LOL - BA lounge not a oneworld lounge.

[kezsco]

Read this funny article today, made me laugh. All of us have had these problems where we are entitled to a lounge but are refused entry anyway:

Live from a Lounge - Sir, British Airways is not a part of oneworld but we do welcome oneworld members… - USATODAY.com

As a matter of interest, I had this same problem on January 3 out of Delhi on a QF code (marketed flight) but Jet operated. BA lounge didn't want to let me in and I am WP. I didn't fight it, my flight was boarding - I just wanted an OJ before I got on board.

 

[awilcockson]

He should have read this thread first!

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....gram/confirmed-no-lhr-t5-galleries-33938.html

Actually strike that, he's OW Emerald, they should have let him in ...

 

[moa999]

I actually think he was rightly refused (at least under how the policy has historically been) although under the current oneworld website rules should have been entitled.

Despite all the cough about what he goes on about.
He was flying a Jet Airways flight and last I checked Jet Airways was not a oneworld member.
It so happens he was flying on an AA-codeshare ticket that was sold by AA.


However as pointed out in the T5 thread the current oneworld website does says "marketed or operated" rather than the "marketed and operated" that most believe it probably should be.

 

[anat0l]

I actually think he was rightly refused (at least under how the policy has historically been) although under the current oneworld website rules should have been entitled.

Despite all the cough about what he goes on about.
He was flying a Jet Airways flight and last I checked Jet Airways was not a oneworld member.
It so happens he was flying on an AA-codeshare ticket that was sold by AA.


However as pointed out in the T5 thread the current oneworld website does says "marketed or operated" rather than the "marketed and operated" that most believe it probably should be.

The reason given by the staff (assuming the blogger to be truthful in the account) was not consistent with this contention, however.

The reason given seems a lot more of a blatant mistake, unless it was a contracted lounge which only caters for British Airways customers only (i.e. some contracted lounges are not designated for oneworld members in general even though they cater for the travelling elites of oneworld airlines - Louis' Tavern in BKK is an example). However, the lounge is supposedly a Galleries, owned and operated by BA.

Then again, there are funny arrangements for QF out of BOM, too (i.e. you must be flying a QF operated & marketed flight to use the designated lounge, otherwise bust); however, the QF lounge is a third party one, not Galleries.

All in all, seems really odd. Interesting how the way the argument played out seems similar to the BA LON dragons giving lip before when they refused to believe that QF Platinum was the equivalent of their BA Gold when negotiating access to their T5 Galleries lounges. (Oh, the days of yore...)

 

[moa999]

Per:
Executive Club - Lounge locations - British Airways
Mumbai is a Galleries Lounge


I think the staff were simply trying to say he was not flying on a oneworld operated service, rather than BA is not in oneworld

 

[anat0l]

Per:
Executive Club - Lounge locations - British Airways
Mumbai is a Galleries Lounge


I think the staff were simply trying to say he was not flying on a oneworld operated service, rather than BA is not in oneworld

Ah yes - the premise was correct but the execution was faulty....

This new operated/marketed rule for oneworld is confusing - i.e. is it really in force or is it an obfuscation / mistake in the actual correct rules.... (I know there is a thread about this somewhere else on the board, but just commenting here that the "new" rule is apparently starting to cause confusion on both sides of the line)...

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Of all the lounge confusion reported of late (on AFF and FT), l'd say that the majority of it seems to be occurring in India.