Aviation lawyers and trade consortia have to urgently consider the surprising question “when is a ticket not a ticket?” in the context of Ryanair’s threat to cancel bookings made through screen scraping websites. A number of well known travel agencies have used this technology. Typically, an online agent accesses the target airline website by logging on as if it is a customer, the technology then starts reading and copying information, which is then redisplayed on the online agent’s website. This enables the online agent to give a full choice of products to its own customers, even though there is unlikely to be any formal agency agreement between the airline and the agent. Airlines complain this is unauthorised, often resales are at an inflated price, and their systems are unfairly affected.

It is understood that Ryanair’s own technology providers are pro-actively stopping “screen scraping” by blocking access from other websites and cancelling and reimbursing tickets bought on third party websites. Legal “cease and desist” letters have been sent to offending agents in a number of jurisdictions. Screen scraping also slows down the airlines own booking system. On 22nd August 2008, Ryanair’s Chief Executive, Michael O’Leary, wrote to the European Commission with details of over 300 websites it believes are scraping fares from the Ryanair site and giving examples of where he believes consumers have been overcharged. In the UK, the threat to cancel passenger bookings are being carefully monitored by the trade and other interested parties. Discussions are taking place with the Office of Fair Trading and with the CAA to determine what rights passengers have who had booked a “screen scraped” ticket. The Commission’s response to Ryanair is to warn the airline against cancelling tickets and that the Regulation 261/2004 will apply. On the face of it, passengers have no idea that they may have purchased from an unauthorised agent, and believe their ticket to be valid. If this category of passenger has his ticket cancelled, then there is uncertainty about whether he might be entitled to minimum levels of compensation for a cancelled flight or for denied boarding under EC Regulation 261/2004. There are currently urgent discussions with the regulators to see what rights passengers have, and whether claims might be brought against the unauthorised agent for refunds when tickets are cancelled. Airlines seeking to stop screen scraping argue that sales are unauthorised, and obtaining data from their websites contrary to their conditions which prohibit anything other than consumer bookings. Until the issue is resolved, passengers should be concerned about the source of their tickets where internet bookings have taken place.

BA/Virgin Refunds – Update

Following the conclusion of the legal action and the settlement relating to the fixing of airline fuel surcharges for long haul travel, substantial numbers of business travellers and agents have logged on to seek to make recoveries. By way of reminder, the settlement applies to tickets purchased between 11th August 2004 and 23rd March 2006 and the refund will equate to 33.3% of the fuel surcharge paid at the time on qualifying tickets. All claims are subject to a “fairness hearing” listed for 26th September, with claims expected to be paid out from October 2008, and a deadline for claims by 31st December 2012. The claims process relates to corporates or passengers who actually paid for the ticket.

Zoom Doom

Perhaps not the last in a line of airline failures, Zoom ceased trading on 21st August 2008. Apart from passengers stranded when the operations stopped, there are several thousand ticket holders who will be unable to fly. This is a further reminder that financial protection is available for the wary credit card purchaser, or those whose flight forms part of a package. Others buying by debit card, or by other means are likely to stand in a long queue of creditors with little possibility of a recovery. The canny travel management company offering scheduled airline failure insurance may be able to blow his trumpet with his customers who otherwise may have lost out.

BAA and its three London Airports

The Competition Commission has once again flexed its muscles with the production of a 290 page report, which is likely to result in BAA being forced to sell several of its key airport operations, including some in London. The report emphasised significant competition problems at BAA’s airports, shown by its lack of response to the needs of airline customers, and a lack of initiative in planning capacity which resulted in lower quality service levels for both airlines and passengers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, BAA suggests the report is flawed, and that the remedies proposed “would be disproportionate and counter-productive”.

A number of interested suitors are already circling with a view to looking at acquiring Gatwick and possibly other airports that might fall out of the BAA family. If so, increased competition between airports can only improve the passenger experience and cost competitiveness for carriers.