Game of Thrones Star Denied Access to British Airways Club Lounge [Under age]
Jul 22, 2014, 2:39 pm
#331
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 633
THIS IS ALL FICTION - PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS CLASS ACTIONS OR WHATEVER AMERICANS CALL IT.
After being allowed entry to BA's Business class lounge, Game of Thrones star "What's her name" became so drunk that she ended up being off-loaded from her flight and caused a number of disturbances, both in the lounge and in the public areas of the terminal before she collapsed in a pile of her own vomit outside Starbucks.
It would appear that, despite common sense suggesting otherwise, British Airways staff allowed the unaccompanied minor to enter the lounge where she hit the free bottles straight away, consuming 17 Vodka's Martini's, 14 cans of Tiger beer and a bottle of Jack Daniels.
After falling asleep and being awoken by a member of staff, "What's her name" lashed out and attacked the cleaner decapitating her in a scene reminiscent to her character in Game of Thrones. She then threw the contents of the buffet onto the floor and punched two members of staff who tried to calm her down.
Outside the lounge, the attacks continued and she was seen loading her carry on luggage with uncharged electrical devices before her flight to the USA. Only after 45 minutes of mayhem, where families at the start of the summer getaway ran in fear, did she fall asleep.
I am not a journalist - that much seems clear. However, that's the other extreme. Which is the worst PR for BA? Refusing to allow a minor access to free, unsupervised alcohol before a flight is a bad course of action for BA to choose? Who are you kidding? Anyone who has been in a British town or city centre after 10pm on a Friday or Saturday night knows what you get when you mix teenagers (over and under 18) and alcohol. Their lounge, their rules.
After being allowed entry to BA's Business class lounge, Game of Thrones star "What's her name" became so drunk that she ended up being off-loaded from her flight and caused a number of disturbances, both in the lounge and in the public areas of the terminal before she collapsed in a pile of her own vomit outside Starbucks.
It would appear that, despite common sense suggesting otherwise, British Airways staff allowed the unaccompanied minor to enter the lounge where she hit the free bottles straight away, consuming 17 Vodka's Martini's, 14 cans of Tiger beer and a bottle of Jack Daniels.
After falling asleep and being awoken by a member of staff, "What's her name" lashed out and attacked the cleaner decapitating her in a scene reminiscent to her character in Game of Thrones. She then threw the contents of the buffet onto the floor and punched two members of staff who tried to calm her down.
Outside the lounge, the attacks continued and she was seen loading her carry on luggage with uncharged electrical devices before her flight to the USA. Only after 45 minutes of mayhem, where families at the start of the summer getaway ran in fear, did she fall asleep.
I am not a journalist - that much seems clear. However, that's the other extreme. Which is the worst PR for BA? Refusing to allow a minor access to free, unsupervised alcohol before a flight is a bad course of action for BA to choose? Who are you kidding? Anyone who has been in a British town or city centre after 10pm on a Friday or Saturday night knows what you get when you mix teenagers (over and under 18) and alcohol. Their lounge, their rules.
Oh yeah, and unemployed teens hanging around with nothing to do on a Saturday night behave exactly the same as employed teens travelling business class.
Of course it's their lounge their rules, but Virgin's rules seem eminently more reasonable to me. Tell her she can't drink, and if you see her drinking, or showing any signs of intoxication, ask her to leave. The idea that 7 year olds can come in with an adult, and 18 year olds can come in unaccompanied and drink, but 17 year olds can't even come in because you are afraid they might drink, seems a little silly.
Jul 22, 2014, 2:54 pm
#332
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edinburgh
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 9,034
As I said earlier, unless someone is willing to take BA to court over this matter, discussing the legalities are meaningless. I know that some love to do that though
Jul 22, 2014, 2:55 pm
#333
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
Game of Thrones Star Denied Access to British Airways Club Lounge [Under age]
I disagree with your first point Homer 15. It happens all the time, but I'm 100% with you on your second point. The trouble is that many people are idiots.
Jul 22, 2014, 6:24 pm
#335
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 537
I find this all a bit amusing given that the usual topic of conversation is how many mini bottles of champagne one can get through on a flight from LHR-AMS. (None right now, of course. Bloody Maries all the way.) I wonder at what age those forthright members who are posting in BA's favour had their first drink.
I, for one, find the current rules regarding alcohol in the UK rather tiresome, and I remember a time when, now and again, 16- or 17-year-olds managed to sneak into pubs, and the world didn't end, but now it's a case of 30-year-olds being asked for ID if they "look under 25" or are with someone who does. Remember when compulsory ID cards were postulated for the UK? Was that popular? Yet we now have a situation where any youngish person who wants a drink has to carry de facto mandatory ID.
All this would actually be relevant if the lounges were licensed premises, but of course, they're specifically exempt, just like royal palaces, and I'm stunned we have pages of people posting about the law without actually knowing a thing about it.
I, for one, find the current rules regarding alcohol in the UK rather tiresome, and I remember a time when, now and again, 16- or 17-year-olds managed to sneak into pubs, and the world didn't end, but now it's a case of 30-year-olds being asked for ID if they "look under 25" or are with someone who does. Remember when compulsory ID cards were postulated for the UK? Was that popular? Yet we now have a situation where any youngish person who wants a drink has to carry de facto mandatory ID.
All this would actually be relevant if the lounges were licensed premises, but of course, they're specifically exempt, just like royal palaces, and I'm stunned we have pages of people posting about the law without actually knowing a thing about it.
Last edited by _nate; Jul 22, 2014 at 6:30 pm
Jul 22, 2014, 6:45 pm
#336
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Left
Programs: FT
Posts: 7,285
Neither are/were offensive to me, but the simple fact is that BA have a rule that prohibits under 18's from entering the lounge. Yes, they don't make that clear, but if anyone has an issue with that, they should take it up with BA. If the actress was that bothered, she'd do a formal complaint rather than an off-the-cuff tweet.
As I said earlier, unless someone is willing to take BA to court over this matter, discussing the legalities are meaningless. I know that some love to do that though
As I said earlier, unless someone is willing to take BA to court over this matter, discussing the legalities are meaningless. I know that some love to do that though
Another pointed out that Air Canada came to a compromise when in its case, they actually had some possible restrictions on the alcohol license that the lounge had at YYZ. Either way, it's now something people know more about and can debate this apparently official rule but yet apparently not documented for the public.
Jul 22, 2014, 6:51 pm
#337
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
Could it simply be the duty of care or liability issues towards a minor should they enter the premises where alcoholic drinks are freely available and they subsequently drink something, do themselves harm and someone can turn around and say "BA should have prevented this from happening by not allowing them to be there"?
I think there should be a notice at the time of booking where it says "lounge access" or something to that effect with "*" leading to:
*Those under the age of majority in the territory where the lounge is located cannot be admitted to the lounge without accompanying adult who is also entitled to use the lounge
or something to that effect, just so that there won't be a rather long thread on FT about it
I think there should be a notice at the time of booking where it says "lounge access" or something to that effect with "*" leading to:
*Those under the age of majority in the territory where the lounge is located cannot be admitted to the lounge without accompanying adult who is also entitled to use the lounge
or something to that effect, just so that there won't be a rather long thread on FT about it
Jul 22, 2014, 7:13 pm
#338
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 537
Could it simply be the duty of care or liability issues towards a minor should they enter the premises where alcoholic drinks are freely available and they subsequently drink something, do themselves harm and someone can turn around and say "BA should have prevented this from happening by not allowing them to be there"?
I think there should be a notice at the time of booking where it says "lounge access" or something to that effect with "*" leading to:
*Those under the age of majority in the territory where the lounge is located cannot be admitted to the lounge without accompanying adult who is also entitled to use the lounge
or something to that effect, just so that there won't be a rather long thread on FT about it
I think there should be a notice at the time of booking where it says "lounge access" or something to that effect with "*" leading to:
*Those under the age of majority in the territory where the lounge is located cannot be admitted to the lounge without accompanying adult who is also entitled to use the lounge
or something to that effect, just so that there won't be a rather long thread on FT about it
But really. A 17-year-old might stab themselves repeatedly with those awfully dangerous forks they provide in the lounges. Would BA be failing in its alleged duty of care if it did not supervise the issuance of forks to under-18s?
If you really want to prevent them from drinking then give under-18s a tamperproof wristband or something, which lounge staff could use to identify policy violators, and which had to be shown on exit to the agents who provided it in the first place. Or do what Canadian did. Arbitrarily restrictive policies without advertisement or justification are bound to annoy people.
Jul 22, 2014, 7:38 pm
#340
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
My guess is the liability issues (linked to duty of care). Considering how sue-happy some people are nowadays, despite the absence of the legal requirement for BA to deny entry to under 18s into self-service alcohol area, particularly in light of the fact that the general UK licensing law tend to "frown upon making alcohol available to under 18s in public places" so to speak, I can really only think of potential liability issues as allowing them access may increase their chance of being successfully sued if something goes wrong.
Jul 22, 2014, 7:41 pm
#341
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
"I'm not saying I want special treatment" means "I want special treatment".
FWIW, I got ejected from a BA Executive Club Lounge when I was 11 and traveling with my Mother. Apparently at the time you had to be 12 to be in this lounge. I took it much better.
FWIW, I got ejected from a BA Executive Club Lounge when I was 11 and traveling with my Mother. Apparently at the time you had to be 12 to be in this lounge. I took it much better.
Jul 22, 2014, 7:43 pm
#342
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 537
It must be something to do with availability of self-service alcohol rather than a self-service forks though
My guess is the liability issues (linked to duty of care). Considering how sue-happy some people are nowadays, despite the absence of the legal requirement for BA to deny entry to under 18s into self-service alcohol area, particularly in light of the fact that the general UK licensing law tend to "frown upon making alcohol available to under 18s in public places" so to speak, I can really only think of potential liability issues as allowing them access may increase their chance of being successfully sued if something goes wrong.
My guess is the liability issues (linked to duty of care). Considering how sue-happy some people are nowadays, despite the absence of the legal requirement for BA to deny entry to under 18s into self-service alcohol area, particularly in light of the fact that the general UK licensing law tend to "frown upon making alcohol available to under 18s in public places" so to speak, I can really only think of potential liability issues as allowing them access may increase their chance of being successfully sued if something goes wrong.
Jul 22, 2014, 9:33 pm
#343
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX Diamond
Posts: 372
Jul 22, 2014, 11:00 pm
#345
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL G4L), AA (Gold), HH (Diamond); Marriott (Gold)
Posts: 3,011
I think that if she had been allowed into LHR T5 CW lounge, she would have been very disappointed, as it's rather overcrowded much of the time now, and not really any more private or calm than the terminal.
Next time she should look into http://www.heathrowvip.com/
Next time she should look into http://www.heathrowvip.com/