Yet another virtue-signaling inequality "the people suffer while the rich thrive" drivel from the Guardian.<p>That service is catered to a market which affords an annual membership of $7,000 and an additional $2,700 per each domestic flight.<p>Does "the people" pay anything close to that amount for a domestic flight?<p>So, why do these idiots expect getting $10.000 treatment by paying a small fraction of that cost?<p>Or do they believe it is even remotely reasonable to assume that airports should not cater to demand coming from high-paying, deep pocketed clients?<p>This article is nothing more than socialist virtue signaling at its worse.