Cookies policy statement
We are using cookies on our site to provide you with the best user experience.
Disabling cookies may prevent our website from working efficiently. Click ok to remove this message (we will remember your choice).

ASA Ruling on Swiss International Air Lines AG

Swiss International Air Lines AG t/a SWISS

Heathrow Boulevard 2
284 Bath Road
West Drayton


30 January 2013


Internet (on own site)


Holidays and travel

Number of complaints:


Complaint Ref:



A page on the website was headlined "Discounted fares to Switzerland - Exclusively for members of Ski Club of Great Britain". Text stated "Book your next flight to Switzerland with SWISS and enjoy the famous Swiss quality and service on board our flights. - 10% discount on the following direct routes: - Birmingham-Zurich - London City-Basel, Geneva and Zurich - London Heathrow-Geneva and Zurich - Manchester-Zurich". Text beneath stated "Discounts apply to net fares excluding taxes and surcharges".


The complainant, who had tried to book flights using the discount, challenged whether the claim "10% discount on the following direct routes" was misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 12)


Swiss International Air Lines AG, trading as SWISS (SWISS), responded to the complaint on behalf of both parties. They stated that the offer had been run by SWISS in partnership with the Ski Club of Great Britain (SCGB), who had communicated the availability of the discount to its members in the UK. SWISS said the discounted fares had been available to SCGB members only, through a dedicated booking tool on a part of the website which was separate from the normal booking process. SWISS stated that the booking tool for the promotional SCGB offer was linked, however, to their standard booking engine and used the same data and fare information.

SWISS stated that the 10% discount was applied to the fare before the relevant taxes and surcharges had been added, and provided an example of the booking process for a return flight using both the promotional and standard booking tools.

SWISS noted that the SCGB booking tool had quoted the discounted price alongside the non-promotional fare for the flight, and acknowledged that in some cases it appeared that that non-promotional fare had not matched the price quoted at the same time for the same flight on the standard booking tool. They said that issue had occurred because of a systems error and they had since removed the fare comparison feature from the SCGB booking tool in order to prevent it happening again. SWISS stressed, however, that in all cases the 10% discount had been properly calculated and applied to flights booked by SCGB members, in accordance with the terms of the advertised offer.



The ASA understood that the advertised offer related to a 10% discount on certain flights for members of SCGB, and that that discount would be applied to the basic fare before taxes and surcharges had been added on. We noted that, because of this calculation method, the final price charged to a SCGB member once taxes and surcharges had been included would be more than 90% of the price charged to the public for the same flight. In the example given by SWISS, the basic fare for a SCGB member was reduced by 10% in comparison with the standard basic fare, but the same taxes and surcharges were then added on to both sets of flights. That resulted in the end price charged to the SCGB customers being approximately 95% of the standard fare.

Although we recognised that the ad included text stating that the discount would be applied to net fares, exclusive of taxes and surcharges, we also noted that those additional charges were non-optional charges which should be included within prices quoted for flights. On that basis, we considered that most consumers would understand that the claim "10% discount" would apply to the final price payable, inclusive of taxes and surcharges, but that that impression was contradicted by the qualification "Discounts apply to net fares excluding taxes and surcharges". We therefore found that the claim to offer a 10% discount was misleading.

We understood that the SCGB booking tool had been subject to a technical error which had led to the non-promotional fares quoted for comparison purposes being in some instances higher than the current fare available on the standard booking tool. We welcomed the action taken by SWISS to amend the SCGB booking tool in order to ensure that the error would not recur.

Because we considered that most readers would expect to receive a full 10% discount off the standard end price quoted for a flight, but noted that the level of discount available in comparison to that price was less than 10%, we concluded that the claim "10% discount on the following direct routes" was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 (Qualification) 3.11 (Exaggeration), 3.17 (Prices) and 8.2 (Sales promotions).


The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told SWISS not to offer discounts on basic fares exclusive of VAT and surcharges and to ensure that their ads did not exaggerate the level of savings available.

How to comply with the rules

For advice and training on the Advertising Codes please visit the CAP website.

Latest tweets

Make a complaint

Find out what types of ads we deal with and how to make a complaint.

Press Zone

This section is for journalists only. Here you will be able to access embargoed material, breaking news and briefing papers as well as profile details for the ASA press office.