simongr

I assume that it is because they dont believe that kids will consume the same level of services that adults, or perhaps because under 2 years on certain carriers there is no charge for the kids (except for taxes) so if they aren't people for the purposes of charging for flights, why should they be people for the purposes of lounge access.

This actually makes me wonder about my lounge access later this year. I am QF WP travelling in J with mrssimongr and babygr (8 months). I wonder if he might be denied F lounge access and we will have to go to the J lounge - although as this is BA flying LHR-SIN-SYD as we will be in T4 most likely then there is only the mixed lounge.

Re the point about wondering the lounges were so full of kids during school holidays - I assume that the answer to that is fairly obvious?

DownUnderFlyer

Yes, this QF rule creates a certain expectation. However it was a BA lounge after all so the people there had the right to turn the OP away.

The expectation comes from many sources some practical, some philosophical. We as a society have made the decision to put measures in place which specifically protect and favour children over other parts of the society. This is often reflected in lounge access rules. QF is an example, but also AA, UA etc. who do not count traveling family members as guests. You can show up with your wife and 4 children, the nanny and the personal doctor and you will get access on one membership.
Also airlines do not count children as full adults for the purpose of fares, therefore again there is an expectation that they are also not treated as full adults for the purpose of lounge access.
The other issue is that when families travel together the benefit of lounge access are often very high but it is virtually impossible to only have part of the family in the lounge and the other part not.
This is different to traveling with adults where it is easy and practical to have some people visit a lounge while others don't.

I know, there is not right for children to get into lounges for free but there are quite a few arguments why allowing this is good for our societies. And yes, I know there are 100 reasons why the except opposite should be done and children should not be allowed in lounges at all. It depends on your circumstances I guess.

AFAIK BA doesn't have this rule because the oneworld rules are specifically designed for Emeralds to guest in people for business meetings etc. even when on different flights.

DownUnderFlyer

Again, technically BA can deny you access to any lounge, not just F. QF in SIN or SYD however will let you in because it is in their rules (your kid doesn't count as a guest) and because they generally will let families in.

Dave Noble

The rules are designed so that 2 people travelling can use the lounge. I have come across BA agents referring to the rule that the guest must be travelling with the member

Dave

nonce

Considering the crowded nature of most lounges these days children do consume the same resources from a seating perspective as an adult. It is this mad sense of entitlement that has me baffled that someone should not have to comply with the rules because they have children. It wasn't like you woke up one morning and said "stuff me, where did that come from?" Yes this means that for someone who would normally have lounge access, they will not, just as I would never leave my President and SVP out in the cold as I lord it up in the J or F lounge, likewise I wouldn't leave my wife and child out in the general terminal (but I would be fine if they wanted to leave me). Would it not be the same as when you get on the plane having booked and paid for Y for the wife and kids but J for yourself (probably paid for by the company) and then immediatly demanding a seat up the front because you are entitled to travel J and so therefore the wife and kid(s) should be as well?

You don't get a 2 for 1 movie pass and demand that the kids get in for free as well, do you?

number_6

BA strictly enforces this rule about being on the same flight when it suits them (e.g. lounge is nearing capacity). It is an actual rule documented in the T&C but contradicting the Oneworld rules. I had a long discussion with BA SS when they still existed about this. The lounge access is specifically not to allow for business meetings -- AA has that policy, not BA!!!!! AA even provide pseudo-boarding pass for non-flying guests to cross security to the AA lounge for business meetings (but there is a fee, you must rent a conference room for the meeting and not hold it in the lounge).

serfty

Qantas seem to have a similar "same flight" philosophy for lounge access but avoid contradicting oneworld agreements by applying it to QF WP's/SG's only, other oneworld emerald/sapphire travellers and guest do not need to be on the same flight.

http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying...eAccess#qfclub

goback

So if guesting in others to lounges is important for you, having a Oneworld membership different to QFF is advantageous.

Uniter

Come on over to the Star Alliance Lounge in LHR T1! When I was there 2 weeks ago, a man came in and asked nicely if he could bring his wife and 2 kids (they were about 4 and 6 yrs old) in the lounge. The agent told him he couldn't by the rules, but she would ask her manager. Within seconds, the manager was there and told him that she'd make an exception for him. The two kids made straight for the kids' room and I didn't hear a peep out of them! ^ to Star Alliance!

Traveloguy

To be fair to BA, there is a BIG difference between the BA T4 lounge and the Star Alliance lounge in T1. Firstly at peak times the T4 lounge is catering for a large number of people so I can completely understand why BA lounge dragons will breath fire as capacity constraints definitely exist. In fact this is why I recently posted a thread asking whether the Holideck was worth visiting instead despite it being a 'lesser' lounge.

Adelaide_Matthew

I think this is probably part of the explanation. The T4 lounge is now vastly under-sized for all the flights using it (awaiting relocation to other terminals). I was there last June and it was standing room only, and there are frequent references here to no guesting, and it being at full capacity most days.

explorer13

Access must depend on many factors including local rules and lounge capacity. I was denied access to T4 lounge and sent to a smaller one a while back, if it is full, it is full! In Hong Kong this year Mrs explorer (partner gold) me (WP) was given access to the business lounge with 4...yes four children..ages 12 - 17, all travelling economy. The very nice lounge agent apologised and told me the first lounge was not big and was full.

number_6

I've always found HKG to be like that -- very pleasant and gracious service and a willlingness to bend the rules within reason. The QF F lounge there is substantially the same as the J lounge so you didn't miss anything by not getting into the F section. Even the food/wine is substantially the same.

serfty

I was there last June as well and it definitly was standing room only.

Back then it was regularly so bad that BA ended up reopening the G10 CCR and Flounges in early July. These closed again late last year when the next set of flights moved out leaving only the Kangaroo routes from T4.

So while the G1 lounge still gets crowded it is not as bad as it often was a year ago.

LTN Phobia

Definitely a lot better than it often was a year ago, although it is still a rubbish lounge (and over-crowded) compared to T5 ones.