Boeing United Kingdom Ltd 16 St. James?s Street St. James London SW1A 1ER Number of complaints: 1

Date: 28 November 2007 Media: National press Sector: Holidays and travel

Ad
A national press ad, for Boeing UK, that showed a picture of the 747-8 Intercontinental plane with the headline text "Our commitment to a better future means cleaner, quieter airplanes".  The body copy stated " ... its designed  to be 15% more fuel efficient, using less than 3 litres of fuel per 100 passenger km. As a result it produces less than 75 grams CO2 per passenger km ...".

Issue
The complainant challenged whether:

1. the claim "it produces less than 75 grams of CO2 per passenger km" was misleading, because he believed that figure depended on how many passengers were in the plane, and would be higher if some seats were unoccupied;

2. the claim "it produces less than 75 grams of CO2 per passenger km" was misleading, because it did not make clear which passenger class was being used in the calculation, because he believed the CO2 attributable to passengers in different classes was very different; and

3. the ad would mislead readers about their likely contribution of CO2 emissions from long haul flights to global warming, because he believed that CO2 emissions accounted for around only 25-50% of the effect of long-haul flights on global warming.

The CAP Code:

3.1;7.1;49.1

Response
1. Boeing explained that the 747-8 was not yet in service and that the first delivery of the aircraft was scheduled for 2010.  They said there were many unknown factors that could affect the CO2 per passenger km and explained the conservative approach they had used to calculate the figure.  They explained that they used a specific data set to calculate an average passenger number, which had been established by a specialised team who had examined all available data of airline configurations and the number of seats in each seat class.  They explained that the team had also calculated an average weight for a passenger plus luggage from historical data and that they had used computer modelling to calculate the fuel used in each part of the flight, which took account of every component in the airplane including catering, seats, flight and cabin crew.  They pointed out that the figure they had calculated was lower than the one advertised and therefore they had provided a good margin for the claim "less than 75 grams of CO2 per passenger km".  They supplied ads and press releases from other aircraft manufacturers that they believed showed that a 100% load factor, or percentage of seats occupied compared to those available, was an industry standard.  They asserted that any agreement on how aircraft manufacturers reported CO2 emissions that was different from the industry standard currently used would require an international agreement rather than just UK specific policy because the industry was global.  They explained that the ad had been prepared in response to a similar ad from Airbus S. A. S., at a time when they had been in competition for a British Airways' contract, and that they had been comparing 'like-with-like', because they understood that the Airbus A380's advertised figure of 75 g CO2 per passenger km was also based on a 100% load factor.  They said they were already taking action to ensure their future advertising contained a suitable qualification in regards to assumed occupancy of the aircraft.

2.  Boeing said the primary factor in determining the amount of fuel burnt was the weight of the aircraft and that passenger weight was a relatively small contributing factor.  They explained that their data set allowed for a likely mixture of first, business and economy passengers.  

The complainant supplied a copy of his paper titled "The carbon cost of Business and First class long haul flying" that he had supplied to DEFRA as part of their consultation process on carbon offsetting.  He explained that the carbon footprint of flying first class could be up to five times the carbon footprint of flying economy in long haul flights, due to the lower seat density.  He believed advertisers should quote the CO2 figures for each class of seat, so that customers could understand the carbon footprint for flying in a 747-8.  He also believed ads referring to fuel consumption or carbon footprints should include the actual figures and the assumed load factor.

3. They pointed out that the ad did not make any claim about the contribution of passengers to global warming.  They said they had confined the claim in the ad to CO2 only because there was a lack of consensus on the global warming effect of other aviation gases and aerosols such as nitrogen oxides.

The complainant said, for long haul flights, the total effect on global warming for all emissions was estimated to be between two and four times that of CO2 alone.  He explained that a consumer who wished to understand or offset the environmental harm from the flight would not do so if they accounted for the CO2 emissions only.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that Boeing had produced the figure of 75 g CO2 per passenger km on a conservative basis using a data set of averages.  We understood that the load factor could make a significant difference to the figure calculated: we noted that a load factor of 79.7%, the DEFRA standard, would result in a re-calculated figure greater than 75 g CO2 per passenger km for the 747-8 Intercontinental.  We noted Boeing's argument that the use of a 100% load factor was standard practice in the aviation industry for manufacturers and that a target audience of industry members would understand that.  We considered that, because the ad was placed in the national press, the ad had not been targeted at industry members only.  Because of that, we concluded that the claim should have been qualified to make clear that the CO2 figure quoted was based on full occupancy of the aircraft, in order to provide consumers with enough information to understand the claim in context, and we welcomed Boeings agreement to do that in future.

On this point, the ad breached 49.1 (Environmental claims).

2. Not upheld
We acknowledged the complainant's viewpoint that the CO2 per passenger km emissions should be calculated as accurately as possible for seats in different cabins, so well-informed decisions could be made by consumers.  However, we understood that Boeing had calculated the figure of 75 g CO2 per passenger km based on a specific data set of aviation averages.  We considered that most readers would expect a figure from an aeroplane manufacturer, not an airline, to be based on an average configuration across the airlines that used the 747-400.  We considered that it would be best practice to include that information in a disclaimer, but because the figure was based on an average configuration of economy, business and first class seating, we did not object to the claim.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1 (Environmental claims), but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld
We understood that long-haul flights were accompanied by an additional impact of Radiative Forcing or non-CO2 climate change effect, such as the effect of nitrogen oxides on the atmosphere.  We considered that people and companies who wished to minimise their environmental impact from long-haul flights would be likely to want to understand their total environmental impact, in order to allow them to make well-informed decisions.  We understood that they would not be able to do so, particularly in regards to offsetting, if they took account of the CO2 produced only.  We nevertheless considered that most readers would understand from the ad that Boeing were committed to building a 'cleaner' aircraft and would not believe that the ad was providing  a statement on the likely contribution to global warming of their CO2 emissions from flights.  We considered that parties interested in offsetting would be unlikely to use an ad promoting the manufacture of an aircraft not yet in service as a source of a figure to help calculate their personal environmental impact for offsetting purposes.  Because we understood that Boeing was building the new 747-8 Intercontinental and that it was designed to be more efficient than their current 747-400, we concluded that the ad did not mislead on those grounds.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1 (Environmental claims), but did not find it in breach.

Action
We told Boeing not to repeat the ad in its present form in a media for non-aviation industry members without a suitable qualification to make clear that the CO2 claim was estimated by assuming complete occupancy of the aircraft.


Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)