Virgin Atlantic has become the latest carrier to be rapped over promotional claims regarding the environment, specifically over descriptions of its pioneering transatlantic sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) flight last November.
The carrier conducted the Boeing 787-9 flight from London Heathrow to New York JFK with its engines powered solely by SAF, rather than the current regulatory limit of a 50% blend.
A Kuehne+Nagel (K+N) shipment was onboard the flight to promote the fuels use in reducing emissions when transporting cargo.
But a Virgin Atlantic radio advertising campaign leading up to the November 28 flight had stated that it would be the “world’s first commercial airline to fly transatlantic on 100% sustainable aviation fuel”.
This description has been assessed by the UK advertising regulator, which ruled that a “significant proportion” of listeners would understand the reference to mean the fuel used was 100% sustainable – rather than the aircraft flying only on sustainable fuel.
“They were unlikely to be aware of the extent to which fuels described as sustainable aviation fuel still had negative environmental impacts, and in what ways,” said the Advertising Standards Authority ruling on August 7, adding that listeners were “likely to expect” that it had no negative environmental impact at all.
Virgin Atlantic said the use of 100% sustainable fuel typically reduces life time carbon dioxide emissions by up to 70%, compared with conventional jet fuel, and residual emissions from the one-off flight were mitigated through carbon removal.
Initial figures from the 787 service – which was designated ‘Flight 100’ – indicate that it cut carbon and particulate emissions respectively by 64% and 40%.
Virgin Atlantic had defended the advertisement’s wording, stating that it believed consumers would understand the context that the fuel was derived from sustainable sources – reducing but not eliminating greenhouse gases – and not interpret it to mean it did not generate emissions or had no adverse impact.
But the authority, while acknowledging that the promotional campaign specifically highlighted ‘Flight 100’, nevertheless rules it was “misleading”.
“We considered many listeners would be interested in seeking out airlines that were taking [environmental] action,” it said. “We therefore considered that information about [Flight 100’s] limitations in that regard constituted material information that would have an impact on the transactional decisions of those listeners.”
It is not the first time airlines’ green claims have come under scrutiny.
In May, the European Commission (EC) wrote to 20 airlines to highlight several types of “potentially misleading green claims”.
The EC, along with the European Union (EU) consumer authorities (CPC), invited the unnamed companies to bring their practices in line with EU consumer law within 30 days.
While EC’s concerns centre on claims made on the passenger side of the business, cargo teams will also need to pay close attention to make sure their own marketing efforts do not breach the rules.
And in March, a Dutch court ruled KLM misled consumers with its “Fly Responsibly” campaign by “painting an overly rosy picture” on the impact of its climate mitigation measures – an action it says made the messaging illegal.
Airlines’ green claims come under European Commission scrutiny
