According to one disgruntled business class passenger, money doesn’t always buy happiness.
Mark Morgan complained about his expensive seats on long hauls emirates I was able to fly and get a reward of £10,300 for “false advertising”.
Four
For nearly 24 hour flights on Emirates Flyer new zealand Passengers to the UK were unhappy with their business class seats.
He wanted to waste his time on luxury minibars, flat beds and state-of-the-art entertainment systems. However, he claims he received none of it.
Morgan said he spent money on tickets after Emirates advertised new business class seats.
However, his aircraft model is Emirates’ 777-300ER, which features the airline’s oldest business class. one mile at a time.
This type of airship does not have a minibar and the seats are technically not perfectly flat.
Morgan claimed this was false advertising. Because the old aircraft he traveled on was standard jet for the route he took, as it didn’t have any new equipment.
The airline responded by claiming that it did not guarantee the type of aircraft in its contracts with passengers, but lost.
A dispute court ruled that Emirates was at fault, saying that “this was the result of advertising a service they rarely offered.”
“The promotional materials were based on updated/new business class seats and services. old aircraft Emirates flies to New Zealand. “
“Advertisements for services that Emirates knew were unlikely to be offered are misleading and deceptive,” they added.
Emirates was forced to pay £12,300 (NZD 13,555) in compensation to the lucky New Zealander.
Other travelers flooded the comments section of the following thread. Executive Traveler Share their thoughts on the story and whether passengers should be compensated for inferior seats.
One reader wrote, “Good for him! Those Emirates 777 business class offerings are appalling.”
Another user said: “It’s good that Emirates is held accountable for a very clear instance of intentionally misleading advertising. There should be more of this.”
However, one user wondered if it was enough to actually make a change in this case. “The $13,000 damages offer is no deterrent to this clear violation of the law.”
Another respondent replied:
Four
Four
