I totally understand OP. Had I been flying F (I assume on paid F, to top it) I would believe that EK staff at least would try to slightly "bend" the rules, for example:

-Letting him shower, even if it means a staff member staying outside the shower so he's not on himself in the lounge

-Giving him the chance to eat something in the lounge, instructing staff to clearly monitor that no alcohol is served etc.

I understand that rules are rules, but when rules are rather silly, staff could go the extra mile... I for one know some people who got into lounges in DXB (with self service alcoholic drinks) that were 16 / 17 years.. being overly strict to it's customers isn't going to help EK.. I very much doubt that OP wanted to go on a Oktoberfest party in the EK lounge.. using some common sense, and letting him take a quick shower and enjoy a snack would have brought EK a lot of goodwill from him.

Thanks. ^

Especially considering how much flying I do with them,it would be nice to have them slightly bend the rules. I don't mind being supervised, or being let in for only an hour or so to just shower and leave.

They won't let me in, but if I go to the gate and find a random to be my "guest" that is okay. Sounds like it would be easier to let me in alone, and save some $$$.

Ah. That.

I rest my case.

I'd stop digging if I were you Ahmed ....... :rolleyes:

You did say earlier you were going to stop this "unnecessary whining" (your own words, not mine), but your reference here to EK 'losing' purely on the basis that your 'entitlements' should override their wish to apply their own published rules (which in part relate to local licensing law) is perhaps indicative of your attitude whenever you present yourself at the lounge.

You're right. I am sorry.

The post has been edited. May I assure you that I do not have a DYKWIA attitude to lounge attendants. I was trying to make a joke, which clearly did not take well.

This ^^

I mean, if EK had strict rules of "no minors in lounge allowed", I would have less understanding for the complaints of OP.

But, as OP perfectly said above: If he finds a stranger that is an adult, and on the same flight with him, he can access the lounge (and due to it's sheer size, do whatever he wants there, as there won't be any "supervision"..) - but EK won't allow a 16-year old F pax who clearly knows what he's doing into the lounge..

To put it into perspective: In many countries, 16 year old can legally buy alcohol, in quite a few one's even hard stuff. In many countries, 16 year old's can legally prostitute themselves. In many countries, 16 year old's can have "real" jobs and earn real money, taking care of their own finances. Yet, Emirates apparently thinks that if you're below 18, you can't access their F lounge, unless someone is accompanying him - and be it a first ever traveller that loves to binge drinking in the lounge..

Yes, rules are rules, but overly silly rules should be allowed to criticize.

Especially when there is a really easy solution around (at least I think it would be easy to implement) - just my thoughts:

EK should make one if their lounges as a "non alcohol" lounge.

Would also ease the pressure of all those poor Saudis to withstand the attractive alcoholic haram drinks offered ;) And would allow minors of any age safe admission. Thoughts?

I just don't see why he 'deserves' acces. Rules are rules and these are known. Though luck but not getting access to the lounge to shower does not warrant the amount of times the OP keeps bringing up this age restriction issues on this forum. The problem will solve itself in 2 years time anyway.

He deserves access because he is a gold member (should apparently be platinum but there is no sky surfers platinum). If you were a gold or plat i think you would agree that you deserve lounge access, when you fly with an airline that much. Also, if he was in F or J, he deserves lounge access. It comes with the ticket, so he deserves it just like any other passenger.

Tips on how to convince a lounge dragon...
 

The situation is abit of a joke. Technically for anyone to drink in an EK lounge or airplane they would need a specific liquor license which is clearly not enforced. There can't be many pax in Ahmed's position so I think EK should cut him some slack and have an EK rep keep an eye on him if necessary to satisfy any concerns. Eg sit In one area where staff are made aware of his circumstances.

It seems wrong for these comments by NYTA (assuming they really are intended as a serious analogy) to go unchallenged ; however I shall restrain myself, in the light of the caution (a correct one IMO) by moderator eightblack, regarding off-topic comparisons & inappropriate references to bygone eras leading to deletion of certain posts.

I think we can be pretty sure Ahmed doesn't like sitting in the back of the modern bus! :D

My point is that just because there is a rule, doesn't make something morally correct. Why we shouldn't be able to compare this to other morally incorrect rules in the last 50 years, I'm not sure.

Because the whole point of a bulletin board like FT is to talk with like minded people about specific issues they raise, and then provide helpful comment and advice. There are other specific forums within FT (like Omni/Omni PR) where you can in essence, knock yourself out with all the analogies you like. But not here.

Ugh... I think this thread has been beaten to death, let's put it out of its misery!