Emirates Says Angle-Flat Business Class “Equivalent” to Lie-Flat

Emirates offers lie-flat beds on some, but not all, of its aircraft
Emirates offers lie-flat beds on some, but not all, of its aircraft. Photo: Emirates.

Over the past decade or so, many airlines have gone to great lengths to upgrade their long-haul Business Class products with lie-flat seating. While angle-flat Business Class seating was once common, most long-haul business travellers now expect a lie-flat bed that reclines to a full 180 degrees.

Emirates, one of the major Middle Eastern carriers, offers fully lie-flat beds on its Airbus A380s, Boeing 777-200LRs and some of its newer Boeing 777-300ER fleet. But Emirates’ older Boeing 777-300ERs – the majority of them – still have angle-flat Business Class seats in a 2-3-2 layout.

Emirates has just embarked on a major fleet refurbishment program. This will see new Emirates Business Class seats installed on a large portion of its Boeing 777 fleet. This project will be completed in a few years.

Presumably, Emirates is upgrading its fleet so that its Business Class offering will be more competitive. Yet, the airline recently told the New Zealand Disputes Tribunal that “to the ordinary air-traveller the [angle-flat Boeing 777-300ER] seat made available is equivalent to a lie-flat seat”.

NZ Disputes Tribunal penalises Emirates for misleading advertising

In a recent highly-publicised case heard by the New Zealand Disputes Tribunal, a passenger sued Emirates for misleading advertising. They argued that they did not receive the advertised lie-flat Business Class product because the seat did not fully recline. Their entertainment system also didn’t work.

The plaintiff claimed that Emirates’ advertising in New Zealand depicted a fully-flat Business Class seat. But at the time, Emirates was only flying Boeing 777s to New Zealand which were fitted with older, angle-flat Business seats.

Emirates argued that as these seats reclined to 166.1 degrees, that only represented a 5% reduction in the advertised product. It offered a partial refund of NZD786 (~AU$732) to the customer.

Emirates 777 at AKL
An Emirates Boeing 777 at Auckland International Airport. Photo: Matt Graham.

A Business Class seat that reclines to 166 degrees is still a significant upgrade over Economy. But many frequent flyers would probably disagree that an angle-flat bed is the same as a fully-flat bed. Personally, I find it harder to sleep on an angle-flat bed because I end up sliding down the seat on overnight flights.

The NZ Disputes Tribunal also disagreed with Emirates’ assessment, ordering the airline to pay NZD13,555 (~AU$12,621) in compensation.

Airlines often show their best products in advertising

Most airlines offer multiple different types of Business Class seats on different aircraft types (and sometimes even on the same aircraft type). It’s not uncommon for the airline to show their best one in advertising material.

Some airlines, such as Air Canada, offer different pricing according to the type of Business Class product being provided. But most sell tickets at the same price, regardless of the seat type.

This means, for example, that a Qantas Business Class passenger would pay the same price to fly on a Boeing 737 with a reclining seat and an Airbus A330 with a lie-flat suite. It also means that if a passenger books a flight shown at the time of booking to be operated by an A330, but it’s later swapped to a 737, Qantas will not provide any compensation or a partial refund.

Qantas 737 business class
Qantas Boeing 737-800 Business Class. Photo: Qantas.

Not a one-time aircraft swap

Emirates argued in the tribunal hearing that its fine print allowed it to switch products and aircraft types.

If this had been a one-off aircraft swap, or Emirates was flying a mixture of different Business Class products to New Zealand, the tribunal probably would not have found Emirates to be in breach of the country’s Fair Trading Act. But the tribunal referee said Emirates was “advertising a service that they were rarely delivering, not due to an occasional or one-off change of aircraft due to operational requirements”.

“The promotional materials were based on an updated/new business class seat and service that is not in place in the older aircraft that Emirates flies to NZ,” referee Laura Mueller said.

“The Fair Trading Act 1986 prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct in trade. The advertising of a service that Emirates knew would unlikely be delivered is misleading and deceptive.”

Emirates has since upgraded the aircraft used on its Auckland-Dubai route to an Airbus A380 with fully lie-flat Business Class seating. The airline also currently uses A380s on its flights from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth to Dubai, and it will use the A380 to relaunch flights to Christchurch later this month.

Emirates A380 business class
Emirates A380 Business Class. Photo: Emirates.

Emirates is launching additional flights over the coming months to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane that will use Boeing 777s.

The editor of Australian Frequent Flyer, Matt's passion for travel has taken him to over 90 countries… with the help of frequent flyer points, of course!
Matt's favourite destinations (so far) are Germany, Brazil & Kazakhstan. His interests include aviation, economics & foreign languages, and he has a soft spot for good food and red wine.

You can connect with Matt by posting on the Australian Frequent Flyer community forum and tagging @AFF Editor.
________________________

Related Articles

Community Comments

Loading new replies...

Australia has similar laws here

Reply 1 Like

Australia has similar laws here

Haven't seen the various state bodies (VCAT or QCAT) enforce fare greater transgressions though.

Reply Like

She'll be right, mate! It's Straya!

(But yes, NZ and Australian law are similar, but there's nothing like EU261.)

Reply Like

This part is interesting:

Emirates claimed the service he had was only a 5% reduction in quality compared to the service it advertised, and had offered a refund of $786.

It told the tribunal that the seats Morgan and his wife received reclined to 166.1 degrees, rather than lying completely flat, but it said: “To the ordinary air-traveller the seat made available is equivalent to a lie-flat seat”.

Reply 1 Like

If I recall the NZ covid refund conditions were much less favourable than those here.

Reply Like

Thrilled to see an example of the consumer prevailing.

There was a thread (or maybe just a few posts) on AFF many years ago about Qantas's billboard advertising at Perth domestic airport when it was running 747s to Sydney. There was a picture of a passenger fast asleep on what looked to be a Skybed II when the 747s Qantas was running had Skybed I. This Emirates cases seems similar given the article references Emirates saying the fine print gave it the right to sub aircrafts, yet apparently the inferior product was far more common than an odd occurrence.

Reply 2 Likes

I can’t imagine this ever happening in Australia with the cozy ties between Qantas and the Pollies and the lack of a truly effective and empowered regulatory body.

Reply 4 Likes

click to expand...

I can’t imagine this ever happening in Australia with the cozy ties between Qantas and the Pollies and the lack of a truly effective and empowered regulatory body.

Already discussed here.

NZ with its state owned airline had worse consumer protection during covid than AU with QF.

Reply 2 Likes

click to expand...

I suppose this was an issue that would be hard for the airline to claim the matter was part of the Montreal Convention and thus not in the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal, like Qantas has been able to do in Australia's *CAT's in a few recent cases. I did find another case where the Disputes Tribunal's jurisdiction over Montreal Convention matters was denied in a lost baggage case ( Air New Zealand baggage dispute - Insurance law in New Zealand ). So certainly there are situations in which the Montreal Convention can essentially override other NZ law (as the Montreal Convention is legislated in NZ by the Civil Aviation Act 1990).

Reply Like

click to expand...

I suppose this was an issue that would be hard for the airline to claim the matter was part of the Montreal Convention and thus not in the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal, like Qantas has been able to do in Australia's *CAT's in a few recent cases. I did find another case where the Disputes Tribunal's jurisdiction over Montreal Convention matters was denied in a lost baggage case ( Air New Zealand baggage dispute - Insurance law in New Zealand ). So certainly there are situations in which the Montreal Convention can essentially override other NZ law (as the Montreal Convention is legislated in NZ by the Civil Aviation Act 1990).

An international treaty will usually override local law, if the country is a signatory to the international law. Or sometimes the treaty is incorporated into local laws, and will therefore apply and override other laws.

But Montreal doesn’t cover advertising! So no apparent conflicts there!

While we also have the ‘*’we may substitue aircraft exceptions in Australia, I think the distinction in the NZ case was that the plane with the new seats never flew there… so it wasn’t a case of substitution. It was a case of never being offered at all.

Reply 1 Like

click to expand...