Airline chiefs gather in Delhi amid US policy fears, travel slump, and rising global tensions
Airline bosses are convening in New Delhi amidst concerns over Donald Trump's policies, which have negatively impacted travel to the US and potentially increased aviation costs. Protectionist measures and geopolitical tensions are creating uncertainty, affecting traffic and profitability projections.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Putting up the 'closed' sign
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Lower energy costs
Airline bosses meet from Sunday in New Delhi at their annual industry conference, battling to mitigate the impact of Donald Trump's policies that have hit travel to the United States and potentially raised costs for aviation.Trump's bid to impose tariffs on the United States' trading partners have upended commercial flows, with legal challenges against his plan adding to uncertainties.The tense atmosphere in the United States, from Trump's plans to revoke foreign students' visas to reports of travellers detained at US borders, has also put a dampener on tourism."The airline sector is always sensitive to the economic and political climate," Paul Chiambaretto, professor of strategy and marketing at France's Montpellier Business School, told AFP."Any form of uncertainty will reduce traffic," he added, noting that "especially" impacted business travellers, the most profitable segment.The influential International Air Transport Association (IATA) is due to update its traffic and profitability projections as the delegates from the group gathering 350 airlines hold their talks.In December it forecast a record 5.2 billion air journeys in 2025 -- up 6.7 percent from an already unprecedented 2024. It predicted carriers would generate $36.6 billion in cumulative net profit, on revenue exceeding $1 trillion.However, the US president's "Liberation Day" tariff blitz and his administration's stance on issues from immigration to education could throw a spanner in the works.As early as March, the North American air transport market, which represents 23 percent of global traffic, began to decline and several US-based airlines warned they would not meet their financial targets.A study released this month by the World Travel and Tourism Council and Oxford Economics found that the United States was on track to lose some $12.5 billion in revenue from foreign tourists this year owing to worries about travelling to the country.The group, made up of leading travel firms, said this "represents a direct blow to the US economy overall, impacting communities, jobs, and businesses from coast to coast"."While other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the US government is putting up the 'closed' sign," WTTC president Julia Simpson said.Didier Brechemier, an airline industry expert at Roland Berger, said: "Today, bookings for the North Atlantic are lower than they were at the same time last year."IATA Director General Willie Walsh noted on Thursday "some signs of fragility of consumer and business confidence with continued weakness in the US domestic market and a sharp fall in North American premium class travel".Air transport has for decades benefited from the removal of import taxes, rising living standards -- particularly in Asia -- and open borders, with the number of air trips tripling since 2000.But the return of protectionism is endangering the industrial model of aircraft manufacturers, whose assembly lines mobilise suppliers worldwide, with costs likely to increase, putting more of a burden on carriers.There's good news for carriers, though, with oil prices falling owing to an anticipated slowdown in economic growth.That could help firms reduce their fuel bills -- representing between a quarter and a third of their operational costs -- by hundreds of millions of dollars.Washington's new Republican administration is also fully supporting the development of fossil fuels, in contrast to that of Democratic former president Joe Biden, who subsidised Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).Sustainable development "has largely disappeared from the airline industry's immediate priorities", says Jerome Bouchard, a partner at consultants Oliver Wyman.Also likely on the agenda for IATA will be the impact of geopolitical tensions on the industry.India is experiencing explosive growth, with the number of airports and passengers in the world's most populous nation doubling over the past decade, while major airlines IndiGo and Air India have hundreds of aircraft on order.But the country's recent deadly spat with neighbour Pakistan, which saw the two sides impose airspace bans on each other, highlighted the fragility of civil aviation in the face of such upheavals.The row poses an additional complication for connections to Asia, as Russia has banned US and EU aircraft overflights in retaliation for sanctions linked to its invasion of Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Google takes a gamble in class action jury trial over cell phone data use
HighlightsGoogle is facing an $800 million lawsuit in Santa Clara County, California, from Android smartphone users who claim the company misappropriates their cellphone data, affecting an estimated 14 million Californians. The plaintiffs allege that Google secretly transmits data over cellular networks even when devices are turned off, which they argue improperly consumes purchased data from mobile carriers without user consent. Despite Google's history of settling class actions, the company is opting for a trial, disputing the plaintiffs' claims that they have a property interest in cellular data allowances and arguing that no actual losses were incurred. Class actions rarely go to trial, which is why a case against Google is proving to be an outlier. The tech giant is defending itself before a jury in Santa Clara County, California, superior court in an $800 million lawsuit by Android smartphone users who say Google misappropriates their cellphone data. A jury of eight women and four men was seated on Tuesday in what lawyers say is expected to be a three-to-four-week trial, with opening statements kicking off on Wednesday. The stakes are high, but the class, which includes an estimated 14 million Californians whose mobile devices use Google's Android operating system, is in some ways just an appetizer. The same plaintiffs lawyers from Korein Tillery; Bartlit Beck and McManis Faulkner are litigating a parallel case in San Jose federal court covering Android users in the other 49 states, with billions of dollars in alleged damages. The plaintiffs in court papers say that even when their phones are turned off, Google causes Android devices to surreptitiously send information over cellular networks "for Google's own purposes," including targeted digital advertising. These transfers improperly eat up data that users purchase from their mobile carriers, the plaintiffs allege. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the claims "mischaracterize standard industry practices that help protect users and make phones more reliable," he told me. "We look forward to making our case in court." A unit of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet, Google has a well-used playbook for settling class actions. Earlier this week, for example, the company agreed to pay $500 million to resolve shareholder litigation - a move that comes on the heels of a $50 million deal in May to resolve class-wide allegations of racial bias against Black employees and a $100 million payout in March to a proposed class of advertisers who claimed they were overcharged for clicks on ads. So why is Google taking this case to trial? In court papers, Google's outside counsel from Cooley argue that Android users incurred no actual losses, and that consumers consented to Google's so-called "passive" data transfers via terms of service agreements and device settings. The lawyers also dispute the fundamental premise of the case: that cellular data allowances can be considered "property" under California law and subject to conversion, a civil cause of action that involves taking a person's property without permission. When the "rhetoric and hyperbole are set aside, Plaintiffs' theory is revealed as little more than a (misguided) product design claim - not wrongful conversion," defense counsel wrote. The Cooley team, which includes Whitty Somvichian, Michael Attanasio, Max Bernstein and Carrie Lebel, declined comment. The plaintiffs sued Google in Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2019, asserting that they have a property interest in their cellular plans' data allowances, and that each quantum they pay for has a market value. They don't object to data transmissions when they're actively engaged with Google's apps and properties, like checking email or playing a game. But they say Google never told them it would avail itself of their cellular data when they weren't using their phones to send and receive a range of information on their usage. "The upshot is that these phone users unknowingly subsidize the same Google advertising business that earns over $200 billion a year," plaintiffs lawyer George Zelcs of Korein Tillery said via email. In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs want Google to reimburse them for the value of the cellular data the company consumed. Per person, the amount is modest - 1 to 1.5 megabytes of data each day, the plaintiffs estimate. To put that in context, Americans used just over 100 trillion megabytes of wireless data in 2023, my Reuters colleagues reported. But with a class period dating back to 2016, the totals add up quickly. In court papers, Google lawyers sound almost incredulous at the amount of the claimed nationwide damages, which they say runs in the tens of billions - more than the $7.4 billion Perdue Pharma settlement for the opioid crisis, they note. "Plaintiffs cannot show remotely commensurate harm to the class," they wrote. In denying Google's motion for summary judgment in May, Judge Charles Adams allowed the plaintiffs' claim for conversion to go forward, ruling there are triable issues of material fact for jurors to decide. While Adams said no direct state law precedent exists as to whether cell phone data is property, he pointed to a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year in the parallel federal class action, Taylor v Google. In that case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi in San Jose sided with Google and dismissed the complaint with prejudice in 2022, only to be reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate panel in an unpublished decision ruled that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they incurred damages when Google used their cellular data. Adams in a pre-trial order set some limits on what the lawyers will be allowed to argue to the jury. Plaintiffs may not suggest Google engages in "surveillance" of Android users, he wrote, or that the data transfers are a privacy violation. As for Google, Adams said, it "must not present evidence or argument suggesting that this case is 'lawyer driven' or was 'invented' by Plaintiffs' counsel."
India Today
35 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump, Xi hold talks amid strained US-China ties over trade disputes
Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday held talks with US President Donald Trump by phone, China's state-run news agency Xinhua reported, as bilateral relations have been strained by trade phone talks were at Trump's request, Xinhua said, without providing further details about the leaders' White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The highly anticipated call comes amid accusations between Washington and Beijing in recent weeks over critical minerals in a dispute that threatens to tear up a fragile truce in the trade war between the two biggest countries struck a 90-day deal on May 12 to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since Trump's January stocks rallied, the temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship, from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and US complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic returning to the White House in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened an array of punitive measures on trading partners, only to revoke some of them at the last minute. The on-again, off-again approach has baffled world leaders and spooked business executives, who say the uncertainty has made it difficult to forecast market decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets continues to disrupt supplies needed by carmakers, computer chip manufacturers and military contractors around the sees mineral exports as a source of leverage - halting those exports could put domestic political pressure on the Republican US president if economic growth sags because companies cannot produce mineral-powered 90-day deal to roll back tariffs and trade restrictions is tenuous. Trump has accused China of violating the agreement and has ordered curbs on chip design software and other shipments to China. Beijing rejected the claim and threatened has long pushed for a call or a meeting with Xi, but China has rejected that as not in keeping with its traditional approach of working out agreement details before the leaders US president and his aides see leader-to-leader talks as vital to sorting through log-jams that have vexed lower-level officials in difficult not known when the two men last talks are being closely watched by investors worried that a chaotic trade war could cut into corporate earnings and disrupt supply chains in the key months before the Christmas holiday shopping season. Trump's tariffs are also the subject of ongoing litigation in US Watch IN THIS STORY#Donald Trump#United States of America
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Mark Carney in dire straits: After job crisis, Canada now faces record trade deficit due to Trump's auto tariffs
Canada's Trade Deficit Hits Record High Canada's Auto Exports Collapse After Donald Trump's Tariffs Canada's Trade Surplus with US Shrinks Live Events Trade with Other Countries Reaches New Highs Energy and Consumer Goods Also Affected FAQs (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Canada's economic woes are deepening as the nation's trade deficit recorded a record-high in April, fueled significantly due to the decline in automobile exports to the United States after US president Donald Trump imposed tariffs, according to a national statistics agency revealed that the deficit increased to C$7.1 billion (US$5.2 billion), which was greater than three times the rate of the preceding month, and Statistics Canada said "was the largest deficit on record," reported exports dropped sharply in Canada's crucial auto industry, where sales of motor vehicles and parts to the United States plummeted, as per the report. Statistics Canada attributed the drop to the imposition of significant tariffs, between 25% and 50%, by the Trump administration on Canada's automotive, steel, and aluminium sectors, reported AP. The tariffs led Canadian producers to slow down production in April, which caused a steep decline in exports, as per the Canada said that, "After tariffs on foreign motor vehicles were imposed by the United States at the beginning of the month, manufacturers in Canada reduced production in April, resulting in a sharp drop in these exports," quoted AP to AP, this pushed Canada's trade surplus with the United States down to C$3.6 billion (US$2.6).However, even though exports to the United States have dropped by 26.2% since January, Canada's trade with other nations has hit "an all-time high," led by exports to China, the United Kingdom, Algeria, and Brazil, as per the AP Canada's exports of consumer goods and energy products have also fallen, the drop in energy products is partly because of lower oil prices with lower demand driven by economic uncertainty over Trump's trade policies, reported Trade with other countries like China, the UK, Brazil, and Algeria actually went were down during April, and demand was lower amid global uncertainty, partly caused by US protectionist trade policies.
