Ryanair has launched a blistering attack on the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), labelling its investigation into the airline's family seating rules as 'misguided'. The budget carrier claims the regulator is forcing it to adopt a less transparent policy, which could see families seated towards the back of the aircraft if they opt not to pay for seat selection.
The CMA initiated a probe into Ryanair's previous policy, which mandated adults to pay for reserved seats, allowing up to four children in their party to sit alongside them without an additional charge. However, under new rules introduced after the investigation began, families can now sit together without paying a direct seat fee – but they'll only be informed of their seat numbers after checking in and may face being assigned seats towards the rear of the plane.
Ryanair's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, has expressed frustration with the CMA's intervention, claiming it is forcing the airline to adopt 'industry standard' practices adopted by most other European airlines. He argues that these policies are less beneficial for consumers and that the regulator is 'stifling innovation and progress'. The airline accused regulators of overlooking pressing issues such as ticket touting, airport monopolies and 'service failures' by air-traffic controllers.
The CMA has countered Ryanair's claims, stating that families choosing not to pay for seat allocation are not compelled to sit at the back of the aircraft. A spokesperson said the regulator will investigate whether Ryanair's new policy complies with the law, particularly during a period when the airline charged for what the CMA considered 'mandatory family seats'. The investigation remains ongoing.
UK travellers should note that while Ryanair is now allowing adults to sit with children without a direct seat fee, not paying could result in less desirable seat allocations – potentially further back in the aircraft. This move brings Ryanair's approach closer to that of many other airlines where specific seat selection often incurs an additional cost.
The development highlights a broader tension between regulatory bodies and airlines over pricing transparency and consumer protection within the travel industry.