Originally Posted by
Paralytic
I think others have hit this square on the head. This is likely aimed at blocking those people who earn Gold flying via their work (and often the choice of airline will not be their own) but then chose a budget airline for their personal flying, visit the lounge and potentially grab stocks of food on the way out.
Unfortunately, BA's decision has caused collateral damage.
If you think that the average officer worker is not adept at finding ways to fly on the airline of their choice, irrespective of a company policy, then you rather underestimate the resourcefulness of the average business traveller! I am fortunate to work for a company which has no particular preferences, so long as I do my bit to keep costs reasonable.
And to address your second point - I am someone who, for purely economic reasons, chooses the lowest cost major carrier on any given route when travelling inta-Europe with the family - I could not afford to choose otherwise. If BA offered me a limited number of Lounge vouchers for the rare occasions we do fly together, I would happily pay a little extra to fly BA purely to give them the "fun" of a bit of the pampering I am lucky enough to enjoy when I travel on business, and the cost would be little more than a couple of soft drinks, a glass of champagne and a bite to eat. It would be nice to see those lovely kid zones getting some use rather than looking so sorry and empty. In return BA would get a very high degree of loyalty for all my lucrative business travel plus 12-14 ET flights filling the backs of their planes. Not to mention getting the "next generation" of business travellers hooked on the "status" drug at an early age! It sounds like "win win" to me.