Airlines expected to cut 2025 outlooks as travel demand falters
Joan Valls | Nurphoto | Getty Images
Waning travel from Canada. Signs of weaker demand across the Atlantic. Mass government layoffs. Tariffs. Consumers pulling back on travel bookings. The worst stock market swoon since 2020. All are signs of concerns for the airline industry.
U.S. airlines will likely cut their 2025 outlooks when they report earnings starting this week, analysts say, pointing to cracks in demand for travel, which customers had prioritized even through years of inflation.
'Clearly, things are softer than they were in January,' Raymond James analyst Savanthi Syth told CNBC.
Delta Air Lines last month cut its first-quarter forecast, citing weaker-than-expected corporate and leisure bookings. American Airlines and Southwest Airlines also trimmed their outlooks for the first half of the year.
Since then, airline stocks have tumbled further, as concerns have grown about weaker demand amid President Donald Trump's policies, most recently, new globe-spanning tariffs of no less than 10%.
'The level of sell-off is worse than the reality right now, but it doesn't necessarily mean it won't be the reality six months from now,' Syth said. Stock chart icon
NYSE Arca Airline Index and S&P 500
Wall Street analysts have slashed their price targets and downgraded their ratings on U.S. airlines, even Delta, the most profitable of the U.S. carriers. Like its main rival United Airlines , Delta has said high-income consumers who are willing to shell out more for roomier seats have been a boon to its bottom line in recent years. Read More Share a tip on a brilliant winter activity trip
However, they're not expecting anything like the pandemic in 2020, when countries closed their borders and air travel demand essentially dried up overnight. It was still the industry's worst-ever crisis. Demand hasn't disappeared this time, but instead is showing signs of strain that other industries have also seen.
Delta will be the first of the U.S. airlines to report quarterly results before the market opens on Wednesday.
Airline stocks have tumbled this year. Delta has plummeted more than 38%, American has fallen over 45% and United has dropped more than 40% so far in 2025.
The turn in sentiment is stark for the travel industry, which has enjoyed strong demand, particularly for international destinations, since the end of the pandemic, as consumers prioritized experiences like weekslong trips through Japan and jaunts to Portugal over buying goods.
Signs of lower international demand, in addition to weaker travel from Canada, are emerging in U.S.-Europe bookings.
Bookings between the U.S. and Europe for June through August are down about 13% over last year as of March 31, according to aviation data firm Cirium, though it cautioned that the figures come from online travel agencies and not direct bookings on airline sites.
Still, some analysts are concerned.
'We expect a world of slower growth, higher inflation, and a more isolationist U.S. to significantly disrupt the competitive environment for airlines,' TD Cowen wrote on Friday. 'We are concerned that the new economic paradigm causes another structural leg down in corporate travel while the negative wealth effect further dampens consumption, especially by Baby Boomers.'
The Bank of America Institute wrote last week that it 'could be that the recent drop in consumer confidence is translating into people hesitating to book trips, or considering paring them back,' though it added that 'bad weather and a late Easter this year are also likely playing a part.'
Airline executives have said that government travel, which accounts for just a few percentage points of their business but millions of dollars in revenue, has dried up during the mass layoffs and other cost cuts. They'll face questions on earnings calls this month about side effects, such as job cuts at companies like consulting giant Deloitte.
Another question will be how resilient premium travel demand is. Syth said the front of the airplane will likely still be full, but that airlines could stimulate demand, if needed, by offering attractive point redemptions for frequent flyers.
'The cabins will be full, but how good will the yields be?' she asked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
The secret fuel behind Apple's dazzling rally, and what it means for the top-heavy market
And then there was just one: Apple . That's how I felt about last week where the market took a huge number of stocks out and shot them, including some of ours — more on that when we get to Thursday's Monthly Meeting for Club subscribers — but the sellers could not stop Apple, the most unlikely of winners for this moment, and one that defined last week's tape. Why did Apple's glorious run unfold as it did? That 13% weekly advance, its best in more than five years, was the result of a short squeeze plain and simple, and it couldn't be contained. Going into last week, Apple had everything a short-seller wanted. It was the most likely of stocks to expect a monster rollover. But it backfired into one of the most remarkable short-squeezes I have ever seen. Let's use the Apple squeeze as a bizarre metaphor for the market itself, which, judging by the major averages, appears to be a paradise for the longs. But the averages are distorted by the positive action in a handful of stocks, Apple being the most notable. Case in point: the traditional market-cap weighed S & P 500 climbed 2.4% over the past week while a modified version of the index that assigns each company the same influence, known as the equal-weight S & P 500 , advanced merely 0.8%. Apple's move last week was just so dazzling that it obscured everything else that was happening, and most of the action that was obscured was negative. As impossible as it might seem, leading into last week, a $3 trillion company became the object of every short-seller's desire. I don't cavort with many short-sellers — I don't cavort much with any money manager, lest they know what I am working on. But the anti-Apple chatter on Wall Street ran so deep that you couldn't avoid it: Apple's stock was headed to $175. How could that be? Why was this short considered such a layup? Let's dissect. AAPL .SPX YTD mountain Apple's year-to-date stock performance versus the S & P 500. First, good short-sellers like to go after either the most white hot of companies — in the current moment, that's a name like Palantir — or companies with a stock that is already rolling over, like that of Apple. Short-sellers are betting a stock will decline in value. They borrow shares and promptly sell them back into the market, with the intention of buying them back once they've dropped in price. If that happens, they then returned the borrowed shares and profit off the difference. However, if their targeted stock goes up in price, a short-seller may decide to "close out" the trade and buy back shares, adding fuel to the rally. Palantir is a dangerous short bet because it's more of a sports team with a rabid fanbase than it is a company or a stock. The software provider is seen as being a pure artificial intelligence consultant, which is very important in a market that thirsts for pure AI plays. Palantir seems to have the ability to report any numbers it wants to, including numbers that give it the best "Rule of 40" score anyone has ever seen. Palantir has somehow convinced everyone that once it wins a contract, the client immediately starts saving — and making — money. The Palantir buyers believe it because Palantir has convinced them that it has a mysterious, even magical, AI formula. Betting against magic is real perilous to a short-seller's health, as we have learned endlessly for those who bet against this monster. Which brings me back to Apple. As much as Palantir has a modus operandi that is all in on AI, Apple has an M.O. that is regarded as AI-less to an extreme. What do we hear about Apple and AI? First, we hear how they've failed to develop anything we want or even consider generative AI. Announced to much fanfare last June, its suite of AI software tools dubbed Apple Intelligence is widely ridiculed and key features like an AI upgrade of Siri have been delayed. Second, we hear that they seem to not realize how important it is to have an AI strategy in this technological race. We also see the headlines about the company losing people who might, or might not, be working on AI, which may be the reason they seemingly have no AI strategy. In this tape, it's a must to have AI. That's obvious. We in the media cannot resist asking business leaders questions like, "How are you using AI?" And we ask it to any CEO, no matter how clueless they may be about AI and how little they might need AI. Because they know the AI question is coming, they are ready for it. Most of the time their answers sound rehearsed, kind of like when I delivered my lines playing Lieutenant Rooney in "Arsenic and Old Lace" as a junior in high school. We accept their by rote answers and move on knowing that the AI box was now checked — by both of us, questioner and questionee. You can't get that box checked with Apple. Therefore, you have the start of an amazing short bet given that there is no AI answer in sight. Worse, the best way for Apple to get high-quality AI was to get paid to take someone else's AI model and incorporate it into its devices. You give Apple money, and it gives you their massive base of iPhone users and bragging rights, worth a huge amount of money. But that route may no longer be open to them because of a crucial win by the Biden-era Justice Department against Alphabet last year, one where a federal judge deemed Alphabet and its search-engine business violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which outlaws monopolies. The lawsuit was initially filed in October 2020 during the first Trump administration. Recall that Google pays roughly $20 billion a year to Apple to make its search engine the default on Apple's devices. At one point, Apple might have been waiting for any of the generative AI-infused search engines to come along and pay them $20 billion to do the same thing to block any other comer. However, that kind of relationship may be kaput because of the Justice Department's win against Google. We are awaiting a remedy ruling from Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That decision could come down any day now, maybe even this week. As part of that ruling, it is expected that Apple will no longer be able to receive Google's $20 billion in what is basically free money. That decision could hurt Apple's bottom line. and it will make things painfully obvious that Apple isn't going to get $20 billion from, say, Perplexity, to be Apple's AI search bot. That payment would become the object of the most obvious antitrust case in the world. Even this Justice Department would sue Apple for making that deal. So what do the short-sellers know about AI and Apple? Mainly they know that it doesn't have a strategy — in itself a great reason to short it — and second, they know it isn't going to get anyone to pay it for sending Safari users to their AI bot. I think many big short-sellers have also been betting against Apple precisely because that remedy ruling is imminent and the ruling could mean that Apple could immediately lose that $20 billion from Google. There's a lot of money to be made being short Apple when this ruling comes down. But the federal-court cavalry didn't arrive in time for last week's squeeze. The Google case has forced Apple either to develop its own AI or buy an AI company, presumably Perplexity because it is the one that seems the most unencumbered. Apple is legendarily unwilling to buy anything big. I know it because I begged them to buy Netflix several times when the putative target was worth about $25 billion to $50 billion, and Apple's management seemed determined to rule that out along with anything else that came to mind. However, Apple CEO Tim Cook did recently tell me in a call to discuss its quarterly earnings that Apple is willing to do a big acquisition. So don't take it off the table just yet. Nevertheless, the combination of not getting paid the $20 billion from Google — and perhaps paying an outrageous amount to buy Perplexity outright — is not something you want to buy the stock of Apple for. That, of course, is only one very complex reason to be short. The other one seemed even more of a layup than the lack of an AI strategy: the wrath of President Donald Trump. Apple's manufacturing approach had been all about China, which was helpful as the company courted the Chinese consumer. But that, of course, was not the only place made-in-China iPhones were destined. They were headed to the U.S. No one could match the Chinese for both quality and price. We keep hearing that the supply chain is there and the supply chain is the best there is. But when Trump returned to office in January and started going after China, Apple pivoted to ramp up iPhone production in India at global scale. Apple's key supplier Foxconn first started making iPhones in India in 2019 and some of the supply-chain issues that arose during the Covid-19 pandemic contributed to additional emphasis being placed on India as a production hub. Then came Trump 2.0, and Apple leaned even further into India as the source of its U.S.-bound iPhones. Ultimately, Apple wants to make all of the phones it is shipping to the U.S. in India, and its Chinese phones are meant to be sent to the rest of the world to minimize tariffs all the way around. What Apple didn't count on was not only that the president didn't want iPhones made in China, he also didn't want them to be made in India. Until most recently, India was thought to be a decent ally and a good, getting-to-be great place to build phones. Then it became evident that Trump didn't like that India had become somewhat of a weird ally/client state of Russia because of Russian oil, and that the president did not want any iPhones made anywhere but the U.S. He was quite vocal about his displeasure. When I interviewed Cook and asked him about his relationship with Trump after Trump had called him out for doing business in India, he said the relationship was a good one. If you were short Apple and you listened to my endless iterations on air of that proclamation of friendship, you would have thought twice about staying short. But I am sure the shorts thought it nothing but dross. It turned out the relationship was, indeed, a good one, and after Apple committed another $100 billion in U.S. investments was pledged on top of the previous $500 billion, it morphed into a great one — great enough to make Apple exempt from tariffs. It could be a double win because Samsung, with 30% of the U.S. market, will see its phones marked up by tariffs, which could make the iPhone cheaper, or at least not as expensive as it has been, versus its Korean opponent. Sure, you may not think it matters and it is awfully difficult even for the government to spend $600 billion unless the money goes to the Pentagon or the interest on the national debt. But all that matters is that Trump endorsed Apple's actions. Oh, and if you needed one more reason to be short: Apple had a very good last quarter, but it was presumed that the success of the quarter came from pull-through to beat the tariffs and it wasn't regarded as consequential. A panned upside surprise. So, let's wrap up the metaphor: Apple has no AI strategy and even if it gets one, it will have to pay through the noise for it, perhaps endlessly, as you need all the chips that fellow Club name Nvidia makes to have a winning AI offering. The shorts were hoping that the remedy phase would be done and Google would have to suspend payments to Apple. They figured Apple would have earnings cut big by the Indian tariffs. And numbers were expected to come down anyway. Sell, sell, sell. Now we know that the remedy phase ruling is still out there — and so is a potential earnings shortfall — but it looks like the shorts couldn't ride things out. Plus, the longs were attracted to a once-expensive stock that hadn't gotten this cheap in ages. I've had an own-don't-trade philosophy toward Apple for ages but even I was struck about the run from $210 a share to $220 in after-hours trading early last week when Trump blessed Apple's largesse. But that's what happens when the shorts start to panic. All of this occurred at a time that most of the market was rolling over except, weirdly, medical technology names — check out Becton Dickinson , Medtronic and our Abbott Labs — and some scattered retailers, including Club-owned TJX Companies , a heavily shorted stock for no reason other than the chart. Of course, looking back, the window to win as a short-seller is always on the verge of being closed when you're betting against companies with good management teams and great balance sheets. In the case of Apple, though, the negatives we just ran through were too juicy to ignore. It just seemed like Apple's fall was destined. It was a natural decline that had only just begun, a safe short in a lousy tape. Instead, it turned out to be the best long in a terrible tape. And that's how the Apple squeeze unfolded, taking the entire averages up with it. Sure, the averages were helped by Nvidia's strength, but that's done by longs, not shorts. Will other stocks follow Apple's lead next week? I think that given it was a squeeze, that seems unlikely. But what could have been more unlikely than Apple being at $229.35? Nothing that I have ever heard of. That's for certain. (Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust is long AAPL, NVDA, ABT and TJX. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
This Magnificent Vanguard ETF Just Hit an All-Time High. Should You Invest Now or Wait?
Key Points Nearly half of U.S. investors feel pessimistic about the market, a recent survey found. However, history shows that there's never necessarily a bad time to buy. The right strategy can help protect your portfolio while building wealth at the same time. 10 stocks we like better than Vanguard Admiral Funds - Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF › The stock market has had a roller-coaster of a year, both entering correction territory and setting new all-time highs within a matter of months. It is not surprising, then, that investor sentiment is mixed right now. While around 35% of investors feel optimistic about the next six months, according to the most recent weekly survey from the American Association of Individual Investors, around 43% are pessimistic about the future. Many stocks and funds are still reaching new heights, but is it safe to invest right now? Here's what you need to know. An unstoppable growth ETF reaching record highs Despite mixed feelings among investors, many funds are still surging -- including the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (NYSEMKT: VOOG). This exchange-traded fund (ETF) reached a new all-time high on Aug. 8, climbing by more than 38% since its low point in early April of this year. Although the market still faces a threat of a downturn or recession -- especially as new tariff policies begin taking effect -- this ETF is more likely than many other investments to withstand volatility while still helping you build wealth. The Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF includes only stocks that are listed in the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC). Making it into the S&P 500 is a high bar, and these stocks are among the largest and strongest in the U.S. While the index itself contains stocks from 500 companies, this ETF includes only 212 stocks with the most potential for growth. That combination can make this ETF a particularly strong investment. Many stocks within the S&P 500 are industry-leading juggernauts, making them more likely to survive periods of volatility. At the same time, though, because this fund includes only those with the most growth potential, you're also more likely to see above-average returns over time. In fact, over the last 10 years, the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF has earned an average rate of return of 15.79% per year. The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, by comparison, has earned an average return of 13.62% per year in that time. Is it really safe to buy now? Nobody knows when the next downturn will begin, how long it will last, or how severe it might be. But the good news is that, with the right strategy, there's never necessarily a wrong time to invest. When stocks take a turn for the worse, your portfolio will likely lose value. But you don't technically lose any money unless you sell your investments for less than you paid for them. If you invest now, the market immediately plummets, and then you sell, you'll likely lock in significant losses. However, if you simply hold your investment until stock prices eventually recover, your portfolio should regain any value it lost -- without you losing a dime. For example, say you invested in the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF in January 2022. The S&P 500 was about to descend into a bear market that would last nearly a year, and your ETF would have plunged by nearly 33% by October. But if you simply held on to your investment, you'd have earned total returns of nearly 36% by today. In another scenario, say you'd waited until mid-2024 to buy. This ETF had fully recovered from the 2022 bear market by then, setting new record highs. While it may have felt safer to invest at that point -- and stocks still had many more months of growth ahead -- you'd have earned total returns of only around 23% by today. Time is your best friend as an investor. If you can't hold your investments for at least five to seven years (or, ideally, a couple of decades), it can be a risky time to buy. In that case, you may be better off contributing to an emergency fund rather than investing your spare cash. But if you're able to stay in the market for the foreseeable future, the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF is more likely than many others not only to recover but also to go on to experience long-term growth. Time in the market is far more valuable than timing the market, no matter what the future may hold. Should you invest $1,000 in Vanguard Admiral Funds - Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF right now? Before you buy stock in Vanguard Admiral Funds - Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Vanguard Admiral Funds - Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 Katie Brockman has positions in Vanguard Admiral Funds-Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This Magnificent Vanguard ETF Just Hit an All-Time High. Should You Invest Now or Wait? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Tesla just got its biggest break yet in the robotaxi wars with a key permit
Every so often, Tesla (TSLA) makes a headline-grabbing move that seems more like a turning point hiding in plain sight. No flashy event, just a subtle permit that could potentially become the foundation for something much bigger in the robotaxi race. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter And while the EV giant has massive long-term ambitions, this one could open up a path to a business that might rewrite the rules of an entire sector. In the robotaxi space, where a first-mover advantage can make or break the competition, this step could be massive as Tesla moves from talking about the future to building it. Tesla's robotaxi ambitions began in Texas back in late June, when it launched a paid, invitation-only pilot in Austin. The early program was operated within a tight geofenced zone, with the first users reporting long waits and limited coverage. However, since then, Tesla has expanded quickly, and as per its Phase 3 rollout, it has reportedly doubled the geofence, testing and refining its Full Self-Driving (FSD) v12 software in live service. Related: Jim Cramer delivers straight talk on tricky S&P 500 market Still, the road's been anything but smooth, led by multiple lawsuits and regulators keeping a close eye on matters. Also, reporting suggests that Tesla has shelved its in-house Dojo AI training project, opting for external computing resources. Competition is fierce, too. Google's Waymo remains the U.S. leader, operating its driverless fleet across roughly 250 square miles in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. Also, Phoenix is still active, and with Dallas now coming online through a partnership with Avis, Waymo is set to go beyond its recent feats (completing a million rides recently). Uber is taking a much different route, working as an aggregator instead of building its own autonomous vehicle. It's already integrating Waymo rides in Austin and Atlanta, and inked a massive, multi-year deal with Lucid and Nuro to deploy over 20,000 autonomous Lucid Gravity SUVs over six years. Lucid's Gravity-based robotaxi, equipped with Nuro Driver, recently began closed-circuit autonomous testing and is eyeing launch in the first city via Uber's platform. The AV race is also heating up overseas. Baidu's Apollo Go is running a fully driverless service in 10+ Chinese cities, while secured permits for paid rides in Shanghai. Similarly, upstarts like DiDi and WeRide are preparing for major expansions into newer global markets. Though forecasts differ, analysts agree that the robotaxi industry is set for explosive expansion over the next few years. Goldman Sachs projects that the global robotaxi rideshare market could potentially grow by an estimated 90% compound annual growth rate through 2030. In China alone, Goldman expects the market to hit close to $12 billion by 2030 and $47 billion by 2035. That effectively translates to 500,000 vehicles in service by 2030 and 2.3 million by 2035. Related: Surprising AI chip stock is up 90% in 30 days (and still climbing) Grand View Research offers a similar view, estimating the global market to grow from $1.95 billion in 2024 to a whopping $43.7 billion by 2030, a CAGR of about 73.5%. Early traction suggests that demand is likely to come to fruition, especially with Waymo already delivering millions of rides, and by late 2024, it was handling roughly 100,000 rides a week across its service areas. For Tesla, the stakes are even higher. Cathie Wood's ARK Invest argues that without a viable robotaxi business, Tesla's long-term valuation will be significantly lower. Elon Musk has repeatedly cited autonomy as Tesla's defining product roadmap. If Tesla can match or exceed Waymo's operational scale while clearing regulatory and safety bottlenecks, the payoff could be transformative. Tesla just checked off a major box in its push to dominate the robotaxi space. The EV behemoth just secured a critical rideshare license in Texas, which clears the way for its Robotaxi service to operate in the state. The breakthrough puts Elon Musk's company in the same regulatory category as Uber and Lyft, but without the human driver. More News: Veteran analyst drops 6-word verdict on Apple's $100 billion investmentBank of America drops shocking price target on hot weight-loss stock post-earningsJPMorgan drops 3-word verdict on Amazon stock post-earnings Also, the timing effectively lines up with a shift in the state's law. Starting September 1, Texas will need autonomous rideshare services to meet the same regulatory standards as traditional ones. That includes mandatory cameras, insurance coverage, and adhering to traffic laws, which adds another layer of accountability to the whole operation. The license builds on Tesla's recent Robotaxi pilot in Austin. With Texas in the bag, Tesla is looking at Nevada, Arizona, California, and Florida next. These states have been a lot more open to the daunting autonomous driving technology. Tesla's regulatory woes are far from settled, but the Texas license marks a major step toward its CEO's vision for a driverless future. Related: Morgan Stanley resets AMD stock price target after earnings The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
