Virgin Atlantic Flight 100 ad banned over ‘misleading’ SAF claim

A Virgin Atlantic ad promoting its landmark ‘Flight 100’, the first transatlantic flight powered by 100 per cent sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), has been banned in the UK after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled it to be “misleading”.

The advertising watchdog on Wednesday (7 August) said the carrier’s description of using “100% sustainable aviation fuel” in a radio advert was “misleading” and that many listeners “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”.

A radio advert, heard on 24 November 2023, stated: “On the 28th of November, Virgin Atlantic’s Flight 100 will take to the skies on our unique flight mission from London Heathrow to JFK to become the world’s first commercial airline to fly transatlantic on 100% sustainable aviation fuel. When they said it was too difficult, we said: challenge accepted. Virgin Atlantic Flight 100. See the world differently.”

Five complainants have since approached the ASA believing the claim “100% sustainable aviation fuel” gave a misleading impression of the fuel’s environmental impact and challenged whether the claim could be substantiated.

The ASA in its assessment said that “listeners who interpreted the claim “100% sustainable aviation fuel” to mean that the fuel was 100% sustainable were likely to expect that it had no negative environmental impacts at all”.

As a result, the authority ruled that Virgin Atlantic’s “unqualified” SAF claim breached Broadcast Advertising Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (misleading advertising) as well as rules 9.2, 9.3 and 9.5 (related to environmental claims). This is despite the carrier using the same terminology as that of the UK government when describing the milestone test flight, which it operated between London and New York last November.

The carrier also emphasised that wording in the advert mirrored the terms used by the Department for Transport when it first launched a funding contest to deliver the milestone test flight.

In detailing the reduced lifecycle emissions from SAF use, Virgin Atlantic confirmed that SAF produces the same level of CO2 emissions during flight as traditional jet fuel.

Upon review, the ASA ruled the Virgin-commissioned consumer survey “confirmed the limited knowledge and lack of clarity amongst consumers about the environmental impact of sustainable aviation fuel, both in general and specifically after listening to the ad”.

“While 68 per cent of respondents said they understood from the ad that sustainable aviation fuel was “significantly” or “somewhat” better for the environment than traditional jet fuel, a further 15 per cent understood it had the same impact as jet fuel, and 6 per cent understood it was “somewhat” or “significantly” worse for the environment; 11 per cent understood that sustainable aviation fuel had zero environmental impact. There were therefore significant minorities of respondents who did not have an accurate understanding of the environmental impact of sustainable aviation fuel after listening to the ad,” the ASA said.

The statement continued: “We therefore considered that in the absence of information in the ad which explained that sustainable aviation fuel produced reduced, but still significant, emissions over its full lifecycle, including in-flight emissions, and which explained the ways in which the fuel otherwise significantly adversely impacted the environment, a significant proportion of listeners were likely to overestimate its environmental benefits.”

The ASA ruling against Virgin Atlantic is the latest in a series of greenwashing claims against airlines. The European Commission and EU consumer protection authorities in May contacted 20 airlines regarding potentially misleading environmental claims, and in March a Dutch court ruled that KLM misled customers about its sustainability actions in a past advertising campaign.

Last month, EU environmental groups also warned 71 airlines operating out of Amsterdam Schiphol of potential greenwashing, following the legal precedent set in the ‘landmark’ case against KLM.