ASA Adjudications

easyJet Airline Co Ltd
Easy Land
London Luton Airport
Bedfordshire
LU2 9LS
Number of complaints: 5
Date:11 April 2007
Media:National press
Sector:Holidays and travel

Ad
A national newspaper ad, for easyJet, headlined "Flying and the environment; the facts.  30% off all easyJet flights".  Further text stated "Because we operate Europes most modern fleet, our planes emit 30% fewer emissions per passenger mile than traditional airlines.  So you can enjoy your holiday safe in the knowledge that youll have done more for the environment than Gordons taxes ever could".
Issue
Five complainants challenged whether:

1. the ad was misleading, because it implied travel with easyJet was environmentally friendly and

2. the claim "Because we operate Europes most modern fleet, our planes emit 30% fewer emissions per passenger mile than traditional airlines" was misleading and could be substantiated.
The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;19.1;49.2

Response
easyJet Airline Co Ltd (easyJet) said they had chosen to run ads on 7 December as a protest against the doubling of Air Passenger Duty (APD), which had been announced by Gordon Brown on 6 December in the pre-budget report.  They said they recognised that the news would attract a great deal of press attention and they chose to use paid-for above the line advertising in three national newspapers.  They said issues relating to aviation and the environment were increasingly dominating their industry.  

They said their objective was to make two points: first, that not all airlines were the same when it came to the greenhouse gases that their aircraft emitted; and second, that taxes were a poor way for a government to make environmental improvements.  They said the ad was a one-off and they had no plans to re-run it.

easyJet said the average age of their aircraft was 2.2 years, which they said made it the youngest of any of its significant competitors as of December 2006.  They sent figures from Aircraft Analytical Systems to support that.  They said the engines of an aircraft became less fuel efficient over time, which led to higher fuel consumption and higher emissions during a flight. They said, therefore, that newer aircraft were less environmentally harmful than older aircraft of identical type and specification and easyJet's fleet would, as a result, be less environmentally harmful than its competitors' older fleets.  In support of that, they sent information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), figures from International Aero Engines (IAE) and a Lufthansa Technik presentation, which described the impact of wear and tear on turbojet engines.

easyJet said they had their own 'Environmental Code', which required their fleets to be "efficient in the air".  They said their policy of using the latest technology aircraft and retiring aircraft within seven to ten years of delivery was part of the implementation of that code.

easyJet said the "30% fewer emissions" claim was based on the estimated emissions savings per passenger on an easyJet A319 compared to a full service carrier using the same aircraft on the same route.  They said they had used two calculations to reach that figure.  First, they said they calculated the CO2 emissions created by an easyJet A319, which had 156 seats, flying its average sector length and with an average load factor (the ratio of paid passenger seats to the total seating capacity of the flight).  They said that figure was then compared with an A319 fitted with a standard two-class cabin (as defined by Airbus) flying the same sector length with an average load factor derived from the Association of European Airlines (AEA). They calculated that the average amount of fuel burnt on an easyJet flight was 15-19% higher, because of the extra passengers; however, the number of extra passengers on an easyJet flight was 57% higher.  Their figures showed that the emissions savings on an easyJet flight ranged from 33% to 27.2%, depending on the weight difference of the aircraft.

For the second calculation, easyJet said they compared an easyJet A319 flying on a specific route (Gatwick to Barcelona) with a specific competitor (British Airways A319 flying Heathrow to Barcelona), using the average fuel burn per block hour, the average block time and the average load factor for each airline. They calculated the emissions per passenger would be 32.5% lower on the comparable easyJet flight, because the British Airways flight had eight rows converted to business class (118 seats in total). They said even if the British Airways flight had all economy seats (126 seats in total) the CO2 emissions per passenger would be 27.9% lower on the easyJet flight.

They said because the estimated savings figure in both calculations ranged from 27.2% to 33% they firmly believed the 30% savings figure was a reasonable, defendable and sensible reference for use in their ads.  They said although the modernity of the fleet was not the only factor in the overall 30% figure, the nature of the ad had not enabled them to set out each of the claims independently.  They said, nevertheless, the text of the advertisement was drafted in accordance with the facts.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged that complainants were concerned that the ad, and in particular the statement "So you can enjoy your holiday safe in the knowledge you'll have done more for the environment than Gordon's taxes ever could", implied that consumers who flew by easyJet would have benefited the environment.  

However, we noted the ad had been published as a direct result of the increase in APD and we considered that that was a high profile issue with which most consumers would be familiar.  We considered that most readers would interpret the ad in that context.  We also considered that consumers were likely to understand that all airlines would cause some environmental damage and that the ad compared easyJet's environmental credentials with other 'traditional airlines'; it did not claim that easyJet was environmentally friendly per se.  We concluded that, on that point, the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point we investigated under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 19.1 (Other comparisons) and 49.2 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld
We noted the evidence easyJet provided showed that younger planes were more environmentally efficient, in terms of fuel used, than older aircraft of the same type.  We considered that easyJet had substantiated the claim "we fly Europe's most modern fleet".  

However, we noted easyJet had based their calculations for the "30% fewer emissions" claim primarily on the number of passengers they could carry in their planes; because they could carry more passengers than most other airlines the CO2 emissions per passenger were 30% less.  The figures easyJet provided for the comparison of the emissions per passenger on their flights with the emissions of full service flights of the same aircraft, used the same figures for fuel use per passenger, the only difference taken into account was the weight of the aircraft.  

We considered readers were likely to understand from the wording of the claim that easyJet had "30% fewer emissions" because they operated "Europe's most modern fleet".  Although easyJet had shown that younger planes were more environmentally efficient in terms of the fuel they used, they had sent no evidence which proved younger planes had 30% fewer emissions per passenger mile;  the "30% fewer emissions" claim was based primarily on the fact that they could carry more passengers per plane than traditional airlines.  We considered that easyJet had inaccurately portrayed the basis of the claim and concluded that it was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 19.1 (Other comparisons) and 49.1 (Environmental claims).
Action
We told easyJet not to repeat the claim "Because we operate Europes most modern fleet, our planes emit 30% fewer emissions per passenger mile than traditional airlines".  We advised them to seek CAP Copy advice for future claims.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

back | top