Ryanair raises fares after profits hit by lower ticket prices
Why you can trust Sky News
Europe's largest airline has seen annual earnings drop by 16% after cutting air fares - but revealed a price hike as it seeks to return to growth.
Ryanair reported profits after tax fell to €1.61bn (£1.35bn) for the year to 31 March, down from €1.92bn (£1.61bn) in 2024, still the second highest on record.
On average, plane tickets were 7% cheaper during this period than the 12 months before, it said.
There had been a 21% rise in fares in the year up to March 2024, which bosses had signalled was due to end.
Higher-for-longer interest rates and inflation in the first half of the year meant ticket prices had to come down, the budget carrier said.
But fares are already back on the rise, Ryanair's chief executive Michael O'Leary said.
The airline "cautiously" expects to recover "most, but not all" of the fare decline, which he said will boost profits.
Demand for summer flights is "strong", Mr O'Leary said, with peak fares "modestly" ahead of last year.
In recent months, that rebound has already been under way. Fares since April are on track to be "a mid-high teen per cent ahead" by the end of next month, compared with the same period last year.
That trend is expected to continue to July, August and September, Mr O'Leary said.
"While we cautiously expect to recover most, but not all of last year's 7% fare decline, which should lead to reasonable net profit growth in 2025-26, it is far too early to provide any meaningful guidance," he said.
"The final 2025-26 outcome remains heavily exposed to adverse external developments, including the risk of tariff wars, macro-economic shocks, conflict escalation in Ukraine and the Middle East and European air traffic control mismanagement/short staffing."
Passenger numbers grew to a record 200 million on the back of cheaper fares, hitting a target that had been reduced due to delays in delivering new Boeing planes.
The US manufacturer has struggled with increased regulatory oversight after a door panel blew off an Alaska Airlines plane mid-flight in January last year. Strike action by staff had added to the delays.
The forecast for passenger numbers has been reduced again. Ryanair now aims to transport 206 million passengers in this financial year.
It hopes to reach 300 million passengers by 2034 and on Monday said it still expects to receive 300 new Boeing planes by 2033.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
The spending review: Five things you need to know
Even for those of us who follow these kinds of things on a regular basis, the spending review is, frankly, a bit of a headache. This is one of the biggest moments in Britain's economic calendar - bigger, in some respects, than the annual budget. After all, these reviews, which set departmental spending totals for years to come, only happen every few years, while budgets come around every 12 months (or sometimes more often). Yet trying to get your head around the spending review - in particular this year's spending review - is a far more fraught exercise than with the budget. In large part that's because the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the quasi-independent body that scrutinises the government's figures, is not playing a part this time around. There will be no OBR report to cast light, or doubt, on some of the claims from the government. Added to this, the data on government spending are famously abstruse. So perhaps the best place to start when approaching the review is to take a deep breath and a step back. With that in mind, here are five things you really need to know about the 2025 spending review. 1. It's not about all spending That might seem like a strange thing to say. Why would a spending review not concern itself with all government spending? But it turns out this review doesn't even cover the majority of government spending in the coming years. To see what I mean you need to remember that you can split total government spending (£1.4trn in this fiscal year) into two main categories. First there's what you might call non-discretionary spending. Spending on welfare, on pensions, on debt interest. This is spending the government can't really change very easily on a year-to-year basis. It's somewhat uncontrolled, but since civil servants wince at that idea, they have given it a name that suggests precisely the opposite: "annually managed expenditure" or AME. Then there's the spending the government has a little more control over: spending in its departments, from the Ministry of Defence to the NHS to the Home Office. This is known as "departmental spending". This is what the spending review is about - determining what departments spend. The key thing to note here is that these days departmental spending (actually, to confuse things yet further, the Treasury calls it Departmental Expenditure Limits or DEL) is quite a bit smaller than AME (the less controlled bit with benefits, pensions and debt interest costs). In short, this spending review is actually only about a fraction - about 41p in every pound - of government spending. You can break it down further, by the way. Because departmental spending can be split into day-to-day spending (Resource DEL) and investment (capital DEL). But let's stop with the acronyms and move on to the second thing you really need to know. 2. It's a "zero-based" review. Apparently The broad amount the government is planning to spend on its departments was set in stone some time ago. The real task at hand in this review is not to decide the overall departmental spend but something else: how that money is divided up between departments. Consider: in this fiscal year (2025/26) the government is due to spend just over £500bn of your money on day-to-day expenditure. Of that, by far the biggest chunk is going to the NHS (£202bn), followed by education (£94bn), defence (£39bn) and a host of other departments. That much we know. In the next fiscal year, we have a headline figure for how much day-to-day spending to expect across government. What we don't have is that breakdown. How much of the total will be health, education, defence and so on? That, in a sense, is the single biggest question the review will set out to answer. Now, in previous spending reviews the real debate wasn't over those grand departmental totals, but over something else: how much would they increase by in the following years? This time around we are told by Rachel Reeves et al that it's a slightly different philosophy. This time it's a "zero-based review". For anyone from the world of accountancy, this will immediately sound tremendously exciting. A zero-based review starts from the position that the department will have to justify not just an annual increase (or decrease), but every single pound it spends. It is not that far off what Elon Musk was attempting to implement with the DOGE movement in US government - a line-by-line check of spending. That's tremendously ambitious. And typically zero-based reviews tend to throw out some dramatic changes. All of which is to say, in theory, unless you believed government was run with incredibly ruthless efficiency, if this really were a zero-based review, you'd expect those departmental spending numbers to yo-yo dramatically in this review. They certainly shouldn't just be moving by small margins. Is that really what Whitehall will provide us with in this review? Almost certainly not. 3. It's the first multi-year review in ages What we will get, however, is a longer-range set of spending plans than government has been able to provide in a long time. I said at the start that these reviews are typically multi-year affairs, setting budgets many years in advance. However, the last multi-year review happened in the midst of COVID and you have to look back to 2015 for the previous multi year review. That certainty about future budgets matters for any government department attempting to map out its plans and, hopefully, improve public sector productivity in the coming years. So the fact that this review will set spending totals not just for next fiscal year but for the next three years is no small deal. Indeed, for investment spending (which is actually the thing the government will probably spend more time talking about), we get numbers for four successive years. And the chances are that is what the government will most want to talk about. 4. It's not "austerity" One of the big questions that periodically returns to haunt the government is that we are heading for a return to the austerity policies prosecuted by George Osborne after 2010. So it's worth addressing this one quickly. The spending totals implied by this spending review are nothing like those implemented by the coalition government between 2010 and 2015. You get a sense of this when you look at total public spending, not in cash or even inflation-adjusted terms (which is what the Treasury typically likes to show us), but at those figures as a percentage of GDP. Day-to-day spending dropped from 21.5% of GDP in 2009/10 to 15% of GDP in 2016/17. This was one of the sharpest falls in government spending on record. By contrast, the spending envelope for this review will see day-to-day spending increasing rather than decreasing in the coming years. The real question comes back to how that extra spending is divided between departments. Much money has already been promised for the NHS and for defence. That would seem, all else equal, to imply less money for everyone else. But overshadowing everything else is the fact that there's simply not an awful lot of money floating around. 5. It's not a big splurge either While the totals are indeed due to increase in the coming years, they are not due to increase by all that much. Indeed, compared with most multi-year spending reviews in the past, this one is surprisingly small. In each year covered by the 2000 and 2002 comprehensive spending reviews under Gordon Brown, for instance, capital investment grew by 16.3% and 10.6% respectively. This time around, it's due to increase by just 1.3%. Now, granted, that slightly understates it. Include 2025/26 (not part of this review but still a year of spending determined by this Labour government) and the annual average increase is 3.4%. Even so, the overall picture is not one of plenty, but one of moderation. While Rachel Reeves will wax lyrical about the government's growth plans, the numbers in the spending review will tell a somewhat different story. If you can get your head around them, that is.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
US tariff turmoil makes Spain's flagship foods seek other markets
It's lunchtime in a bar in the southern Spanish city of Seville. The kitchen is humming with activity, and behind the bar a member of staff pours cold beer from a tap into a another uses a carving knife to cut slices from a large leg of jamón ibérico, or Iberian ham, placing each one on a plate, to be served as an are few more Spanish scenes. And there are few more Spanish products than jamón ibérico, whose unique salty flavour is renowned across the world, and part of a national cured ham industry worth nearly €750m ($850m; £630m) each year in he watches the jamón being carved, Jaime Fernández, international commercial director for the Grupo Osborne, which produces wine, sherry and the renowned Cinco Jotas brand of ham, describes it as a "flagship" national foodstuff."It's one of the most iconic gastronomic products from Spain," he says, pointing out how the pigs used to make the ham are reared in the wild and fed on acorns. "It represents our tradition, our culture, our essence." But jamón ibérico, like products across Spain and the rest of Europe, is facing the threat of trade tariffs imposed by US President Donald was no tariff on Spanish ham exports to the US until April of this year, when a 20% charge on all European imports was suddenly introduced, dropping to 10% pending in May Trump unsettled European exporters again when he said that the tariff for all EU goods could rise as high as 50% if trade talks with Brussels do not come to a successful agreement. The current deadline for this is 9 July."The United States is one of our top, priority markets," says Mr Fernández. "The uncertainty is there, and it complicates our medium-and long-term planning, investments and commercial development."The tariffs, he adds, "pose a threat to our industry." Spain's overall economy is in rude health. The IMF has forecast growth this year of 2.5% – much higher than the other main EU economies – and unemployment is at a 17-year the tariff issue comes as a blow for the country's pork industry, which represents more than 400,000 direct and indirect jobs, and is Europe's for cured ham in the US has grown substantially in recent years, and it has become the biggest importer of Spanish ham outside the the Spanish industry now faces the prospect of having to raise retail prices for US consumers and therefore losing competitivity to local products, or those not subject to the same tariffs. Spain's olive oil sector is in a similar quandary. The world's biggest producer of olive oil, Spain had set its sights on the US as a burgeoning market whose growth was driven by growing awareness of the health benefits of the the the tariff turmoil comes just as Spanish producers and exporters have recovered from a drought that slashed harvests in the south of the country, and sent prices temporarily US represents half of world olive oil consumption outside the is also the country whose imports of the foodstuff from Spain have grown the most in recent years, increasing from approximately 300,000 tonnes per year a decade ago to around 430,000 tonnes, says Rafael Pico Lapuente, director general of the Spanish association of olive oil exporters (ASOLIVA).Much will depend, he says, on the final tariff set for the EU."If there is a 10% tariff which is permanent, without differentiating between countries of origin, it's not going to create a distortion on the international market," says Mr Pico explains that American consumers might have to absorb the extra cost. And although local US producers of olive oil or similar products would gain a competitive edge, their output is small enough for it not to concern the likes of he says it would be "a different story" if Trump introduced higher tariffs for the EU than for competitor olive oil countries outside the bloc – such as Turkey, the world's second-largest producer, or Tunisia, an emerging grower. That scenario, he says, would have a major impact on the world market and Spanish producers. But variations in tariffs between countries or trade blocs would also lead to a certain amount rule-bending and even chaos, according to Javier Díaz-Giménez, a professor of economics at the IESE business school in Madrid. He suggests two of Spain's direct neighbours as a hypothetical example."If Spain has a 20% tariff and Morocco and Andorra have a 10% tariff, all the Spanish products that can go through Morocco or Andorra… will do so."He adds: "They will be first exported to Morocco and Andorra and from there re-exported to the United States with a 10% tariff."And it's going to be really hard to make sure that these olives came from Andorra proper and not from Spain. Is Trump going to do something about that?" For now, Spanish producers and exporters must hold their breath as EU negotiations take place with Washington. For Mr Pico Lapuente, a big cause of concern is the influence – or as he sees it, lack of influence – his sector wields within the European trade bloc."The negotiations representing the EU's 27 countries are carried out by Brussels," he says. "In these negotiations, industrial products have a much bigger influence than food."I wouldn't like it if, in this negotiation, food products like olive oil were used as mere bargaining chips in order to get a better deal for Europe's industrial products. That worries me. And I hope it doesn't happen."A spokesperson for the European Commission told the BBC that in negotiations with the US it will act "in defence of European interests, protecting its workers, consumers and its industries".Jaime Fernández, of the Grupo Osborne, believes his industry could live with the 10% tariff that is currently in place without suffering too much a 20% charge, he says would cause the industry "to reconsider how to accelerate growth in some other markets, which would eventually lead to the relocation of resources from the US".He says his company is already looking at alternative markets in which to invest, such as China, or proven European ham consumers such as France, Italy and Díaz-Giménez says that is the logical response to the current uncertainty."If I was the CEO of any company with a high exposure to the United States… I would have sent my entire sales team to find other markets," he says."And by now, they would have found them. There would be plan Bs and plan Cs, to make sure that we have reduced this exposure to the US."
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Model Katie Price ‘objectified' in Diesel clothing advert
An advertisement for Diesel featuring Katie Price has been banned for being irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying women. The ad, which appeared on The Guardian 's website in March, featured Price wearing a bikini and holding a handbag. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 13 complaints that the ad objectified women and featured a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin. Diesel said the ad was part of a campaign called 'The Houseguests', which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion by reflecting a wide range of body types. The brand said Price is 46 years old and has a body type that is not usually included in high fashion campaigns, explaining that the average age for editorial models is between 16 and 23. Diesel believed the ad was compliant with advertising rules but removed it from The Guardian. Diesel believed the image was a 'celebration of Ms Price's sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising', and 'showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag'. Diesel added that Price was 'well-known for her exaggerated appearance and larger-than-life personality and her large lips and breasts formed part of her curated public image', and this 'exaggerated, eccentric and altered appearance' formed part of the creativity of the campaign. Finally, Diesel said although Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight. The Guardian said it received a complaint directly about the ad on April 4 and blocked it from appearing again because it did not consider it complied with their policies. Partly upholding the complaints, the ASA said the bikini only partially covered Price's breasts, and it considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers' attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body. The ASA said: 'While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her. 'We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.' The ASA did not uphold complaints about Price appearing to be unhealthily thin, and concluded that the ad was not irresponsible on that basis. The watchdog ruled that the ad must not appear again, adding: 'We told Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.'
