[VintageKrug]

3. Skytrax explained that they had launched their original airline ranking programme in 1989, and that after detailed consultation with the airline industry the decision had been taken in 1999 to formalise that system. They said it was agreed at that time that the new programme would carry the description Official Airline Star Ranking, and several years later the Official Airport Star Ranking initiative was also launched. They stressed that the word “official” was selected and agreed by all parties in 1999 to reflect the fact that their rankings were authorised and issued authoritatively.

4. Skytrax stated that it had always been the case that each airline’s Star Ranking underwent a major review on a 12-monthly basis, and that that review might result in changes to the number of stars an airline was awarded. However, several years ago, in response to the increased pace of change in airline products, they introduced a system of internally reviewing each airline every two to three months, to ensure that aircraft upgrades and changes in service were picked up more quickly. They said it was not incorrect to state that the Star Ranking programme operated “in a real-time analysis format” and that “Airline Star Ranking levels are constantly maintained and adjusted in accordance with changes made by an airline” because Skytrax would undertake an internal review of an airline’s Star Ranking as soon as they became aware of significant changes to its product or services.

With regard to the fact that their website displayed Star Ranking data for some airlines which were no longer in business, Skytrax said this was done because colleges and students of the aviation business often requested that such historical information was maintained wherever possible. They pointed out that, when an airline had ceased trading, the relevant page of the website carried a qualification to alert consumers to that fact.

5. Skytrax declined to provide evidence demonstrating that the titles “5 Star Airline”, “5 Star Airlines”, “Five Star Airline” and “Five Star Airlines” were trademarked.

Assessment
1. Upheld

The ASA considered that, in order to justify the claims of authenticity made in the ad, Skytrax needed to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to ensure that reviews were checked, trusted and made by “real” people with “real” opinions.

We understood that Skytrax had a system in place by which every review submitted to the site should be checked carefully for authenticity before it was published online. We noted that that system involved a number of processes, and that if at any point staff had reason to question whether a review was genuine they would either ask for more information from the user or delete the review altogether. We also noted that concerns about published reviews would occasionally be raised by other members of staff or airlines, or by the weekly duplication checks, and that Skytrax had a procedure for dealing with those incidents.

We considered that, if followed correctly, the approach of assessing every review individually before accepting it for publication, including subjecting it to manual checks by members of staff, was a robust one likely to identify the vast majority of non-genuine reviews submitted, and that the additional checks carried out by other members of Skytrax staff would provide a further layer of security on that issue. We considered that the average consumer would view the general balance of the reviews on the site as being helpful but would not take the claims “Checked and trusted reviews” and “REAL travellers with REAL opinions!” so literally as to constitute a guarantee that every individual review was certain to be authentic. We also noted that the reviews did not impact upon an airline’s Star Rating, although they did contribute to its “score bar”, which was an amalgamation of user ratings displayed at the top of the airline page.

We considered that Skytrax had described a rigorous authentication process with a number of checks and balances which, if consistently implemented, would be likely to successfully identify most false reviews submitted. We acknowledged the evidence provided on 3 October by Skytrax, which demonstrated that a number of reviews had been rejected in the previous 24 hours because they had not passed the verification system. However, because Skytrax deleted user information soon after receiving a submission, they were not able to provide evidence demonstrating that the reviews which existed on the site at the time of the complaint had been subjected to, and passed, that procedure. We noted that KwikChex Ltd had raised concerns over a number of false reviews which they said had been accepted onto the site, in some cases without verification e-mails having been received. Skytrax were unable to fully investigate those reviews, or other historical reviews on the site, or to demonstrate that verification e-mails had been sent, because the user details had been deleted.

Because Skytrax did not have the ability to track a review back to its source after the first 24 hours, and therefore could not demonstrate the verification process to which any one particular review on the site had been subjected, we concluded that they did not hold sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims “Checked and trusted airline review” and “REAL travellers with REAL opinions!”.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

2. Upheld

We understood that since 2007 Skytrax had imposed a 10-page limit for the number of reviews which would be displayed, and that at the bottom of the tenth page the website did state that older reviews had been archived. Whilst we acknowledged that that had been done for technical reasons, we considered that most consumers reading the claim “More than 5 million independent, traveller reviews and customer trip ratings” would understand that they would be able to access that many reviews on the website. Because the true number of reviews available on the Skytrax website was limited to around 400,000, we concluded that the claim “More than 5 million independent, traveller reviews and customer trip ratings” was misleading and unsubstantiated.

On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

3. Upheld

We understood that the term “Official Quality Star Ranking(TM)” referred to each airline or airport’s individual ranking in the Official Airline Star Ranking and Official Airport Star Ranking programmes. We acknowledged Skytrax’s assertion that they had launched those programmes together with the world airline (and later airport) industry, and that the term “official” had been approved for use by all parties. However, Skytrax did not provide any evidence to support that argument. We noted that the CAP Code required advertisers to hold documentary evidence to prove objective claims before they distributed them. Because we had not seen any evidence demonstrating that the term “Official Star Ranking(TM)” had been agreed at an industry-wide level, we concluded that it was misleading.

On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

4. Upheld

We understood that in some instances the Skytrax website continued to display Star Ranking data for airlines which had ceased to trade, and that in those cases the airline page displayed text to that effect. We considered that that was an appropriate step to take in view of the fact that Skytrax wished to retain that information on their website.

However, we noted that we had not seen evidence to demonstrate the real-time analysis format of the Star Ranking programme or the frequency with which Skytrax carried out Star Ranking reviews. Because Skytrax had not provided substantiation on that point, we concluded that the claim “The Star Ranking programme operates in a real-time analysis format, to ensure that Airline Star Ranking levels are constantly maintained and adjusted in accordance with changes made by an airline, be this to product or service standards – on average, each airline’s Star Ranking is reviewed in depth every two to three months, and adjusted in accordance with the annual ratings” was misleading.

On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

5. Upheld

We noted that we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that the titles “5 Star Airline”, “5 Star Airlines”, “Five Star Airline” and “Five Star Airlines” were trademarked. Because Skytrax had not provided any substantiation on that point, we concluded that the claim “TRADEMARK(TM) PROTECTION – The titles below are protected by Skytrax, and can only be used by a Registered 5-Star Airline with consent of Skytrax” was misleading.

On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

Action
The claims which breached the CAP Code must not appear again. We told Skytrax not to imply that the reviews on their site were checked, trusted and genuine unless they could provide substantiation to that effect. We also told them not to make claims regarding the number of reviews on their site and the frequency with which they reviewed airlines’ Star Rankings or to state that titles were trademarked, unless they could provide evidence to substantiate those facts, and not to use the term “Official Quality Star Ranking (TM)” unless they could show that this programme had been created in co-operation with the airline industry as a whole.

[Henkel.Trocken]

Have they banned you as well Krug?

[BigDog.]

Interesting findings which on brief reading are not “VK-Pretty damning stuff:” but appear more about Skytrax being guilty of lack of rigor + self aggrandising than of corruption.

There was nothing about being paid to influence ratings or that the ratings were demonstrably biased or unfair.

As such, IMO until someone shares a better ratings standard that is truly global, Skytrax although bombastic/flawed, remains the unofficial industry standard.

[Alasdair]

It is usually when one has a grievance that complaints are submitted or reviews written. The public are not as compelled to relay positive experiences. Maybe all Skytrax does is highlight on the whole and after sifting through the average contribution, the most representative review.
I always enjoy Qatar business Class and wouldn’t pay to travel in another personally, although I have experienced numerous. I have not written of my personal experiences to Skytrax, maybe I should.

[VintageKrug]

I don’t think it’s worth investing time on a review if the platform is discredited.

[hungrydai]

Skytrax is definitely selective in its reviews and passengers should not take their ratings seriously. I suspect some corruption somewhere. My last three reviews have been rejected by Skytrax for unspecified reasons. I have written reports about flights with Thai Airways, Etihad and Nepal Airlines which were all rejected by Skytrax. I am originally from the UK but now settled in Kathmandu, Nepal. I fly extensively and wish to comment upon my flights but I don’t want to waste my time when my comments get rejected.

[SimonS1]

I had a long exchange with them earlier this week when they posted a review for Dubai International Airport submitted by someone who claimed to have got confused between terminals when flying with Etihad.

I challenged them on how illogical the post was (anyone with a basic knowledge of travel knows Etihad do not fly to Dubai) and the review was then transferred to Abu Dhabi section.

Despite asking several subsequently how they could be sure the review was accurate when the traveller was clearly confused their replies became increasingly rude and rambling.

I did used to submit the occasional review but now I can see the whole thing lacks credibility I won’t bother any more.

[EU_Flyer]

SimonS1

Perhaps the reviewer had the airline wrong and meant Emirates instead of Etihad. Easily done.

Plus Emirates do operate out of 2 terminals at Dubai so it may have been a legitimate comment.

I agree though, Skytrax does appear to be far from impartial and seems to be driven by membership revenue rather than genuine reporting ethics.

[SimonS1]

My point was that Skytrax let it go, then switched the review to Abu Dhabi but apparently didn’t know whether the reviewer had the airport or the airline muddled up.

When I asked them they basically said “of course he meant Etihad as that’s what he said”.

[BeckyBoop]

How many of you would disagree with the winners or ratings they award to airlines?

http://www.worldairlineawards.com

[SimonS1]

Top 10 entirely from Asia (plus Turkey). Sign of the times.

I’ve never understood how the ratings are worked out.

[Binman62]

Have to say I could not disagree with their findings
BA 5th for WT+ and for something else but overall no where in any of the main categories. Truly a sign of the times.

Turkish appear to be an up and coming force given their results here and the level of advertising in the UK.

[TerryMcManus24]

I know that this has been mentioned in the past but is this the end or…..is it just a case of a couple of “brown envelopes”

Straight or bent…??

Advertising Standards Authority said there was no evidence that Skytrax had followed the robust procedures

Monday 12th November 2012

Leading travel review site exposed by advertising watchdogs

An investigation by advertising watchdogs into a leading airline and airport review site found it was unable to back up several of its claims, including that reviews on its site were posted by genuine passengers.

The Skytrax Research airline review website http://www.airlinequality.com claimed to provide an airline rating system and customer reviews for airlines and airports worldwide based on what it said were “checked and trusted airline reviews” from over 5m passengers.

However, the Advertising Standards Authority said there was no evidence that Skytrax had followed the robust procedures it claimed it had in place to check all reviews were genuine.

[Bucksnet]

SimonS1 – 21/12/2012 18:10 GMT “Top 10 entirely from Asia (plus Turkey)”

Turkey is in Asia Simon!

[FormerlyDoS]

Not all of it and not TK’s main base.

[Author]

Posts