Emirates advertised flat-bed business class on New Zealand flights and lost at tribunal

In March 2023 New Zealand's Disputes Tribunal ordered Emirates to pay NZ$13,555 to a passenger who had bought business class seats for himself and his wife to England, as reported by The Straits Times citing Stuff. He said Emirates' ads showed flat-bed seats, minibars and an updated entertainment system, but the older Boeing 777-300ER on his flight had seats that did not fully recline to a flat bed and were less cushioned, the entertainment system was not working, and there was no internet or minibar.

He asked for a partial refund of the fare and the price of upgrading one leg to first class so they could sleep flat. Emirates said it had not broken the contract because its fine print allowed it to change the service and aircraft; that its New Zealand operations were running at a loss, with newer planes deployed elsewhere; and that the seats reclined to 166.1 degrees, 'equivalent to a lie-flat seat' for ordinary travellers. It had offered a refund of NZ$786, saying the service was only 5% below the one advertised.

Referee Laura Mueller found the NZ$13,555 claim reasonable. Emirates had 'advertised a business class service that consumers were very unlikely to receive' and the result was not an occasional aircraft change for operational reasons, she wrote. Its promotional materials were based on an updated seat and service not in place on the older aircraft it flew to New Zealand, and advertising a service Emirates knew would be unlikely delivered was 'misleading and deceptive'.

The marketing used the airline's latest business class cabin, while the aircraft it routinely flew to New Zealand had the older product, per the tribunal.

Emirates relied on its terms allowing it to change aircraft; the referee distinguished one-off operational swaps from a service it was rarely delivering.

Emirates said its newer planes were deployed on other routes because the New Zealand operation was loss-making.

Emirates offered NZ$786, arguing the service was only 5% below what was advertised, and the referee found the passenger's NZ$13,555 claim reasonable instead.

Fine print letting you swap aircraft does not cover advertising a product you rarely deliver. A tribunal can still rule it misleading.

The tribunal ordered Emirates to pay the passenger by the following Monday. Emirates maintained it had not broken its contract. The Straits Times article does not report an appeal or any change to Emirates' advertising.