and fying experience, the only reason the customer is currently sufering any defcit is Ryanair’s own attempts to protect its commercial interests. Its long campaign to prevent any entity other than itself from selling its fights does look, superfcially at least, like an abuse of its dominant market position, for which its reasons appear weak. In particular, limiting consumer choice and implementing policies which have the direct result of adversely afecting consumers does not appear compatible with Article 102. Interestingly, Steve Endacott, a well known British entrepreneur and consultant in the travel industry, has applauded the action brought by OTB in the courts of England and Wales , 12 commenting: “Ryanair has always taken an extreme stance, refusing to provide booking APIs and actively trying to blook screen-scrapers. Having failed to achieve this, they have now switched to disrupting OTA customer processes by preventing their customers from using its myRyanair online check-in tools and sending OTA customers emails suggesting the mark-up fight and baggage costs they have paid are above those charged by the airline directly. During Covid-19, Ryanair took its anti-trade stance further, putting OTA bookings at the back of the queue for refunds. Ryanair knew the package regulations and the ability of customers to hit OTAs with credit card recharges would force them to refund, even if they had not been repaid by Ryanair, protecting Ryanair from a direct customer backlash for late repayment and allowing them to hold on to hundreds of millions in refunds that were due. For OTB alone this represented a £48.7 million cashfow hit. Comment: Will On the Beach suing Ryanair create an avalanche of claims? | Travel Weekly 12
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==