Someone mentioned overcrowding in the morning. This may be at least part of the answer. IIRC, it is legitimate for a lounge to deny access to people with an access entitlement based solely on OW status, if the lounge is at capacity, or soon will be. After all, in the absence of being able to do that, the outcome would be that the lounge operator would have to deny access to people with paid memberships to the lounge, and/or premium-cabin passengers on their own carrier. If you had to make a choice, which would you choose? If this is indeed the reason, then better communication could go a long way in solving the problem, along with allowing access during non-peak hours.

Considering how new the lounges are at LAX, it could be considered poor planning if they routinely reach capacity. But, the change in terminal access rules for passengers at LAX, as well as AA operating domestic flights out of TBIT, may be even newer than the lounges, or at least their planning, and they're having to react to the changing situation.

Actually, that's exactly what you want to see. If true, it would make the lounge a better-run place. Which do you think would be better: have the manager work the front desk (along with other positions) at least part of the time, so they know exactly what is going on, or to have the manager hide in a back office?

But, there's a better question to ask in such situation. Instead of asking for "the manager" or "a manager," ask for "your manager." This way, even if the person you're dealing with is a manager themselves, you're still requesting to take it up to whatever the next level is in the hierarchy. They may in fact be the duty manager, in which case you've reached as far as you can, at least on-site and at that point in time.

It reminds me of a situation that coincidentally I happened to observe in the TBIT check-in area. There was some disagreement with a passenger and a particular personnel (he may have been a line-minder employed by a third-party company - I don't remember the details). The passenger asked for a manager, and the person replied that he was a manager. The passenger then asked for whomever was the next person in charge, and the person repeated that he was a manager. The passenger then asked, "So, you are in charge of this whole airport?" which forced the person to admit that they did indeed have a boss that could be summoned.

My feeling was that it should be BA that pays as my qualification for access is as a BAEC elite and that the AA flight was merely incidental. On the other hand if AA had not chosen to operate from TBIT I would probably not have tried to use the OW lounge. However, in principle, I could have accessed the lounge with a T4 departure as others have tried to do. I note that on the OW web site AA is listed in the entry for that lounge!

When I was there at 07:15 the terminal was almost deserted away from the AA gates and traffic at the lounge entrance was very low. Of course they might have been expecting a rush. However they have not mentioned capacity in any of the rejections that have been reported.

I have merged the two threads covering the Oneworld lounge at TBIT/LAX.

Gardyloo
Oneworld moderator

I call BS on overcrowding... lounge is enormous...

Especially in the mornings ...

The mischief-maker in me would love to be fobbed off on the grounds of capacity constraints, wait quietly until someone was granted entry, and then loudly telephone the local fire department stating that we had seen someone given entry to an overcrowded facility

Not that I would actually do that, you understand. There's just part of me that would like to see the faces of the lounge staff

;-P

If anyone has success accessing the TBIT Oneworld on a domestic AA ticket with a oneworld emerald or sapphire status please let us know. I'll be interested to see if this has been fixed or not. Thanks :-)

The last few posts on the Australian forum: http://www.australianfrequentflyer.c...-71613-16.html suggest that they are still working on it. The fact that it is taking so long when it ought to just require issuing correct instructions suggests that they are not going to do that. Which doesn't excuse their behaviour up until they publish their new rules openly.

Tried again today to access the qantas first lounges as a BA gold (oneworld emerald) on a domestic aa ticket LAX-LAS, still denied entry. Problem is still there!

[QUOTE=MADPhil;25665435]The last few posts on the Australian forum: [url]http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/qantas-frequent-flyer-program/tbit-qantas-business-lounge-extremely-71613-16.html

AusBT suggests some changes have occured, after talking to oneworld reps..
http://www.ausbt.com.au/oneworld-cla...in-los-angeles

including atlantic's issues
"Blunt confirmed that Qantas frequent flyers and all other Sapphire/Emerald members “should be granted access” to the TBIT lounges prior to all AA domestic flights."

I have a domestic AA flight coming up. I can't wait to try this as a one world emerald, I wonder if the staff have received the message. Has anyone had any luck lately?

I posted on the AA forum yesterday: