ASA Adjudication on easyJet Airline Co Ltd

Ad

a. A press ad for flights featured an image of a flip-flop with the text "London to Sunny Spain from £30.99 single inc. taxes. Hurry, book now!" printed on it. Underneath were sun symbols and temperatures for eight Spanish locations. Footnoted text at the bottom of the ad stated "7 day average forecasts as of 11/09/08. Price correct at time of print, not all routes flown from all airports".

b. Another press ad for flights featured an image of a ski mask and had the headline "Winter fun". Text underneath the ski mask stated "NEW from Gatwick Helsinki Salzburg Basel Lyon. Old favourites Geneva Milan Grenoble from only £29.99 single incl taxes". Footnoted text at the bottom of the ad stated "Prices correct at time of print. See website for offer details".

Issue

British Airways plc challenged:

1. whether ad (a) was misleading, because it did not make clear from which London departure airports the advertised fares were available;

2. whether ad (a) was misleading, because it did not specify the travel period to which the offer applied;

3. the availability of the advertised £30.99 fare to all destinations featured in ad (a), because they believed the fare was not available on any route to Spain until three weeks after the ad appeared; and

4. whether ad (b) was misleading, because it did not state the destination airport name for Milan.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. easyJet Airline Company Ltd (easyJet) said that CAP guidance stated that it was not necessary to name the departure or destination airport, in circumstances where a city or destination was served by more than one airport, when customers were given a same price choice between those different airports. easyJet explained that their fares to all of the destinations featured in the ad were the same, regardless of whether customers were travelling from Gatwick, Luton or Stansted airports, and therefore they did not believe the ad was misleading.

2. easyJet said CAP guidance stated that quoted fares should apply to flights that departed between one week after the ad appeared and six weeks later. They said they believed there was no requirement to provide further detail regarding the travel period if that default position was fulfilled. easyJet submitted data which they said showed that the advertised fares to all destinations were available during that default period.

3. easyJet said the data they submitted showed that the stated fares that flights were being sold at the advertised fare of £30.99 during the travel period of 22 September to 26 October 2008. easyJet explained that they had in place, and followed, a suitable process to ensure that a minimum of 10% of seats were available at or below the advertised fare. They explained, however, that in this instance the data that showed the overall availability and prices of the advertised fares had become corrupted, and they were therefore unable to provide that data. easyJet provided documentation that they said showed the general process that they went through to ensure the availability of advertised fares, and explained that they had put in place additional checks to safeguard the integrity of their data.

4. easyJet referred back to their response to point 1. They explained that they flew to both Milan Malpensa and Milan Linata airports from Gatwick, and that customers were charged the same fare whichever of those airports they flew in to.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted easyJet's response. We also noted from the data they submitted that same-price fares to the destinations featured in the ad were available regardless of whether customers departed from London Luton, Gatwick or Stansted airports. Because customers were given the same price choice between those different airports we considered that further qualification regarding the departure airport name was unnecessary, and we therefore concluded that on this point ad (a) was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We understood that CAP guidance specified that, unless otherwise stated, quoted fares should apply to flights departing between one week after the ad appeared and six weeks later. We noted from the documentation provided by Easyjet that the travel period for all flights featured in the ad started on 22 September 2008, which was one week after the ad appeared (15 September 2008). We therefore concluded that on this point ad (a) was not misleading.

On this point we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

3. Upheld

We noted easyJet's response and the difficulty they had had in providing data that showed the overall number of fares available at the advertised price during the offer period. We also noted from the sales data provided that tickets to some of the destinations featured in the ad had been sold at or below the advertised 'from' price of £30.99 within one to six weeks after the ad appeared. We acknowledged that easyJet had held the relevant data at the time the ad appeared and that they had put in place additional checks to ensure the integrity of their data in future. Unfortunately, however, because they had not been able to provide data, when requested, that showed that at least 10% of the total number of available seats to the advertised destinations during the travel period were available at the 'from' price of £30.99, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated in full.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness).

4. Upheld

We noted easyJet's response and the CAP guidance referred to. However, we also noted that we had not seen evidence that demonstrated that fares from Gatwick to Milan were the same regardless of whether customers flew in to Milan Malpensa or Milan Linata airports. Because we considered that easyJet had not been able to substantiate that customers were offered a same-price alternative between those two destinations, we concluded that ad (b) was misleading.

Ad (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness).

Action

Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in their current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)