Lufthansa reports higher-than-expected Q2 earnings
The German airline group reported an operating profit of 871 million euros (S$1.29 billion), compared with 805 million euros expected, according to an analyst poll compiled by Lufthansa.
That's up 27 per cent compared with 686 million euros reported in the same quarter last year.
The company said the improved earnings were mainly due to its expanded flight programme in the passenger business, the positive effects from its investment in Italy's ITA Airways and a doubling in the operating result in its logistics segment.
Lufthansa also said demand in the United States remained strong despite the weakness of the US dollar.
Europe's major airlines are cautiously observing for a possible dip in transatlantic travel as European travellers have shied away from booking trips there this year.
A number of US airlines, including Delta, pulled their outlooks this spring on the back of weakening travel demand after US President Donald Trump's administration announced tariffs, denting business and consumer confidence.
European airlines, however have remained more optimistic to date. REUTERS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
37 minutes ago
- CNA
What happens next in the US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals panel on Thursday (Jul 31) appeared sceptical of United States President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called "America's big case", and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centres around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late on Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE LITIGATION? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. WILL TRUMP'S TARIFFS BE BLOCKED IF HE LOSES IN COURT? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an "administrative stay" that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. IS THE SUPREME COURT LIKELY TO STEP IN? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025 to 2026 term, which begins on Oct 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. HOW MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULE? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic that their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorised the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. CAN IMPORTERS SEEK REFUNDS FOR TARIFFS PAID? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff "stacking" - where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbours, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. WOULD A COURTROOM DEFEAT UNRAVEL TRUMP'S TRADE DEALS? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminium imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
International Business Times
an hour ago
- International Business Times
Global Stocks Climb as Expectations of Rate Cuts Grow, Trump Tightens the Grip on Fed
Asian stock markets climbed on the opening of the new week with the hope of U.S. interest rate cuts giving investors some relief. MSCI's broad Asia-Pacific index (excluding Japan) climbed by 0.8%, rose by 0.6%, and South Korea's KOSPI. However, Japan's Nikkei index declined by 1.6% after a sharp rise in the yen's value. Chinese blue chips stayed flat and showed a little change. In Europe, the market's future looked optimistic. EUROSTOXX 50 futures climbed by 0.6% while FTSE futures gained 0.5% and DAX futures rose by 0.4%. U.S. stock futures also jumped-S&P futures and Nasdaq futures both moved up by 0.4%. freepik Weak U.S. Job Data Hints at Rate Cuts Friday's weak job data has raised the chances that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates soon. The July job report shows that the job growth declined sharply, with earlier months revised lower. Three-month average job growth declined sharply from 231,000 earlier this year to 35,000 at present. As a result, markets expect an 85% chance of the Fed reducing rates by 25 basis points in September. Two-year U.S. Treasury yields dropped by 25 basis points on Friday, which is the biggest single-day fall since August last year. Political Pressure Raises Concerns About Fed Independence President Donald Trump's consistent pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell and firing of U.S. Labor Statistics Chief have raised alarms of political interference in the Federal Reserve. Analysts are concerned that the new appointee may side with Trump on calls for rate cuts. Though Trump has indicated that Powell will complete his term, many now question the Federal Reserve's autonomy. Dollar Slides, Commodity Mixed: The weak job data also affected the dollar index, which fell to 98.72 from last week's 100.25. The greenback slipped 2.3% against the yen on Friday, marking its biggest decline in recent months. It now trades at 147.69. The Euro remained steady at $1.1683 and the British Pound at $1.3282 ahead of the Bank of England's rate decision, which is expected this week. Gold was steady at $3,361 an ounce after gaining more than 2% on Friday, the previous week. Brent crude dropped 0.2% to $69.51 a barrel, while U.S. crude edged down 0.1% to $67.24.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
FIFA faces Dutch class action over player transfer regulations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox FILE PHOTO: Soccer Football - FIFA Club World Cup - Group D - Esperance de Tunis v Chelsea - Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. - June 24, 2025 General view of the FIFA logo before the match REUTERS/Lee Smith/File Photo A Dutch soccer players' group is preparing a "potentially billion-dollar" class action claim against FIFA and other soccer associations, seeking compensation over alleged loss of income due to restrictive transfer rules, it said on Monday. The Dutch Foundation for Justice said world soccer governing body FIFA's rules had affected approximately 100,000 players in European member states and the United Kingdom since 2002. The foundation added that consultancy firm Compass Lexecon had estimated that damages could run into billions of euros, with the foundation's board member Dolf Segaar telling Dutch news agency NOS that "it is a billion-dollar claim". The Dutch Football Association (KNVB) is among the associations to be named in the suit. "This case is being brought in the Netherlands under the Dutch Act on the Settlement of Mass Damages in Collective Action (WAMCA), which allows this legal action to be launched by JfP on behalf of a large group of professional footballers," it added. FIFA and the KNVB did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment. The foundation added that a preliminary analysis from global economic consulting company Compass Lexecon estimated that professional footballers collectively earned around 8% less over their careers than they would have due to FIFA's regulations. "All professional football players have lost a significant amount of earnings due to the unlawful FIFA Regulations," foundation chair Lucia Melcherts said in a statement. "'Justice for Players' is bringing this claim to help achieve justice for footballers and fairness." DIARRA RULING The foundation added that the case was launched following a ruling on French player Lassana Diarra, who was fined 10 million euros ($11.56 million) by FIFA for leaving Lokomotiv Moscow one year into a four-year deal. In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union said some of FIFA's rules on player transfers went against European Union laws and free movement principles in the case linked to former Chelsea, Arsenal and Real Madrid player Diarra. Following the ruling by the EU's top court, FIFA in December adopted an interim framework concerning the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The interim regulatory framework affects the calculation of compensation payable if there is a breach of contract and the burden of proof in relation to both compensation payable and an inducement to breach a contract. Justice for Players said it will be advised by law firm Dupont-Hissel, founded by Jean-Louis Dupont. Dupont is the same lawyer who took the landmark case of Belgian Jean-Marc Bosman, which in 1995 cleared the way for players in the European Union to move to other clubs at the end of contracts without a transfer fee being paid. Dupont-Hissel also represented Diarra in his case against FIFA, with Dupont saying in 2024 that a judgment backing the player would be a milestone in modernising football governance. He added that it would allow players' unions and club associations to regulate their employment practices. REUTERS
