guest denied access to newark clubhouse

I am so sorry if my original post was misleading. This being the first time I ever posted anything to this group, I was trying to be brief with only the essential facts. I did mean the my husband was denied access, because he was. It was an hour later, only through my research on my laptop in the club and a lengthy time on hold with the gold desk that the manager begrudgingly "allowed" him in. I felt that my husband ultimately being allowed access until 8:00 (only one hour) was somewhat irrelevant, since he was in fact turned away at the door. Instead of relaxing in the clubhouse, I spent most of my time trying to get him access. The fact that the manager at 8:00 made another decision to let him stay after she turned away so many other people at the door only showed how arbitrary the whole thing is.

My purpose of the post was to find out if anyone else had experienced this and to get suggestions on what to do so it wouldn't happen to others or me again. With that as my goal, it seemed unnecessary, at the time, to complicate the story with information that wasn't necessary, particulary since many other people were denied any access at all.

Please forgive me. It was not my purpose to mislead.

[Decker]

Francine

Thank you for the courtesy of your explanation. Rest assured we don't normally accuse first time posters of being liars . Thank you for trying to keep things brief. Regretfully in this case the explanation actually shows that your experience was worse than originally surmised as you didn't even have the benefits of an oasis as you tried to gain admittance for your husband.

The collective advice stands stronger - a polite but firm letter to Customer Services setting out the events and your considered response to them and asking for a written undertaking that this will not happen again - perhaps something you can carry with you whn travelling!

Again welcome to the board and hopefully your next posts will meet with a less robust response - how about a Trip Report ? Especially if you're a fan of the EWR CH 'cos as is known around these parts it isn't my favourite for many reasons!

[preiffer]

Absolutely, Francine - send a letter of complaint. The procedure/rules/benefits were not followed as they should have been by the lounge agent (or manager).

I think the key point here is that ALL facts are required on a forum post such as this, so that people can give you more accurate (and relevant) assistance. Only then, can people really understand the issue you've brought to the table from the outset - rather than waiting for the next "instalment" (so to speak).

Thanks [y]

Originally posted by Decker
Regretfully in this case....

I think that should read "Regrettably...". The explanation cannot be regretful, an emotion. Comments?

[Decker]

Interesting - I was expressing regret that the full force of the explanation had not come through because of the missing salient details. So I was regretful. The fact was regrettable. Ponder ponder ponder

Well, the dirty deed is done...I have sent the letter. Thank you all for the helpful advice.
I will keep you apprised of the result.

[Decker]

Hopefully you will receive a swift response

Er, well I'm afraid my sympathies are with the Manager on this one. If there is an overall limit on the number of people allowed into the clubhouse and he knows (or thinks he knows) that the limit is likely to be broken with Au members alone, then what is he to do? Accept a guest and later refuse access to an Au?
"Why can't I get clubhouse access?" asks the Au reasonably. "Because we allowed a guest in before you"
I think he probably did a very good job in denying access, then allowing access once the situation became clearer.
What he may not have done is explained the situation to the OP's understanding.

With all due respect, Ian, the point that has been made is that there needs to be clear guidelines on this. If VA is going to lure people to go for GOLD with the promise of "you and your guest" may enjoy the CH, then they should ensure that it is possible, or else say "except at Newark where it is up to the discretion of the manager." I, too, have sympathy for the manager...she should never have been forced to make such a decision. I see her as a victim here as well.

[Decker]

Ian - the answer then is to deny non VS Pax entry surely?

[RichardMannion]

Originally posted by Decker
Ian - the answer then is to deny non VS Pax entry surely?

Ahh, but then they don't want to turn away money do they? Short term vision and all that.

Originally posted by Decker
Ian - the answer then is to deny non VS Pax entry surely?

Other airlines have written contracts with VS to allow their premium passengers access. To deny them access and allow access to "accessory" passengers of VS gold members would be sort of screwing the other airlines over.

However, my opinion stated above would only really apply if the clubhouse was already substantially full. The OP stated that it was not and that the manager was "expecting" a large volume of passengers. In this case I don't think the guest should have been denied because it is a matter of "first-come, first-serve". If the lounge was pretty full at the time I could easily see why they would deny the guest access to allow more premium ones in.

I don't think there is anything between our views, Francinek, except that I don't subscribe to the first-come, first-served basis of allowing entry. Also, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who was 'lured' to become Au because he would then be allowed a guest into a clubhouse.

[Decker]

Francine has previously explained that WAS one of her prime motivators Ian in her first post

since a main reason I fly Virgin is to keep my tier points up to gold level so I and my husband (who doesn't travel as much me)can use the clubhouse

.

I subscribe to a rules based basis for allowing entry. If the rules state that guests are subject to capacity restriction then so be it - in other areas of Au benefits VS are quite clear that they are capacity restricted. If the rules make no mention of capacity restrictions for Au guests then how are we to know whethe this is a rule or a caprice on the part of the desk person/manager?

Well, yes, and the extract demonstrates that one of Francine's prime motivators is that SHE can use the clubhouse and a secondary motivator is her husband's access - ...doesn't travel as much as me...
Surely you are not suggesting that all clubhouses have unlimited capacity, when the reverse is true; they are all limited in capacity.

Originally posted by Ian
I don't think there is anything between our views, Francinek, except that I don't subscribe to the first-come, first-served basis of allowing entry. Also, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who was 'lured' to become Au because he would then be allowed a guest into a clubhouse.

Well, guest access into a clubhouse is a prime motivator for me.
My wife and I travel frequently on VS on the cheapest of cheap tickets, but the "luxury" of a club house for BOTH of us is the main reason I carefully arrange my business travel to maximise my TP's

Else I'd chase the even cheaper tickets available on the likes of KLM, and use our priority pass cards for access to the Holideck lounge in T4, which isn't a too bad a place to while away a couple of hours.

BUT I can sympaphise with the EWR CH manager, as I was only pondering the very same subject a few weeks ago:
What if a high number of flights were fully booked in Upper and there was a high proportion of Golds on each flight in economy. At some point it stops being a matter of comfort and becomes a safety issue. How is that handled?

I'm sure VS have the statistics to work with when planning a clubhouse and any partnering deals, but what if the unexpected happens?

At least a clear cut and published guideline is needed.
Now, whether that guideline is deny entry to guests of Au, or Deny entry to shared airlines is open to endless debate.

For what it's worth, I say make it Guests of Au... but with an instantly administered compensation (miles?). That should keep the money spinning sharing airlines happy, and may not loose valued long term VS custom.

Question.

Passenger A: flying in Economy, not a FC card holder, but has pre-paid access to Heathrow for £65 or whatever it is.

Passenger B: Gold Card holder and Lord of the Manning.

Heathrow Clubhouse at capacity. Who gets entrance to the one place available? [?]

[Decker]

Interesting how the same sentence can speak so differently to different people. I viewed the sentence as a boolean construct thusly :-

A Main Reason For Keeping Au = ((I AND Husband) can use Clubhouse)

you read it as

A Main Reason For Keeping Au = (I can use Clubhouse)
A Secondary Reasdon For Keeping Au = (Husband can use Clubhouse)

You are correct in your assertion that I am not suggesting that all clubhouses have unlimited capacity - but then rereading my postings I never even raised this as a possibility. Surely you are not suggesting that guests of Au members should be slaughtered on the tarmac when the reverse is true, they should be allowed to live? I am simply calling for a clear statement and application of rules. I'm English - I thrive on rules...

[Decker]

Alan

B. They have shown a commitment to an ongoing revenue stream as opposed to the opportunistic nature of A.

Precisely why Au guests should get priority over other airlines' flyers/guests.

[fozzyo]

B as well - A can get a refund, services paid for not provided. I'm fairly sure this was a poll previously on here with several such scenario's.

Having all agreed that clubhouses have limits on capacity, then the priority rule would look something like:
1. Au's in UC full fare
2. Au's in UC non-full fare
3. Au's in PE full fare
4. Au's in PE non-full fare
5. Au's in Ec full fare
6. Au's in Ec non-full fare
7. Au's in UC reward ticket
8. Au's in PE reward ticket
9. Au's in Ec reward ticket
10. Guests of Au's in 1 above travelling in UC on full fare
11. Guests of Au's in 1 above travelling in UC non-full fare
12. Guests of Au's in 1 above travelling in PE on full fare
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz carry on until bored to death.
I'll let others finish off the list to see how long it can get. 60 levels of priority maybe? A challenge.

I mention the capacity restriction because it exists and there was not a lot of recognition of that in the earlier posts. The comparison with slaughtering is flippant, but please don't get upset that I say so. I viewed Francine's sentence the way I did because I doubt very much that she doesn't use the clubhouse when travelling alone.

[Decker]

Ian - no upset at all - this is a fun, robust discussion. Wish there were more like it. People sticking to their guns and all that!

I'm GUESSING that Francine's choice as an EWR flyer is qualify with VS or qualify with CO and as far as I can see CO provide "Lounge Access: Platinum members enjoy complimentary access to SkyTeam lounges worldwide when traveling on or connecting to a SkyTeam operated international* flight. Present your same-day ticket for admission." - the implication being no guest access.

So this was an important factor in Francine's decision making process.

Decker, why be an Anonymous Member?

[Decker]

Ian - why not?

[RichardMannion]

But surely that is VS all over, promise somethign and then caveat it later. Inflight massage anyone? CDC anyone?

Ian, I see your way of thinking and it's a logical business way of admission (though I do think 1 & 2 are unneccesary given those tickets would have CH access anyway). But the caveat here is that you can't control when people will arrive to the lounge, and exactly how many are goign to show up for the flight and therefore the lounge.

It's a lack of planning for capacity in the outset for the CH facility if you are going to have to turn away passengers. IT's all about balancing and we knwo that airlines like to gamble (like overselling flights). Lets take a different CH as an example to prove some numbers, say SFO.

So you have one flight a day, so without Gold cards holders you could possibly have a full flight of Upper with say ~45 seats; so if all of them bring a guest, then you need to cater for 90. Now when you factor in GOld card holders, you need to determine whether they are travelling in Upper, if they are not, then you need to increase the theoretical maximum CH capacity. Now some of us were trying to calculate on average how many Gold's there are per flight (I have a good idea how many UK Golds there are) and you then need to calculate if they are going to bring a guest. Now depending on the route, the day of the week, coudl determine the factors. So it's all ready very complex to work out who and when to admit. Now the real factor that can cuase problems is sharing with other carriers, upside is that there is a financial benefit (which we know VS is not going to turn away), downside is that you then have a whole raft of problems to deal with as there is likely to be contractual arrangements in place.

Simple answer is that there is no easy way to deal with the issue, unless you seriously calaculate and risk-assess the maximum nubmer of people that are likely to use the CH in one go and ensure your facility can meet that capacity. Somewhere like the SFO CH will be okay, the EWR facility (from what I remember of it) would not. So what to do? Terminate the lounge share facilities, but we all know VS won't turn the money away.

Thanks
Richard