Originally Posted by
evanderm
I doubt the DOT would have rules in place relating to Lounge access or that there have been any cases that would have DOT rules apply to your situation.
DOT has broad authority to act to stop "unfair" and "deceptive" practices. Promising a benefit and not delivering it -- that's both unfair and deceptive. Couching such denial in "capacity", whether or not the lounge is actually at capacity (or is reasonably expected to soon reach capacity) -- again, both unfair and deceptive. We're talking about passengers on $$$$ tickets.
Let's look at the contract issue. Your friend bought a business class ticket on Iberia, a carrier operating under it's own AOC and as a separate entity within IAG.
Your friend is also an EXP on AA, not related to BA at all. The only way that you could bring BA in to this would be to see if the JVA makes them a party to this case. Doubtful.
You here ignore the unilateral contract theory which is the theory I have offered. It is not true that the "only way" to bring a claim against BA is via the JVA.
You want to rely on an offer that BA makes regarding lounge access that is pointed out on the BA website as well as the oneworld website. Alright... let's say there is an offer there and there's a unilateral contract.
Correct.
On the very pages that this offer is made, the offer is stipulated that it is subject to capacity restrictions. Therefore; that stipulation would also form part of the contract under your argument that there is a contract. It's a point that cannot be neglected!
Suppose the lounge is not at capacity and is not expected to be at capacity. This is a question of fact, and in principle it could be proven through photographs, interviewing those who used it, interviewing staff, etc. In your view, is BA nonetheless permitted to exclude pax traveling on IB? Is this exception, purportedly for a specific reason, actually to become an exception for any reason BA may ever seek? I claim the capacity restriction has meaning and must be taken seriously. Remember the duty of good faith and fair dealing, implied in all contracts.
Secondly, you still haven't shown that any damages have arisen from this.
I don't think that's so hard. I would expect to be able to show that the BA First lounge is preferable to the single Air France lounge -- higher expenditure on catering per person, additional amenities of multiple types.
One might argue that these amenities have trivial or de minimis value. But this is a passenger on a $6000+ ticket. Putting a fair portion of the value onto each of the components of the ticket, I think we'd find that the lounge is worth at least $50 and perhaps $100 to such a circumstance.
On information and belief, Oneworld rules entail a larger payment to the lounge-operating airline when a lounge is designated as offering a first class section. Suppose my friend was prepared to stipulate that the BA business lounge is equal in quality to the Air France business lounge. The difference between Oneworld payment for first versus business would be a fine measure of damages.
That's not to say my friend is actually going to pursue this claim. My friend was never going to.
I was thinking about it, for myself if not for my friend, until BA's airport manager specifically reaffirmed that Sapphire and Emerald passengers are to be admitted. Guess he'd be inclined to write this off as agent error. With that, I'm inclined to let this fall by the wayside. But it's a useful thought experiment to assess the parties' claims and defenses. Helps keep us all on the straight and narrow!