More news items at IFTTA website

• USA: Oklahoma's lawsuit against online travel companies dismissed
• Germany: Montreal liabilty limit for lost baggage applies per passenger regardless of number of checked pieces of baggage
• UNWTO: tourism a vehicle for gender equality
• Egypt: Minister of Tourism initiates new tourism campaign
• Ireland: Eyjafjallajökull eruption referred to the ECJ
• Finland: new reference for ECJ preliminary ruling regarding Reg. 261/2004 and "denied boarding"
• Austria: Supreme Court refers Pammer case back to court of first instance
• Mexico: President Calderon signs National Agenda for Tourism

Ryanair to pay libel damages to easyJet founder

Irish budget airline Ryanair has agreed to pay libel damages of 50,100 pounds to the founder of rival carrier easyJet after running advertisements picturing him with a long Pinocchio nose. Stelios had accepted and would donate to his philanthropic foundation.

The settlement was announced in court Thursday.

Source: AP; find article here>>.

Panic on an Aer Lingus flight to Paris

Passengers on the Aer Lingus flight from Dublin to Paris began shouting out and crying as they thought their plane was about to ditch. The crew accidentally played out a recorded emergency landing warning in French as the plane headed south over the Irish Sea. Around 70 French passengers were reported to be "freaked out" on hearing the warning. The cabin crew quickly realised their mistake and swiftly apologised in French.

Source: SkyNews; find article here>>.

European Union: Regulation on travelling with pets

On 16 June the European Commission adopted a proposal according to which transitional animal health requirements applicable to the movement of pet animals travelling with their owners to Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom are to be extended until 31 December 2011. The proposal will be discussed by the European Parliament and the Council, with a view to formal adoption through the co-decision procedure.

In accordance with the current rules laid down in Regulation (EC) 998/2003 (known as the "Pet Regulation"), pet dogs, cats and ferrets travelling with their owner for non-commercial movements to another Member State must be accompanied by a passport or, when imported from a third country, by a certificate providing proof of a valid anti-rabies vaccination.

The Regulation also grants a transitional period expiring 30 June 2010 to Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom to make the entry of pet animals into their territory subject to compliance with certain additional requirements in relation with rabies, the tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis or ticks (the "transitional regime").

The Commission considers that the conditions for moving to a fully harmonised set of rules throughout the EU that would avoid unnecessary burden for travellers are almost entirely fulfilled.

Source: European Commission, DG Health and Consumers, Health & Consumer Voice July 2009 Edition

More information at:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/277&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN

Ireland: Non-extension of compulsory licensing to internet sites

The Irish state regulator for tour operators and travel agents has advised the Irish government against extending the statutory compulsory licensing and bonding scheme to internet sellers of travel services.

Report available at http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=11263&lang=ENG&loc=432

Reported to IFTTA by Marc Mc Donald

European Court of Justice: Aer Lingus's request for interim measures to prevent Ryanair from exercising its voting rights rejected

In 2006, following the privatisation of Aer Lingus by the Irish government, Ryanair acquired a 19.16% stake in that company. On 23 October 2006 Ryanair launched a public bid for the entire share capital of Aer Lingus and, one week later, notified the Commission of the proposed acquisition in accordance with the Community Merger Regulation1. During the bid period Ryanair acquired further shares and by 26 November 2006 held 25.17% of the share capital.
On 27 June 2007 the Commission adopted a decision declaring the acquisition to be incompatible with the common market. Ryanair brought an action against that decision before the CFI (Case T-342/07). Following this decision Ryanair acquired further shares, bringing its total shareholding to 29.4%.
Both during the procedure that led to the Prohibition Decision, and subsequent to that decision, Aer Lingus asked the Commission to order Ryanair to divest itself of its shareholding in Aer Lingus. This request was refused by the Commission in a decision of 11 October 2007, stating that it was not within its power under the Merger Regulation to order such a divestiture where the intended acquisition had not been implemented and where Ryanair had only a minority shareholding which did not permit it to exercise de jure or de facto control over Aer Lingus.
On 19 November 2007 Aer Lingus lodged an action for annulment against that decision before the Court of First Instance. Simultaneously, Aer Lingus filed a request for interim measures, requesting, in essence, that Ryanair be ordered to refrain from exercising its voting rights in Aer Lingus pending the outcome of the case.
As neither the condition of a prima facie case, nor the condition of urgency has been satisfied, the President of the Court of First Instance has dismissed the request by order of 18. March 2008.

Source: ECJ press release in Case T-411/07 R; find full text here>>.

"EU Commission set to quash Ryanair's Aer Lingus bid"

As reported by David Lawsky, of Reuters UK, "Ryanair, Europe's biggest budget airline, will lose its attempt to take over Irish rival Aer Lingus when the European Commission vetoes the bid on Wednesday, sources familiar with the matter say.
The Commission, executive arm of the European Union, will take the unusual step of blocking the unsolicited bid in order to prevent the two carriers from becoming a single, dominant operator at Dublin Airport and stifling competition there."
Read this article in full text, here.

Ryanair loses battle with online critic

Discount airline Ryanair Holdings PLC has lost its battle to win control of an Internet domain name from a disgruntled former customer, according to a ruling issued by a United Nations panel Wednesday. Michael Coulston of London set up a website critical of Ryanair's business practices in July under the domain name www.ryanaircampaign.org. The Irish carrier complained to the World Intellectual Property Organization that the domain name infringed on its trademarks and should therefore be transferred into Ryanair's possession. But a WIPO panel said there was no evidence that Coulston, who runs a private online campaign aimed at informing Ryanair customers of ways in which they can complain to the company about its service, was using the domain name in bad faith. Ryanair had previously succeeded in forcing Coulston to hand over another domain name, www.ryanair.org.uk, by lodging a complaint with Nominet UK, an organization responsible for web domains ending in the .UK suffix.

Source: http://www.travelindustryreview.com/news/4140

Misleading airline advertising

Airlines continue to engage in misleading price advertising. (See my paper at the 17th IFTTA Conference 2005, available at http://www.iftta.org/web/2005AirAdEUIrsh.html). Among other things and according to the website of the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (http://www.asai.ie/) airlines continue to be in breach of the advertising industry’s own code of advertising by - claiming that emails sent to consumer subscribers who have indicated they wish to receive special offers etc are not subject to the Code (Ref AC/0605/0505; AC/0502/0122) - claiming that the term ‘Free’ can be used although the consumer still has to pay taxes, charges (AC/0512/1384) - claiming that taxes, charges etc. do not have to be included in the advertised air fare (Ref GM/0602/0219). (References traceable through http://www.asai.ie/)
Perhaps the most significant recent development concerns the attempt by the advertising industry self-regulator to bring clarity to the vexed question of how many seats an airline should make available when it advertises a low fare. Rule 2.44 of the Irish Code in insists in effect that the supply must be in reasonable proportion to the demand. This is a vague rule and heretofore airlines have been left free to interpret it themselves.
In a recent case (AC/0504/0310) an airline sought advice in advance from the self regulator on this point and was told such advice was not given. When the airline then provided only 4% of its seats at the advertised low fare complaints were made that the advertisement was misleading. The self regulator rejected the complaint apparently because the airline had tried to seek guidance. But more importantly the self regulator also stated: ‘Going forward and in order to provide clarity for advertisers, the Committee considered that at least 10% of tickets should be available at the lead in price.’ The choice of 10% is not explained. At first glance it is difficult to see how anyone could say that 10% is a reasonable figure. One might have thought of a figure of at least 50% if not higher.
However, the self regulator presumably chose the figure of 10% to reflect the interests of all parties, including airlines and the fact that consumers can be expected to realise an airline could not be expected to sell a lot of its seats at low fares.
From a purely legal point of view, whether 4% or 10% or some other figure complies with the present or future law banning misleading price advertising depends on European Community law and how the criterion of meaning (the average person) interprets the advertisement.
The recent EC Directive 2005/29 on unfair commercial practices (to be implemented by end-2007) contains an equivalent requirement that airlines provide seats in reasonable proportion to an advertisement of low air fares. Point 5 of the blacklist in the Annex includes among practises to be banned: ‘Making an invitation to purchase products at a specified price without disclosing the existence of any reasonable grounds the trader may have for believing that he will not be able to offer for supply … those products … at that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the product, the scale of advertising of the product and the price offered (bait advertising).’
This Directive also makes clear that the criterion of meaning is the careful reader of advertisements, not the hasty one. One can therefore expect a judge to say a careful reader will be aware that airlines cannot commercially operate flights if all seats are sold at the advertised low fare and that consumers surely understand this. But the judge may equally consider that consumers also know low fares do not prevent airlines from making a profit.
Given that airlines now have the technology to change fares very quickly and increase the fares if they wish, it may be that the figure of 10% is much too low.

(Originally posted by Marc Mc Donald)

Compensation and assistance to air passengers

Article 16 of EC Regulation 261/2004 on confers increased protections on most air passengers flying into or out of Community airports for delay caused by denied boarding, cancellation or long delay. Article 16 requires member states to ‘designate a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation … Where appropriate, this body shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected.’ Given that the consumer rights are intended to deal with the immediate effects of flight delays, Article 16 might be understood as meaning that certainly in larger airports the ‘enforcer’ should actually be located in the airport so as to be able to receive, respond and intervene on behalf of air passengers with airlines.
However, the Irish government has not taken this view and has designated a state aviation body (the Commission for Aviation Regulation, rather than the consumer protection body) whose offices are based in downtown Dublin, as the enforcer. The public has been informed of this by the same newspaper and website notice http://www.aviationreg.ie/rights/notices.htm which says passengers may complain in writing or electronically to the city centre address. Fax will also be accepted.
Does the failure to locate the enforcer at a busy airport like Dublin amount to a failure to implement Article 16?

(Originally posted by Marc Mc Donald)

Case Note: Case T-140/95 Ryanair v EC Commission - State Aid to Airlines

Judgment of the Court of First Instance given on 15 September 1998 Ryanair sought the annulment of a Commission decision in to permit under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty payment of IR £50m state aid by the Irish Government to Aer Lingus in support of restructuring. This was the second tranche of a total IR £175m payment by the Irish Government. Ryanair argued that the Commission had made it a condition of the first tranche in 1993 that the second tranche would only be approved if annual cost savings of IR £50m had been achieved by the airline through the restructuring. When the Commission subsequently approved the second tranche, this condition had not been fulfilled. Ryanair argued that the Commission should have re-opened the Article 92(2) procedure before approving the aid in these circumstances. The CFI decided that this was not necessary. The Commission enjoyed a right "to manage and monitor" the implementation of state aid given over a period of time, and this included the right to reappraise conditions without reopening the approval procedure.

(Originally posted by Jason Campbell)