WF uses T1 in MUC, so there is no practical way to the T2 lounge ;)

True, but that does not apply to Hamburg

SAS probably paid even less per passenger for lounge access, as I assume they got a quantum discount. At least not anything more, as I can imagine that this lounge wants to remain viable. As it's a third party contract lounge, they probably have to get a number of passengers there in order to survive, hence the offer to SK*G and even SK*S, I guess.

This current lounge policy means, in practice, that SK wants to get rid of my business with 3000+NOK Plus tickets, just over an 80NOK or so lounge access issue. Talk about being penny wise and pound foolish. Let's not get my 2920+NOK net so we avoid paying those 80NOK somewhere else!

The stories about what can be claimed as travel costs sound very familiar. I used to have employers like that. Paying $300 a night for a hotel stay which includes parking, breakfast and internet for meals is ok, but a $200 stay at the same hotel, in the same room, without those amenities included, but with paying $5 a night for internet access at a hotel is an issue. Whereas paying $50 to use my cell phone as hot spot isn't as issue at all... I currently have an employer that does not repay any meal costs but rather pays me extra salary each month. Doesn't that mean that staying at home would be cheaper? Not really, as Norway is hugely expensive and for example Poland isn't, although it's becoming more expensive really fast now. And I get the extra salary because I travel. It's a good deal, saves a lot of trouble, makes that I build up extra retirement funds and the net amount is usually quite much bigger than what I would put on the travel account. Only when it's a business dinner on behalf of the company or other costs directly related to work, then I can get them reimbursed.

I'm currently on an assignment which brings me to destinations which are only served regularly by LX or LH. I'm EB *G and know which lounges I have access. But out of curiosity I'm wondering who will pay the lounge access in the below cases.

• Eco on LH metal entering the LH senator lounge at FRA. It's my EB *G status which grants me the access, but is it LH or SK who pays for the access?
• Bizz on LX metal entering the LH senator lounge at FRA. Again it's my EB *G status with grants me the access, but this time it's not a LH flight, so does it change who pay?
• Bizz on LX metal entering the LX bizz lounge at Zurich. I assume it will be the bizz ticket which will grant me the access despite it being a *G lounge and I have *G status. Am I correct assuming it will be LX who pays for the access?
• Eco on LH metal entering the Erste Premier lounge in PRG. Despite it being a contract lounge, LH apparently grant you access if you are *G and fly LH metal. But are they also paying?

I think it is always the operating carrier who pays for lounge access (and fast track security or similar).

I don't think it is exactly well know public information, but the hints and the discussions over the years here on FT seems to be

Star Alliance and Star Alliance lounges, the one that grants you access to the lounge pays. So if you use status (eg. Senator lounges or business lounges on Y) the FFP pays. If your tickets grants you access, J tix for J lounge, the carrier pays. Contract lounges, the carrier always pays.

Oneworld, the operating carrier always pays.

OW seems to be the practical solution, it is much easier to manage. The airlines are probably calculating this through the alliance and only pay the net at the end, still quite a bit of a puzzle to verify the whether the charge is correct on the *A side.

Caveat, I don't have inside information it. Is based on reading what people post here and seems to be the consensus.

​​​​​​So the payers in the examples should be

Eurobonus
Eurobonus
Swiss
​​​​Lufthansa

To me, this does not make sense at all. Several airlines have different lounges for C-class and *G, such as SK, LX and SQ. According to this theory, when a C-class passenger with *G is flying SK, LX or SQ, it's the choice of the lounge made by the passenger which determines who will pay the bill. SQ actually has better lounges for C-class than *G. So, if a SK*G flying SQ C-class decides to use the C lounge in SIN, then SQ pays, but if he decides to use the *G lounge, then SK has to pay SQ?

Actually, if you go to the Krisflyer Gold lounge with an SQ J ticket, expect a certain level of resistance, and encouragement to go to the Silverkris Lounge instead. Same for coming with another *A carrier J ticket.

I did not say it made sense. Nor that I have every part of the picture, as that is generally not public information. So take it as guiding principles, but the intricate details of very specific cases as you list above, there is no knowing.

On the first ZRH trip I traveled together with 2 colleges who only had business lounge access. To me it didn't look like there were any difference between the two at all, but will try the Senator lounge next time, where I'm on my own.

Well, the one in A is very similar, but a little less crowded. The one in D is pretty much the same but also less crowded and the one in E is much better than the J lounge (Whisky bar!).

I'm not sure I'll have time to go to D, E or J. I only have 50 min. when there are no delays, and both arrival and departure is at A. But thanks for the info.

WAW Update
 

WAW has LO lounges, so all *G flying on SK had access (I am not sure about non-status Plus passengers).

Today I walked next to the Airport Authorities lounge (Schengen - across the concourse from gate 30) and - to my surprise - SK is listed as the airline tiered and 'Business' (I guess Plus) passengers have access to.

I guess it is the same thing as at LHR T2 - SK cut a deal with the 3rd party lounge to pay less then the *A partner airline would charge them for access.

The WAW Airport Authorities lounge is fine - food is OK and normally it is fairly empty. Some pictures here: https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=pl...VWgSutq--u0MXO

While I am happy to see that SK still has access to some contract lounges, your logic doesn't really work. Why would they cut a deal with a lounge that is cheaper than LO when they are not allowed to cut relations with the LO lounge? Doesn't make any sense. If SK was going to use contract lounges they would logically use them at outstations without another *G lounge.