I was disappointed in the business class seat, so I complained about it and it was the best revenge

A BUSINESS class passenger complained about his seat and got the best revenge.

Mark Morgan complained about his expensive seats on long hauls emirates I was able to fly and get a £10,300 reward 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.

Mark said he splurge 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 plane does not have a minibar and the seats are not completely 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.”

“While promotional materials were based on updated/new business class seats and services, old aircraft That Emirates will fly to New Zealand,” the ruling found.

“Advertisements for services that Emirates knew were unlikely to be offered are misleading and deceptive,” they added.

Emirates was forced to pay £12,300 (13,555 NZD) in compensation to the lucky New Zealander.

Other travelers rushed to share their thoughts on the story and whether passengers should pay 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