APPRARENTLY money can’t always buy happiness, according to one disgruntled business class passenger.
Mark Morgan complained about his expensive seat on a long-distance Emirates flight and managed to scoop a £10,300 reward for “false advertising”.
For the Emirates flyer’s almost 24-hour flight from New Zealand to the UK, the passenger was unhappy with his business class perch.
He had hoped to waste away the hours with the luxury of a mini bar, flat bed and updated entertainment system. However, he claims he received none of that.
Morgan said he had splurged on his ticket following Emirates’ advertisements for their new business class seating.
However, his aircraft model was a Emirates 777-300ER, which features the carrier’s most outdated business class, according to One Mile At A Time.
This flying vessels type doesn’t feature minibars and the seats don’t technically lie fully flat.
Morgan claimed this was false advertising as the older aircraft he travelled on, without the new amenities, is the standard jet for the route he took.
The airline responded by arguing that they don’t guarantee aircraft types in their contracts with passengers, however they lost.
The Disputes Tribunal ruled that Emirates was at fault as “this was the result of advertising a service that they were rarely delivering”.
“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.”
“The advertising of a service that Emirates knew would unlikely be delivered is misleading and deceptive,” they added.
Emirates was forced to dish out £12,300 (13,555 NZD) in compensation to the lucky New Zealander.
Other travellers rushed to the comment section of a thread on Executive Traveller to share their thoughts on the story and whether passengers should be compensation for an inferior seat.
“I say good on him! That emirates 777 business class product is appalling,” one reader wrote.
Another said: “Good to see Emirates being held responsible for what was very clearly a case of intentional misleading advertising. There should be more of this.”
However, one user questioned whether this case would be enough to actually make a change. “A damages amount of $13k is hardly going to be any sort of deterrent for this clear breach of law.”
To which another responded: “The publicity it’s gaining though may result in more cases being brought.”