ASA Adjudication on Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd

Ad

a. A magazine ad, for Virgin Atlantic flights, was headlined "Up to 45% off Premium Economy." and showed an image of a Premium Economy seat. The slogan at the bottom of the ad stated "Bigger seats. More legroom. Separate cabin." A footnote stated "Seat shown is available on 58% of all London Heathrow departures and is continuing to roll out across the rest of our Heathrow fleet. This roll out will continue across our London Gatwick fleet from 2008."

b A national press ad, also for Virgin Atlantic, showed a similar image and was headlined ”Our Premium Economy cabin. Looks more premium than economy. Costs more economy than premium”. It stated "Why upgrade to Premium Economy? Well, for a start there's the new, bigger leather seats with bags of legroom. Then there's the exclusive cabin and dedicated crew…" A footnote stated "Leather seat shown is available on the majority of London Heathrow departures and is currently rolling out across the rest of our fleet."

Issue

1. The complainants objected that the ads were misleading because the new, bigger seats and increased legroom were not available to Premium Economy passengers on all flights.

2. Two of the complainants objected that the ads were misleading because they considered that Premium Economy seats on the flights they took were not in a separate cabin.

3. Two of the complainants objected that ad (b) was misleading because on the flights they took Premium Economy passengers were not served by a dedicated crew.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Virgin Atlantic Airways (Virgin) said the ads stated clearly in the footnote that the seats were not available on all flights.  They also said the seats were the only aspect of their Premium Economy service that varied across the fleet.  They explained that they were rolling out the installation on all their planes, which was a time-consuming process.  They asserted that all other aspects of the service, including the dedicated cabin and crew, were available regardless of the seat to all Premium Economy passengers.   They said they had now fitted the seat on 25 of their 29 Heathrow departures, which equated to 86% of the Heathrow planes and 67% of the entire fleet.

They argued that most airlines advertised new seats before they were available on 100% of routes, due to the long lead time that the installation of a new seat took.  They said they were keen to communicate the new offering and used the footnote to manage customer expectations.  They gave the new British Airways Club World seat as an example of a seat advertised by an airline far in advance of it being available on all aircraft.

2. Virgin said on some aircraft the Premium Economy cabin might be split, with some seats upstairs and some downstairs.  They said in both cases the seats were in a separate cabin which would have been curtained off from the other cabins, and that the seats would have been the same in both cabins.  In response to one complainant who said there was no toilet in her cabin, Virgin argued that a toilet was not promised as part of the cabin but that there would always be one within easy reach of the cabin.  They asserted that all the elements offered in the ad had been fulfilled.

3. Virgin claimed that there were always dedicated crew members on hand to deal with the needs of the Premium Economy passengers, and argued that although from time to time some of the crew might also need to help out in the Economy cabin during the flight, that would not be at the detriment of passengers in Premium Economy.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted both ads contained large images of the new leather seat.  We considered that readers would understand from the main body of the ads that the new seat was available on Premium Economy flights.  We noted nearly half the Heathrow planes were not fitted with the new seats at the time ad (a) appeared, and that replacement of old seats across the fleet would be ongoing in 2008.  We considered that the disclaimer, which appeared in small text outside the main body of the ads, was likely to be overlooked by readers.  Because it did not make the limitations to availability sufficiently prominent, we concluded that the ads were likely to mislead.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We noted the Premium Economy cabins were divided by a curtain from the other cabin classes, and that Virgin therefore believed the claim "separate cabin" to be accurate.  We also noted, however, a complainants comment that, on the flight she took, the downstairs Premium Economy seats were situated on either side of a galley that served both Premium Economy and Economy cabins and that, as a consequence, trolleys frequently passed between the two cabins and the dividing curtain was permanently pulled back.  We also noted there were no toilet facilities in the Premium Economy cabin on some flights.  We considered that the ads implied that Premium Economy passengers would not be required to share facilities with other cabin classes.  Because the cabins were not always self-contained, we concluded that  the ads were misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness)

3. Upheld

We noted Virgins argument that crew members would occasionally need to help passengers in other cabins, but that they were primarily responsible for Premium Economy passengers.  We understood from the complainants, however, that, unlike the crew in the upstairs Premium Economy cabin, the crew in the downstairs cabin served Economy passengers also.  We noted one complainants comment that on the flights she took it was announced that the crew would be serving meals to both Economy services, and that they were absent from the Premium Economy cabin for most of the journey.  We considered that readers would understand from the claim "dedicated crew" that Premium Economy passengers would have designated flight attendants who would cater exclusively for their needs.  Because that was not the case on all flights, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

On point 1, we told Virgin to make the conditions more prominent in the body copy of the ad.  We advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team when devising future ads.

On point 2, we told Virgin to remove claims that suggested there would be a separate cabin.

On point 3, we told Virgin to include a disclaimer in future ads to indicate that a dedicated crew might not be available in all circumstances.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)