Ryanair has been banned from claiming its flight from London to Brussels is faster and cheaper than making the journey by Eurostar.
The claim was misleading because it ignored time taken travelling from city centres to airports, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said.
Ryanair called on the "ASA quango" to reverse its factually false finding of Tuesday that the Eurostar train service was faster and cheaper than Ryanair's flights from London Stansted to Brussels Charleroi.
Speaking today, Ryanair's Head of Communications, Peter Sherrard said: "Only in the parallel universe of the ASA quango can a 1 hr 10 minute flight be declared to be longer than a 2hr 11minute train journey. Even a 4 yr old with basic maths could tell you that the flight is shorter.
Similarly, only the mathematically challenged ASA could declare that a £15 airfare is 'not necessarily cheaper' than a £27 train ticket".
Ryaniar said that it has today sent a Dummies Guide to Mathematics to the ASA "who clearly can't add and they can't subtract either." This false ruling should be reversed.
Ryanair's advert in question, compared its 70-minute flight with a 131-minute train journey.
But travelling from the heart of London and Brussels would add one hour and 45 minutes to the journey, the ASA said.
And costs for those journeys to and from airports at both ends of the journey meant that claims Ryanair's service was cheaper were also misleading.
Ryanair said that that time and costs involved in getting to an airport or railway station were "irrelevant" as they applied to both modes of transport.
In a statement, the airline added that "no stupid ruling" from the ASA could hide the success of the airline.
"Only the very rich or the very slow waste their time on Eurostar," it said.
Ryanair's main London base, Stansted airport, is about 25 miles outside the centre of the capital while Charleroi airport is some 28.5 miles outside of Brussels.
"We considered that many readers would not be aware of the locations of the airports and additional costs incurred," the ASA said.
Ryanair was also found to have made inaccurate claims when it said that Ryanair's flights on the route were more punctual than Eurostar's service.
The airline was told by the ASA to remove all the claims from its adverts.
In July the ASA ordered Ryanair not to repeat an advertisement that played down the impact of aviation on the environment.
In a press campaign the airline claimed the airline industry "accounts for just 2% of carbon dioxide emissions".
The ASA ruled it breached rules on truthfulness by not explaining the figure was based on global rather than UK emissions.
ASA's summary of its ruling:
Ad
A national press ad, for Ryanair, was headlined "BRUSSELS FASTER AND CHEAPER". Text stated "RYANAIR ONE WAY FROM £15* TAXES AND CHARGES INCLUDED EUROSTAR ONE WAY FROM £27* TAXES AND CHARGES INCLUDED RYANAIR WILL OPERATE 16 FLIGHTS A WEEK TO BRUSSELS FROM JUNE: - FASTER: 1H10 FLIGHT TIME VERSUS 2H11 TRAIN JOURNEY. - MORE PUNCTUAL: RYANAIR 89% ON TIME VERSUS EUROSTAR 83% ON TIME. - 44% CHEAPER THAN EUROSTAR ... " The footnotes stated "*Comparison based on a journey on Monday the 4th of June. Eurostar: one way from London (St. Pancras) to Brussels (Midi). Ryanair: one way from London (Stansted) to Brussels (Charleroi)..."
Issue
Eurostar Group and members of the public objected that:
1. the claim "faster" was misleading because it did not take into account the time it would take for Ryanair passengers to travel from central London to Stansted airport, and from Charleroi airport to central Brussels, or the longer check-in time for flights;
2. the claim "cheaper" was misleading because the comparison did not include the additional cost to Ryanair customers of travel from city centre to airport at either end of the journey and
3. the footnote "Eurostar: one way from London (St. Pancras)" was misleading because services would not leave from St. Pancras until November 2007.
4. Eurostar Group also challenged whether the claim "more punctual" could be substantiated; they noted their figures showed punctuality of 91.5% overall for 2006 on the London-Brussels and London-Paris routes.
5. A member of the public objected that the claim "EUROSTAR ONE WAY FROM £27* TAXES AND CHARGES INCLUDED" was misleading because he believed customers did not have to pay taxes and charges for travel on Eurostar.
Response
1. Ryanair said the ad clearly stated that they flew from London Stansted which was a designated airport for London, and that, depending on where a person was travelling from in London, it was quicker to fly by plane. They argued that the time taken to get to the airport or train station was irrelevant because the ad compared only the travel time on the aeroplane with the time on Eurostar, and that someone travelling to a train station might be delayed by traffic or live on the other side of London. They pointed out the ad compared travel time and not queuing time, and that a person might have to queue for a substantial amount of time to buy a train ticket. They added that Eurostar specified a 30-minute check-in time under the conditions of their standard ticket.
2. Ryanair said the complainants' argument presumed that people would have to pay to get to and from the airport, and that the same argument could be applied to the costs of getting to the train station. They argued that neither their fare nor Eurostar's took onward travel into consideration and that they compared solely the cost of travel between stations with the cost between airports.
3. Ryanair acknowledged that the claim that Eurostar left from St Pancras was inaccurate because Eurostar's operation would start there only in November 2007. They said they would ensure that future ads stated the correct departure point.
4. Ryanair said their figure was sourced from an article which appeared on the BBC website in April 2005. They said they did not hold any further information about the statistic.
5. Ryanair said they wanted to highlight that their price was an inclusive price. They said they wanted the comparison to be fair and therefore informed readers that there were no taxes and charges to be added to either price. They said they would remove the statement from future ads.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the claim "faster" was qualified by a reference in the footnote to the airport names. We also noted Ryanair compared travel times and not overall journey times, and that the precise flight time and train time were set out in the body text. We also noted, however, Stansted airport and Charleroi airport were located approximately 40 km and 46 km from the centres of London and Brussels respectively, and that transfer times were approximately 45 minutes for the former and approximately one hour for the latter. We noted Eurostar terminals were located in the city centres. We considered that readers would not necessarily be aware of the location of the airports and the extra time they would have to factor in for the journey. We also considered that people would see the headline "Brussels faster" as referring to the overall journey time from London to the centre of Brussels. We concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
2.Upheld
We noted Ryanair's argument that transport costs at either end of the flight were irrelevant because they would vary depending on individual circumstances, and that that was also the case for journeys on Eurostar. We also noted the £15 Ryanair fare was 44% cheaper than the Eurostar fare. We understood, however, that travel from the airports to London and Brussels city centres would incur a minimum cost of approximately £8 for each transfer and therefore the journey cost would not necessarily be cheaper than by Eurostar, where the terminals were located in the city centres. We considered that many readers would not be aware of the locations of the airports and the additional costs incurred. We considered that many would consider the "Brussels... cheaper" claim to refer to the whole-journey cost from London to Brussels, and that the overall impression given by the ad was that that journey would always be substantially cheaper by Ryanair. We concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
3. Upheld
We noted Eurostar services would not depart from St Pancras until November 2007. We welcomed Ryanair's assurance that they would amend future advertising to state the correct departure point. We concluded that the statement was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
4. Upheld
We noted Ryanair had sourced their punctuality figure from an article on the BBC website and that they were unable to provide evidence to show they had conducted further research about the statistic. We also noted the article was over two years old and referred to a dip in Eurostar's punctuality record due to adverse weather conditions. We considered that the quoted statistic was unlikely to be an accurate reflection of Eurostar's current punctuality. We concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products).
5. Not upheld
We noted Ryanair had included subtext about taxes and charges in both fares to highlight the fact that their own fare was inclusive. We also noted Eurostar's confirmation that no taxes and charges were applicable to their fares, apart from a £5 fee if tickets were booked by telephone. We welcomed Ryanair's assurance that they would remove the statement from future ads. We considered, however, that although the additional information would be superfluous when applied to the Eurostar fare, it was unlikely to materially mislead.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) but did not find it in breach.
Action
We told Ryanair to remove the claims "Brussels Faster and Cheaper" and "More punctual" from similar ads.
