Varcoe: U.S. air travel demand 'has not recovered' yet from Canadians cancelling trips south, says WestJet CEO
Article content
'If I just look into how our next couple of months are booked, then I see sort of mid-to-high teens (percentage) less bookings than there were a year ago,' he said after the speech.
Article content
The phenomenon of Canadians opting not to travel to the U.S. has been showing up in cross-border travel statistics for several months.
Article content
The country's largest airline, Air Canada, reported earlier this month that it was seeing booking on transborder markets drop by low teens percentage points, on average, for the following six months.
Article content
In April, return trips by Canadians by air fell 20 per cent compared with the same month a year earlier, according to Statistics Canada preliminary figures.
Article content
Return trips by automobile plunged 35 per cent — the fourth straight month of year-over-year declines in both categories.
Article content
A research note by ATB Economics on Wednesday pointed out the number of Canadians returning from south of the border through the Calgary and Edmonton airports dropped 5.6 per cent during the first four months of 2025 from year-earlier levels.
Article content
Article content
And it's not just Canadian flyers showing their displeasure with the trade war by shifting their travel patterns.
Article content
Through April, the number of Canadians returning from the U.S. by both air and road fell 22 per cent, and for Alberta, it decreased eight per cent from the same period last year, said ATB deputy chief economist Rob Roach.
Article content
The trade conflict will lead to more Albertans travelling to other countries outside the U.S., but it will also likely see more consumers taking vacations and spending their tourism dollars inside the country, Roach said in an interview.
Article content
'I do think it's a temporary thing, but it will last and go (on) as long as the trade war is hot,' he said Wednesday.
Article content
'They are still tariffs and we are one tweet away — or Truth Social post away — from this blowing up again. So, until there's a sense that things are back to normal, I think we'll see this reflected in the actual numbers.'
Article content
Article content
Article content
After Prime Minister Mark Carney met with Trump in Washington earlier this month, the annexation discussion subsided from the White House.
Article content
However, the U.S. president mentioned it again on social media Tuesday, saying Canada could join his country's Golden Dome defence system for $61 billion but it would cost 'ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st state. They are considering our offer!'
Article content
How long could a travel boycott continue?
Article content
'We do assume that at some point in time, there will be some kind of agreement, hopefully,' von Hoensbroech added.
Article content
'What we have seen in the past in our industry is that whenever there's a change in demand pattern for political reasons, it's usually transitional, and long-term demand trends usually flow back.'
Article content
Susan Bell, a senior vice-president with consultancy Rystad Energy, said the decline in travel to the U.S. isn't just coming from Canada, but also from fewer travellers coming from other countries — and it's showing up in less jet fuel demand.
Article content
About 20 per cent of U.S. aviation fuel demand is typically tied to international flights.
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
43 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The world is closing its doors
Opinion Straws in the wind: recently I ran across a post by the CEO of a countrywide professional association in Canada. People like him are used to hopping across the U.S. border for various meetings several times a month, but he was remarking on what people had been talking about at the association's recent annual conference in a big Canadian city. What his post said was: 'Consensus here is that it's risky to travel to (U.S. flag emoji) but if you have to go, bring a burner phone. Have a plan in case you get detained. Watch what you say. Who you meet.' And I thought 'Yeah. Me too.' I'm a journalist so I will still go to the U.S. if I absolutely have to, but not for pleasure, not for paid lectures and things, and yes, please on the burner phone. Back when I started out in this trade half the world was off limits, especially for freelance journalists. The Cold War reached a second peak in the early '80s and you couldn't go to the Soviet Union unless you had a big media organisation negotiating for you. Even then it took months for a visa, and you were followed everywhere. The communist-ruled 'satellite' countries in Eastern Europe were a little easier, and China was letting tourists into some parts of the country (but not stray journalists). Albania, North Korea and Iran were completely closed, and most of southeast Asia and much of Central and South America were ruled by military dictators who ran death squads. Then non-violent democratic revolutions began all over the 'third world,' the communist regimes of Eastern Europe collapsed, and the old Soviet Union itself followed suit. Soon almost the whole world opened up. It was a nice ride while it lasted, but then the whole process went into reverse. You won't feel the effects much if you travel as a tourist or even do business abroad, but journalists (including foreign journalists) are the canaries in the coal mine on this and I'm certainly feeling the change. The number of countries I won't go to any more is growing every year. It started, weirdly enough, with Turkey, a place I thought I knew well. I've lived there, I speak the language (or at least I used to), and I even thought President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a welcome change from a militantly secular government that ignored the rights of the pious half of the population. Then the editor of the newspaper that ran this column in Turkey was jailed, the publisher went into exile, and the new regime turned the paper into a government propaganda outlet. I know there's a fat file on me somewhere in Ankara and I've seen the inside of a Turkish jail (as a visitor), so I don't go there any more. Twenty years now. Next was Russia, where I had been practically commuting in the early 90s. Vladimir Putin was elected in 1999 and it was still all right for a while, but by 2005 he was killing opposition leaders and I started reporting from afar. Note, by the way, that these changes were happening after more or less free elections — although they tended to be the last fair elections. Then came a round of non-violent pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East, most of them drowned in blood. That set off a whole cluster of civil wars, and the whole region became very hard to work in. It still is. Next was China, where they arrested, tried and jailed two random Canadian businessmen in 2018, really as hostages to exchange for a Chinese citizen in Canada whom they wanted back. It wasn't aimed specifically at journalists and the victims were freed after a thousand days in prison, but I and many other people took it as a signal to do your Chinese business from afar. However, I never thought that I would be adding the United States to the list. Even during Donald Trump's first term foreign journalists were no more at risk of arbitrary imprisonment than the average American citizen, and nobody followed you around or listened to your phone calls. (Well, no more than they listen to everybody else's calls.) Now, quite suddenly, the United States has become just another great power where foreigners watch what they say, try to minimize contacts with official bodies, or just stay away. The thought even occurs that, as in so many other cases, there will still be elections but we will know the outcome in advance. It sounds almost hysterical to talk like this and many non-journalist travelers won't even notice it, but the world is closing down again. I have no idea if and when it will reopen. Gwynne Dyer's new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers.
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
Five things you need to know as Trump's tariffs go back to court
WASHINGTON - The world buckled up for another roller-coaster ride of uncertainty this week as U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff agenda made its way through the courts. A federal appeals court on Thursday granted the Trump administration's emergency motion to temporarily stay a decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade that blocked many of the president's tariffs. The lower court on Wednesday ruled that Trump's use of an emergency powers law to impose tariffs exceeded his authority. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Here's a quick look at what it all means for Canada. — What's happening with tariffs The federal appeals court granted the Trump administration's emergency motion, essentially freezing a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade blocking the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs. That means that countries will continue to be hit by those duties for now. They include 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian imports not compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, with a lower 10 per cent levy on energy and potash. The appeals court said the request for a stay was granted 'until further notice while this court considers the motions papers.' It said the plaintiffs have until June 5 to reply to the administration's motion for a stay, while the administration 'may file a single, consolidated reply in support' of the motion no later than June 9. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin said in an online post that it was a 'a brief temporary stay intended to give the court time to consider whether a longer stay should be imposed.' Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, represents American small businesses in the case against the tariffs. — What the White House argued In its emergency motion to the appeals court, the Trump administration argued the U.S. Court of International Trade's injunction blocking the tariffs was 'unprecedented and legally indefensible.' The motion said blocking the tariffs threatens 'to unwind months of foreign policy decision-making.' It said agreements with multiple countries could 'be immediately unravelled.' ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Trump's administration argued that if a stay was not granted, it would seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court on Friday. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier Thursday that the Supreme Court should 'put an end to this' and called the lower court's decision 'judicial overreach.' She maintained that Trump had the legal authority to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement tariffs. — The U.S. Court of International Trade's decision on IEEPA Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, to implement his most sweeping tariffs. While the national security statute gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency, it had never previously been used for tariffs. The U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. The trade court wrote that 'because of the Constitution's express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.' 'We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers,' it added. Mona Paulsen, an associate international economic law professor at the London School of Economics, said the decision is significant because it shows there are limits to the main tool Trump's administration had used in its attempts to realign global trade. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW — What the lower court said about tariffs Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court wrote that 'the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.' It separately found that 'the Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.' — Which tariffs aren't affected by this court ruling Trump is hitting Canada, and the world, with 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum. The president has also implemented 25 per cent duties on automobiles, with a partial carveout for cars compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Those vehicles are being slapped with tariffs on their non-American components. Trump used the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact those duties. The president has launched trade investigations to use the same tool to tariff other imports, such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, in the future. Leavitt said Trump will also look at other tools to continue his wide-ranging tariff agenda. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 29, 2025.
Calgary Herald
3 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
UCP plays greatest hits at Calgary Leader's Dinner
Premier Danielle Smith congratulated herself and her MLAs on several policies passed by the UCP government touching health care, energy, ballot questions and education, while expressing her frustration with the federal Liberal Party's election victory at a fundraising event on Thursday. Article content Article content The event was dubbed the Calgary Leader's Dinner, and more than 1,900 people gathered at Calgary Telus Centre to attend Smith's speech. The event was emceed by a few cabinet ministers, including Rebecca Schulz, the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas of Alberta, and Mike Ellis, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Services. Article content Article content While introducing her cabinet, Smith enumerated several policy announcements they were involved in, including the freezing of the industrial carbon tax, the banning of books from school libraries which the province said features 'extremely graphic and age-inappropriate' content, and court challenges on the federal firearms ban, Bill C-69, and plastic and fertilizer regulations. Article content Article content Smith also referenced the UCP-led Bill 54, which amends Alberta's rules, such as halving the threshold for a citizen-led referendum to 10 per cent of people who voted in the last election, and stretching the duration of collecting those signatures to 120 days from 90. The bill was enacted May 15. Article content Article content 'Some have raised concerns over this legislation, and I think it's because they don't believe that people have a right to put forward contentious issues for a vote,' she said. Article content Article content 'I believe otherwise. I believe Albertans deserve to be able to put forward issues of importance to them, and if they receive the required number of signatures, then it should be able to be put to a vote — I trust Albertans to make the right decision.' Article content Smith also voiced disappointment at the Liberal Party's election victory, telling a room full of supporters, 'I know that there is a lot of concern and frankly, frustration in the room over the results of the most recent federal election. And why wouldn't Albertans be frustrated?' Article content Article content She deployed the trope of freedom, calling on the federal government to let the province 'develop and export the incredible wealth of resources that we have for the benefit of our families and future generations,' and 'choose how best to provide health care and education and other needed social services for our people, even if it's done differently than what Ottawa might want.'
