Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy may deny flights from Mexico over broken aviation agreement
The Trump administration official accused Mexico of breaking a bilateral aviation agreement in 2022 when it pulled American flight slots and forced the US carriers out of Benito Juarez International Airport — before ordering its government to disclose all flight schedules with the Department of Transportation.
Flights from American, Delta and United Airlines had previously been given slots at the Mexico City airport.
5 Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned the Mexican government Saturday that the US reserves the right to deny flight requests.
Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post
Duffy also mandated department-level approval for any Mexican large passenger and cargo aircraft coming from and going to the US.
'Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg deliberately allowed Mexico to break our bilateral aviation agreement,' he said in a statement, with his agency claiming the move 'left American businesses holding the bag for millions in increased costs.'
'That ends today. Let these actions serve as a warning to any country who thinks it can take advantage of the US, our carriers, and our market. America First means fighting for the fundamental principle of fairness.'
5 The construction that prompted the removal of American cargo carriers from Mexico City has yet to begin more than three years later, according to the Department of Transportation.
AFP via Getty Images
The US cargo carriers were told to relocate from the airport within 108 days — despite being placed there under the US-Mexico Air Transport Agreement signed onto during the Obama administration in 2015.
The construction that prompted the removal of American cargo carriers from Mexico City has yet to begin more than three years later, according to the Department of Transportation.
Mexico was the top destination for travelers leaving the US, according to statistics from the Department of Commerce's National Travel and Tourism Office compiled in 2019.
5 The Trump administration official accused Mexico of breaking a bilateral aviation agreement in 2022, when it pulled the slots and forced the US carriers out of Benito Juarez International Airport.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Additionally, the transportation chief suggested the US would withdraw antitrust immunity from Delta and Aeromexico, citing 'serious concerns about the long-term competitiveness of the U.S.-Mexico market' and saying its government's actions have harmed airlines, consumers and trade.
That could end the carriers' joint venture allowing for revenue sharing, common pricing and capacity management — but Delta would be able to hold its equity stake in Aeromexico and continue flying to and from Mexico.
'Mexico lacks a transparent and non-discriminatory slot allocation regime that adheres to international standards and applies consistently across the country's airports,' the department said in an order served to Delta.
5 'Let these actions serve as a warning to any country who thinks it can take advantage of the US, our carriers, and our market,' Duffy said.
Getty Images
'The lack of a coherent slot allocation regime and the prospect of arbitrary action looming at any time raises serious concerns about the long-term competitiveness of the U.S.-Mexico market and the ability of the Department to depend upon the air services agreement as a mechanism to ensure adequate competition,' the order read.
'Mexico's actions harm airlines seeking to enter the market, existing competitor airlines, consumers of air travel and products relying on time-sensitive air cargo shipments traded between the two countries, and other stakeholders in the American economy.'
The 'tentative proposal' to end the agreement 'would cause significant harm to consumers traveling between the U.S. and Mexico, as well as U.S. jobs, communities, and transborder competition,' Delta said in a statement.
5 A Delta Air Lines spokesperson said in a statement the move 'would cause significant harm to consumers traveling between the U.S. and Mexico, as well as U.S. jobs, communities, and transborder competition.'
Christopher Sadowski
'We are reviewing the series of DOT orders regarding Mexico's adherence to the U.S.-Mexico Air Transport Agreement and look forward to working with the Trump Administration to resolve the issues raised in the orders,' the airline rep added.
Reps for Mexico's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Web Travel Group Limited (ASX:WEB) is favoured by institutional owners who hold 56% of the company
Key Insights Institutions' substantial holdings in Web Travel Group implies that they have significant influence over the company's share price 51% of the business is held by the top 12 shareholders Insiders have been selling lately Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of Web Travel Group Limited (ASX:WEB) can tell us which group is most powerful. We can see that institutions own the lion's share in the company with 56% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Given the vast amount of money and research capacities at their disposal, institutional ownership tends to carry a lot of weight, especially with individual investors. Hence, having a considerable amount of institutional money invested in a company is often regarded as a desirable trait. Let's delve deeper into each type of owner of Web Travel Group, beginning with the chart below. View our latest analysis for Web Travel Group What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Web Travel Group? Institutions typically measure themselves against a benchmark when reporting to their own investors, so they often become more enthusiastic about a stock once it's included in a major index. We would expect most companies to have some institutions on the register, especially if they are growing. We can see that Web Travel Group does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see Web Travel Group's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story. Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. We note that hedge funds don't have a meaningful investment in Web Travel Group. Our data shows that State Street Global Advisors, Inc. is the largest shareholder with 7.5% of shares outstanding. In comparison, the second and third largest shareholders hold about 6.0% and 5.5% of the stock. In addition, we found that John Guscic, the CEO has 1.6% of the shares allocated to their name. Looking at the shareholder registry, we can see that 51% of the ownership is controlled by the top 12 shareholders, meaning that no single shareholder has a majority interest in the ownership. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. Quite a few analysts cover the stock, so you could look into forecast growth quite easily. Insider Ownership Of Web Travel Group The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it. I generally consider insider ownership to be a good thing. However, on some occasions it makes it more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions. We can see that insiders own shares in Web Travel Group Limited. This is a big company, so it is good to see this level of alignment. Insiders own AU$69m worth of shares (at current prices). Most would say this shows alignment of interests between shareholders and the board. Still, it might be worth checking if those insiders have been selling. General Public Ownership The general public-- including retail investors -- own 38% stake in the company, and hence can't easily be ignored. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders. Next Steps: I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Case in point: We've spotted 3 warning signs for Web Travel Group you should be aware of. Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
16 minutes ago
- CNN
Judge Denies DOJ Request To Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Docs - The Lead with Jake Tapper - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Judge Denies DOJ Request To Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Docs The Lead with Jake Tapper 87 mins A slew of new details emerge in the Jeffrey Epstein case just as a judge declines to release some grand jury documents from the criminal investigation. CNN has confirmed that Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump back in May that his name was one of many in the Epstein files.
Boston Globe
17 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court finds Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional, upholds block
'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,' the majority wrote. Advertisement The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Supreme Court has since But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under Advertisement 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,' Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote. Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to sue. 'We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions,' he wrote. Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase 'subject to United States jurisdiction' in the amendment means that citizenship isn't automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil. Trump's order asserts that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits challenging the order have been filed around the U.S. Advertisement Associated Press writer Rebecca Boone contributed to this story.
