Have i missed this?

Ditto tinuks

I wonder, does this new "must be on same flight" rule apply to guests using UC check in and the Private Security Channel?


Edit: Though I would steal the links posted by someone on FB stating the old rule so users here could see.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Edit Edit: looks like my question has already been asked on FB, awaiting an answer.

Edit: Though I would steal the links posted by someone on FB stating the old rule so users here could see.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Blimy hamster... link 1 - making reference to Heathrow and Gatwick express vouchers, access to the BMI business lounge and don't get me started on global assist.

Links 2 and 3 no better (at least global assist has gone) and as for link 4.... is that the J2000 I can see in the final image Why are these pages still live?? Talk about confusing for some poor pax ii)

Looks like link 4 had been pulled already! Why on earth does it show that landing page though!

Screenshot of link 4, before it was pulled.

Link 4 (dead)

Having read the relevant post on Facebook, can I just say that I think it's massively poor form for a company to expect their customers (high paying and loyal ones as well given the subject matter) to sanity check and in effect proof-read customer-facing content on its own website. It presents an unprofessional even 'tardy' image. v(

They should bloomin' well get the employees responsible to pull their fingers out and get the content right first time. !

And to add to the annoyance, I just today received my AU renewal pack which clearly advertises the 'old' policy for AU CH guests, as per the FC web page cited upthread. !

I am genuinely very surprised to see some fellow v-flyers welcoming this policy. It is not a big thing, but it is yet another little chip away at the reasons one might have for choosing VS over BA. If it has been done because the CH is forecast to be busier thanks to the DL venture, then that only underlines my unease about the effects of this initiative.

I completely agree with Tinuks and clarkeysntfc's comments on the communication of the policy. y)

I'd just like to point out the FC Gold Benefits page has been updated..

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/fr ... /index.jsp

I don't think this is a bad thing, to be honest. I can certainly understand the reasonings behind it - lets not forget that VS are still not in profit. Every little helps, as they say.

I agree with at240 on this. I've never actually guested anyone in before, so it doesn't have a direct impact on me, but it could certainly do so in future if it is the first of a set of changes because of higher DL related lounge traffic. So would a logical next step be to have a blanket ban on paid lounge entrance - including my own cherubs, who I'll happily stump up for in addition to my wife and I getting in through AU status? Frankly, that's a key differentiator for me between VS and BA - if that were to change, I'd more than likley make the jump over to BA in a much bigger way than currently.

"First they came for the lounge guests, and I did not speak out because I was not a lounge guest"... ok, a bit flippant perhaps, but you get the point I hope.

IMO by amending the guest rules before even considering stopping paid entry they are showing a blatant disregard for their most loyal customers

I don't mind them changing rules (I do think its the thin end of the wedge though!), but what does stink is saying that it has always been that way, when it blantently hasn't been! Especially if they are sending out Gold packs with the wording of the "old" rule.

Why won't VS say "yes, this is a new rule, like it or lump it."

Wouldn't of been such a disastrous change if they had given a warning with a date of the rule change.

Plus how many extra people will be in the CH with the SEQ3 promotion?

I'm with VS on this.

Yes admittedly it's a shame to put such a sudden end to the very friendly practice of Au and UC V-Flyers gifting their +1 entitlement to someone less fortunate.

But from VS' point of view, I believe they felt they need to put an end to what they see as abuse of a perk that was designed to let premium and frequent passengers guest in a family member or colleague travelling with them, not a total stranger on a different flight.

It's hardly a radical change to the rules - more a clarification or closing a loophole that VS believe was being exploited.

As for advance notice, frankly it's VS' scheme and they can do what they want with it. They'd be perfectly within their rights to close down FC tomorrow and make all miles and TPs null and void. They'd be mad to, but they could. In the grand scheme of things, this is a tiny change that'll affect no more than a handful of people a day.

gumshoe I agree it their scheme and can do what they want. I suggested prior warning as a way of creating less upset, that's all.

The main issue I have is that VS are saying there hasn't been a rule change, and denied that it was ever worded in the way we said it was.

gumshoe I agree it their scheme and can do what they want. I suggested prior warning as a way of creating less upset, that's all.

The main issue I have is that VS are saying there hasn't been a rule change, and denied that it was ever worded in the way we said it was.

... despite somebody putting conclusive pics of their own website on the Facebook page!

I'd just like to point out the FC Gold Benefits page has been updated..

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/fr ... /index.jsp

I don't think this is a bad thing, to be honest. I can certainly understand the reasonings behind it - lets not forget that VS are still not in profit. Every little helps, as they say.

Yes but the point is it needed VS' own customers to proof read their own website to get the policy correct. Amateur or what?

I'm with VS on this.

Yes admittedly it's a shame to put such a sudden end to the very friendly practice of Au and UC V-Flyers gifting their +1 entitlement to someone less fortunate.


But from VS' point of view, I believe they felt they need to put an end to what they see as abuse of a perk that was designed to let premium and frequent passengers guest in a family member or colleague travelling with them, not a total stranger on a different flight

^) ^) ^)

Totally agree.

[honey lamb]

I'm with VS on this.

Yes admittedly it's a shame to put such a sudden end to the very friendly practice of Au and UC V-Flyers gifting their +1 entitlement to someone less fortunate.


But from VS' point of view, I believe they felt they need to put an end to what they see as abuse of a perk that was designed to let premium and frequent passengers guest in a family member or colleague travelling with them, not a total stranger on a different flight

^) ^) ^)

Totally agree.

I'm afraid I have to agree with these posters. In all my years of flying in UC both as a lone traveller and with Aer John, to my certain recollection I have only guested two people into the Clubhouse.

The first was when I was expecting to meet a V-Flyer on my day of travel who was flying in UC and was guesting a colleague in. He was summonsed by the Powers That Be to travel the day before and asked if I would guest his colleague in. I was flying to SFO and he to IAD. I arrived before him, gave his details at the door and proceeded in. My guest arrived while I was having a treatment in the Spa and tried to locate me. He left before I did never having met me but I was glad that I had obliged a fellow VF whose comments and reports in the past I had respected.

The second was when I looked at the Itinerary Calendar and realised that a V-Flyer was on my flight in economy. I contacted him and he was delighted with the invitation and a nicer young man you couldn't wish to meet.

I actively peruse the Calendar to see who is flying the same time as me but I have always been reluctant to consider anyone whose flight is not within the parameters of my own

I'm afraid I have to agree with these posters. In all my years of flying in UC both as a lone traveller and with Aer John, to my certain recollection I have only guested two people into the Clubhouse.

I don't see any need to be sorry for your opinion honey lamb, I actually think most here agree its not much of a major change. The main complaint I have, and I think most others have, is of the way VS handled this.

I'd just like to point out the FC Gold Benefits page has been updated..

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/fr ... /index.jsp

I don't think this is a bad thing, to be honest. I can certainly understand the reasonings behind it - lets not forget that VS are still not in profit. Every little helps, as they say.

Yes but the point is it needed VS' own customers to proof read their own website to get the policy correct. Amateur or what?

In sorry but there is no proof of that whatsoever.

The policy document was officially changed a few days ago, and the website was updated within a day or two of that happening.

Firstly, I just want to thank StillRedHot for his contributions to the thread. y) I really appreciate the continuing contributions of VS staff to the forum, even when they are bringing us bad news! It must be tough when you are on the receiving end of flak for something that you don't/can't control.

The second was when I looked at the Itinerary Calendar and realised that a V-Flyer was on my flight in economy. I contacted him and he was delighted with the invitation and a nicer young man you couldn't wish to meet.

And this is what was nice about the policy -- you did someone a favour and there is pleasure for both sides in that. And personally I imagine that allowing people a taste of the CH must surely make them hungrier to fly UC in the future.

I would take issue with gumshoe's use of the word 'loophole'. The policy was clearly stated (and still is in the AU booklet) that you could invite a guest who was flying on a VS flight on that day. It did not say you had to be a friend, colleague, or relative of that guest, nor that you couldn't use twitter or a forum to identify or contact them. (Indeed, it still doesn't seem to say any of those things: you can now seemingly advertise for guests by walking round the departure hall of LHR with a sandwich board, but guests must be travelling on your flight... )

If VS wants to change it, then that is a decision for VS. No problem with that. But I just wish that:

a) they had announced it prior to its taking effect
b) they stop citing 'abuse' -- it is pretty rude to criticise your customers for abiding by rules which you later decide are too permissive.

Firstly, I just want to thank StillRedHot for his contributions to the thread. y) I really appreciate the continuing contributions of VS staff to the forum, even when they are bringing us bad news! It must be tough when you are on the receiving end of flak for something that you don't/can't control.

Fully agree with this.

[Darren Wheeler]

b) they stop citing 'abuse' -- it is pretty rude to criticise your customers for abiding by rules which you later decide are too permissive.

Have VS said it was being "abused" or is that a social media rumour that has sprung up?

I'd just like to point out the FC Gold Benefits page has been updated..

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/fr ... /index.jsp

I don't think this is a bad thing, to be honest. I can certainly understand the reasonings behind it - lets not forget that VS are still not in profit. Every little helps, as they say.

Yes but the point is it needed VS' own customers to proof read their own website to get the policy correct. Amateur or what?

In sorry but there is no proof of that whatsoever.

The policy document was officially changed a few days ago, and the website was updated within a day or two of that happening.

Someone has put screen shots on the VS Facebook site, which has prompted Greg to accept that the website was wrong. Therefore, the policy changed and the website was proven to be wrong by VS customers.

Firstly, I just want to thank StillRedHot for his contributions to the thread. y) I really appreciate the continuing contributions of VS staff to the forum, even when they are bringing us bad news! It must be tough when you are on the receiving end of flak for something that you don't/can't control.

Fully agree with this.

Me too. I think its great to have input from VS staff to the forum. It also shows that VS are interested in the opinions of their customers. y) y)

I agree with @at240 that the word "abuse" is a bit harsh. Also having a taste of UC will more than likely encourage the PAX to fly UC on their next or near future flights. It certainly worked for me.

Have VS said it was being "abused" or is that a social media rumour that has sprung up?

Fair point, mea culpa -- the word appears in this thread from the mouths of v-flyers!!

However, the word used by the VS rep on the cited facebook thread was 'leniency', so I think my general point stands -- it is not being 'lenient' to let people abide by what you've told them.

It's all the fault of the interwebnets !

Before the interwebs and the existence of sites like this, flyer talk and face book etc the VS policy wording was fine. In the vast majority of cases an AU or UC flyer would really only be able to invite someone into the CH that they knew - family member, friend or work colleague and they would more than likely be on the same flight too.

When the interwebs exploded and sites like this and flyer talk started and people shared knowledge and invitations etc thats when the policy wording became a little loose and so it should have been tightened up years ago and that is down to VS.

It has probbaly not helped that on flyer talk and face book people have activly said on posts that people wanting an invitation 'should go to v-flyer'. In one of the previous links to face book posts on this thread someone actually posted that.

I have also seen the odd poster on here whos sole aim of joining appeard to have been to get his two adult children into the CH with persistant posts with one saying something like 'so is anyone going to get them in or not?'. I assuming that he didn't get the invites. I certainly wouldn't have guested them in.

BTW during threads regarding disruption on BA flights on flyer talk I have seen people offer to guest people into the various lounges as well so it is not just a VS issue.

We also need to look at it from the VS point of view in that their flagship clubhouse was getting increasingly busy and they needed to do something about it, remember there are several TRs that say the CH was very busy and hard to get a seat etc so it obviously is an issue of who is in the CH) and this change in policy is probbaly one of them.

Is this change anything to do with the JV with DL - yes it probbaly is but not the sole driver. But I don't think that the CH will be 'overrun' (a word that has been used on this site) with DL elites and their guests.

Have there been any incidents that guests have been causing trouble in the CH as that could be an influence on the change? Especially if the guest was on a much later flight than the host (who had probbaly left).

I'm not saying that VS havs handeled this well (mind when do they ever do anyting well?) and they should have given more notice but it is their airline and they can do anything they like (remember it's all in the T&Cs that they can).

Sure it has upset some people but VS don't seem to mind upsetting its passengers.