What happens to your airline status when you (or your partner) have a baby?

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• oyster says:

  7 Apr7 April 05:40

  I can’t think why anyone would want to have the frequent travel associated with top tier status when they have a new child.
  As a new-ish father myself to a 23 and 3 month old, I don’t want to travel much (unless they come with me!)

• Sam wardill says:

  7 Apr7 April 06:38

  Shame on you British Airways!

• Adam W says:

  7 Apr7 April 06:52

  Such an extension exclusively for new parents seems rather unfair to me. If they are entitled to such an extension, then perhaps so should those who have been made redundant, taken a sabbatical, hospitalised or imprisoned. Slippery slope this one!

  • Polly says:

    7 Apr7 April 07:10

    Imprisoned no! But I agree the other options yes? Def worth a word raffles to BA , interesting idea….

    • John says:

      7 Apr7 April 08:38

      Come on, a lot of politicians get accustomed to flying first class/lounge hopping. It’s only right that they regain status as soon as they’re released from prison.

      • Dan says:

        7 Apr7 April 09:39

        Best comment I’ve seen in ages!

  • Paul says:

    7 Apr7 April 07:52

    Why? It is not different to parental leave and child allowance, only those who have children or who adopted, foster etc are entitled.

    As an employer I was surprised to find that I had to pay for my staff’s Child care vouchers at £243 a month when on mat or pat leave This is a system which allows them to pay for childcare direct from salary but tax free. When they go on maternity or paternity leave now this benefit cannot be withdrawn and is paid for by the employer.

    Tough on small businesses but money well spent to ensure staff return to work and do so having procured high quality affordable childcare allowing them to focus on work and careers.

    • Adam W says:

      7 Apr7 April 08:29

      “Why? It is not different to parental leave and child allowance, only those who have children or who adopted, foster etc are entitled.”

      It is very much different to parental leave and child allowance for two incredibly obvious reasons! Firstly, only those with children need parental leave and child allowance whilst lots of people, besides parents, have their travel restricted and would be equally entitled to an extension. Secondly, employers do not pay parental leave or child allowance to customers!

      I’m just saying that if extensions are to be granted then it should apply to all circumstances that would limit travel for a prolonged period rather than just those that make the decision to start a family. It seems inconsiderate and selfish to me for one group to expect themselves to be the only ones worthy of such an extension.

      • Paul L says:

        8 Apr8 April 18:08

        I agree Adam. I don’t think parents should be given special treatment like this.

        A fairer system would be to have a temporary 6 month extension to the tier point year that any member can use (regardless of the reason). Obviously there would be limits (max 1 use per 5 years for example). They could even freeze your account during that time so you can’t use your status or points.

        To be honest though I don’t have a problem with the current system.

    • JohnG says:

      7 Apr7 April 08:32

      Because having children doesn’t make you more deserving of benefits like this. If BA brought in a policy of allowing status ‘holds’ then it should be available to all, not just artificially restricted to those who decide to have children.

    • Charlie says:

      7 Apr7 April 13:03

      I think it’s to do with the employee’s right to continue receiving benefits whilst on maternity/paternity leave, and at the same time not being allowed to deduct the cost of the benefits using salary sacrifice from statutory maternity/paternity pay.

      • Rupert says:

        7 Apr7 April 14:13

        Depends on the employee’s contract – if on salary deduction then the employer would not have to continue paying for them.

        If it’s a standard benefit for anyone who requests them – which would be unusual (such as annual leave) then the employer would be liable.

        (I’m not a lawyer but run a business )

      • RICO says:

        7 Apr7 April 15:26

        It is not a benefit if they are paying for the vouchers.

        They should be able to continue receiving the vouchers if they pay.

  • will says:

    7 Apr7 April 21:15

    Unfortunately these people don’t form a big enough mob to lobby for special rights by using a discriminatory stance.

    If it’s fair to give parents a special deal in life, then surely people who have chosen not to have children should at some point be able to claim the same ‘right’ too – for sake of equality among people.

    • Fenny says:

      7 Apr7 April 23:18

      Most people, whether they have children or not (and it’s not always a choice), have families and there are times when it’s necessary to take time off to be with them. When Ma was still teaching, the only time I could spend time off with her was during school holidays.

      • Adam W says:

        8 Apr8 April 03:28

        Having a child is not always a choice? Seriously? In a society with contraception, morning after pills and abortion – It is a choice!

        • Fenny says:

          8 Apr8 April 08:53

          Not having children is not always a choice. Don’t be so judgemental!

        • avioscollector says:

          8 Apr8 April 17:17

          In what circumstances is having a child not a choice. A raped catholic, yes, but I’m struggling to think of any other reason?

          People choose to have children for their own reasons, saying there was not a choice only highlights their own ignorance.

          As for the subject of this post, it sounds like Raffles is having a whine about his own circumstances. Perhaps his next child can be via surrogate so his wife can retain her status with BA.

• Ian says:

  7 Apr7 April 07:28

  As you’re able to fly as soon as you’ve had your baby, and it’s only the last couple of months of pregnancy where there’s any trouble flying, then it’s your personal choice not to fly while on maternity leave, nothing to do with BA. Your problem seems to be with your employer – perhaps ask them to supply a Priority Pass card. Obviously not happy that you might have to earn status with your *own* money.

• Paul says:

  7 Apr7 April 07:46

  BA have been anti family for decades this is nothing new. It stems from their own bizarre rule that staff cannot travel in F if they are travelling with their children under the age of 12. This even applied to the CEO. It is unique among airlines in doing this and send a message to their staff that kids are troublesome and must be kept out of F. Consequently you can buy F and do so for years but you will not be upgraded to F if you have kids in the party, no matter the CIV score.

  The lack of flexibility in allowing at least one realignment the membership year has been a long standing irritant. My kids year end in December and mine in April. The upshot of this has been my 3 year old guesting me into Galleries North and my 5 year daughter guesting in her mother. Stupid stupid stupid.
  ….but they are not alone, the other story today was the opening of the new priority club lounge in Stansted and the ban on children under 6. This should simply be illegal. It should not be possible for any one offering a public service be it transport or restaurants or anywhere else, to ban children on the basis of their age. By all means, throw out any family whose children do not bah or who they fail to control, but such blankets bans would not be acceptable for any other group of people in any other walk of life.

  • Worzel says:

    7 Apr7 April 08:31

    Paul (7:46 am) 1st para:

    Well done BA in upholding the rule-even for the CEO! I’ve never flown in 1st but should I do so and there was a kid(s) under 12, I imagine I’d be irritated(at some stage) on my redemption flight-I’d be even less understanding if I was paying full price!!

  • JohnG says:

    7 Apr7 April 08:40

    Why should it be illegal for an airport lounge to have a minimum age policy? It’d be great if they didn’t need to have one, however my understanding is that having a policy of allowing entry on the basis they will kick out noisy/misbehaving children doesn’t work in practice, especially if the threshold is set to a level that it is unreasonable to expect very young children to achieve.

    A lounge only puts a minimum age policy in place because they believe more of their customers want it than don’t. I don’t see why parents feel so entitled to have their wants (to sit in a lounge with a small child) prioritized over other peoples (to sit in a quiet lounge without disruption).

    • nerd. says:

      7 Apr7 April 10:12

      Yes – what he said ^

      Parents already get discounted seat prices for children, despite the fact they’re occupying the same seat as a potentially full-fare paying adult would be. How much more do parents want?

      • TimS says:

        7 Apr7 April 11:52

        To some degree, the discounted child fares are based on the reduced fuel requirement for transporting said minor.

        Using your logic, should infants using bassinets (or as lap children) be transported for free as the bassinet (or parent’s lap!) COULDN’T be used by another full fare paying adult?

        Personally, I actually don’t have a problem with the age restriction on lounge access…and yes I do have kids under 6 so would be impacted by the rule!

        • RICO says:

          7 Apr7 April 15:31

          Infants (under 2) are normally transported for free or a nominal ticketing charge as long as their parents dont book them a seat.

          Children above 2 must have their own seat. A few companies do give some kind of discount.

  • @mkcol says:

    7 Apr7 April 10:22

    An airport lounge is not a public service. Like any other pay to enter facility, it is entirely up to the provider who they choose to allow to enter.

  • sinizter says:

    7 Apr7 April 10:34

    Being a parent of young children, being affected by the above policy, I still disagree with you.

  • RICO says:

    7 Apr7 April 15:28

    Yes I demand to be let into this strip club says my 5 year old nephew.

  • C77 says:

    8 Apr8 April 00:29

    And I applaud BA for enforcing their own policy and not being afraid to do so. You Virgin also have a similar age restriction on staff travelling in Upper. I would say be grateful that BA allow you to purchase child and infant fares in F which a lot of airlines don’t (EK and MH are two that spring to mind). Not everybody who flies in F does so in anticipation of that some oblivious family take over the cabin and ruin the experience for everyone else who is sat there. Unintentionally or otherwise. It also secures maximum revenue for those limited seats. Your your argument regarding lounge policies being brandished illegal just falls on deaf ears here I’m afraid. An aircraft is private property of the airline operating it and they ultimately get to set the rules as to who’s allowed on or in aspects of its service. Why do people who are on the wrong side of a rule choose to argue that they are exempt or different instead of just realising they aren’t wanted and choose to take their business elsewhere? For every 1 who protests they are wrong for not allowing their Tarquin and Philomena into the lounge, I guarantee there are 10 others glad the lounge operator didn’t.

• Gordon says:

  7 Apr7 April 08:08

  Business lounge in belfast bans under 12s and its the only lounge! So when Virgin launch their flights to orlando this year anyone buying upper class with kids wont be allowed in a lounge. Great start to the trip. I wonder if Virgin knows this!

  • nerd. says:

    7 Apr7 April 10:13

    I can’t imagine they’re expecting too many folk to be buying upper class, from Belfast, with kids in tow.

    If there is anyone paying for an upper class ticket I suspect they’ll be glad to get away from the the chaos of other people’s little angels.

• JK says:

  7 Apr7 April 08:31

  Virgin Australia also do the “baby leave pause” and it is well received as a difference from Qantas.

• flyingbee says:

  7 Apr7 April 08:35

  For both of my relatively short maternity leaves (6 or 7 months) BA renewed my status without meeting the TP threshold by a small number of TPs after I asked. I have held status for several years and in both cases my flight activity went from regular to nothing for a few months so it was clear that I was on maternity leave.

  For most of my membership year for my last baby I was either flying quite heavily pregnant, unable to fly due to late pregnancy, caring for a newborn or waiting for the baby’s passport to arrive somewhat limiting my personal and business travel!

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.