Most people outside of FT have no idea what the difference is. They book a flight in F from ZRH to let’s say LAX and are surprised that their F-ticket that gives them access to an LX F-cabin does not give them access to the FCL, which is part of LX‘s F-product. I completely understand their disappointment.

If, as you say, people outside FT have no idea of the difference then they would theoretically turn up expecting they have purchased a ticket on United and look for a Global First lounge, not the swiss F lounge. What they get at ZRH is a beautiful Senator lounge in terminal E. And of course they’d get a huge surprise once on board to see LX’s product rather than united’s.

But I suspect that only affects a small number of passengers. The rest knew they were - in many cases - buying United fares, at a huge discount, over the prices LX charged.

You are entitled to your opinion and I have the liberty not to share it.

If I tell my secretary to book a flight in F from ZRH to LAX, she will just book a reasonably priced ticket and does not know anything about the lounge arrangements unique to LX. And she should not have to know it. And I would still be disappointed by the stingy behavior of LX.

LX should have never sold discounted F tickets through UA or given the pax, which are then LX pax, the full LX F service including ground services. What‘s next: no champagne on board for codeshare pax?

One would expect anyone flying F to have a degree of intelligence, and see signs for First Class lounges at ZRH & expect to be able to enter based on the fact they are flying F on LX metal, irrespective of whom they purchased the ticket from.
SWISS were just wrong denying UA codeshare pax FCL access in ZRH & the body of opinion on this is clear, I’m fairly sure that ridiculous ruling cost LX dear in lost ticket sales.

Or able to read airport signs.

Both the A and E First Lounges are very clearly sign posted with branding making clear that they are associated with the Swiss First Class product. In the case of the A lounge this branding is very clearly visible from the general concourse level.

If I am travelling in a cabin marketed and branded with the Swiss First Class product I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that the lounge sharing that same marketing and branding is also open to me. I don’t think that this is an unreasonable expectation as this is why marketing teams develop a brand identity and this assumption is proven correct on ever other carrier that I can think of (but I am open to be corrected here as I haven’t flown every airline in the world).

In cases where the lounges are branded differently (BA Concorde Room and QR Al Safwa both spring to mind as examples) then I think the argument you put forward is more reasonable as they are branded differently and so there isn’t an expectation of access being made due to a commonality of branding. However, in both these cases a codeshare also gets you in as it’s the product you fly that determines access.


There is nothing stopping airlines differentiating cabin service based on arbitrary characteristics such as passenger profile, elite status or price paid. In fact airlines do this all the time in small ways - personal welcomes by the crew, priority for certain meals etc.

However these differences routinely employed aren’t as stark as the lounge access rules Swiss apply to their First Class lounge and all passengers within a given cabin are given a broadly similar baseline experience on the ground and in the air so that they know what to expect. All airlines also apply this practice in their own ways and do it discreetly in most cases so that it isn’t obvious.

In my view the ground handling should reflect this custom and practice too, but that is just a view and airlines are, of course, able to differentiate if they wish. Thus, whilst I obviously disagree with both you and Swiss about their decisions re their First Lounge access rules due to the way they market and brand the onboard product and lounge product with the same branding identity, they’re doing nothing illegal. Customer unfriendly as it may be they are free to operate their business as they see fit.

Also worth remembering that they could brand the First Class lounges differently to avoid this customer unfriendly confusion if they wanted to. Had they done that then I would agree fully with the argument that you have put forward.

SQ F passengers have purchased and are flying a different product with different branding so there should be a reasonable expectation that ground services will be different.

If you’re talking about an SQ codeshare on LX in F then I think similar confusion would ensue. After all, custom and practice dictates that you abide by the operating carriers rules and use their ground services such as checkin etc.

An SQ F passenger is a star alliance F passenger and therefore would expect to be able to use any star alliance F lounge. As they can througout the USA, and in BKK, NRT/HND, ICN, SIN and anywhere else SQ or others offer F lounges. But LH and LX is different. Yet SQ F pax know the score.

I agree and I think they should be granted access too, but they’re not and I don’t think that is right as it dilutes the *A branding. But I don’t think this position is as unreasonable as the LX codeshare arrangement as these passengers have purchased and are flying a separate product and the Swiss F lounges carry no *A First Class branding from my memory.

If the operating carrier is LX the position seems very unreasonable as LX is actually diluting their own branding which seems counter intuitive to me.

No, you purchase a product marketed by UA but are flying a product operated by LX.

Yes. I’m flying LX from GVA with my other half flying LuxAir (a M&M airline) at the same time on Sunday and as HON I’m pretty sure I won’t be able to guest him into the F Lounge.