Originally Posted by Jack1985
Hmm, BBC seem's to think they did
That article is 8 years old, and the case was later thrown out in an EU court over irregularities in the investigation. Heres a more recent case relating to alleged 'subsidies' Ryanair received at Carcassonne Airport:
Ryanair hit by new EU inquiry | Business | The Guardian
The case revolves around public funds being given to Carcassonne Airport to improve its infrastructure, something that would've been a condition to Ryanair operating at the airport. Airlines such as Air France argue that because Ryanair does not compete with anyone at the airport, it is being given an unfair advantage and is essentially benefitting from state subsidies.
This has nothing to do with this thread, but I'm just making the point that these are the cases you're quoting to back up your arguement, and yet they have nothing to do with Ryanair undercutting other airlines while benefitting from discounts to airport charges, which isn't illegal anyway.
Originally Posted by Jack1985
dublinaviator - What I'm saying is and let me be clear because I'm apparently not, Ryanair slashing there fares from Cork to London Stansted would eat into their own pockets and thats their own business because they're still paying airport charges. But When they are able to slash fares to London Gatwick (competing directly with easyJet) and are not paying airport charges their actually making money while killing competition - Does that make sense? Because I think it does.
And you blame the CAA for this because you think an incentive scheme that was setup for all airlines allowed Ryanair to step in and drive competition out of Cork? You don't think Ryanair would've undercut easyJet anyway as a way of defending its home market?