Originally Posted by GCab

It's not unexpected though, is it?

This chap knowingly brought more people to the airport than he was entitled to bring into the lounge, and then waited around to pounce on a stranger to help him breach the limits on his privileges, in what sounds like a pre-determined 'routine'.

It was all pre-decided, by him - he could have opted to pay for higher class tickets, or go to a pay lounge, or the seafood bar, or whatever, but instead he chose, in advance, to do the hover-and-pounce thing, based on his (inadequate for this occasion) status, all of which makes me surprised this whole discussion isn't in the DYKWIA thread.

That's not the same as "oh look, my long-lost daughter has unexpectedly turned up on the same flight just as I was about to step in to the lounge with my wife on our long-planned retirement trip, whatever shall we do?", as the above analogy implies.

I'm not a GCH but from a social equity / 'two types of people in the world' point of view, the discussion is interesting. I think it boils down to, is this someone in distress due to an unexpected turn of events, in which case charity is reasonable, or someone knowingly playing the system / leveraging the "I'm a GCH and so are you" moral pressure angle to get something he has already decided he is not prepared to pay for?

The crux of it is, if you know he has planned this and is going to do it on the return flight as well, and in fact fully intends to keep repeating it every time he travels with 3 people (the 'Deliberate Freeloader' scenario) , would you feel the same urge to help as if it is a one-off distress request (the 'Charity Case' scenario)?

It sounds to me as if the key divide in this thread is between those who see it as the former, or those who see it as the latter.