techie

I am not saying that passengers travelling with BA should not have access to any part of the product. But, by the same token, lounge access is also part of the BAEC "product" for eligible tiers, with the only caveat being that it is subject to capacity. If BA is a victim of their own success in that their lounge is too popular, thus needing restriction of access during times when BA metal flights are departing, the logical solution is to either enlarge the lounge or open another one. Alternatively, BA could work with their OW partners so that the quality of partner lounges is at least as good as that of the BA one and the level of service is second to none.

It appears that BA wishes to attract pax from the hubs on the basis of a superior overall offering, but would rather not need to accommodate elites from its own or partners' FFPs if it MAY come to the detriment of someone flying a particular class on the day. All the benefits without any of the responsibility. If that is their official stance, they need to put it in writing and only have the lounge open during hours immediately before departures. For example, in the morning hours, the PHL lounge are reserved for QR customers only, because there is a flight to DOH around 10am.

AC*SE

Once AA open a Flagship Lounge at PHL next year, perhaps we'll see the reverse--BA F pax consigned to the flounge.

Globaliser

That caveat is undoubtedly exactly what is being invoked here, and it is the exact reason why you do not have the asserted "entitlement" to enter the lounge. It's perfectly reasonable and logical for the caveat to mean "We will say no if we need to save capacity for our own passengers, even if at that precise moment in time we have not yet filled every seat in the lounge".

TravellerFrequently

I will be travelling through PHL next week onto an AA J TATL flight.

Will attempt the get into the BA F lounge but not be too offended if I am turned away.

paul4040

By the same token, BA shouldn't be rebuked for telling you to go to the operating airline's lounge, Because of capacity issues. That's in the rules too.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

techie

That is a slippery slope though. BA lounge re-opens at 1500 while the first BA flight does not leave until 18:20. The 2nd BA flight leaves almost 4 hours later. This creates pockets of time when there are unlikely to be any BA pax in the lounge because they have either not yet arrived for their flight or the lounge emptied in time for the flight about to depart. At what point does the "capacity" excuse starts being banded around when the glass windows of that lounge clearly visualise its utilisation?
No, the rules say "subject to capacity". Not "subject to our perceived capacity based on the volume of CW+F pax on a given flight in X hours who are not here yet and our belief that an Y of them will not indulge in last minute duty free shopping, be delayed on their way or some other reason that would preclude them from enjoying the lounge and its services". If that kind of loose language allows BA to sway the argument in their favour, I can use the same "capacity" line by saying "look, there is a seat that is not taken. therefore, you are not at capacity". End of story and march inside.

TabTraveller

Capacity is a number determined by BA at any given time. Capacity is not necessarily equal to the number of seats as you seem to suggest. It could be to do with staffing levels, catering supplies, etc.

You might also consider that capacity for their own passengers and those on other airlines might not necessarily be the same...

paul4040

Capacity is the maximum amount something can contain, not "space left". The capacity of a 330ml can of Coke is still 330ml even if it's half full.

So, it's perfectly reasonable for any lounge holder to say "sorry, go to the operating airline's lounge".

Your suggestion that when OW airlines share a terminal that they should have "equal quality lounges" is nonsense. Firstly, every OW airline operates a slightly different service proposition. So, what is "quality"? How would you ensure they are exactly equally desirable? See the endless "Which LHR T3 lounge is best?" threads.

You would soon find that if OW airlines were required to have the "same quality" lounges then it would be a race to the bottom. Look at Air Berlin's lounge at TXL. Would you like them all like that, at terminals that AB happens to share with other OW airlines? They sure as hell aren't going to build a Galleries or CX J type lounge!

Non-NonRev

The bottom line is that BA carefully considered the language in the OW lounge policy when it was created.

In the US, BA had had considerable negative experience at pre-remodeled MIA, when domestic AA fliers not wanting to walk to the faraway Admirals Clubs tried to 'crash' the small BA lounges in the area that is now the low D gates.

More recently, Qatar has had explicit exceptions written into the OW policy.

So the policy is not absolute, and OW tacitly approves (or at least does not object).

techie

This wishy-washy definition of "capacity" is what rubs me the wrong way. It is very ambiguous and BA thinks that it gives them leverage to deny entry to eligible pax when available room in the lounge is plain to see. Staffing levels? I do not need to be babysat and I am not a criminal. Catering supplies? That specific PHL lounge closes for several hours, so I doubt that it has issues with catering. Besides, a lounge for me is not primarily about food, so denying me entry on the basis of them being short of some wraps and biscuits is a stretch to say the least.
If there is space left in that can of Coke of yours, its capacity has not been reached.
Then, if I see space in a given lounge, I find it perfectly reasonable to take my BP from the lounge dragon and proceed into the lounge. They are free to make a scene in front of other pax in that lounge, but I doubt that they will, since a quick public poll of those in the lounge is likely to show that those already present do not think that the lounge is overflowing with pax.

If BA are unwilling to expand its lounge to cater for the volume of pax who wish to use it, they either need to put it in writing that entry during certain hours is restricted to pax flying on BA metal or get over the fact that those who are eligible to access the lounge will do so as is their right under OW rules.

Takiteasy

You sound like a very pleasant chap!

golfmad

Oh dear. Apart from the fact that it's rude, disrespectful and wrong you run the risk of having to deal with airport security. In this day and age, that's really not something you want to be doing.

LTN Phobia

I'd like to know where a lot of (misplaced) the sense of entitlement is coming from.

Maybe airlines are harming people with all the 'status' talk?

Perhaps we should recognise that with entitlements come obligations to be reasonable and live with what the rules say and that entitlements do not entitle us to be rude to others in any way?

paul4040

Chill out mate, it's just an airline lounge.

KARFA

Sorry if I have missed this information techie. How often do you travel on AA through PHL? Just wondering how much impact this would actually have on you?

From very recent experience (about two weeks ago) I can say the BA lounge is very small, and the offering in the GC is better than the AC lounges, so if there was unrestricted access to AA passengers the place would quickly be overcrowded. As a BA passenger at PHL I was grateful that a very pragmatic measure was enforced which ensure that doesn't happen.