Italy's Competition and Market Authority (AGCM) has launched an investigation into Volotea for possible unfair commercial practices related to the surcharge that the airline applies to tickets already purchased due to the increase in fuel costs, a supplement that can reach 14 euros.
In parallel, the body has initiated a precautionary measures procedure in which the company is given the opportunity to be heard ("audita altera parte"), with the aim of requiring it to immediately suspend this policy.
Under the commercial name "Fair Travel Promise", Volotea's surcharge is calculated based on market fuel prices, obtained from public sources, seven days before the flight's departure and, if applicable, adjusts the ticket price.
If the fuel cost falls below this reference, the airline refunds passengers the difference up to the same economic limit.
In the AGCM's opinion, this ticket price modification mechanism violates consumer protection regulations. On the one hand, it argues that it may lead users to book a flight with "incomplete" and "misleading" information, particularly regarding the price shown at the time of purchase.
At the same time, the regulator considers that it may constitute "undue pressure" when, just a few days before departure, customers are forced to choose between paying the fare adjustment or changing the travel date, a circumstance that "could lead them to accept the change".
In a recent statement, Volotea has emphasized that, since it began applying this surcharge in mid-March, 97% of passengers have decided to ratify their booking and continue with their plans.
"This high level of acceptance demonstrates that the initiative is aligned with our customers' expectations and offers a fair alternative to fixed price increases," the airline has also defended.
In the case of Spain, the company's initiative has also drawn rejection from Facua-Consumers in Action, which has requested the Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and the 2030 Agenda to investigate it, considering it to be an "abusive clause contrary" to the General Law for the Defense of Consumers and Users.
Until now, the ministerial department has not offered a response to this request, which has motivated the organization's criticism for the lack of response and "inaction".