Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A magazine ad by Gatwick Airport Ltd, featured text that stated "Britain doesn't just need a new runway. What it really needs is two world class airports ... Gatwick already flies direct to more destinations than any other UK airport - expanding here would not only strengthen our routes to emerging markets, it would also relieve pressure and free up hub capacity at Heathrow ... After decades of delays, Britain needs a decision - and it must be the right one. Now under separate ownership from Heathrow, Gatwick can make its case for expansion. We can build a new runway much faster with minimal disruption ... And with hundreds of thousands fewer people affected by noise and air pollution, future generations won't be burdened with a huge environmental cost".
Issue
The London Borough of Hounslow Chamber of Commerce challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "We can build a new runway much faster"; and
2. "Hundreds of thousands fewer people affected by noise and air pollution."
Response
1. Gatwick Airport Ltd forecast that its runway could be operational by 2025. The Airport Commission (the Commission) stated in its Consultation "The delivery risks associated with the Gatwick scheme are assessed as relatively low, and the Commission considers an opening date in 2025 achievable". They said the Commission found that expansion at Heathrow Airport could be delivered by 2026, but that the delivery risks associated with an extended runway at Heathrow Airport were substantial. Gatwick Airport Ltd believed a third runway at Heathrow Airport was unlikely to be open before 2030 because of the political and planning risks being significantly higher than at Gatwick Airport.
2. Gatwick Airport Ltd said that, at present, around 3,200 people around the Airport were significantly affected by aircraft noise. They said the current figure for Heathrow Airport was 240,000. They pointed out that the Commission stated in its Consultation Document that " ... the numbers of people affected [by the Gatwick expansion] in even the upper-end scenario are significantly below the total numbers at Heathrow, where currently some 760,000 people fall within the 55 do minimum Lden contour".
They said Heathrow Airport's operations affected a densely populated area of London, whereas Gatwick Airport operated in a primarily rural location that resulted in fewer people being affected. They provided evidence that they believed supported that. They said Heathrow Airport was approximately double the size of Gatwick Airport; handled approximately double the number of passenger movements per year; and had higher levels of ground activity to support the larger traffic and cargo operations. They therefore believed Heathrow Airport's emissions were higher than Gatwick Airport's and that more people were affected by those emissions.
Assessment
The ASA noted that the ads referred to an airport expansion plan that was currently being considered by the Airports Commission. We noted that, due to the contentious nature of the issue, the exploration of various airport expansion plans by the Airports Commission had received a lot of press attention. We considered members of the public would therefore recognise the context of the ads and appreciate that they represented the views and expectations of Gatwick Airport Ltd, formed upon a reasonable and robust evidence base.
1. Not upheld
We considered consumers would understand the claim "We can build a new runway much faster" to mean that the Gatwick Airport Ltd expansion would be completed significantly faster than the Heathrow Airport proposal.
We noted Gatwick Airport Ltd forecast that its runway could be operational by 2025. The Commission found that the delivery risks associated with the Gatwick Airport Ltd expansion were relatively low and that the opening of a runway at Gatwick Airport in 2025 was achievable. It found that 2026 was a realistic runway opening date for the expansion at Heathrow Airport. It noted that the delivery risks associated with an extended runway at Heathrow Airport were substantial, but could be managed.
We considered the earlier completion of the Gatwick Airport Ltd expansion, up to a year before the completion of the Heathrow Airport expansion, was likely to be viewed by consumers as a significant time saving, resulting in less disruption and an operational runway at an earlier date. We therefore considered the claim "We can build a new runway much faster" was not likely to mislead readers.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), but did not find it to be in breach.
2. Not upheld
We considered consumers were likely to understand the claim "Hundreds of thousands fewer people affected by noise and air pollution" to mean that noise and air pollution resulting from the Gatwick Airport Ltd proposal would affect hundreds of thousands fewer people than the Heathrow Airport proposal. The Commission's analysis found that Gatwick Airport Ltd's proposal would lead to a significant growth in the number of people affected by aviation noise, and could significantly affect 37,000 people. It also found that the numbers of people affected by the Gatwick Airport expansion would be significantly below the numbers affected at Heathrow Airport. At the time of the report, 760,000 people were significantly affected at Heathrow Airport. We also understood that due to the higher density of population surrounding Heathrow Airport more people were likely to be affected by the air pollution resultant from the expansion. Because we understood that the noise and air pollution resulting from the Gatwick Airport Ltd proposal would affect hundreds of thousands fewer people than the Heathrow Airport proposal, we considered the claim was not likely to mislead.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), but did not find it to be in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
