ASA Adjudication on Flybe Ltd

Ad

An e-mail ad, for Flybe.com, stated "Train fares set to soar 30%. Ditch the train and fly from £19.99 one way ... As widely reported in the national press last week, rail passengers face fare rises of at least 30% above inflation under a series of deals between the Government and train companies. Between 1995 to 2007 fares rose by 17.9% and they are set to rise by another 30% by 2015 … Flybe is still the best and cheapest way to get around and with our low fares there's never been a better time to give up the tracks and take to the skies instead". A number of fares to various destinations were listed in a box headed "FANTASTIC LOW FARES".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claim:

1. "Train fares set to soar 30%" was misleading and could be substantiated;

2. "Between 1995 and 2007 fares rose by 17.9%" was misleading, because he believed that figure applied to standard class unregulated fares only; and

3. "Flybe is still the best and cheapest way to get around" was misleading and could be substantiated, because it was cheaper to travel by train on several of the listed routes.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Flybe said the claim "Train fares set to soar 30%" was supported by many operators, rail industry associations and internationally renowned media sources. They provided several press releases and articles to support the claim. In particular they highlighted a press release from the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), which showed an average fare increase of 4.3% per year across all rail operators, which they had calculated led to a total rise in fares of 34.4% by 2015.

2. Flybe confirmed that the figure was based on unregulated fares. However, they said evidence showed that unregulated fares made up a minimum of 60% of the available fares, which included the most widely available standard class cheap day returns, long distance open and some advance purchase fares and they therefore believed the unregulated fares were reflective of rail fare trends being adopted by all rail operators. They said the 60% figure was supported by the ATOC.

3. Flybe said that there were 24 routes listed in the ad and only three of those, according to the complainant, were marginally higher than the regulated rail fare. They said that even if that were true, 21 of those routes were still cheaper to travel by Flybe and that still made Flybe the cheaper option overall to travel to the advertised destinations. Flybe provided a comparison of current Flybe fares versus both regulated and unregulated rail fares on 12 different routes. On all of those routes the Flybe fare was cheaper.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the figures from ATOC showed that the average increase of regulated fares in 2007 was 4.3% and unregulated fares was 4.7%. We noted Flybe had extrapolated that figure to calculate that the total increase in fares by 2015 would be 30%. However, we noted the ad stated "Rail fares set to rise by 30%" and we considered that consumers were likely to infer that to mean that fares were definitely going to rise by 30%, i.e. the figure was based on established pre-planned fare rises. Although we noted both unregulated and regulated fares increased year on year and it was therefore possible that fares would rise by 30%, we considered that the ad should have made clear that the figure was based on an extrapolation of current rises. Because the claim implied that the rise was definite and Flybe had not provided evidence to substantiate that, we concluded that it was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We noted the claim "Between 1995 to 2007 fares rose by 17.9%" was based on figures from ATOC and that Flybe believed those figures were reflective of rail fare trends being adopted by all rail operators. However, although we noted the majority of fares, up to 60%, were made up of unregulated fares, we also noted from the Department for Transports rail fare index that during the same period the cost of regulated fares decreased, albeit by only 1.6%. We considered that consumers were likely to understand from the claim that all rail fares had risen by 17.9% and we therefore considered that the ad should have made clear that that figure applied to unregulated fares only. We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

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

3. Upheld

We noted the complainant had demonstrated there were three routes on which the rail fares were cheaper than the Flybes fares quoted in the ad. We also noted Flybes assertion that all the other routes would have been cheaper and that that was sufficient to support the claim that "Flybe is still the ... cheapest way to get around". However, although we noted Flybe had provided evidence that some current Flybe fares were cheaper than some regulated and non-regulated rail fares, we noted they had not provided evidence to demonstrate that the quoted fares were cheaper than rail fares for the same routes at the time the ad appeared. In the absence of sufficient evidence to support the claim, we concluded it was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

Action

We told Flybe to ensure they made the basis of their claims clear in future and that they held evidence to support their claims before their ads were published. We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team for their future advertising.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)