Refers ASA to UK OFT

Ryanair Holdings PLC
04 April 2008


   RYANAIR TO REFER ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY TO THE UK OFT FOR UNFAIR
                     PROCEDURES, BIAS AND FALSE JUDGEMENTS

Ryanair, the UK's largest passenger airline, today (Friday, 4th April 2008)
submitted a formal complaint to the Office of Fair Trading regarding the unfair
procedures, bias and factually untrue rulings made by the ASA against seven of
Ryanair's adverts over the past two years.

The ASA has demonstrated a repeated lack of independence, impartiality or
fairness where Ryanair is concerned by making factually inaccurate and untrue
findings in response (in some cases) to totally baseless and unsubstantiated
alleged complaints.

Of the seven ASA rulings against Ryanair over the past two years, these include:

        1. Ryanair's greedy Gordon Brown advert where the ASA ruled that the UN
        and Stern Report's CO2 emissions figures were factually inaccurate.

        2. Ryanair's Eurostar ad, where the ASA ruled that a 2 hour 11 minute
        train journey was 'not necessarily' slower than a 1 hour 10 minute
        flight, and a higher Eurostar fare of £27 was 'not necessarily' more
        expensive than a lower £15 air fare.

        3. Ryanair's 'Robbed by last minute.com' advert where the ASA ruled that
        a last minute.com handling charge of up to 100% per ticket was not 'a
        rip off'.

        4. Ryanair's 'Back to school' advert where the ASA ruled that a
        photograph of a fully clothed model in typical teenage dress (short
        skirt, bare midriff and top) was 'offensive'.

        5. Most recently - the ASA has ruled against a Ryanair 2 million £10
        seat sale advert in response to a complaint from someone who 'couldn't
        remember' any details of what he was trying to book, despite the fact
        that the ASA accepted that there were indeed 2 million seats available
        at £10.

Ryanair condemned this latest absurd ruling by the ASA as being its most unfair,
biased and unlawful ruling of the lot. Ryanair has today published its complete
correspondence with the ASA in this latest complaint which highlights the
following:

        1. The ASA had no evidence whatsoever to support this complaint, because
        the complainant 'couldn't remember' and 'couldn't provide' any evidence
        of what flights he was trying to book, when he was trying to book, what
        routes he was trying book or what days he was trying to travel on.
        Ryanair was therefore denied any opportunity to prove that there were
        £10 seats on this alleged complainant's chosen flights.

        2. The ASA denied Ryanair fair procedures by issuing Ryanair with a
        final response after close of office hours one evening, but insisting on
        a reply before the start of office hours the following morning! Ryanair
        was therefore denied any opportunity to reply within the ASA's
        impossible deadline.

        3. Despite the fact that the ASA accepted that there were indeed 2
        million seats available for sale during the offer period, the ASA sought
        evidence of seats being available on Fridays and Sundays. When Ryanair
        provided examples of £10 bookings made on Fridays and Sundays (two), the
        ASA then moved the goalposts and asked for 'evidence of sufficient
        availability'.

        4. When Ryanair asked the ASA to define 'sufficient availability', the
        ASA refused.

        5. When Ryanair offered to send the ASA examples of 10, or 100, or
        1,000, or 10,000 £10 fares sold on Fridays and Sundays during the offer,
        the ASA repeatedly refused/ignored/excluded this evidence.

Despite the absence of any evidence to sustain this complaint, and despite
Ryanair's offer to provide of up to 10,000 bookings at £10 on Fridays and
Sundays during the booking period, and despite the ASA's persistent refusal to
define the term 'sufficient availability', the ASA Executive repeatedly refused
to confirm whether Ryanair's evidence was placed in front of the Advertising
Standards Council. The ASA upheld this fictitious and baseless complaint against
Ryanair, on the demonstrably false grounds that 'Ryanair refused to supply this
information'.

The ASA has falsely claimed that the details of the two booking forms provided
were not sufficient evidence to show 'sufficient quantities' yet the ASA ignored
Ryanair's repeated offers to submit examples of up to 10,000 bookings at this
fare on Fridays and Sundays. Furthermore, the ASA has repeatedly refused to
define what it means by 'sufficient quantities' (so that Ryanair could provide
such evidence) and it has refused to explain why it issued letters to Ryanair
after the close of business hours demanding a response before the opening of
business hours the following day. The ASA has refused to explain or justify why
Ryanair was denied fair procedures in this case.

As the evidence of the above rulings against Ryanair adverts clearly
demonstrates, the ASA has repeatedly failed to adjudicate on Ryanair's
advertising in an independent or impartial manner. It has made findings which
are in contravention of the evidence (the UN IPCC's own statistics on emissions,
the longer duration and higher cost of Eurostar train tickets, and the
scandalous rip off charges levied by lastminute.com) in order to rule against
Ryanair's adverts. The ASA's ruling against Ryanair's back to school advert had
nothing to do with taste or decency, and was simply biased and prejudicial
censorship. The picture of a fully clothed model which appeared in a number of
UK tabloid newspapers can hardly be deemed to be offensive when many of those
same newspapers carry pictures of topless models and adverts for sex lines, etc.

The ASA's latest ruling, which is based on a fictitious and baseless complaint,
flies in the face of all of the evidence available to the ASA. The ASA has
wilfully ignored offers from Ryanair to submit copies of up to 10,000 £10
bookings, precisely so it can falsely claim that Ryanair 'refused to supply'
this information. The facts in this case also prove that the ASA repeatedly
refused to define 'sufficient quantities', and the ASA denied Ryanair fair
procedures during this adjudication.

Speaking today in London, Ryanair's Peter Sherrard said:

        'As this published correspondence shows, the ASA had abandoned any
        attempt at independence or impartiality when ruling on Ryanair's
        adverts. This unelected quango's Director General has a stated policy of
        'fighting back' against Ryanair's justified public criticisms of its
        bizarre, factually inaccurate and untenable rulings.

        'In this latest ruling the ASA has denied Ryanair fair procedures, has
        ignored Ryanair's evidence and it has pursued a complaint which has no
        evidential basis whatsoever. This clearly confirms the ASA's bias, and
        blind determination to rule against Ryanair's adverts even in cases such
        as this where they accept that the 2 million seats offer was factually
        accurate.

        'We are calling on the OFT to examine this catalogue of
        mal-administration, bias and incompetence by the ASA, and require in
        future that the ASA rules on Ryanair's adverts in an independent,
        impartial, fair and reasonable manner.

        'Fairness and impartiality is the least that advertisers should be
        entitled to expect from an unelected, self-regulating quango like the
        ASA and its impartial Director General. Sadly Ryanair has received
        neither over the past 2 years from the ASA'.


Ends.                                            Friday, 4th April 2008

For further information:

Peter Sherrard - Ryanair                         Pauline McAlester - Murray
Consultants

Tel: [phone]                           Tel: [phone]



                      This information is provided by RNS
            The company news service from the London Stock Exchange