Ryanair 2016 Annual Report Download - page 119

119
With respect to Dublin airport, Ryanair appealed the December 2009 decision of the CAR, which set maximum
charges at the airport for 2010 through 2014, to the Appeals Panel set up by the Minister for Transport. In June 2010, the
Appeals Panel found in favor of Ryanair on the matter of differential pricing between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2,
recommending that such differential pricing be imposed by the CAR. The CAR subsequently overruled the decision of the
Appeals Panel and allowed the charges increase at Dublin Airport, with no differential pricing between Terminals 1 and
2.
Ryanair has also been trying to prevent both the BAA in London and the DAA in Dublin from engaging in
wasteful capital expenditure. In the case of London (Stansted) Airport, the BAA was planning to spend £4 billion on a
second runway and terminal, which Ryanair believes should only cost approximately £1 billion. Following the final
decision of the Competition Commission forcing BAA to sell London (Stansted) airport, Ryanair believed that it was
highly unlikely that BAA’s planned £4 billion plans would proceed. The Liberal/Conservative government in the U.K. had
also outlined that it would not approve the building of any more runways in the Southeast of England. Consequently, in
May 2010, the BAA announced that it would not pursue its plans to develop a second runway at London (Stansted).
In the case of Dublin, the DAA has built a second terminal, costing over four times its initial estimate. When the
DAA first announced plans to build a second terminal (“Terminal 2”) at Dublin Airport, it estimated that the proposed
expansion would cost between €170 million and €200 million. Ryanair supported a development of this scale; however,
in September 2006, the DAA announced that the construction of Terminal 2 would cost approximately €800 million.
Subsequently, the cost of the new infrastructure rose in excess of €1.2 billion. Ryanair opposed expansion at what it
believed to be an excessive cost. On August 29, 2007, however, the relevant planning authority approved the planning
application from the DAA for the building of Terminal 2, and other facilities, all of which went ahead. On May 1, 2010,
the airport fees per departing passenger increased by 27% from €13.61 to €17.23, and by a further 12% in 2011 following
the opening of Terminal 2 in November 2010 in accordance with the CAR’s decision of December 4, 2009 in relation to
airport charges between 2010 and 2014. Ryanair sought a judicial review of the planning approval, however, this appeal
was unsuccessful. The increase in charges, in combination with the introduction of the €10 Air Travel Tax (subsequently
reduced to €3 in March 2011 and eliminated entirely in April 2014) mentioned above, led to substantially reduced
passenger volumes to and from Dublin Airport. See “Item 3. Risk FactorsRisks Related to the CompanyRyanair’s
Continued Growth is Dependent on Access to Suitable Airports; Charges for Airport Access are Subject to Increase” and
“—The Company Is Subject to Legal Proceedings Alleging State Aid at Certain Airports,” as well as “Item 4. Information
on the Company—Airport Operations—Airport Charges.”
Legal Proceedings Against Internet Ticket Touts. The Company is involved in a number of legal proceedings
against internet ticket touts (screenscraper websites) in Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy and
Switzerland. Screenscraper websites gain unauthorized access to Ryanair’s website and booking system, extract flight and
pricing information and display it on their own websites for sale to customers at prices which include intermediary fees on
top of Ryanair’s fares. Ryanair does not allow any such commercial use of its website and objects to the practice of
screenscraping also on the basis of certain legal principles, such as database rights, copyright protection, etc. The
Company’s objective is to prevent any unauthorized use of its website. The Company also believes that the selling of
airline tickets by screenscraper websites is inherently anti-consumer as it inflates the cost of air travel. At the same time,
Ryanair encourages genuine price comparison websites which allow consumers to compare prices of several airlines and
then refer consumers to the airline website in order to perform the booking at the original fare. Ryanair offers licensed
access to its flight and pricing information to such websites. Ryanair also permits Travelport, Amadeus and Sabre, GDS
operators, to provide access to Ryanair’s fares to traditional bricks and mortar travel agencies. The Company has received
favorable rulings in Ireland and The Netherlands, and unfavorable rulings in Germany, Spain, France and Italy. However,
pending the outcome of these legal proceedings and if Ryanair were to be ultimately unsuccessful in them, the activities
of screenscraper websites could lead to a reduction in the number of customers who book directly on Ryanair’s website
and loss of ancillary revenues which are an important source of profitability through the sale of car hire, hotels and travel
insurance etc. Also, some customers may be lost to the Company once they are presented by a screenscraper website with
a Ryanair fare inflated by the screenscraper’s intermediary fee. See Item 3. Key Information—Risk Factors—Risks Related
to the Company—Ryanair Faces Risks Related to Unauthorized Use of Information from the Company’s Website.”