endoman

orbitmic

Well, in the context of an institutionalised society - and airline passengers constitute one, fairness is bounded by rules and procedures that the institutional organisers define and which society members have the right to know and understand transparently. Philosophically indeed, we can find it unfair that some people are rich just because their parents are and that may be a personal interpretation, but nevertheless, if the institutional rule states that regardless, people will not be able to unilaterally take a car which does not belong to them regardless of whether the rightful owner is a hard working person or a lazy b***, institutional fairness has it that the guarantors of the institution will apply the rule equitably. Similarly, it may be unfair that the parents decide that if one of their kid has a F, they will get reduced pocket money for the week as they may have different learning abilities, but ultimately, if if it happens to Kate every time whilst Tom is told 'don't worry my darling' whenever he gets F after playing football instead of ding his homework, Kate will understandably feel that her parents are being unfair and failing their duty of transparent and equitable authority. That's the basic nature of the social contract,and here, the lounge agent failed their institutional responsibility.

In other words, regardless of whether you think the rules are fair or not, implementing them inequitably and non-transparently never is.

orbitmic

That would certainly be an option up to BA, or they could do away with the CCR altogether and stick us all to a regular F lounge just like most other OW airlines, or they could even institutionalise a "do ask and agents can decide whether they will say yes or no as they please policy, or they could go for a super duper F lounge for F pax only and higher fares just like AF, or they can stick to what is currently the case. BA make the rules as they please and we decide if we like them or not. But to me, their responsibility is to be transparent and equitable so that people know what to expect and that the implementation is equitable. It's when their agents do not do that that I have an issue.

simons1

jdsworld

Is this the guy who blagged his way into the Emmys a few years ago? He annoys me. It's interesting to watch his video on sneaking (as opposed to blagging) his way into Emirates business class. Firstly, he says he will not try and blag his way into the lounge as he's afraid he'll get caught and since it's the UAE, he's worried about jail time etc. So firstly, he's not as brave as he makes himself out to be. Video then cuts to him sneaking into business under the cover of darkness, he gives a quick look at the seat (non-bulkhead), then video cuts to him arriving at his destination (Bangkok I think), putting his seat to upright (even though they've already landed, so straight away it's odd Emirates would allow him to keep his seat in bed mode for landing), and we can see it's a different seat (bulkhead). He was clearly caught pretty quickly, sent back to Economy, then on landing asked the crew could be just sit in business class for a sec. Yet people on YouTube were proclaiming him a hero, yet he clearly didn't succeed.

Kgmm77

orbitmic

I did not even mention equality, nor am I referring to it in between the lines. That's barking at a very different tree! .



Not at all. As I mentioned, an airline can claim that the rule is discretion. They would then only have to implement that. That is not, however, what they are saying here. As for the principle of the transparency of rules, it is not that everyone must know the rule, just that the rule s it is implemented must correspond to the rule as it is accessible to those who seek to know it. Again, if you tell people 'there is no norm, we will decide', that is transparent. If, however, you tell people 'you will not be charged if you use for the internet for less than 30 minutes', and when they use it for 25 you charge one but not the other, you are failing your responsibility.



For what it's worth, I suspect the opposite. Most of the occasional flyers I know tend to believe a lot more rigidly in rules than frequent flyers. Either of us could be wrong of course, I don't think we'll be able to verify any time soon.

orbitmic

See my earlier point - there is the question about the fairness of the rule, and there is the question of the transparency and equity of the implementation. BA are not saying golds will get the upgrades. Their rule, their choice. However, if you are flying on an airline which says that it prioritises space available upgrades by status and someone with lower status gets it and not you then you have grounds to complain. Same here with, say, the prioritisation of meal choices in CW and F by status. Nobody forced BA to do that, but once that is their process, it is not for an individual crew member to go rogue and decide that seat number is fairer.



Because thankfully, most of us are sociotropic rather than egocentric by nature. Every day, people do things that cost them when they feel it is fair, vote for parties which will not benefit them when they feel they will be better for their country etc. Thankfully, for many of us, whether it deprives us of something or not is certainly not the most relevant factor by any standard, otherwise, we'd live in a pretty unlivable world (it's bad enough as it is! )

NickB

But where does that responsibility come from? It seems to me that you treat an airline as if it were a public authority. There is no general obligation of transparency or fairness on private agents. If you posit it as a moral/ethical imperative applicable to everybody as a matter of ethics, I do not see why one should accept proceduralism (which, unless I am mistaken, seems implicit in the vision you put forward) as the lynch-pin of fairness. It is but one particular aspect of one particular conception of fairness.

Practically, I think that there is much to be said for discreetly greasing the wheel at times rather than strictly abiding by the rules in a "computer says no" attitude. While there undoubtedly are advantages to transparency and there are certain contexts in which transparency should be demanded, there are situations where too much transparency can be counter-productive. You could counter-argue that giving discretion to an agent is not incompatible with transparency. That is true on paper but less so in practice, ime. As soon as you increase transparency, the pressure for identical treatment of all situations increases, the result of which is usually harmonisation to the lowest common denominator. I am not so sure that we collectively gain by this insistence on transparency but I am also aware that it is a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle in an age where we all tend to share our experiences publicly or semi-publicly far more than we used to do, say, 20 years ago.

AnaTravel

I have seen this guy on YouTube too. Watched several of his videos in astonishment at the antics. He sneaks into hotels and uses spas or helps himself to buffet breakfasts without paying. He is a cheat. Nothing clever about stealing from people. I saw the Emirates vlog and thought it looked odd.

This thread has raised a chuckle or two. The BA lounge greeter could have been more discreet but may also have the discretion to make exceptions. Some here seem to judge worth according to which lounge one has access to. It's preposterous. Some days on FT it's like I imagine the 1950s to have looked like.

Killian_S

As the OP to this thread - it wasn't so much that they blagged their way in. That happens and even if I don't agree with it, it's just one of those things. The thing that riled me the most was their behaviour once they had secured access to the lounge.

"shy kids get nowt" as one poster said, is a fair point, but at least behave properly when you have been given the privilege, rather than strengthening the stereotype.

But great to see today that one of these youtube video makers was refused entry (on a WT+ ticket no less!) because he didn't have the right credentials.

Sealink

I wouldn't dream of it.

aceman

wouldn't 718 flights, even at 140 tier points per flight give 100,520 lifetime tier points (and thats assuming without a single other flight!) and therefore GGL for life, with an accompanying CCR for life card? or were the concord flights too far back to be eligible to be added to a members exec club life time tier point count?

golfmad

Have a look at the attached article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/ex...elled-man.html

I suspect that a lot of this was prior to the formation of the BAEC and I think it's probably too late for a missing Avios / Tier points claim

IAN-UK

I THOUGHT I wouldn't dream of it. But flying off piste as it were, faced with an IRROP induced ten-hour wait, no visa and no help from the carrier, I not only dreamed of it but actioned it.

I suppose I could have adopted the approach approved by friend orbitmic, recognised my place in an alien world, and played the stoic. But what can i say? I'm weak and gave it a try. And succeeded