Heulsuse Ryanair ;-)

[touchdown99]

Jaja, hier in Deutschland jammert Ryanair darüber, daß Lufthansa gegen Ryanair-Anzeigen gerichtlich vorgeht - und was ist in England, wenn da jemand - Go-Fly - es Ryanair mit gleicher Münze heimzahlt und vergleichenden in Anzeigen darauf hinweist, daß man anders als Ryanair nach Bologna (nicht Forli), Glasgow (nicht Prestwick), Venedig (nicht Treviso) und Kopenhagen (nicht Malmö) fliegt ? Da fängt Ryanair an zu heulen und rennt zur Advertising Standards Authority, um sich dort über die angeblich unzulässige Werbung der Go-Fly zu beschweren. Und die Moral von der Geschicht - wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen.

 

"Ryanair Ltd objected to a national press advertisement for a competitor's airline. The advertisement claimed "trick or treat? No Ryanair tricks just great Go treats. glasgow intl (not Prestwick)... bologna (not Forli)... venice (not Treviso)... copenhagen (not Malmo)... Unlike Ryanair we don't believe in nasty surprises, so we won't mislead you about where we fly to. Go flies to the major city airports - so you don't have to fork out on expensive taxis when you get there. And we don't try to hide our airport taxes - we tell it like it is. If you're looking for genuinely low cost travel without the hassle, treat yourself with Go." The complainants, who believed the advertisement gave a misleading impression of their service, challenged the claims:

 

1. "Unlike Ryanair we don't believe in nasty surprises, so we won't mislead you about where we fly to" because they said they stated the name of the airport destination in the main body of their advertisements;

 

2. "Go flies to major city airports - so you don't have to fork out on expensive taxis when you get there" because they said there were inexpensive coach and bus services direct to the city centre from all Ryanair destinations that they believed offered value for money and saved time; and

 

Adjudication:

1. Complaint not upheld

The advertisers provided three examples of Ryanair advertisements that they believed were misleading because the advertisements did not make the name of the destination clear. The Authority understood that the advertisers flew to primary airports and the complainants flew to secondary airports, meaning that Ryanair passengers travelled a longer distance to their destination than Go passengers on similar routes. The Authority understood most Ryanair advertisements made the destination clear. It considered nevertheless that, because most readers would understand the claim highlighted the difference between the destinations that the advertisers and complainants flew to, readers were unlikely to be misled into thinking Ryanair did not state the name of the airport destination in their advertisements. The Authority accepted the claim.

 

2. Complaint not upheld

The advertisers agreed there would be inexpensive coach and bus services from all Ryanair destinations but they did not accept that invalidated their claim. They maintained their claim implied taxis would be cheaper from the major airport to the city centre, which they flew to, compared with a taxi from the secondary airports to which Ryanair flew to. The Authority considered that the claim merely implied flying to the main city airport meant travellers would pay less for the journey to the city centre. The Authority considered that the claim was acceptable.

[Gast]

Freut mich, dass auch auf der Insel sich mittlerweile der Widerstand gegen die FR-Methoden größer wird

[Gast]

daaasss

Kapierst den Witz sicher nicht *lol*