corporate-wage-slave

Yeah, but it's not just FFP: there's only one First lounge in PHL, and it belongs to BA. If a BA First customer without status was sent off to savour the Admiral Clubs' cookies, then that wouldn't be good. Similar answer for BA Club World passengers without status, they would see the BA lounge in PHL as being part of the package, if you live in PHL you will know how shiny and prominent the BA lounge looks from the outside, and they too would be miffed to be sent elsewhere.

Perhaps it's a case that some lounges are more equal than others.

Prospero

To add, the BA lounge is the only facility that offers pre-flight dining, an integral component of BA's overall business class service

quakered

Sorry but my sympathy is entirely with BA. The lounge should prioritise the needs of those travelling in First or Second on BA metal, followed by frequent flyers on BA metal. In this environment those flying Third Class on a "partner" airline need to accept they are at the bottom of the priority pile.

Often1

This is simply poor customer service and poor disclosure by BA. BA is free to establish a policy whereby between certain hours, it turns away non-BA passengers because serving those passengers is its primary mission and especially because CW pre-flight dining is part of that service offering on some services.

Furthermore, there is no reason why a carrier, faced with space limitations, may not prioritize its own eligible passengers over those of other carriers, notwithstanding the advertised "oneness" of One World.

But, BA has not done that. It is not allowing the lounge to fill and then turning away eligible passengers based on fire code.

This issue is readily solved and does not require any massive changes. All that BA need do is amend its published lounge access policy, linked on the OW site too, to make clear that at lounges where there are known space limitations, BA will proactively manage entry to assure space for its own eligible passengers ahead of others.

As to the other issue and OP's concern about the drink chits, that is a legitimate issue for BA to raise on behalf of its customers to AA through the OW process. As the "home" carrier, AA invoiced BA for OP's entry and that includes the provision of the liquor, hence the chits. BA is paying for those and they are not being offered which means that AA collected $11 from OP and then whatever the current lounge access exchange is from BA for OP's entry.

The underlying issue of limited lounge space is far from a BA-only problem and far from a OW-only problem. It is unreasonable to expect every carrier to build out lounge capacity to acommodate the whims of every eligible passenger who might conceivably float through a given station on a given day, e.g., in this case, every OW-eligible flyer passing through PHL.

Smid

As silver we got two vouchers each for the big AA lounge. Also had house wine after had my two drinks.

I do find AA is a bit quiet on the well drinks being free though. I did LAX admirals unaware of this, but it was post BA flight onwards to HNL so wasn't requiring much.

It is possible that when asking for G&T, the barman probably suggested a premium gin, and took advantage of the fact there was another free gin... I don't drink spirits, it is not definite that there is a free gin the bar. Like I said, they are a bit quiet on the free drinks subject...

quakered

My sympathy is with BA. If their is a risk of the lounge having more demand than capacity then priority must be given to those flying First or Second Class in BA tin. If there is still some capacity left then those in the FF Programme flying on BA tin should get access. Those travelling Third Class on a partner airline should always be at the bottom of the priority queue.

The BA frequent flyer programmes confers privileges on members, but these are not rights.

SecondGo

I've been there a couple of times in the last month and they were turning people away ahead of me who were either not on the BA flights or members of other oneworld FFPs. With a small lounge and better offering than the alternative it's not surprising.

Often1

Nothing is a right. This is not about whether people are being excluded based on race or national origin.

This is about a simple contractual commitment which can be honored at the BA or AA lounge and the even simpler ability of BA to cure the problem by properly disclosing its priority.

As currently disclosed, consumers reasonably believe that if there is space, they will be admitted. All BA need do is make it clear that if it reasonably believes that its space needs for its ticketed passengers will require available space that others will be turned away.

Globaliser

It may well be that some customers believe this. But what does BA actually say about it? On the face of it, the oneworld caveat seems to me to be broad enough to allow an airline to save space for its own passengers who it believes will arrive at the lounge later.

NickB

Indeed. All that OW say is that access may be restricted at busy times. It does not purport to specify what will be the tenor of those restrictions.It certainly does not state that access is on a "first come first served" basis in peak periods and I do not think that one can legitimately infer that from the wording used either.

Gshumway

That is wrong. House brands include a Gin. Also as BA Gold you should have gotten or can ask for drink chits which allow you get premium alcohol for free.

sxc

I've never used the drink vouchers I've been given at AA clubs, mostly because of the awkwardness of having to tip for a free drink.

HilFly

Why is it awkward to tip for a free drink? Put a buck or two on the counter and say thank you.

dylanks

They may also be used for a bottle of still water. While not particularly exciting, there's no reason to tip for someone handing you a bottle of water.

That said, you're under no obligation to tip.

PeacefulWaters

Although it does expediate the service received from the miserable barman in the Admirals Club (C gate I think) that we encountered last year.

The Sprite Lite was getting quite expensive during our four hour stay!