ASA Adjudication on easyJet Airline Co Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for easyjet.com, was headed "Demand a more intelligent approach to aviation". Below, there were two columns; one was headed "The big questions" and the other column "easyJet's view". One question asked "Should air travel be cleaner?" and easyJet's answer stated "Yes Push airlines to buy the next generation of aircraft. Flying could be 50% cleaner within 10 years". The next question asked "Can individuals help?". The easyJet column stated "Yes Choose airlines with new aircraft, higher passenger loads, fewer emissions. easyJet emits 22% less CO2*". The asterisk linked to text that stated "*Claim based on a comparison between an easyJet aircraft and a traditional airline flying the same aircraft type on the same route". Text under the two columns stated "Tell the politicians you demand an intelligent approach to aviation. Visit our website to find out how".

Issue

1. A reader challenged whether the claim that flying could be 50% cleaner within 10 years could be substantiated.

2. Another reader believed the ad implied easyJet emitted 22% less CO2 overall when compared with their competitors but he understood the figure was based on emissions per passenger rather than total CO2 emissions.  He believed the ad was misleading.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. easyJet said they had not claimed flying would be 50% cleaner within 10 years, only that there was a possibility of such an improvement if appropriate changes in consumer and corporate behaviour were made; they believed the wording in the ad made this clear.  They said the 50% figure was nonetheless chosen with care and on the basis of evidence widely accepted throughout the aviation industry.   

They said the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) intended to research aeronautics, in line with an international plan known as Vision 2020, to reduce the environmental impact of the manufacture, operation and maintenance of aircraft, and the challenges of the rising demand of air travel.  They also understood Airbus was committed to producing an aircraft that met the ACARE environmental targets within the next 13 years, which would contain a number of key features to make the aircraft significantly more environmentally efficient than current models.  They explained that the specific environmental targets set under Vision 2020 were for aircraft manufactured in 2020 to achieve 50% and 80% cuts in CO2 and NOx emissions per passenger km respectively.  easyJet said the European Council had recently implemented the Single European Sky project (SESAR), which would optimise air routes and air traffic management as part of an approach to reduce aviation greenhouse gases.   easyJet said they supported the aims of the projects and believed their knowledge of the industry allowed them to state that it was possible, given significant uptake of the next generation aircraft, that flying could be 50% cleaner within 10 years.

2. easyJet said the claim "easyJet emits 22% less CO2" was based on emissions savings per passenger when compared to a traditional airline using the same aircraft on the same route. They said, because the easyJet aircraft carried more people on board (with more seats and a higher load factor), the total fuel used during the journey would be higher but as the extra fuel burnt was considerably less than the number of extra passengers, the emissions per passenger would be considerably lower than traditional carriers.  They said the only variable was the weight of the cabin fittings, but they believed the easyJet cabin weighed less than the full service aircraft, therefore offsetting some of the extra weight from the additional passengers.  They said they compared an easyJet aircraft against a specific competitor on a specific route to make a direct comparison using the average fuel burn per block hour, the average block time and average load factor for each airline.  They said they were confident that their calculations backed the claim. easyJet believed it was clear from the body copy of the ad that the claim related to airlines and not aircraft and readers would understand the difference.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted a number of European and international initiatives had been launched with the aim of lessening the impact of air travel on the environment by reducing CO2 emissions through the design, manufacture and introduction of more environmentally friendly aircraft.  We noted the claim that flying could be 50% cleaner within 10 years was based on projected emission reductions from aircraft that did not yet exist, but considered that this had been made clear in the ad by referring to "the next generation of aircraft" and that flying "could" be cleaner within 10 years.  We also considered that it was clear from the heading "easyJet's view" that the ad was expressing their own opinion, which was based on plans for future emissions reductions.  We concluded that, because it was clear that it was based on estimated future projections and easyJet's opinion, the claim was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 49.1, 49.2 and 49.3 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted the claim "easyJet emits 22% less CO2" was qualified by text that explained it was based on a comparison between an easyJet aircraft and a traditional airline flying the same aircraft type on the same route.  We considered that the claim implied easyJet aircraft emitted 22% less CO2 than other aircraft, whereas it was actually based on emissions per passenger and not emissions produced by easyJet aircraft or emissions produced by easyJet airline overall.  We concluded that, because the basis for the claim had not been fully explained, the ad misleadingly implied that easyJet planes were more environmentally efficient than the aircraft used by traditional airlines, whereas we understood that the claim "easyJet emits 22% less CO2" referred to emissions per passenger km, and was based primarily on the fact that they could carry more passengers per plane than traditional airlines.  We considered that, without qualification, the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 19.1 (Comparisons) and 49.1and 49.2 (Environmental claims).

Action

We told easyJet to ensure that the basis for comparisons was explained in future ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)