A Google Hotels Threat, JetBlue Cost Cutting and Dual-Brand Hotels
For today's episode we look at threats to Google Travel, more hotels with a dual identity, and JetBlue's money woes.
Skift Daily Briefing Podcast Listen to the day's top travel stories in under four minutes every weekday.
Listen to the day's top travel stories in under four minutes every weekday.
Skift Travel Podcasts
Good morning from Skift. It's Wednesday, June 18. Here's what you need to know about the business of travel today.
Google Hotels may not be losing relevance in search results, but it's facing growing pressure from the likes of Expedia, Tripadvisor, and Trivago, writes Executive Editor Dennis Schaal.
Bernstein said in a research note that the Google Hotels might be bruised, citing two developments that are putting pressure on it. The European Union's Digital Markets Act forced Google Hotels to a lower position on the Google search results page, and Google's AI Overviews are slowly becoming the answer to hotel searches.
Bernstein added Expedia is making improvements on price and marketing while Tripadvisor and Trivago have benefitted from the market share losses of Google Hotels. Google Hotels has an 80% market share in Europe, down 6 percentage points from last year.
Listen to This Podcast
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Youtube | RSS
Next, hotel designers are increasingly pairing two brands in a single building, an approach that can provide a faster route to profitability, writes Hospitality Reporter Luke Martin.
Martin notes dual-brand hotels allow developers to share expensive infrastructure and reduce upfront construction costs and long-term operational overhead. In addition to cutting costs, developers say the dual-brand model broadens market reach, enabling companies to tap into multiple guest segments without building separate properties.
Marriott has more than 400 co-branded properties open while Hilton has more than 125 dual-brand properties globally and 100 in development.
In addition, an executive at a dual-branded Mercure and Ibis in London said having one front-desk team for two brands creates a much more seamless experience for customers.
Finally, JetBlue is looking to cut costs in response to soft demand, writes Airlines Reporter Meghna Maharishi.
CEO Joanna Geraghty told staff in a memo seen by Skift that it was unlikely that JetBlue would break even this year, adding the airline is relying on borrowed cash to keep running. JetBlue's moves could include cutting underperforming routes and reducing off-peak flying.
Maharishi adds the carrier is also reconsidering hiring plans and could combine some leadership roles.
The airline industry has been grappling with declining consumer confidence, which has hit domestic travel demand particularly hard. Legacy carriers like Delta and United reported a profitable first quarter in part due to high demand for international and premium travel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
18 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Euro Zone Is Still Held Back by Rising Mortgage Rates, ECB Finds
Household consumption in the euro area will remain restrained for some time as past interest-rate hikes continue to feed through to mortgages, according to research by the European Central Bank. The impact will be felt even after the ECB lowered its deposit rate to 2% from 4% starting in June 2024, economists at the Frankfurt-based institution wrote in a paper published Wednesday. That's because fixed-rate loans taken out when inflation was low are still expiring. Borrowing costs for those that are refinanced will jump to current levels.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cirql partners with Frasson for sustainable footwear components
The partnership with Frasson is intended to enhance Cirql's distribution of its advanced recycled polymer (rTPU) technology for midsoles and outsoles to European footwear brands. It will facilitate the incorporation of sustainable materials and components into its offerings. Cirql vice president and general manager Matt Thwaites said: 'This partnership is a significant milestone for Cirql as we expand into the European market. 'Frasson's expertise in supercritical foaming and injection moulding perfectly complements our vision of providing sustainable and innovative materials to global footwear brands. Together, we aim to elevate the footwear industry with cutting-edge, eco-friendly solutions.' Frasson becomes the certified and official partner of Cirql within the EU for the development and manufacturing of technical shoe components. The Italian company's role will encompass being a key supplier, approved EU development partner, manufacturer, and OEM for Cirql's midsole and outsole products. Frasson general manager Alberto Frasson said: "Frasson is a company always looking for the best technologies in the world to offer to its customers. We were the first in Italy to purchase this type of machine to investigate this new material. Thanks to Cirql, we have completed the material package and with their cutting-edge recycled polymer (rTPU) technology can now also offer SCF with a significant portion of recycled material." Cirql says its focus is on reducing waste in production processes while delivering a variety of performance solutions for technical footwear components. The components and materials are said to be industrially compostable, biodegradable, or fully recyclable. On 21 November 2024, the company's factory in Vietnam received Global Recycle Standard (GRS) certification. In December last year, the company launched Cirql Zero, a new foam material designed for industrial compostability and biodegradability, addressing the demand for sustainable midsole components in the footwear industry. "Cirql partners with Frasson for sustainable footwear components" was originally created and published by Just Style, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Central Banks Can Learn From Stablecoins. Lesson 1: They Are Not CBDCs
Illustration of the facade and logo of the Banque de France in Paris, France, on May 14, 2025. BF. ... More (Photo by Riccardo Milani / Hans Lucas / Hans Lucas via AFP) (Photo by RICCARDO MILANI/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images) The Governor of the Banque de France, M. François Villeroy de Galhau, told a hearing of National Assembly Foreign Affairs Committee on 14th May this year that the digitalisation of the European economy is increasing the regions "reliance on non-European players, especially international networks and big tech". He is obviously right. He also went to talk about how the growth of stablecoins (dollar-backed and, as he sees it, promoted by the US government) means that there is a serious risk of 'de-Europeanisation' of the currency, making the need for a digital euro all the more urgent. The fact is that policymakers have a genuine concern that if US stablecoins gain widespread usage, there is a risk of 'digital dollarization' where platforms mean that participants will stay in flexible, liquid digital dollars and effectively undermine national sovereignty in monetary policy. M. Galhau's call to action here was stirring: 'We urgently need to shake off a certain economic nonchalance and overcome our stupefaction faced with the new US administration. We need a general mobilisation: the French and European response must be a collective one, with a fair sharing of the burden and a decisive pace of action'. (I also liked his comment on the digital euro that 'an ostensibly technical project masks an essential political dimension'. True enough, and I will return to this point later.) However, because I am a nerd about digital currency and obsessed with trying to understand the future of money, I cannot help but reflect on the implied equivalence of stablecoins and a central bank digital currency (CBDC), in this case the digital euro. He is far from the only person to manifest this incorrect equivalence. Last year, the U.S. Treasury Department said it was concerned about the growth of the stablecoins and it believed that privately issued stablecoins should eventually be replaced by a a CBDC. And in my book 'The Currency Cold War' (LPP: 2020) I too wrote that there will be 'competition between private asset-based currencies and public fiat-backed (or synthetic) currencies' because I had lazily categorised public CBDCs and public stablecoins together when, as the passage of time has made clear, they are actually very different things. As far as private asset-based currencies go, there is nothing to stop European companies from making euro stablecoins (indeed, Circle already does, although it is backed by US dollar assets) or indeed any other stablecoins. There are actually many different kinds of organisation looking at the idea. In the US, some of the biggest merchants are looking at issuing their own stablecoins in order to shift transactions away from the banking systems and potentially saving them considerable fees. According the Wall Street Journal, both Walmart, Amazon and Expedia as well as some airlines have explored whether to issue their own stablecoins (Surely I am not the only person who has wondered why retailers with large numbers of customers and massive hoards of data have not moved to disrupt the payments space.) More Monies. It is useful to check in and see what actual economists think about this shift to digital in this repsect. There is an excellent paper on this from the National Bureau of Economic Research on 'The Digitalization of Money' (working paper 26300, September 2019). In that paper Markus Brunnermeier, Harold James and Jean-Pierre Landau discuss how innovation unbundles the functions of money and, as they put it, renders the competition between currencies 'much fiercer'. They go on to discuss the role of platforms (ie, two-sided markets where buyers and sellers exchange multiple products) and explore their interaction with digital currencies. Their conclusion was that digital currencies associated with platforms will be far more differentiated than currencies are today because they will differ not only in their monetary functions but also in the functions provided by the associated platforms. As they put it, 'a currency's appeal will likely be governed by other platform features such as information processing algorithms, its data privacy policies and the set of counterparts available on the platform'. (This is a really interesting perspective on the dynamics of digital currency which set me thinking about how both governments and businesses will deal with the digital currencies and fuelled my long-held suspicion that we are heading into a world of more, rather than fewer, currencies.) It is important to see, though, that these private stablecoins do not replace CBDCs such as the digital euro, because public CBDCs have very different requirements. Stablecoins are about economics, whereas CBDCs are about economics, politics and social policy. CBDCs have to be available everyone, whereas stablecoins do not. CBDCs need to work offline otherwise serve as an adjunct to cash, whereas stablecoins do not. CBDCs should be redesigned to increase the net welfare, stablecoins do not. There is another aspect to the relationship between stablecoins and CBDCs that I also find rather interesting. Earlier this year, the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, said in a speech to a G30 seminar in Washinton that while commercial banks are the "best home" for innovation in retail CBDCs (I have to say that I am not clear why he thinks this), central banks should continue their preparations because "We have not yet seen enough evidence that the innovation will happen in commercial banks'. It is clear that a crucial driver of the stablecoin boom is innovation: the people building next-generation cool stuff in their dorm rooms, particularly cool stuff around agentic finance, are using stablecoins to exchange value because stablecoins are platform for innovation (which what a CBDC should be). This widespread permissionless innovation is good for all of us. I always thought that the innovation agenda was the most interesting element of the Bank of England's analysis: Given Britain's leading role in fintech, and the renewed commitment to the sector following the "Kalifa Review", I saw the issue of competition as critical. A point well made in the Bank of England's initial 2020 report was that the introduction of "smart money" (either by some form of smart contract usage or API interface) was really where the benefit of a CBDC would come from. CityUnited, a London think-tank, made that same point, arguing that digital Sterling must be "at the heart of Britain's efforts" to strengthen London's global role as a financial centre. It is no wonder that central banks are concerned about the rise of stablecoins, but I am sure that if they analyse the stablecoin boom, they can make the digital euro, digital pound and digital everything else better: not by copying stablecoins, but by learning from them.
