Originally Posted by
pinniped
I think there are some cases where this line of reasoning makes sense. They impose progressively-less-fair rules and fees, so we look for loopholes, hacks, and workarounds. If the "thing" we're trying to get is something we actually did at one point have as an included part of travel, I can see why people pursue it. I agree that the airlines have made this an adversarial us vs. them relationship, not a bilateral business partnership.
But using this method to get into lounges? That's in a different territory. It isn't like we can argue that long ago, they let us in for free and have since taken away a benefit. If anything they've made it a lot easier to legitimately enter the lounge. Using refundable tickets to get in (knowing you're going to cancel them) feels wrong in any era, on any airline.
On the other hand:
1. Cutbacks in onboard meal service are a reduction in benefits. Getting food from a lounge is one way to restore some of that benefit.
2. Increases in aircraft capacity and load factors, combined with fixed gate area seating, are a reduction in benefits (adequate seating). Getting a lounge seat is one way to restore that benefit.
3. Increased use of mobile devices, combined with fixed gate area outlets, is a reduction in benefits (ability to charge one's device). Charging it in a lounge with sufficient outlets to meet demand is one way to restore that benefit.
I'm sure people can think of more.