item.


Sent from the Throne

 

[Pushka]

sorry but there is no age restriction on guests. They can be any age even less than 12. Don't get confused by the restriction for children being under 13.


Sent from the Throne

That is just you reading it the way you want it to read.

You are allowed 1 child under 12, regardless of whether you call the child a guest or not.

I'm with oz_mark. Maybe, just maybe, BA thinks that three children under 12, for a couple, is just one too many in an already crowded departure lounge?

 

[eastwest101]

Okay - I understand what you are saying there medhead. In the case of the OP's friend there were two adults (both had access rightfully granted) - and by virtue of each of them being granted entry then they are allowed 1 child each - in this case both the 8yo's. So if each adult is allowed one guest in addition to their child being allowed in then that means that the 12yo is allowed to be a guest of either one of the parents right? In which case they actually could have taken one further guest in?

Just trying to follow your reasoning to get things clear in my head.

As you say - I can't find anything that says that a guest cannot be 12yo...

 

[Pushka]

Okay - I understand what you are saying there medhead. In the case of the OP's friend there were two adults (both had access rightfully granted) - and by virtue of each of them being granted entry then they are allowed 1 child each - in this case both the 8yo's. So if each adult is allowed one guest in addition to their child being allowed in then that means that the 12yo is allowed to be a guest of either one of the parents right? In which case they actually could have taken one further guest in?

Just trying to follow your reasoning to get things clear in my head.

As you say - I can't find anything that says that a guest cannot be 12yo...

I do understand his reasoning, I don't agree though. Although the wording is ambiguous. It does state that a Guest pass is for guests 12 years of age. It is an error of omission (and saying that children under 12 don't use guest passes) And then there is a limit on the number of children (one per member). So my theory is that this deliberate in its intent to limit the number of children to one per member, or two per couple, if both are members. Which gets back to my post before that maybe BA thinks that 3 kids per member couple is one too many.

 

[medhead]

Okay - I understand what you are saying there medhead. In the case of the OP's friend there were two adults (both had access rightfully granted) - and by virtue of each of them being granted entry then they are allowed 1 child each - in this case both the 8yo's. So if each adult is allowed one guest in addition to their child being allowed in then that means that the 12yo is allowed to be a guest of either one of the parents right? In which case they actually could have taken one further guest in?

Just trying to follow your reasoning to get things clear in my head.

As you say - I can't find anything that says that a guest cannot be 12yo...

That's is essentially what I'm saying, they had one guest between them and 1 child each. So it should have been ok if the QF website is correct and if BA is honoring that arrangement.

Having said that, it seems obvious that the staff just said 1 guest each. Sorry you have 1.5 guests each. (if this was the case it only confirms that a guest can be any age)


Sent from the Throne

 

[oz_mark]

No, not at all. You are allowed one guest and in addition you are allowed one child. It is the extra not the base. Provide a link to any statement that your guest can only be older than 12. Because none as been provided so far.

While you are allowed 1 guest in addition to the child, it still remains that you are only allowed 1 child. Calling the second child a guest doesn't stop them still being a child!

 

[eastwest101]

Something like this?

%@^*+# = conditions of lounge entry open to interpretation of intent and/or if we or our partner airline are honouring our commerical-in-confidence lounge access agreement, which may or may not be found on our conditions of entry: OW_lounge_access_policy.com

 

[medhead]

While you are allowed 1 guest in addition to the child, it still remains that you are only allowed 1 child. Calling the second child a guest doesn't stop them still being a child!

You've got this back to front. You are allowed one guest who can be any age! In this case, the 11 year old is my guest. In addition to the guest you are also allowed a child. You are allowed a guest who can be any age.

It is a limit of one extra child not 1 child total.

Think about the implications of what you're trying to sell. Before the family policy, which is not that long ago, no guest could be a child. Yet I've guest one of my children into the lounge many times. Also your view says I can't have 2 personal items as carry on. Get the order right, the guest allowance is first and foremost. It is totally illogical to try to modify the basic allowance in terms of the extra.


Sent from the Throne