Rayanair to Cancel Bookings

[Mildred]

Heads up to those traveling on Rayanair

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043003/Ryanair-cancel-thousands-illegal-bookings-price-comparison-websites.html

[Globaliser]

This does not affect anyone who booked directly with Ryanair, which will account for the vast majority of bookings.

 

But it's another reason to wish that the airline would die, soon.

[smeyer418]

I really don't understand Ryan complaint here. So a broker uses their site and links to it and will for a fee make a booking for someone. The other site searches all the airfares sites and reports back to the client the fare and allows him/her to book it. Yes they could have done better booking directly but is the added fee worth the convenience of the site that checks all the fares? If I use the conceriege at a hotel or my assistant to do the same thing what in the name of Sam hill is Ryan's problem? Its another way for his airfares to be booked---so Ryan gets the benefit of the marketing the other site does...Am I missing something...

 

If Ryan wants the booking info they can easily require it....sounds like my way or the highway is what Ryan wants...

[SelectSys]

...But it's another reason to wish that the airline would die, soon.

 

I don't know their financials or access to money, but I would expect that RyanAir and MOL will be on the scene for quite some time.

 

I really don't understand Ryan complaint here. So a broker uses their site and links to it and will for a fee make a booking for someone. The other site searches all the airfares sites and reports back to the client the fare and allows him/her to book it. Yes they could have done better booking directly but is the added fee worth the convenience of the site that checks all the fares?

 

They just want to have control over their brand and not get into direct cost comparisons. My belief is that they want to create a perception in the market that they always have the cheapest seat which isn't true. RyanAir isn't afraid to use the courts to get what they want.

 

You can hate the airline and their style but respect what they have accomplished. They certainly changed European airl travel and pricing in a big way.

[Globaliser]

I really don't understand Ryan complaint here. ... what in the name of Sam hill is Ryan's problem?

Ryanair's problem is that the screenscrapers are really slowing down their website and causing them to have to spend a lot of extra money on IT, with no discernible commercial benefit to them - and, indeed, arguably a loss because the screenscrapers cause "spill" to other carriers when Ryanair is not the cheapest. If the screenscrapers didn't exist, Ryanair would capture some of the market even when they were not the cheapest because many people do not have the IT skills, or the time or patience, to do all of the price comparison shopping themselves. They might not even know that some of the other airlines exist. But with screenscrapers, some of this bottom fishing market will be "spilt" to other carriers that the market might not even have heard of.

[SelectSys]

Ryanair's problem is that the screenscrapers are really slowing down their website and causing them to have to spend a lot of extra money on IT, with no discernible commercial benefit to them

 

Is this speculation on your part or did something get published? I would be really interested to see how much load these shopping robots actually cause.

 

For comparison, I took a quick look at Kayak with a WN-dominated flight and it showed the schedule but not the price. WN also doesn't like others representing their price or make it easy for users to perform direct comparison shopping.

[Globaliser]

Is this speculation on your part or did something get published?

The IT problems caused by screenscrapers is part of Ryanair's published rationale for taking this action.

 

The commercial side of it (commercial "spill") is what I think.

 

However, both of these factors are being widely discussed elsewhere - together with some fairly obvious IT solutions, even though they would involve a constant battle with the screenscrapers who would continue to try to evade Ryanair's prohibition. Ryanair is also taking legal action against some of the screenscrapers.

[wrp96]

I guess my issue is why did they cancel already existing bookings? It's one thing to say we won't allow you to book through a 3rd party anymore. But if I was an already booked passenger that had my reservation cancelled due to this new policy, I would NOT be rebooking on Ryan Air. In fact, I would take that as a sign that they do not want my business and take my business elsewhere.

[Globaliser]

Ryanair's terms and conditions say:-

 

Terms and Conditions of Travel

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Reservations

 

All bookings for Ryanair flights must be made directly on http://www.ryanair.com or via a Ryanair call centre. Any booking you may make via a third party website or online travel agent may be cancelled without notice or refund.

So the the fact that they're actually refunding these bookings when cancelling them is more generous than their T&C would actually permit - if (and it's a big if) they could get the T&C to stick, as drafted.

[SelectSys]

Once again, Ryanair seem's to be getting what it wants by playing tough and leveraging the courts.

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=08&month=aug&story=reg-en-050808

 

 

The IT problems caused by screenscrapers is part of Ryanair's published rationale for taking this action.

 

The commercial side of it (commercial "spill") is what I think.

 

I agree, the IT issue is likely to be more of a "red herring" to get their customers to buy into their position.

 

I would be poor form if these shopping services continue to violate web site usage terms and forced Ryanair to treat these service providers as rouge hackers.

[smeyer418]

Ryanair's terms and conditions say:-

 

So the the fact that they're actually refunding these bookings when cancelling them is more generous than their T&C would actually permit - if (and it's a big if) they could get the T&C to stick, as drafted.

No matter what their website says no credit card will allow them to cancel a booking without refunding the money. In fact British common law won't either...(unless you want an explanation of that I'll just leave it as is)...

[Globaliser]

No matter what their website says no credit card will allow them to cancel a booking without refunding the money. In fact British common law won't either...(unless you want an explanation of that I'll just leave it as is)...

Actually, I think that English common law probably would allow it, because it's plainly a term of the contract. The only thing I can immediately think of as a counter-argument is if the "no refund" provision could be construed as a penalty clause. But it doesn't require any further payment from the customer, so I find it difficult to see why it's a penalty clause (when contrasted to a liquidated damages clause).

 

If there's a valid contract allowing RYR to keep the money, the credit card company wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

However, statutory intervention in England means that (IMHO) it's probably an unfair contract term and therefore void. That, I suspect, is what lies behind RYR's reported willingness to refund the money to the customers.

 

I say "English" advisedly, because Scots law is different from English law and I know very little about it.