Major airline holding flights to accommodate flyers with connections
Many Americans are planning to take to the skies to get to their destinations this summer.
Ahead of the season, American Airlines announced that for the period between May 16 and Sept. 2, over 715,000 flights have been booked — with July 6 predicted to be the most-traveled day.
American Airlines is looking to take some of the anxiety away from some of those flights by introducing new technology for customers with connections.
"If the airline determines it can delay the flight without any impact on the airline's schedule, we will propose a short hold to get those connecting customers onboard," the airline announced in a press release.
The technology will first be rolled out at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport hub in Texas to "identif[y] departing flights with connecting customers who might miss their flight."
It is unclear how long planes can be held and if there will be any impact on fellow flyers.
The technology "helps automate and enhance existing processes to hold certain connecting flights so the airline can help even more customers make their connections and get to their final destinations," the press release also notes.
Following the first rollout, American Airlines plans to expand the test to Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North Carolina, followed by other hubs over the summer.
Heather Garboden, chief customer officer at American Airlines, said in the press release, "Expectations are high when customers are traveling for their hard-earned summer vacations."
A massive 45.1 million Americans are set to travel at least 50 miles from their home during the long weekend, AAA announced.
Of the millions of Americans traveling, AAA predicts 3.61 million will be flying to their destinations. That's a 2% increase from last year.
"Whether it's our redesigned app, improvements to our boarding process or other new technology across the operation, we are excited for customers to have a new and improved experience traveling with us this summer," Garboden added.
Fox News Digital reached out to American Airlines for additional comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Should You Buy ChargePoint While It's Trading Below $1?
High prices could hurt electric vehicle adoption rates. Tariffs are adding more pressure to the electric vehicle (EV) industry. ChargePoint's sales are falling, and the company isn't profitable. 10 stocks we like better than ChargePoint › The electric vehicle (EV) industry is facing a multitude of headwinds right now. Tariffs, rising EV prices, and a worsening political environment for electric vehicles are causing turmoil among automakers. And the effects are being felt among the broader EV industry, including for electric vehicle charging company ChargePoint (NYSE: CHPT). The company's share price has fallen 60% over the past year and is now priced below $1. The pullback has some investors wondering whether they should buy the beaten-down EV stock. Here's why you shouldn't. EV sales are increasing in the U.S., but it's been slow going. Electric vehicles accounted for 8.1% of vehicle sales last year, a modest increase from 7.8% in 2023. One of the biggest hurdles to their adoption is that they're far too expensive for many buyers. The average transaction cost for a new electric vehicle was $59,200 in April, up nearly 4% from the same time last year, and 23% more expensive than the average selling price for gas-powered vehicles. ChargePoint doesn't sell EVs, but for the company's electric vehicle charging station business to do well, it needs Americans to begin adopting EVs at a much higher rate -- and they won't do that if prices continue rising. ChargePoint does operate in Europe, Mexico, and Canada, but the vast majority of its business is in the U.S., making it very dependent on American EV adoption rates. The political climate isn't exactly conducive to further EV growth, and as an EV investor myself, I think this is one of the biggest problems for the industry right now. Tariffs on automotive imports are already negatively impacting U.S.-based EV makers, including Rivian and Lucid. Both companies said on their recent earnings calls that tariffs are making the cost of vehicle production rise, sometimes by thousands of dollars. While some tariffs are paused and others are being negotiated, investors need to understand that uncertainty around them couldn't be any higher. Ford Motor Company, Stellantis, and General Motors all recently pulled their 2025 guidance because of uncertainty around tariffs. What's more is that Republicans in the House recently passed a bill that rolls back tax credit incentives for electric vehicle purchases, which are currently worth up to $7,500 for new bill is headed to the Senate, and there are differing views on whether it'll pass, but the point is that the party currently in power is inhospitable toward EV credits. With ChargePoint dependent on a strong EV industry, high tariffs, and the potential for EV tax credit elimination are significant problems. It's not just outside EV forces that are hurting ChargePoint; the company has its own problems as well. ChargePoint's sales dropped by 18% in fiscal 2025 to $417 million, and things don't seem to be getting better, considering that management says first-quarter 2026 sales will be $100 million at the midpoint of guidance, a nearly 7% drop from the year-ago quarter. ChargePoint was able to increase its subscription sales by 20% last year, but its largest revenue segment -- networked charging system sales -- fell by 35%. It's also important to note that ChargePoint isn't profitable. The company reported a non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) net loss of about $159 million last year. That was an improvement from its loss of about $297 million in 2024, but with sales falling, it's going to be very difficult for ChargePoint to continue narrowing its losses. ChargePoint's stock is technically cheap right now, with the company's price-to-sales multiple just 0.75. But just because it's cheap doesn't make it a good value. I think the company and the broader EV industry will continue to face serious headwinds over the next few years that could slow growth further. With ChargePoint already seeing sales falling before some of the outside hurdles like tariffs and political turmoil showed up, I think it has too many obstacles to overcome right now for investors to hope for market-beating returns from its stock any time soon. Before you buy stock in ChargePoint, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and ChargePoint wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $651,049!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $828,224!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 979% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 19, 2025 Chris Neiger has positions in Rivian Automotive. The Motley Fool recommends General Motors and Stellantis. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Buy ChargePoint While It's Trading Below $1? was originally published by The Motley Fool 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
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Than 9 in 10 Americans Say Corporate Landlords Make Home Ownership Harder — and Two Things Homebuyers Can Do
The U.S. has seen a sharp rise in the number of institutional investors buying single-family homes over the past decade, giving corporate landlords much more power over the housing market. This, in turn, has made it harder for many Americans to own a home, mainly because they have to compete against entities with a lot more buying power. Read More: Find Out: A report published last year by the Government Accountability Office revealed that as recently as 2011, no investor owned 1,000 or more single-family rental homes in the U.S. By 2015, institutional investors collectively owned an estimated 170,000 to 300,000 homes. Seven years later, that figure had ballooned to 450,000 single-family homes, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. This rapid increase in corporate landlords has created a challenging environment for both tenants and house hunters, according to a recent survey of 1,000 Americans from JW Surety Bonds. The report, released in late March, found that more than 9 out of 10 (93%) Americans believe corporate ownership of homes makes homeownership less accessible. One in 20 lost a bid to a corporate landlord, while roughly 20% know someone who has. So, how can house hunters improve their chances of owning a home in the current environment? Here are two things you can do. As JW Surety Bonds noted, there's a general lack of awareness on the part of many Americans about the scale of corporate home ownership. About 10% of those surveyed didn't know that businesses managing multiple rental properties were acquiring single-family homes. One of the best moves you can make is to research the housing market and learn where corporate ownership tends to be highest. This will at least let you know where you're likely to run up against institutional investors, which means you could face stiff competition and inflated home prices. Avoiding markets with a high concentration of corporate landlords makes it easier to find affordable homes. Discover Next: Bidding wars against corporate buyers are 'pushing many people out of the market,' according to JW Surety, because they can't compete on price. Keep in mind that corporate landlords have a lot of financial might, so getting into a bidding war puts you in a tough position. No matter who you compete against for a home, make it a point to stick to your budget. Going above your comfort zone on price could lead to years of financial stress if you spend more on a home than you can afford. It's better to avoid bidding wars with corporate landlords altogether so you're not tempted to pay more than you should. More From GOBankingRates Surprising Items People Are Stocking Up On Before Tariff Pains Hit: Is It Smart? 4 Affordable Car Brands You Won't Regret Buying in 2025 This article originally appeared on More Than 9 in 10 Americans Say Corporate Landlords Make Home Ownership Harder — and Two Things Homebuyers Can Do 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
