stimpy

That is very unfair to Zhivago who posted just yesterday. I think if you fairly, without prejudice, review this thread you will see the vast majority of GCH's are against this change. And in the end that is all we can quantitatively judge here, right?

henkybaby

One poster does not a storm make. I am against this move (why would I be for it?) but in the end it does not really impact me much so no point in going to battle over it. That is the general impression I get from most of the posts.

stimpy

Are you seriously going to say that only one poster is speaking out? Why do you continue this? Really, why?

henkybaby

You referred to one poster, not me. I imagined (s)he was a poster who had joined the 'fight' recently after the storm had died down. But we will wait and see if this really generates much more interest.

ThatT1Feeling

Well I completed my last Open Doors visit today to a very empty lounge in AMS. Wasn't there for long - just enough time to log on to the Wifi and send and receive a few emails.

Plus I chugged a beer I didn't really want - but just felt I had to in order to mark the occasion. One chapter closes...

FrancisA

Why not just issue a limited number of vouchers that can be used for open doors access by the card holder alone, or additional guests (such as family at holiday times)? Benefit would be subject to capacity, much as with blackout dates/periods on hotel rewards, thus avoiding overcrowding.

I suspect for many GCHs, the addtional flexibilty that this would bring would be a genuine enhancement. It would also end the abuse (if there is any) of excessive use by regular LCC flyers.

It would also be not so much a volte-face as a genuine enhancement. Let's not forget the CE seating debackle, where BA not only reintroduced convertible seating, but kept the free middle seat on the D/F side of the plane. It does show what is possible with well focused complaints rather than "let's change nothing" luddite whinging

stueys

To be fair the thread started with a multitude of posters irritated by the change, most of them seemed to be GCH's from memory (I'm not wading back through to check); I think it's misleading to say that only a few voices were complaining. My view of the thread is that the vast majority of posters expressed disproval of the change, irritation at the comm and concern at a general watering down of golf. Guess a poll is the only way to prove that unless someone is really, really bored.

Most people have had their say and moved on, which has given the impression of only a few voices. At the end of the day we're talking about lounge access here not local hospital's closing down so the internet equivalent of a mass gathering in parliament square probably isn't going to happen

henkybaby

And my interpretation of the early posters is that most posters where irritated by the way the change was communicated. I just think now that the irritation about the communication has subsided it will be interesting to see if a lot of people come and complain about not being able to use the actual benefit in real life. We'll see. I think not but I could be wrong of course.

MarkLHR

I will voice my complaint about the CHANGE as it personally affects me on a monthly basis and then move one....I don't have time to go into battle for days on end about the way it was communicated. Noone seems to disagree that it was a poor effort on BA's part yet it has generated days of bickering.

I use OD regularly (at least once a month) at LGW because BA dropped its Valencia route leaving me no alternative but to use Easyjet from LGW. I also use OD at T3 LHR when flying EK Y because BA's Y fares to DXB far exceed EK's when you don't stay a Saturday night. OD was the benefit that made sure I tried to fly BA in most other cases to ensure reaching gold. Now there seems little incentive to use BA beyond achieving silver.

FrancisA

Some might say that the part in bold is the nub of the problem. BA might say that you do have an alternative - IB from LHR via MAD. EZ from LGW may be cheaper (and possibly more convenient depending on where you are in relation to LHR/LGW). However, using BA's LGW lounge at least 12 times a year may seem a bit excessive. LGW N is not LHR T5. There is a perfectly good pay-for-use lounge (at £20 a throw), which also accepts priority pass. Neither option is going to be used if the BA lounge is on offer for free (and the EZ tickets will seem to be much better value if someone else pays for your lounge usage).

To my mind it comes down to what was presumably intended to be a fringe benefit, now becoming a much more costly item in some cases, and an item which actually promotes the use of competitiors.

I still think giving out (say five) lounge vouchers as an alternative is the best answer.

DYKWIA

That just about sums up my feelings. I used to be Gold, and never used this benefit.

I've just re-qualified, so was a bit annoyed when I got the email.

I think this is the perk that I'll miss least.

Say they'd removed guest access for Golds like Emirates have recently done... now that would be annoying.

Cheers,
Rick

stueys

It's funny, I'd lost interest in this thread for a couple of days....

Anyway, think the key point here is that the op is UK based (judging by the LHR tag) so has therefore spent a fair bit of cash to earn his BA gold. BA used to reward that loyalty by open doors, recognising that we all can't fly BA every trip but as a high yield customer they still liked you.

Now they've taken that away. It's penny pinching which unfortunately is becoming more and more synonymous with the brand (charging for seats, food, wind, etc, etc)

Whether individually we valued the benefit or not (personally I never used it), BA have taken away a benefit from their most frequent customers and not attempted to replace it with anything. Doesn't say much for their focus on loyalty does it?

NickB

I suspect that this would be substantially more costly to BA, as use of vouchers for family members would, in all likelihood, substantially exceed open doors access by GCHs under the current system.

That is not what was said in those posts. Yes, several complained about the com's dimension but many also expressed their disapproval of the policy change.
Now, it is always possible to say that these people did not mean what they say but, until there is proof to the contrary, I think we should start by assuming that people mean what they say, at any rate when they are just expressing opinions.

Now, that does not mean that we should expect massive demos in front of Waterside tomorrow but in terms of whether that move, regardless of how it was communicated, is welcomed or not by GCHs who participated in the thread it is fairly clear which side the balance lies.

terminalfive

Been reading this thread but haven't commented as yet

The annoying thing is that BA generally has excellent lounges. Great example was when I was flying from ORD 10 days ago with KL. KL / AF lounge a joke. Go to the BA lounge - "guard" looks at me wondering why a J pax from KL wants to use a BA lounge - but there it is.. I do - and the lounge was fine

I will miss it (especially at LIN where I often popped in when flying AZ.... or MXP when flying longhaul..)

But this change does affect "non london" passengers more because passengers based in Italy etc etc are more likely to fly with other airlines and when they fly with other airlines there are ALWAYS BA lounges (at least from and to places I fly from..)
Not the case if you fly skyteam from LHR terminal 4....

Will it change my attitude towards gold - probably not but any more "trimming" (guest access etc etc) really would affect my "affection" to holding GCH

MarkLHR

I'd be happy with that if cost really is the issue behind this. As a BA shareholder I'm all for the company preserving margins and value but at the same time finding the balance to keep its most loyal customers loyal.