Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
The ASA has investigated several advertisements by airlines that claimed to offer superior comfort, for example through increased legroom or more comfortable seats. Even though they often touch upon aspects open to subjective interpretation, such as comfort or quality, such claims are almost always considered to be objective and requiring substantiation.
As with all comparative claims, when comparing aircraft features advertisers should ensure that they compare similar types of services and classes and that they have considered all relevant competitor products. Jet Airways’ claim to have “best flat beds” in Premiere class was challenged in 2005 by Virgin Atlantic. Although Jet Airways was able to show that they were better than Virgin’s Upper Class Suite beds, its beds were not considered as good as British Airways’ First Class seats by a specialist research firm and the ASA considered the claim was misleading (Jet Airways, 2 November 2005).
Bed (or seat) quality has been the subject of several other investigations by the ASA. It has judged that the term “flat bed” may be used to describe a seat that extends fully but is not horizontal (Silverjet Aviation Ltd, 19 September 2007). The ASA has considered that a figurative image of a man sleeping in a double bed in an ad promoting British Airways’ Business Class beds (British Airways plc, 24 March 2004) was acceptable because consumers were unlikely to infer equivalent size.
When making claims about legroom, marketers should be clear about what they are measuring. In particular, they should not confuse legroom with seat pitch. CAP and the ASA understand that the latter is an agreed industry measurement on aircraft, extending from one point on a seat to the same point on the seat in front. The ASA has concluded that the term is unlikely to be known or understood by the average consumer; but that does not give marketers the freedom to replace the term with “legroom”, because, without qualification, that term is likely to be understood by consumers only as the space for their legs (TUI UK Ltd, 28 May 2008 and Virgin Holidays Ltd, 15 June 2006). A qualified statement such as “35” seat pitch for more legroom” is likely to be acceptable (First Choice Holidays plc, 3 January 2007).
Marketers should not describe bulkhead seats as having greater legroom, because, unlike ordinary seats, they do not allow passengers to stretch out their legs under the seat in front (TUI KU Ltd, 4 June 2008).
Terms such as “low fare”, “low cost” and “no frills” are likely to be understood by consumers, as are “economy”, “premium economy”, “business class” and “first class” (Jersey European Airways UK Ltd 20 October 2004). Marketers should nevertheless be careful of using general claims of superior quality if they can be confused with a type of airline “class” (Singapore Airlines, 11 January 2006).
Marketers should not imply that luxury features are available on all flights if they are limited to a few aircraft on specific journeys and should make qualifications about exclusions prominent and clear, for example in the body copy (Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd, 16 June 2004 and Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd, 19 March 2008).
See: ‘Denigration and Unfair Advantage’; ‘Types of Claims: Comparative’; ‘Types of Claims: Subjective or Objective Superlative’; ‘Types of Claims: Superlative’; ‘Travel Marketing: General’.
Last modified : 26 July 2010