ASA Adjudication on First Choice Holidays PLC

Ad

The cover of a direct mailing, for First Choice, stated "It's a big sky. Big enough for everyone to have a little bit more space." Inside, it said "So on our longhaul holidays, we give you more legroom in economy than any other major UK airline. 2" more legroom than British Airways. 2" more legroom than Virgin Atlantic. 3" more legroom than Thomsonfly". Text under "Star Class" stated "Leather seats and 33" seat pitch for more legroom as standard" and under "Upgrade to Star Class Premier" it said "36" seat pitch for even more legroom". Both statements were linked to text that said "Legroom means seat pitch based on current information on standard or similar cabins obtained from the BATA website which was last updated April 05".

Issue

Thomsonfly complained that:

1.  because the mailing was promoting Summer 2007 holidays, the comparison of seat pitch should be based on their 2007 seat pitch, not the current one. They said, from 2007, their seat pitch would be the same as First Choice in economy and one inch more in premium class and

2.  the claim "3" more legroom than Thomsonfly" did not explain whether the comparison was with economy or premium class.  They believed the advertising was misleading.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. First Choice explained that, when the mailing was produced, they were the only major UK carrier able to offer economy class travellers the claimed amount of legroom.  They pointed out that the mailing had been written in the present tense and believed it was clear that it referred to the situation as it was at the time.  They did not believe it was feasible to base comparative advertising on possible future plans of competitors, which might not necessarily happen.

2. First Choice believed it was clear from the mailing that the claim referred to economy travel.  They said it was evident from the way the mailing opened that the page, although cut down the middle in order for the mailing to open out further, was designed to be read as one. They said this was emphasised by the use of the photograph, which spanned both sides of the page.  They believed it was clear that the claim on the left-hand side, "So on our longhaul holidays, we give you more legroom in economy than any other major UK airline", was linked to the claim on the right-hand side of the page, "2" more legroom than British airways 2" more legroom than Virgin Atlantic 3" more legroom than Thomsonfly".

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that, at the time it was issued, the mailing had reflected the seat pitch comparison between carriers correctly.   Although the mailing mentioned holidays for the period up to May 2007, we considered readers were likely to understand that the legroom comparison was based on the seat pitch at the time and not what the situation might be in the future.  We considered that it was acceptable to base the comparative claim on the facts at the time, rather than on any possible future seat pitch change on other airlines, which were not necessarily guaranteed to take place.  We also noted the claim was linked to a footnote that explained the information on which it was based. Although we would expect the claim to be amended if the situation changed, we concluded that the mailing was not misleading at the time it was distributed.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.3 and 19.1 (Comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

2.  Not upheld

We considered that it was clear from the design of the mailing that the claim "3" more legroom than Thomsonfly" was linked to the statement referring to economy travel, not premium class travel.  We concluded that it was unlikely to mislead.  

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.3 and 19.1 (Comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)