280 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM were covered by the cost of the ticket, which is always the same. Following a line of reasoning that is contrary to the decision taken in the case of the Turkish company, the Competition Authority considered this surcharge to be correct if it was included among the items composing the final fee. In fact, immediately after selecting the characteristics of the trip in the computer system, the consumer is informed of the overall tariff, the components of which are clearly indicated, including the surcharge for the online purchase of the ticket. Compared to the airport check-in surcharge, which is always applied, this surcharge is required only in case of use of the online service and the customer can assess its impact on the final tariff. There is no difference in the solution of the two cases, since the opposite result is justified by the same reasoning; in other words, prioritising focus on clarity and completeness of the news. In one hypothesis, the behaviour of the air carrier was considered illegitimate, because it was capable of mislead; in the other, the conduct of the maritime company was assessed as adequate and consistent with a rational market structure. One may wonder if the maritime travellers of the Gulf of Naples were always able to perceive the importance of communication, but the Competition Authority considered them, in one case, thorough62 and in the other, unfair63. After all, according to common experience, those who use online tools are often proficient with them and, if we are not mistaken, this fact is implied in the decision of the Competition Authority. The legitimacy of the initiatives of the maritime carrier with respect to the provision of the Campania Region remains unaffected, but this element does not fall under the scope of the Competition Authority’s analysis. 5. PROCEDURE TO REFUND NON-USED TICKET FOR MULTI-STOP FLIGHT TICKETS On the same subject (online sale of airline tickets), the Competition Authority has implemented other measures64 aimed at ascertaining the consistency of the information system employed by the carrier for specific flights. The Competition 62 See the action taken by the Italian Competition Authority on 4 May 2017, no. 26604, cit. 63 See the action taken by the Italian Competition Authority on 20 December 2017, no. 26914, cit. 64 See the action taken by the Italian Competition Authority on 7 June 2017, no. 26638, in Boll., no. 22 of 26 June 2017. 24; the action taken by the Italian Competition Authority of 7 June 2017, no. 26639, cit; the action taken by the Italian Competition Authority of 7 June 2017, no. 26641, cit.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==