Flybe is Environmentally Friendly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sou
Age: 64
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe is Environmentally Friendly
ASA Adjudication
Skip Navigation Jersey European Airways (UK) Ltd t/a Flybe.comFlybeJack Walker HouseExeter International AirportEX5 2HLNumber of complaints: 3Date:7 February 2007Media:National pressSector:Holidays and travel
Ad
A national press ad, for flybe.com, was headed "Flybe. Low cost... but not at any cost! Serving the UK regions with low cost sustainable travel". Further text stated "Flybe acknowledges that we have a responsibility for meeting the concerns of the regional and international communities by taking necessary actions in order to mitigate the effects of our activities on the environment Flybe has invested over $2 billion in the Worlds most environmentally friendly aircraft, Flying high frequency services on the Bombardier Q400 aircraft that burns half the fuel of a 50 seat jet. A true 5 star Eco Aircraft ... flybe.com The UKs low fare, low emissions airline".
Issue
Two complainants challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that travel with Flybe was environmentally friendly.
The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;49.1;49.2
Response
Flybe.com (Flybe) said the intention of the ad was to show that they did as much as they could to mitigate the effects of their activities on the environment by investing in environmentally friendly aircraft. They said the ad was also intended to show that Flybe cared about the communities in which they operated.
Flybe said the ad should have stated "one of the Worlds most environmentally friendly aircraft". They apologised that the ad had omitted the words "one of" and said they would ensure that the correct claim was stated in future.
Flybe provided statistics that showed how the two aircrafts in which they had recently invested, the Embraer 195 and the Q400, compared with other aircrafts on emissions, fuel burning and noise levels. Their statistics showed that the Q400 had 23-44% lower emissions, burned 12-33% less fuel and was four to five Effective Perceived Noise (EPN) decibels quieter than four other example aircrafts. Their statistics also showed that the Q400 was below the certified emissions levels set by the International Civil Aviation Authoritys Committee on Aviation Environment Protection.
Flybe said there was no standard definition of the term "environmentally friendly" and their use of that term had been to show that they did everything they could to limit the effects of their activity on the environment through the aircraft they operated. They said they had not intended for the ad to suggest that air travel had no impact on the environment and they believed consumers had enough awareness of environmental issues not to make that assumption. They said the use of the term "Carbon neutral" would suggest that their activities had no impact on the environment and they had not used that term in the ad.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted Flybe had intended to claim that the Q400 aircraft was "one of the Worlds most environmentally friendly aircraft" and we welcomed their assurance that future ads would include the words "one of".
We acknowledged that Flybes statistics had shown that the Q400 aircraft had lower emissions, fuel burn and noise levels than some other aircraft in the same category. We considered that most consumers were likely to interpret the "environmentally friendly" claim as a comparison with other aircrafts and we noted CAP Code clause 49.2 stated " Qualified claims and comparisons ... may be acceptable if marketers can substantiate that their product provides an overall improvement in environmental terms either against their competitors or their own previous products".
We considered that consumers were likely to understand that no airline could cause no environmental damage and were likely to judge the "sustainable travel", "low emissions" and "environmentally friendly" claims in the context of the overall impression of the ad, which was that Flybe used aircraft that were better in environmental terms than some other aircraft. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead consumers about the environmental benefits of travel with Flybe.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), and 49.1 and 49.2 (Environmental Claims) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
Skip Navigation Jersey European Airways (UK) Ltd t/a Flybe.comFlybeJack Walker HouseExeter International AirportEX5 2HLNumber of complaints: 3Date:7 February 2007Media:National pressSector:Holidays and travel
Ad
A national press ad, for flybe.com, was headed "Flybe. Low cost... but not at any cost! Serving the UK regions with low cost sustainable travel". Further text stated "Flybe acknowledges that we have a responsibility for meeting the concerns of the regional and international communities by taking necessary actions in order to mitigate the effects of our activities on the environment Flybe has invested over $2 billion in the Worlds most environmentally friendly aircraft, Flying high frequency services on the Bombardier Q400 aircraft that burns half the fuel of a 50 seat jet. A true 5 star Eco Aircraft ... flybe.com The UKs low fare, low emissions airline".
Issue
Two complainants challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that travel with Flybe was environmentally friendly.
The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;49.1;49.2
Response
Flybe.com (Flybe) said the intention of the ad was to show that they did as much as they could to mitigate the effects of their activities on the environment by investing in environmentally friendly aircraft. They said the ad was also intended to show that Flybe cared about the communities in which they operated.
Flybe said the ad should have stated "one of the Worlds most environmentally friendly aircraft". They apologised that the ad had omitted the words "one of" and said they would ensure that the correct claim was stated in future.
Flybe provided statistics that showed how the two aircrafts in which they had recently invested, the Embraer 195 and the Q400, compared with other aircrafts on emissions, fuel burning and noise levels. Their statistics showed that the Q400 had 23-44% lower emissions, burned 12-33% less fuel and was four to five Effective Perceived Noise (EPN) decibels quieter than four other example aircrafts. Their statistics also showed that the Q400 was below the certified emissions levels set by the International Civil Aviation Authoritys Committee on Aviation Environment Protection.
Flybe said there was no standard definition of the term "environmentally friendly" and their use of that term had been to show that they did everything they could to limit the effects of their activity on the environment through the aircraft they operated. They said they had not intended for the ad to suggest that air travel had no impact on the environment and they believed consumers had enough awareness of environmental issues not to make that assumption. They said the use of the term "Carbon neutral" would suggest that their activities had no impact on the environment and they had not used that term in the ad.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted Flybe had intended to claim that the Q400 aircraft was "one of the Worlds most environmentally friendly aircraft" and we welcomed their assurance that future ads would include the words "one of".
We acknowledged that Flybes statistics had shown that the Q400 aircraft had lower emissions, fuel burn and noise levels than some other aircraft in the same category. We considered that most consumers were likely to interpret the "environmentally friendly" claim as a comparison with other aircrafts and we noted CAP Code clause 49.2 stated " Qualified claims and comparisons ... may be acceptable if marketers can substantiate that their product provides an overall improvement in environmental terms either against their competitors or their own previous products".
We considered that consumers were likely to understand that no airline could cause no environmental damage and were likely to judge the "sustainable travel", "low emissions" and "environmentally friendly" claims in the context of the overall impression of the ad, which was that Flybe used aircraft that were better in environmental terms than some other aircraft. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead consumers about the environmental benefits of travel with Flybe.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), and 49.1 and 49.2 (Environmental Claims) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line, IT MAKES MONEY!
Added advantage-It is also more environmentally friendly than most!
=WIN/WIN for JF, no brainer really! Expect many more, and the demise of the 145/146.......
Added advantage-It is also more environmentally friendly than most!
=WIN/WIN for JF, no brainer really! Expect many more, and the demise of the 145/146.......
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In my underpants
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft might be environmentally friendly but what about all the hot air that comes out of Exeter, that can`t be good. Not to mention the noise that usually comes with it. 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Sky
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes them more money, however, the environmentally friendly point is a great coincedence and one they should exploit, especially with the way politicians are taking advantage of the easy target that is aviation, in a bid to win them more votes becuase they are taking "a bigger, better stance on the green issue"
P.S Anotherspaceman, your PM box is full so I cant send you any messages
P.S Anotherspaceman, your PM box is full so I cant send you any messages
Last edited by g1344304; 21st Mar 2007 at 18:49.
