4th Apr 2008 10:30
Ryanair Holdings PLC04 April 2008 RYANAIR TO REFER ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY TO THE UK OFT FOR UNFAIR PROCEDURES, BIAS AND FALSE JUDGEMENTS Ryanair, the UK's largest passenger airline, today (Friday, 4th April 2008)submitted a formal complaint to the Office of Fair Trading regarding the unfairprocedures, bias and factually untrue rulings made by the ASA against seven ofRyanair's adverts over the past two years. The ASA has demonstrated a repeated lack of independence, impartiality orfairness where Ryanair is concerned by making factually inaccurate and untruefindings in response (in some cases) to totally baseless and unsubstantiatedalleged complaints. Of the seven ASA rulings against Ryanair over the past two years, these include: 1. Ryanair's greedy Gordon Brown advert where the ASA ruled that the UN and Stern Report's CO2 emissions figures were factually inaccurate. 2. Ryanair's Eurostar ad, where the ASA ruled that a 2 hour 11 minute train journey was "not necessarily" slower than a 1 hour 10 minute flight, and a higher Eurostar fare of £27 was "not necessarily" more expensive than a lower £15 air fare. 3. Ryanair's "Robbed by last minute.com" advert where the ASA ruled that a last minute.com handling charge of up to 100% per ticket was not "a rip off". 4. Ryanair's "Back to school" advert where the ASA ruled that a photograph of a fully clothed model in typical teenage dress (short skirt, bare midriff and top) was "offensive". 5. Most recently - the ASA has ruled against a Ryanair 2 million £10 seat sale advert in response to a complaint from someone who "couldn't remember" any details of what he was trying to book, despite the fact that the ASA accepted that there were indeed 2 million seats available at £10. Ryanair condemned this latest absurd ruling by the ASA as being its most unfair,biased and unlawful ruling of the lot. Ryanair has today published its completecorrespondence with the ASA in this latest complaint which highlights thefollowing: 1. The ASA had no evidence whatsoever to support this complaint, because the complainant "couldn't remember" and "couldn't provide" any evidence of what flights he was trying to book, when he was trying to book, what routes he was trying book or what days he was trying to travel on. Ryanair was therefore denied any opportunity to prove that there were £10 seats on this alleged complainant's chosen flights. 2. The ASA denied Ryanair fair procedures by issuing Ryanair with a final response after close of office hours one evening, but insisting on a reply before the start of office hours the following morning! Ryanair was therefore denied any opportunity to reply within the ASA's impossible deadline. 3. Despite the fact that the ASA accepted that there were indeed 2 million seats available for sale during the offer period, the ASA sought evidence of seats being available on Fridays and Sundays. When Ryanair provided examples of £10 bookings made on Fridays and Sundays (two), the ASA then moved the goalposts and asked for "evidence of sufficient availability". 4. When Ryanair asked the ASA to define "sufficient availability", the ASA refused. 5. When Ryanair offered to send the ASA examples of 10, or 100, or 1,000, or 10,000 £10 fares sold on Fridays and Sundays during the offer, the ASA repeatedly refused/ignored/excluded this evidence. Despite the absence of any evidence to sustain this complaint, and despiteRyanair's offer to provide of up to 10,000 bookings at £10 on Fridays andSundays during the booking period, and despite the ASA's persistent refusal todefine the term "sufficient availability", the ASA Executive repeatedly refusedto confirm whether Ryanair's evidence was placed in front of the AdvertisingStandards Council. The ASA upheld this fictitious and baseless complaint againstRyanair, on the demonstrably false grounds that "Ryanair refused to supply thisinformation". The ASA has falsely claimed that the details of the two booking forms providedwere not sufficient evidence to show "sufficient quantities" yet the ASA ignoredRyanair's repeated offers to submit examples of up to 10,000 bookings at thisfare on Fridays and Sundays. Furthermore, the ASA has repeatedly refused todefine what it means by "sufficient quantities" (so that Ryanair could providesuch evidence) and it has refused to explain why it issued letters to Ryanairafter the close of business hours demanding a response before the opening ofbusiness hours the following day. The ASA has refused to explain or justify whyRyanair was denied fair procedures in this case. As the evidence of the above rulings against Ryanair adverts clearlydemonstrates, the ASA has repeatedly failed to adjudicate on Ryanair'sadvertising in an independent or impartial manner. It has made findings whichare in contravention of the evidence (the UN IPCC's own statistics on emissions,the longer duration and higher cost of Eurostar train tickets, and thescandalous rip off charges levied by lastminute.com) in order to rule againstRyanair's adverts. The ASA's ruling against Ryanair's back to school advert hadnothing to do with taste or decency, and was simply biased and prejudicialcensorship. The picture of a fully clothed model which appeared in a number ofUK tabloid newspapers can hardly be deemed to be offensive when many of thosesame newspapers carry pictures of topless models and adverts for sex lines, etc. The ASA's latest ruling, which is based on a fictitious and baseless complaint,flies in the face of all of the evidence available to the ASA. The ASA haswilfully ignored offers from Ryanair to submit copies of up to 10,000 £10bookings, precisely so it can falsely claim that Ryanair "refused to supply"this information. The facts in this case also prove that the ASA repeatedlyrefused to define "sufficient quantities", and the ASA denied Ryanair fairprocedures during this adjudication. Speaking today in London, Ryanair's Peter Sherrard said: "As this published correspondence shows, the ASA had abandoned any attempt at independence or impartiality when ruling on Ryanair's adverts. This unelected quango's Director General has a stated policy of "fighting back" against Ryanair's justified public criticisms of its bizarre, factually inaccurate and untenable rulings. "In this latest ruling the ASA has denied Ryanair fair procedures, has ignored Ryanair's evidence and it has pursued a complaint which has no evidential basis whatsoever. This clearly confirms the ASA's bias, and blind determination to rule against Ryanair's adverts even in cases such as this where they accept that the 2 million seats offer was factually accurate. "We are calling on the OFT to examine this catalogue of mal-administration, bias and incompetence by the ASA, and require in future that the ASA rules on Ryanair's adverts in an independent, impartial, fair and reasonable manner. "Fairness and impartiality is the least that advertisers should be entitled to expect from an unelected, self-regulating quango like the ASA and its impartial Director General. Sadly Ryanair has received neither over the past 2 years from the ASA". Ends. Friday, 4th April 2008 For further information: Peter Sherrard - Ryanair Pauline McAlester - MurrayConsultants Tel: 00 353 1 812 1598 Tel: 00 353 1 4980300 This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock ExchangeRelated Shares:
RYA.L