US threatens Mexican flights over cargo, competition issues
'By restricting slots and mandating that all-cargo operations move out of MEX, Mexico has broken its promise, disrupted the market and left American businesses holding the bag for millions in increased costs,' the transportation department said. The AIFA is at full capacity for cargo handling and needs to be expanded.
For passenger flights, it lags far behind MEX as transportation to and from the city remains spotty.
'The move not only disrupted critical air cargo operations and set a dangerous precedent for how all-cargo carriers may be treated in global markets, it also created uncertainty about how potential safety emergencies could be handled,' said the Cargo Airline Association, which represents major US cargo carriers.
Mexico's transportation ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The transportation department issued orders requiring Mexican airlines to file schedules with the department for all their US operations by a late-July deadline while requiring prior US approval for large charter flights to or from the US.
Airlines set to be affected by the measures, including Volaris and Viva Aerobus, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
If the US rescinds antitrust approval for Delta and Aeromexico, they would be required to end their co-operation on pricing, capacity and revenue sharing. Delta would be able to retain its equity stake in Aeromexico and continue other aspects of its partnership. The transportation department also said it could take action against European countries over limitations at airports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
29 minutes ago
- Eyewitness News
Europe hopes for 'no surprises' as US weighs force withdrawals
BRUSSELS - After keeping Donald Trump happy with a pledge to up defence spending at NATO's summit, Europe is now bracing for a key decision from the US president on the future of American forces on the continent. Washington is currently conducting a review of its military deployments worldwide -- set to be unveiled in coming months -- and the expectation is it will lead to drawdowns in Europe. That prospect is fraying the nerves of US allies, especially as fears swirl that Russia could look to attack a NATO country within the next few years if the war in Ukraine dies down. However, the alliance is basking in Trump's newfound goodwill following its June summit in The Hague, and his officials are making encouraging noises that Europe will not be left in the lurch. "We've agreed to no surprises and no gaps in the strategic framework of Europe," said Matthew Whitaker, US ambassador to NATO, adding he expected the review to come out in "late summer, early fall". "I have daily conversations with our allies about the process," he said. While successive US governments have mulled scaling back in Europe to focus more on China, Trump has insisted more forcefully than his predecessors that the continent should handle its own defence. "There's every reason to expect a withdrawal from Europe," said Marta Mucznik from the International Crisis Group. "The question is not whether it's going to happen, but how fast." When Trump returned to office in January many felt he was about to blow a hole in the seven-decade-old alliance. But the vibe in NATO circles is now far more upbeat than those desperate days. "There's a sanguine mood, a lot of guesswork, but the early signals are quite positive," one senior European diplomat told AFP, talking as others on condition of anonymity. "Certainly no panic or doom and gloom." 'INEVITABLE' The Pentagon says there are nearly 85,000 US military personnel in Europe -- a number that has fluctuated between 75,000 and 105,000 since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. "I think it is inevitable that they pull out some of their forces," a second European diplomat told AFP. "But I don't expect this to be like a dramatic overhaul. I think it's going to be gradual. I think it's going to be based on consultations." Trump's first target is likely to be the troops left over from a surge ordered by his predecessor Joe Biden after Moscow's tanks rolled into Ukraine. Officials say relocating the rump of that 20,000-strong deployment would not hurt NATO's deterrence too much -- but alarm bells would ring if Trump looked to cut too deep into personnel numbers or close key bases. The issue is not just troop numbers -- the US has capabilities such as air defences, long-range missiles and satellite surveillance that allies would struggle to replace in the short-term. "The kinds of defence investments by Europe that are being made coming out of The Hague summit may only be felt in real capability terms over many years," said Ian Lesser from the German Marshall Fund think tank. "So the question of timing really does matter." 'INOPPORTUNE MOMENT' Washington's desire to pull back from Europe may be tempered by Trump now taking a tougher line with Russia -- and Moscow's reluctance to bow to his demands to end the Ukraine war. "It seems an inopportune moment to send signals of weakness and reductions in the American security presence in Europe," Lesser said. He also pointed to Trump's struggles during his first term to pull troops out of Germany -- the potential bill for relocating them along with political resistance in Washington scuppering the plan. While European diplomats are feeling more confident than before about the troop review, they admit nothing can be certain with the mercurial US president. Other issues such as Washington's trade negotiations with the EU could rock transatlantic ties in the meantime and upend the good vibes. "It seems positive for now," said a third European diplomat. "But what if we are all wrong and a force decrease will start in 2026. To be honest, there isn't much to go on at this stage."
The Star
8 hours ago
- The Star
US to punish top ANC officials over foreign policy, graft allegations
President Cyril Ramaphosa Former South African ambassador to US, Ebrahim Rasool. ANC first deputy secretary general Nomvula Mokonyane. South Africa's relationship with the United States is on a diplomatic knife-edge, as the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee push forward a bill that could see senior African National Congress (ANC) leaders hit with sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes. The proposed U.S. – South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 calls for a sweeping 120-day probe into Pretoria's foreign policy stance, targeting individuals accused of corruption or of acting against American interests. The looming sanctions have intensified diplomatic tensions, placing several senior ANC figures squarely in the crosshairs. President Cyril Ramaphosa, ANC National Chairperson Gwede Mantashe, former International Relations Minister Dr. Naledi Pandor, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General Nomvula Mokonyane, and former U.S. Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool have all been flagged as potential targets of the proposed U.S. action. The bill's advancement has triggered a political storm in Pretoria, with ANC leaders condemning it as an affront to South Africa's sovereignty and its right to pursue an independent foreign policy. Although the U.S. legislation stops short of naming individuals, growing pressure is falling squarely on President Ramaphosa and his cabinet, whose diplomatic choices have increasingly drawn fire from U.S. lawmakers. At the heart of the growing rift is South Africa's vocal and consistent defence of Palestine. Pretoria has become one of the strongest international voices condemning Israel's war on Palestinians, and this has not gone unnoticed in Washington. The South African government's move to initiate a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza was seen as a deliberate shift away from its previously neutral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alongside this, Pretoria's growing alignment with Russia, China, and Iran has further strained its relationship with the U.S., who view these ties as contradictory to American geopolitical interests. President Ramaphosa, who has steered South Africa's foreign policy in this direction, faces intense scrutiny. His administration's engagement with Russia and its stance on the Middle East has drawn sharp rebuke from U.S. lawmakers, who have accused South Africa of aligning with authoritarian regimes and undermining democratic values. U.S. diplomats have expressed frustration over Ramaphosa's outspoken criticism of U.S. policy, particularly on issues such as Israel and the war in Gaza. In June, IOL reported that President Ramaphosa released a cautious statement calling for dialogue and a peaceful resolution to rising geopolitical tensions. His remarks highlighted South Africa's sensitive diplomatic position, balancing its longstanding relationship with Iran and its vocal criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa and the South African government have noted with a great deal of anxiety the entry by the United States of America into the Israel-Iran war," the statement read. 'It was South Africa's sincerest hope that President Donald Trump would use his influence and that of the US government to prevail on the parties to pursue a dialogue path in resolving their issues of dispute. 'South Africa calls on the United States, Israel, and Iran to give the United Nations the opportunity and space to lead on the peaceful resolution of the matters of dispute, including the inspection and verification of Iran's status of uranium enrichment, as well as its broader nuclear capacity,' the statement reads. Gwede Mantashe, serving as both ANC National Chairperson and Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, is among those who could come under scrutiny. He was named in the Zondo Commission report, which linked him to alleged corrupt dealings with the now-defunct facilities company Bosasa. The report detailed claims that Mantashe received illicit security upgrades at his properties, allegations he has consistently denied, but which continue to cast a shadow over his political standing. Nomvula Mokonyane, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General and former Minister of Environmental Affairs, also appears to be in Washington's sights. Her alleged involvement in the Bosasa corruption scandal remains a point of concern, but it is her recent proposal to rename Sandton Drive, where the U.S. Consulate is located, to 'Leila Khaled Drive' that has drawn international attention. Khaled, a Palestinian militant associated with plane hijackings and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S., has made Mokonyane's comments especially controversial, sparking widespread outrage and potentially deepening the diplomatic rift. Then there is Dr. Naledi Pandor, South Africa's former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, who has emerged as a central figure in the foreign policy debate. Her vocal defence of South Africa's position on Israel, along with continued diplomatic engagement with Iran and Hamas, has made her a lightning rod for criticism. U.S. lawmakers have accused Pandor of steering South Africa toward increasingly adversarial alliances, arguing that her actions are undermining the country's longstanding relationship with the West. Ibrahim Rasool, former South African Ambassador to the United States, has also come under scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers. Known for his outspoken criticism of U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East and Israel, Rasool has often been at odds with American diplomats. His influential role in shaping the ANC's foreign policy during the Obama administration is now being reexamined amid Washington's broader review of its diplomatic relationship with South Africa. The ANC's response has been one of defiance, with ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula condemning the bill as an 'attack on our sovereignty.' Mbalula has warned that the proposed sanctions are part of a broader U.S. effort to undermine South Africa's political independence and foreign policy decisions. "There is no justification for sanctions against our leaders simply for standing up for what we believe is right, especially on the issue of Palestine," Mbalula said in a statement. While the US sanctions bill may pass into law, it is far from certain that the Trump administration will take immediate action. Joel Pollak, a former senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, suggested that the sanctions would likely be targeted at individuals deemed to be responsible for actions that go against U.S. interests. 'The Magnitsky Act is about holding people accountable for undermining democracy and supporting corrupt practices. This is not an attempt to punish South Africa, but to target those who undermine key democratic norms,' Pollak said. As the U.S. Congress moves closer to passing the bill, South Africa faces a crossroads in its relationship with the United States. Should the sanctions go ahead, it will signal a significant shift in South Africa's international standing, particularly with the U.S., and potentially mark the beginning of a new phase in its foreign policy, where its support for Palestine and criticism of Western powers takes centre stage. The Star [email protected]
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US and EU clinch deal with broad 15% tariffs on EU goods to avert trade war
Deal includes $600 billion EU investments in US, more EU energy, defence purchases 15% tariff better than threatened 30%, in deal mirroring Japan's US steel and aluminium tariffs remain at 50% By Andrew Gray and Andrea Shalal The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump at his golf course in western Scotland to push a hard-fought deal over the line. 'I think this is the biggest deal ever made,' Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15% tariff applied 'across the board'. 'We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability,' she said. The deal, that also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies. However, the baseline tariff of 15% will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30% rate. The deal mirrors parts of the framework agreement the United States clinched with Japan last week. 'We are agreeing that the tariff… for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15%,' Trump said. However, the 15% baseline rate would not apply to steel and aluminium, for which a 50% tariff would remain in place. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of '90 deals in 90 days.' He has periodically railed against the European Union saying it was 'formed to screw the United States' on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said that the EU wanted 'to make a deal very badly' and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been 'very unfair to the United States'. His main bugbear is the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The EU points to the U.S. surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump also talked on Sunday about the 'hundreds of billions of dollars' that tariffs were bringing in. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30% tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major U.S. trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods in the event there was no deal and Trump had pressed ahead with 30% tariffs. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target U.S. services in the event of a no-deal.
