FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Is this right? BA refuses Gold access to empty lounge because of "capacity"?
Old Jun 8, 2013 | 5:40 pm
  #8  
orbitmic
FlyerTalk Evangelist and Ambassador: The British Airways Club
5M
100 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Diam, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 33,172
Originally Posted by Poxball
So BA refused access to a OWE (that happened to be a GCH), who is flying oneworld to an empty lounge? And that's acceptable?
A BA agent refused access to a OWE (who happened to be a GCH) who is flying oneworld into a very small lounge of which she knew that it was going to be over-subscribed based on the state of the bookings on that day. The BA agent also knew that its own passengers do not have an alternative (as there is no other OW lounge in the terminal) while the said passenger already had access to another perfectly fine lounge based on his own booking. So yes, in my view, that is both understandable and acceptable.

If the BA lounge was large enough to accommodate CX passengers, you can be certain that CX would choose to send its passengers there rather than in the SK lounge. They have looked at that less intuitive solution for a reason - namely that the BA lounges already get very full with the BA passengers alone even on 'average' days, let alone on very heavy business traffic days.
orbitmic is offline