Many Americans are waiting longer to book summer vacations this year. Here's why.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Top three travel trends for summer 2025
Airbnb shares data behind the top summer destinations and motivators for 2025.
NEW YORK - This year's hottest summer travel trend? Waiting for deals.
Americans are scaling back travel plans from flights to drives or waiting to book only if the price is right, a tell-tale sign of an industry slowdown that's got travel companies worried.
Hotel summer bookings are either flat or falling from last year, and airline bookings are down even though airfares have also declined, as economic concerns fuel a pullback in spending.
Travel companies including Delta Air Lines, Marriott International, and online travel agency Booking Holdings have withdrawn or revised their 2025 annual forecasts as U.S. demand softens. Airbnb flagged shrinking booking windows as consumers take a "wait-and-see" approach and book trips closer to their check-in dates.
That has left companies with less visibility into the second half of the year. Delta said in early April it was premature to project the full year given macroeconomic uncertainty. United Airlines said there's a reasonable chance that bookings could weaken.
Europe travel deals: United Airlines says now's the time to book cheap flights from Newark
Wait and see
"It's very clear that consumers are waiting to make decisions, including for the summer," Southwest Airlines CEO Robert Jordan said at the Bernstein Annual Strategic Decisions Conference in late May, adding that demand was stable but lower than expected in January.
U.S. summer flight bookings are down 10% year-over-year, according to Flighthub, an online travel agency, even though airfares have dropped.
"You can't keep an airline seat on the shelf in a warehouse. If you don't fill that seat tomorrow and the airplane flies, it's gone," Steve Hafner, CEO of Kayak, a Booking Holdings unit, told Reuters.
Average summer flight prices declined 7%, with flights to long-haul destinations like Sydney, Australia 23% cheaper year-over-year, according to Kayak.
Hotel bookings have "actually fallen off and it gets weaker like a month out," Hyatt Hotels CEO Mark Hoplamazian told an audience at the NYU International Hospitality Investment Forum on Tuesday. "By the time you get to that month, it recovers."
Summer bookings in major U.S. cities are flat-to-down year-over-year, according to data from CoStar. Average room rates are expected to rise roughly 1.3% in 2025, down from a 1.8% increase in 2024.
"We're not getting that crazy pricing power we got in the early days of the recovery," Marriott CEO Anthony Capuano said, adding that the company was still seeing revenue per available room increase.
Weaker dollar
Travelers may start to find deals, such as a free third night for staying two nights, as hoteliers look to fill rooms, said Jan Freitag, national director of hospitality analytics at CoStar Group.
That's what Jackie Lafferty is hoping for. Her summer plans have shifted from a possible family vacation in Hawaii or Florida to her home state of California instead.
"By the time we broke down the cost of the flights, the hotel and the rental car, it looked expensive, it felt unreasonable," said Lafferty, a Los Angeles-based public relations director.
The dollar's weakness has driven up the cost of overseas vacations. In March, American travelers surveyed by Deloitte had planned to increase budgets for their longest summer trip by 13%. By April, Deloitte's survey found Americans planned on spending about the same as last year.
"The dollar is just not going as far and I think people are starting to realize that," said Chirag Panchal, CEO of the Ensuite Collection, a Dallas luxury travel concierge. The dollar has fallen about 10% since mid-January, when it was its strongest in more than two years.
Panchal's clients, who had booked big trips to Europe last year, are either staying domestic or going to closer destinations like Canada or the Caribbean.
"We might go international at the end of the summer. If we do, it will be last-minute and spur of the moment based on cheaper flights," said Rachel Cabeza, 28, an actor and fitness instructor based in New Jersey. For now, her only summer plan is a getaway to Martha's Vineyard in nearby Massachusetts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Skift
15 minutes ago
- Skift
U.S. Traveler Trends 2025: More Social Media and AI, a Rebound for Online Travel Agencies
In 2025, U.S. travelers are more confident, digitally empowered, and experience-driven — redefining how, why, and where they travel. Americans are traveling again — but how they plan, book, and prioritize those trips is changing fast, according to Skift Research's latest report, U.S. Traveler Trends 2025. Our survey shows that two-thirds of Americans have taken at least one overnight trip this year — the highest share in six years. Leisure travel continues to dominate, with a sharp turn toward relaxation, culinary adventures, and immersive experiences. Meanwhile, business travel remains static at just 14%. A Digital First Traveler: Influenced by Social Media, Guided by AI Our survey also shows that social media is no longer just for inspiration; it's now a
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Trump Was Right About Coca Cola. But Replacing Corn Syrup with Sugar Won't Be Cheap—or Easy
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Coca‑Cola recently announced it will launch a new soft drink made with cane sugar in the United States this fall, a quiet confirmation of what President Donald Trump loudly teased on social media days earlier. Trump claimed he convinced Coca‑Cola to bring back "real" sugar. Whatever is true or fabricated, the move is nonetheless real. And it's revealing. The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement was a large piece of Trump's coalition last year. This will be seen as another win. But while cane sugar may be coming back into our cans or bottles, it won't come cheap. This isn't just a product tweak. It's a flashpoint in a decades-long battle over U.S. food policy; one that's left our food supply warped by subsidies, protected markets, and artificially cheap corn. A bottle of Coca-Cola imported from Mexico is displayed on a table on July 17, 2025, in Austin, Texas. A bottle of Coca-Cola imported from Mexico is displayed on a table on July 17, 2025, in Austin, the last 50 years, America has made it easier, and cheaper, for companies to use high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Through generous subsidies, guaranteed price supports and ethanol mandates, the federal government made corn the king of American agriculture. The result: HFCS replaced sugar in sodas by the mid-1980s, not because it was healthier or tastier, but because it was profitable. For many families, especially those navigating corn allergies, these policy choices aren't abstract. They make grocery shopping and dining out a daily challenge. Meanwhile, sugar, particularly cane sugar, was moving in the opposite direction. Since the 1934 Sugar Act, the U.S. has propped up domestic sugar prices through a rigid mix of tariffs, import quotas, and price guarantees. Today, these policies still function under a system of tariff-rate quotas: a small amount of sugar can be imported cheaply, but any excess triggers crushing tariffs. That's why U.S. sugar routinely costs 50 percent to 100 percent more than world prices. These mismatched policies built the industrial food system we live in today, one where the cheapest ingredients aren't always the best ones, but the ones most politically favored. Coca‑Cola's move to add a cane sugar variant isn't just a marketing play. It's a test of consumer demand, public perception, and logistical feasibility in an ecosystem where corn is subsidized and sugar is protected. If Americans embrace this sugar-sweetened version, it could signal a slow unraveling of the status quo, or at least force policymakers to confront the costs baked into it. But it won't be simple. Sugar is more expensive, and Coca‑Cola knows it. Analysts estimate the switch could add hundreds of millions of dollars to its ingredient costs if scaled broadly. Domestic cane sugar supply is limited, concentrated in Florida and Louisiana. And the moment a company tries to import more, it slams into tariff walls. That, and the fact that its harvest season is short, is not a recipe for scale. Still, the public appetite is real. A MarketWatch survey found three out of four Coke drinkers prefer cane sugar to HFCS. They want what they remember from childhood, or what they've tasted in imported Mexican Coke. But until policy shifts, this new sugar-sweetened soda is likely to remain a high-end option, not the new norm. So Trump and MAHA friends may have gotten the headline and the shift in the right direction, but the real story is policy. And that will be a bigger lift. If we want more real sugar in our foods, or if we want market forces to shape food production instead of government favoritism, we need to rethink how we regulate both corn and sugar. That means ending distortions on both sides: winding down corn subsidies while phasing out sugar protections. Until then, our choices at the grocery store will continue to be shaped more by Washington than by what we actually want to eat or drink. Brett Kittredge is the director of marketing and communications at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Accounts 'Backdoor Way' to Privatize Social Security: Scott Bessent
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said new investment savings accounts for young Americans could help privatize Social Security. Speaking at an event hosted by right-wing news outlet Breitbart on Wednesday, Bessent described the president's new "Trump accounts"—which offer a one-time $1,000 government contribution paid into a special account—as a "backdoor for privatizing Social Security." Social Security—often referred to as the "third rail" of American politics due to its fundamental importance—is a federally administered social insurance system that pays out benefits, mostly for retired and disabled Americans. The comments have sparked fierce reaction from Social Security advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers. What Did Bessent Say? "But in a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security," Bessent said at the event. "Like, Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out that—to the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow, and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement—then that's a game changer too." He later clarified in a post on X that the new accounts "are an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security's guaranteed payments." He added: "This is not an either-or question: our Administration is committed to protecting Social Security and to making sure seniors have more money." A Treasury Department spokesperson told Newsweek via email: "Trump Accounts are an additive government program that work in conjunction with Social Security to broaden and increase the savings and wealth of Americans. Social Security is a critical safety net for Americans and always will be. This Administration has not just fought tirelessly for seniors but is also fighting for the next generation. Under President Trump's leadership, more Americans will reap the benefits of our booming economy than ever before." U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks during a ceremony for U.S. National Day at the World Expo 2025 on July 19, 2025, in Osaka, Japan. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks during a ceremony for U.S. National Day at the World Expo 2025 on July 19, 2025, in Osaka, Japan. Tomohiro Ohsumi/GETTY What Are Trump Accounts? The accounts, which are seeded with a $1,000 contribution from the federal government, let parents of children born during 2025 through 2028 contribute up to $5,000 annually for each child, with additional contributions allowed from employers. The money must be invested in portfolios linked to U.S. stock indexes, following a structure similar to individual retirement accounts. Withdrawals are penalty-free after age 59½, or earlier if used to pay for college costs or a first home purchase. They were signed into law as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic spending legislation. Reaction There has been no shortage of reaction to Bessent's comments, particularly from groups that advocate for the preservation of Social Security benefits and retired and/or disabled Americans. "That is a terrible idea," said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works. "Unlike private savings, Social Security is a guaranteed earned benefit that you can't outlive. It has stood strong through wars, recessions, and pandemics. The American people have a message for Trump and Bessent: Keep Wall Street's hands off our Social Security!" "President Trump should promptly denounce Treasury Secretary Bessent's promotion of a 'backdoor' way to privatize Social Security," Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, adding that the American people "do not want their hard-earned Social Security benefits handed over to Wall Street." Democratic lawmakers also seized on Bessent's comments. "Like every Republican administration going back multiple generations, Trump and his billionaire cabinet want to privatize Social Security to give their Wall Street buddies a payday," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden said. "This would be a disaster for seniors and for all Americans who will rely on Social Security for a dignified retirement, and it's a guarantee that Republicans would follow up privatization with brutal cuts that would drive vulnerable people into destitution." Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed said on X that privatizing Social Security would turn it "from a dependable safety net to a risky profit center for moneyed special interests at the expense of everyday Americans."
