Pope Francis' funeral could spur tourism spike among Americans headed to Rome
Mourners line up by the thousands to pay respects to Pope Francis in open coffin
Pope Francis' funeral could be a boon for airlines but a pain for travelers.
As the late pontiff lies in state in St. Peter's Basilica before his funeral at St. Peter's Basilica on Saturday, April 26, Americans are searching for flights to pay their respects in person. Flight searches to Rome surged 250% in the three days following Pope Francis' death on Monday, compared with searches over the same period in 2024, according to travel booking site Expedia.com.
Searches for lodging in Rome through the fare aggregator have also shot up 35% for the same dates, compared to the same period a year ago. While U.S. residents largely account for the burst in demand for travel to Rome, global searches from other countries are also up 125% for the week, according to Expedia.
"I can't think of any other event that has caused a sudden spike in travel searches like this," Expedia travel expert Melanie Fish told CBS MoneyWatch. "And it's not only flight searches. It's accommodation searches, too, and it's clear why because of the travel dates."
Scott Keyes, founder and CEO of flight deals website Going.com, said search interest in travel to Rome for April 21-23 has nearly tripled since the pope's death, compared with the three previous days.
For tourists thinking of booking a jaunt to Italy, the bad news is that the surge in demand for fights to Rome is driving up airfares, according to Going.com. For flights from the U.S. to Rome departing between April 22-25 and returning April 27-30, airfares are up about 33% compared to flight prices in the days leading up to Pope Francis' death.
Fish noted that ticket prices typically rise closest to the travel date, and Expedia is expecting prices for flights to Rome to rise as Friday approaches. That's in part because airlines can't immediately add more capacity despite increased demand, she noted. "So what you'll likely see is crowded flights and prices spiking today and tomorrow."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump bill pledges $1,000 contribution for babies. How much would that be in Tennessee?
Another addition to the President Donald Trump's tax bill is a program to provide financial support for children born in the United States. The program would create the Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement program, or MAGA accounts. Through the program, there would be a one-time contribution of $1,000 from the federal government to the child, and parents, churches, or private foundations are also eligible to contribute financially to the account. House Republicans changed the name of the program from "MAGA accounts" to "Trump accounts" before the bill's passage last month, offering the president a tangible benefit for working-class Americans that he can put his stamp on. Here is what current and future parents can expect from the program. The program for American children born during Trump's current term would involve a one-time contribution of $1,000 per toddler from the federal government into a mutual fund or index fund tied to the performance of the stock market. The legislation touts the program as "a new kind of savings account designed to incentivize education, entrepreneurship, and homeownership while promoting financial security." The accounts are eligible to all future children born and all children under the age of eight by the time Jan. 1, 2026, rolls around. The bill also allows parents, churches, and private foundations to make contributions of up to $5,000 annually during childhood, which the child can access upon turning 18 to pay for education, training, or a first-time home purchase. Contributions to these accounts from tax-exempt entities, like private foundations, are not subject to the annual $5,000 limit but must be provided to all children within a qualified group, such as all children in a state, a school district, or an educational institution. The full balance would be available at age 30. CEOs of several large corporations said they would make billions of dollars in additional investments into accounts for the children of their employees. Dell Technologies, Salesforce, Uber, and Goldman Sachs were among the companies the White House said would participate. According to the University of Tennessee's data center, there were 83,742 live births in Tennessee in 2024. This was the highest number of children born since 2008, when 85,560 babies were born. The program pertains to children under eight years old as of Jan. 1, 2026. There were 489,884 live births in Tennessee between 2019 and 2024, the most recent year for which data is available. Taking into account the rising birth rates, a low estimate for 2025's live births would be 83,000, which would increase the total children eligible to 572,884. This would amount to $572,884,000 for Tennessee alone, assuming every child eligible is signed up for the program. In 2023, Tennessee had a fertility rate of 58.9 per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This is the 14th highest fertility rate in the country. This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Trump bill sets up cash accounts for kids. How much would TN get?
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' good for US consumers?
The bond market is sending Washington an unmistakable message: The U.S. budget deficit is a problem we can no longer ignore. Yet, the GOP budget bill seems to do precisely that. If the ballooning debt persists, long-term interest rates will stay elevated and could continue to rise. While politicians celebrate tax cuts, bond investors, the people and institutions lending money to the U.S. government, are far less enthusiastic. They're demanding higher returns to make U.S. debt attractive: The 30-year Treasury yield briefly surged past 5% in May. This milestone hasn't been reached since 2007, with the exception of a quick spike in 2023, when high inflation sent the entire yield curve higher (the 10-year yield also breached 5% during that period). With the 10-year yield hovering around 4.4% today, the spread between the 30-year yield and 10-year yield is near 0.5%—much higher than it was in 2023—implying the market is pricing in significant risks for the very long term. Range says these aren't just fleeting worries; they reflect deep-seated concerns about long-term inflation risks, fiscal sustainability, and the future value of long-dated dollar assets. We've always believed credit markets can be a more reliable economic indicator than equity markets. During the tariff uncertainty earlier this year, credit spreads barely widened while equity markets gyrated wildly. The credit markets called it right when they didn't overreact to tariffs, unlike equities. They remained stable in a time when other market indicators did not. But now those same credit markets that rarely overreact are flashing warning signals about something far more fundamental: our deficit spending. The new budget bill includes several pieces of popular legislation, such as extending tax cuts, eliminating taxes on tips, and pre-funded tax-advantaged savings accounts for newborns. But this bill in its current form is also projected to add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The response from bond investors has been unforgiving, reflected in rising long-term interest rates: 30-year yields were up 18 basis points in May, more than 22 times the average monthly change over the past year. Here's what this means for actual Americans trying to buy homes or fund their businesses: Mortgage rates are climbing: The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate hovered close to 7% in May, peaking at 7.02% on May 27, up from 6.62% in mid-April. Anyone waiting for rates to come down is facing an uncomfortable reality—deficit concerns are keeping them elevated. Corporate borrowing gets expensive: When the government needs to issue more debt to fund spending, it crowds out private borrowers. As debt becomes more expensive thanks to an oversupply from the government, companies find it harder and more expensive to access capital, which slows hiring and economic growth. The Fed can't save you: The Federal Reserve controls short-term rates, but long-term rates are set by market forces. Even if anticipated Fed rate cuts materialize in the second half of 2025, the combination of the tax bill and uncertainty “sets the stage for a higher term premium,“ according to the Institute of International Finance. This means rates on mortgages, auto loans and student debt, may stay elevated even as the Fed cuts. Let's walk through the mechanics of how this gets ugly: When deficit spending rises (the government spends more than it makes), the Treasury must issue more debt to fund operations. More supply of bonds means investors demand higher interest rates (yields) to absorb all that debt. Higher yields make the debt more expensive to service, which requires ... more borrowing to pay the interest. Eventually, this forces painful choices: Either slash spending (austerity that nobody wants, similar to what countries like Greece and Italy went through after the Great Financial Crisis), or have the Fed step in to buy bonds with printed money. That second option leads to currency debasement and persistent inflation—exactly what we saw in the 1970s, dubbed 'The Lost Decade' for U.S. markets. Back then, Fed Chair Arthur Burns caved to political pressure from Nixon to lower rates despite rising deficits and increasing inflation. The result? A lost decade where equity markets went nowhere, the dollar was significantly devalued, inflation spiraled out of control, and American consumers watched their purchasing power erode year after year. What made it particularly brutal was that people couldn't escape through traditional investments—stocks were flat, bonds got crushed by rising rates, and cash lost value to inflation. While today's robust economy and the Fed's strengthened independence distinguish our current situation from the 1970s, that era serves as a stark reminder of how deep economic damage can run when policymakers chase short-term political gains at the expense of lasting economic stability. Our debt-to-GDP ratio would hit nearly 200% by 2055 if current tax provisions are extended, up from today's ratio of about 120%, according to the Yale Budget Lab. To put that in perspective, only Sudan and Japan currently have debt burdens that high. National debt interest payments made up the second largest spending category in the past fiscal year's Federal Budget: That's a 13% slice of the $6.9 trillion budget, with only Social Security costing more. That's right—we spent more on debt interest than on our entire Defense or Medicare budgets. Given this administration has talked explicitly about lowering long-term rates, there's hope these red flags will prompt policymakers to come together and address the rising deficit. We've done this before. In the 1990s, policymakers on both sides of the aisle worked to cut spending, strategically increase tax revenues, and implement pro-growth policies to address growing deficit concerns. The result: By FY1998, the U.S. budget was in surplus for the first time since 1969, and surpluses continued through fiscal year 2001. This tax bill, as currently written, is not a step in the right direction—while it does cut some Medicaid and food stamp spending, the potential revenue losses from its tax cuts far outweigh these savings. Now is the time for policymakers to take the deficit seriously. We're not in crisis yet—the economy is still healthy, unemployment is low, and that gives us agency: While it's always hard to cut back on spending, it becomes much more painful to do it when the economy is hurting. Acting now, from a position of strength, gives us the flexibility to make thoughtful changes rather than being forced into drastic measures later. Real deficit reduction would require the kind of politically toxic medicine that Washington has avoided for decades: fewer tax breaks, lower spending on widely used programs, or both. It's a long, uncomfortable process that involves telling voters hard truths about fiscal reality rather than promising easy wins. This environment makes diversification crucial. Not all markets face the same pressures: International exposure makes sense: Interest rates and deficits aren't rising everywhere at the same rate as we're seeing domestically. Having exposure to other markets can provide a hedge against U.S.-specific fiscal risks. Equities still have a role: The S&P 500 is a nominal asset that can perform well during inflationary periods. People get scared when they see equity markets react to hot inflation data, but over longer horizons, equities can serve as an inflation hedge. Short-term bonds look attractive: If you can stay short on duration—meaning bonds that mature in a few years rather than decades—you could earn attractive yields much higher than averages we've seen in almost two decades. If long-term interest rates continue to go up, the price of short-term bonds won't fluctuate as much, so your principal will face less risk of losing value. Tax cuts might sound appealing, but 7% mortgage rates and elevated corporate borrowing costs aren't. The credit markets are essentially telling Congress: Do better on deficit reduction, or consumers will pay the price through higher long-term interest rates. This isn't about politics—it's about mathematics. The bond market doesn't care about party affiliation; it cares about sustainable fiscal policy. Right now, the numbers don't add up, and interest rates reflect that reality. For investors and consumers, the message is clear: Prepare for a higher-rate environment that may persist longer than many expect. The easy money era is over, and fiscal discipline matters more than ever. This story was produced by Range and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. 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
Miami Herald
19 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Senators propose $15-per-hour federal minimum wage
June 10 (UPI) -- The federal minimum wage would rise to $15 per hour, with annual cost-of-living increases based on inflation, in a proposed bipartisan measure. Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., co-sponsored the bill that they have named the "Higher Wages for American Workers Act" and would increase the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour for non-exempt workers. "For decades, working Americans have seen their wages flatline," Hawley said on Tuesday in a joint press release with Welch. "One major culprit of this is the failure of the federal minimum wage to keep up with the economic reality facing hardworking Americans every day," Hawley added. Welch said inflation and rising costs are making it too hard for families to afford basic necessities. "We're in the midst of a severe affordability crisis, with families in red and blue states alike struggling to afford necessities like housing and groceries," Welch said. "A stagnant federal minimum wage only adds fuel to the fire," he continued. "Every hardworking American deserves a living wage that helps put a roof over their head and food on the table -- $7.25 an hour doesn't even come close." "Times have changed, and working families deserve a wage that reflects today's financial reality," Welch added. Hawley said the current federal minimum wage is less than what a worker earned in 1940 when adjusted for inflation. If the proposed federal minimum wage increase is passed into law, it would take effect on Jan. 1 and allow cost-of-living increases that match inflation in subsequent years. Many states have respective minimum wage laws that exceed the current and proposed federal minimum wage, but a dozen still were at the federal minimum wage in 2024. Many large employers also have higher minimum wages, including Walmart, which has paid its workers at least $14 an hour and often more since 2023. President Joe Biden in 2021 ordered the federal government to pay contract workers at least $15 an hour. California lawmakers in 2022 raised the state's minimum wage for many fast-food workers to up to $22 an hour. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
