Emirates Ordered To Pay $8468 USD For Failing To Deliver Advertised Quality Of Business Class

[serfty]

The difference is I expect advertisements to be a hyped version of reality and I seek out the actual product I’m getting. I don’t take advertisements at face value.

This is common sense for the regular flyer.

However, the judge found the advertised product was rarely available on the route and in addition, for the the specific case, technical issues prevented much of the advertised product (e.g. internet) being available

 

[justinbrett]

This is common sense for the regular flyer.

However, the judge found the advertised product was rarely available on the route and in addition, for the the specific case, technical issues prevented much of the advertised product (e.g. internet) being available

My comments were actually in relation to @dairyfloss’s post which was in the QF self upgrade feature on their mobile website and not a paid advertisement like the EK case.

That said I did think the NZ judge was a bit heavy handed given most people fly EK to go somewhere beyond Dubai, so does that preclude QF using an A380 in advertisements to someone in QLD?

But I do agree, a simple text disclaimer would do. QF had one on the iOS app, perhaps it needs to use this on all platforms.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That said I did think the NZ judge was a bit heavy handed given most people fly EK to go somewhere beyond Dubai, so does that preclude QF using an A380 in advertisements to someone in QLD?

There is commonality between the product on QF’s long haul fleet. But if you are on an a380, the product will likely be the one advertised. Different from the NZ case where no flight was offering the advertised product, and that was for the most substantial portion of the flight… 14 hours or so to DBX, compared to 7 onwards to Europe.

Even for most people flying beyond Dubai… good chance they could be on a 777, and if they are, unlikely they’d be getting the full flat beds.

 

[justinbrett]

There is commonality between the product on QF’s long haul fleet. But if you are on an a380, the product will likely be the one advertised. Different from the NZ case where no flight was offering the advertised product, and that was for the most substantial portion of the flight… 14 hours or so to DBX, compared to 7 onwards to Europe.

Even for most people flying beyond Dubai… good chance they could be on a 777, and if they are, unlikely they’d be getting the full flat beds.

But what if someone books CHC-SYD and onwards on an A380? Maybe they book QF to SIN and then onwards with EK?

You’ve proven my point with regards to QF. Yes, people need to understand that flying to cairns is not going to be on a longaul aircraft so won’t have lie flat beds available.

QF flights from BNE to LAX don’t have premium economy or first class.

So any A380 advertisement showing such classes should be banned for Queensland markets?

Even if flying via SYD, what if they got an old config A380 with far less private J seats?

No.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

QF flights from BNE to LAX don’t have premium economy or first class.

So any A380 advertisement showing such classes should be banned for Queensland markets?

Even if flying via SYD, what if they got an old config A380 with far less private J seats?

If you’re flying ex BNE you can’t book PE or F. So it’s not like you’re booking those cabins, get to the airport and find it’s not available on the flight you booked. Book J and you’ll get the J pods.

That’s what happened ex NZ. The advertising implied full flat beds and other things that were never available for the product booked and paid for.

Now the unrefurbished A380 I think is a problem. It should be clearly stated as such during booking so pax aren’t misled.

If it’s a one-off substitution, the passenger should be given the option to change for free. Although the product is at least still fully flat, and aircraft substitutions are covered in the advertising and marketing, albeit in very small print.

The key differentiator in the NZ decision is that the advertisement related to a product you simply couldn’t get ex NZ, no matter how hard you tried.

 

[justinbrett]

If you’re flying ex BNE you can’t book PE or F. So it’s not like you’re booking those cabins, get to the airport and find it’s not available on the flight you booked. Book J and you’ll get the J pods.

That’s what happened ex NZ. The advertising implied full flat beds and other things that were never available for the product booked and paid for.

Now the unrefurbished A380 I think is a problem. It should be clearly stated as such during booking so pax aren’t misled.

If it’s a one-off substitution, the passenger should be given the option to change for free. Although the product is at least still fully flat, and aircraft substitutions are covered in the advertising and marketing, albeit in very small print.

The key differentiator in the NZ decision is that the advertisement related to a product you simply couldn’t get ex NZ, no matter how hard you tried.

Well again, my comments were in relation to the QF upgrade page showing a widebody business seat for a CBR/SYD upgrade.

And I do disagree about the A380s being off limits to Kiwis - if you are NZ based you just need to route via Australia or SIN. I'm not going to die in a ditch over the EK advertisment issue, but I guess I'm just very sceptical of any advertising and don't take anything at face value.

My point was every single mention of business class shouldn't need to have every possible aircraft type, configuration and seating type included in every mention.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well again, my comments were in relation to the QF upgrade page showing a widebody business seat for a CBR/SYD upgrade.

And I do disagree about the A380s being off limits to Kiwis - if you are NZ based you just need to route via Australia or SIN. I'm not going to die in a ditch over the EK advertisment issue, but I guess I'm just very sceptical of any advertising and don't take anything at face value.

My point was every single mention of business class shouldn't need to have every possible aircraft type, configuration and seating type included in every mention.

Ah, sorry. In relation to the upgrade only picture… I suppose a workaround could be to show a montage of the 737 and rest-of-fleet?

TBH the reason I do my homework is pretty much because I’m not as brave as the guy in NZ to take on an airline or any other large corporation. I’d rather just have the travel/purchase go as planned rather than have to try and resort to consumer protection to sort it out later!

 

[RooFlyer]

Just look at the words and image posted by dairyfloss and think "is that misleading and deceptive?". Even with the disclaimer (which isn't consistently displayed, by accounts) the question still arises. As the seat ;pictured is never offered on SYD-CBR, then I think the answer is yes. Doesn't matter if its thought 'unreasonable' for the airline to match the actual, or usual scheduled airplane for the route, the question still applies for a customer contemplating spending points currency served up that offer.

The service (upgrade) is still available if the image isn't included, so if an image can't be selected consistently or accurately, it shouldn't be included.

Bait and switch.

 

[RooFlyer]

Hmm, when I look at the upgrade options I see a disclaimer

But no image, which is what the discussion about dairyfloss' post is about .

 

[RooFlyer]

This is common sense for the regular flyer.

Wondering ... in a case of complaint against 'misleading and deceptive' advertising, would a judge consider the situation of a regular flyer/shopper/buyer of a product, or a flyer/shopper/etc who may have no particular knowledge of the product being advertised and bought, or the individual circumstance of the complainant? @Anna ?

 

[Anna]

Sheesh @RooFlyer asking for free legal advice on a Sunday morning

In Australia it is an objective test.

But there is a degree to which applying an 'objective test' actually means 'what the judge subjectively thinks is reasonable'.

 

[Anna]

How does it work?

Most basically, under the doctrine of the separation of powers, only the Australian Parliament enacts laws for Australia.

The DFAT website has info about the process if you want to read more detail. But the separation of powers is the fundamental underpinning principle, along with Australian sovereignty as an international State.

 

[pangwen]

Of the people putting in upgrades for business - what’s the proportion on widebodies do you think?

I would think more than 50%. A lot of people don’t want to waste on short domestic flights.

Depends on your definition of "putting in". The proportion of people submitting a upgrade request (successful or not), perhaps you're right.

But unless you have status, your chances of getting an upgrade to business on a widebody-operated flight (except maybe transcon) is slim. Effectively knocking out Bronze members from the widebody upgrade lottery - to me, that means 50% is way overblown if you're talking successful upgrades.

I would have thought that the vast majority of people making successful upgrades to business would be on narrowbodies (domestic and short haul international). These routes tend to be shorter, so the "normal" person who isn't an AFFer or dedicated points collector would have a greater chance of being able to collect enough points to actually submit an upgrade request. The shorter length means that there are a lot more narrowbody flights going out every day compared to widebodies, and there would be way more narrowbody business seats available per day as well.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Most basically, under the doctrine of the separation of powers, only the Australian Parliament enacts laws for Australia.

The DFAT website has info about the process if you want to read more detail. But the separation of powers is the fundamental underpinning principle, along with Australian sovereignty as an international State.

Exactly, which is consistent with what I wrote in my post.

The context of my post was broader than just Australia, and countries have different ways of incorporating international law.

As you point out the Federal Parliament in Australia will enact the relevant convention or treaty… which I consider incorporating the convention into ‘local’ law. And of course once enacted they will have consequential effects on other laws.

 

[justinbrett]

As you point out the Federal Parliament in Australia will enact the relevant convention or treaty… which I consider incorporating the convention into ‘local’ law. And of course once enacted they will have consequential effects on other laws.

The issue comes when the federal government signs an international treaty that affects powers assigned to the states. They have no way to force the states to comply with the international treaty.

It is, for example, why the US didn't ratify the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, as the issue is not in the jurisdiction of the federal government (nor did we, possibly for the same reason). Which is why most of the world has standardised signs, with USA, Canada and Australia being notable exceptions. (ie, no parking is the blue circle with the single cross, not the P crossed out).

 

[Anna]

Exactly, is consistent with what I wrote in my post.

The context of my post was broader than just Australia, and countries have different ways of incorporating international law.

As you point out the Federal Parliament in Australia will enact the relevant convention or treaty… which I consider incorporating the convention into ‘local’ law. And of course once enacted they will have consequential effects on other laws.

Dennis is this what you've been doing since The Castle?

 

[UP4014]

The analogies you’ve used don’t stack up.

For any given regular hotel room category, the vast majority of hotel rooms are identical if not very close with the exception of floor and view. That is to say, the hard product (the room) is very close to what can be expected as advertised in the picture. If it clearly is not the same room you booked, you can talk to the front desk and ask them to do something about it. Escalate to the Duty Manager or chain Loyalty etc if the outcome isn’t appropriate. The difference here is that there are many reasonable avenues to address the issue with a hotel then and there in a professional and responsive manner. The same can’t be said for Qantas or their call centres.

No one is going to disagree with you about the how Hamburgers are advertised/presented in reality. But for $5-10 are you really suggesting we should also take this matter to their Head Office/courts and claim false and misleading advertising? I’ve got better things to do with my time than chase $5 over a burger. But if we‘re dropping $2-3K for domestic and $10K+ International on the expectation of a fully flat business suite (vs 737 recliner) then yes, there’s everyone reason to pursue the matter. The disparity of advertised product matched with the eye watering prices are a 1-2 combination that few would stomach.

If you accept and defend every misleading and falsely advertised product or service that you consume or purchase, then your are exactly the sort of Lifetime Customer that Big Business wants.

Anyone remember the Michael Douglas movie Falling Down? I like the hamburger scene when he opens the container and it looks nothing like the picture, being LA he pulls a gun and says I want it like the one in the picture!

I feel like that sometimes.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Dennis is this what you've been doing since The Castle?

never seen the film!!

 

[drron]

A follow up on the seat situation we had with EK. We were eventually seated together in 6D and E. I naturally was assigned the middle seat by Mrsdrron. During the flight the fellow in 6F next to me was constantly being visited by the CSM who was continually apologising to him. I noted that his IFE was never used. Had a chat with him as we waited to get off in DXB. Turned out to be an Englishman now living in Australia whose business has been in various places in the Middle East for the last 35 years. For the last 30n he has used EK. At checkin they advised him that the IFE wasn't working in his seat 6F so they were going to change his seat to one in Y. He wasn't very happy and has cancelled all his future bookings on EK.

 

[justinbrett]

The Today show weren't very sympathetic to the Kiwi traveller